The committee will come to order. Without objection, all members have five days to visit made statements and questions for the record subject to the limitation of the rules. Ambassador wells and ms. Friedman, welcome to the members of the public and the press as well. We are glad to have our friends from cspan here as well. We need this mornings of the committee conduct oversight of the administrations policy towards afghanistan and iran now recognize myself for an opening statement. For months weve been attempting to get some visibility into the ongoing peace negotiations without success. We all want peace and the fighting in afghanistan do and do. Congress needs to know what the potential deal looks like and members need the chance to ask questions and offer views and in the last few weeks, weve seen the reconciliation process go off the rails in a spectacular fashion area to be learned from a president ial message that the administration was planning to host the caliban at camp david the same week that we marked the anniversary of 9 11. We learned that the president of into that arrangement and we learned that the peace deal evidently is dead. If accurate, the president s deciding got the better of him again and now months and months of diplomatic effort seems to be thrown out the window. As the committee that oversees the American Foreign policy, we understand there were a lot of questions about the diplomatic effort and the administrations refusal to provide us into the American People answers to subpoena the top negotiator and weve asked them to testify today. Just to be clear i do not take subpoena is lively and wouldnt have issued this happy no puppyt three letters inviting him and asking the secretary of we simply couldnt wait any longer and after i issued a subpoena i spoke with the secretary of the state departments request and he offered to send him to testify in from the ambassador to brief myself and mr. Mccall on the setting. We just wrapped up that classified briefing and are going now to continue with the officials before us, so lets take a step back. Im from new york city an and do myself and a lot of new yorkers have lived through 9 11 its a tough pill to swallow and since then, many that have lost their lives at the hands of taliban fighters after 18 years of war the taliban still exists. We need to deal with that fact and the adage remains true that you believe it or not theres Common Ground for starters the taliban once our troops out of afghanistan and we want our troops. Any viable deal needs to be built on three pillars. First is that the taliban was pledged in afghanistan will never be used again as a base to plan attacks against the United States and allies. We understand the administration secured their commitment from the taliban and earlier negotiations. Second, they must agree to separate from al qaeda, something theyve indicated they would do and now lastly the taliban and Afghan Government must engage in a goodfaith process that can lead to reconciliation among all afghans. This area still has a lot of Unanswered Questions that with the president declaring it dead, it isnt clear where we go from here. The way i see it we need to use whatever leverage we can to promote dialogue. The president suggested peace would be possible unless we first a ceasefire complaints. Well guess what, there was in june, 2018 to celebrate, and what did we do to seize this opportunity, nothing. Why, because the administration has hollowed out the state department and the complaint about this for a long time. The Inspector General found of the bureau of south and central asia to have lost both staff and expertise into the administration including experts on peace talks where the taliban reconciliation. So, what will this administration do to get a second bite at the apple it might create an opening for more dialogue. I would like to hear from the witnesses among any other issues. Its one thing is Crystal Clear, there is no military solution to end the fighting in afghanistan and if there is another opportunity even following the president s disastrous attempt at dealmaking to forge the piece that advances American Security interests, we need to consider those options and we all wish that those that, we always to those that lost their lives in 9 11 and we owe it to the future generations who dont want to see our country entrenched in an endless war and the people who want a peaceful and prosperous future for their country. We will soon hear from our witnesses but yielded to the Ranking Member for any opening remarks he might have. It brings good results for the American People as well. Thank you for holding this important hearing. Also id like to thank the ambassador for briefing the members this morning we had a robust and informative discussion arranged in timely issues and we look forward to staying engaged with them. We stand unified and this is the second oldest committee and the congress dating back to the continental congress. We do have article one constitutional oversight responsibilities it was one of the most tragic days in american history, and the aftermath of 9 11, counterterrorism and Homeland Security became our top priority. To militarily attacked abroad, that strategy included invading afghanistan, destroying al qaeda. Since 2001, we have achieved many successes on the battlefield and through diplomacy. We killed Osama Bin Laden and the rising leader from the battlefield and most importantly weve not allow afghanistan to be the staging ground for another devastating attack on the homeland. Weve also helped implement Many Political and social reforms. Millions in afghanistan have voted in democratic elections at all levels. And afghan women are not allowed to attend schools during the brutal reign of the taliban in the 1990s and have made significant gains in play was pleased to hear they were part of these negotiations. Theyve not been without great sacrifices. Over 20,000 wounded we must never forget the courage and price we pay to protect the homeland and build a Better Future for afghanistan. Unfortunately the taliban made significant gains and today they control over 50 of the country and have become increasingly violent. But after 18 years in the battlefield, the American People and members of Congress Want to know what our plan is for peace moving forward. Im glad that the president decided against welcoming leaders of the taliban to camp david. Perhaps the current suspension of talks will allow us to reevaluate our strategy. In this committee, mr. Chairman, i should say, and the congress has a role in the process. There is no doubt that all of us would like to see this come to an end and i fully support their efforts to bring a diplomatic resolution to this conflict. Its not a monolithic organization to engage with the organizations central leadership overlooks the local power brokers who do not always follow them. We also have to keep in mind they have some longstanding objections to the negotiated peace. They think our military will come home, no matter what. I think some more extremist fashions are responsible for that attack just to end the peace negotiations. And as the ambassador has assessed many times in afghanistan, when he said that the taliban will offer any number of commitments knowing that when we are gone and the taliban is back, we will have no means of enforcing any of them. We must also avoid the same mistake president obama made by withdrawing all of our truths for the purpose of preventing another 9 11 style attack on the homeland i personally believe that we should keep a residual force in place to focus on counterterrorism intelligence and Partner Force training. Id also like to thank the ambassador for being here. The hearing comes at a critical time. We did commend the Ambassador Special envoy this morning for his commitment and service to the country in what i consider to be one of the most difficult negotiations on the planet. With that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. I will now introduce our witnesses. The acting assistant secretary of state for South Central in asian affairs. Karen freeman as the assistant to the administrator in the office of afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs in the united stateand unitedstates agency fol development and i again thank you both for your service and for your testimony this morning. Without objection to witness his prepared testimony will be made a part of the record and i will now recognize the witnesses for five minutes each to summarize their testimony and well start with ambassador wells. Distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning on the Trump Administrations policy in afghanistan. Last week in new york, washington and kabul and about what we commemorated the 18th anniversary of the attacks on the United States. And when the u. S. Began its military engagement in afghanistan, our core interest was clear to ensure that afghanistan would never again be a platform for a terrorist attack on america and in that regard, our mission over the last 18 years in partnership with our allies has been a success. Since 9 11, no terrorist group has used afghanistan to attack the shores. But the threat remains significant. Afghanistan remains a haven for terrorist organizations. The correspondence demonstrated that the intent to organize workeraspire and has the capacid willingness to indiscriminately kill civilians who do not support the ideology. In april, russia, china joined us in calling on the television to make good on its commitment to cut ties with International Terrorist groups to prevent terrorists recruiting, training, fund raising and to expound any service. While the United States remains committed to countering the threat of takeover some from afghanistan, the administrations understands that the American People are ready to end the war responsibly. They will not bring peace or eliminate those exploiting the afghan soil. Soil. A negotiated political settlement accepted by most afghans remains the best way to ensure a durable peace and to enable afghans to focus on ridding the country of International Terrorists. In the last 12 months weve made significant progress towards this objective and the taliban engaged in dialogue with the United States into discussions with fellow afghans including the Afghan Government officials wrebuild support for peace and lasting a help of pakistan, russia, the eu members and regional partners and consultation within the u. S. Government are continuing on the best way forward. As we foster the conditions for the direct negotiations between the afghans where we are rationalizing the risk of exposure to ensure the sustainable, diplomatic and military presence, diplomatically weve reduced the civilian presence from 100 personnel in 2011 to around 500 staff today. We have tapered civilian assistance to about 480 million today. Our partners are contributing three quarters of all development and humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan Afghan troops are leading the fight against isis and the taliban and over 9 Million Students are enrolled in schools, 39 of them girls. The private sector is strengthening supply chains and building market linkages with india and central asia. The challenges remain over half the afghan population lives below the poverty line, corruption, government malfeasance at record high opium production since sustainability we will continue to hold the Afghan Government accountable for combating corruption and we will adjust the levels accordingly. Afghanistan is holding a president ial election september 28 and weve called for the Afghan Government and Electoral Institution to ensure that the election will be credible and transparent. All candidates are accountable to the code of conduct they signed pledging to respect the electoral process. Afghans have the right to vote without fear of intimidation, attack or violence and the taliban statement threatening the workers and voters we offer strong support to the Afghan Security forces that are in charge of electoral security and sacrificed their lives in a daily basis. Even as afghanistan goes to the polls come afghans cannot pause their efforts to advance peace. Finally the United States will continue to safeguard American Security for too long theyve taken comfort in their convictions in the engagement as unsustainable. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the role of usaid and supporting the interests in afghanistan. Sincof afghanistan. Since may of this Year Development and humanitarian partners have sustained attacks by the taliban that resulted in a loss of life and injury staff these are senseless attacks on people who dedicated their liv lives. We ask your secretarys calls for the taliban. This weeks attack by the taliban on energy. We are happy to note that they constructed a power plant providing immediate backup supply of energy. Attacked from civilians as well as those that several facilitate and advance the economy and standard of living for the Afghan People that must stop. Earlier this year the u. S. Embassy in kabul led to the review of all civilian assistance which directed the department and agent needs to focus on three objectives from supporting the afghan Peace Process, preserving stabilization of the afghan state and assisting afghans transition to selfreliance to create conditions for the political process. The strategy in afghanistan aligns with and supports the objective by accelerating the private sector led economic growth, advancing education and health gains made over the past 18 years particularly for women and girls and increasing accountability between the Afghan Government and its citizens. Usaid has pressed the government afghanistan to take the lead in the countrys own future and make the Development Game sustainable. A few weeks ago, i joined by colleagues to close the formal review of the u. S. Government civilian assistance to afghanistan. We unequivocally stressed the minister of finance a transparent, effective citizen response of Government Systems are essential to achieving private sector growth and attracting investment. The government continues to convey to all afghans the countrys relationship with the International Community will depend heavily upon the inclusivity of any potential settlement which must preserve the rights and the dignity of women. We also expect the Upcoming Elections to schedule for september 28 to be transparent and credible. The government must recommit and redouble its efforts to enhance transparency, increase the citizen responsiveness and reduce the corruption that weakens the afghan citizens faith in the government. Over the past 18 years, the games have been significant and the Energy Sector more than 30 now have access to the power grid. More importantly, they are also working directly with the afghan utility to improve its Management Systems and ability to collect revenue. This has helped double revenue collections and increase its Customer Base by 73 in just a few years. Usaid is working with the Afghan Ministry of Public Health to increase access to basic healthcare and in shorter the sustainability throughout the development of effective partnerships. In the education sector, not only have usaid programs supported millions of students, but the future generation of afghan women will have opportunities such as the result of a usaid partnership with texas a m university. Afghanistan is a different place than i was in 2001 and people are capable of more as it achieves the response of Good Governance to transparency. Usaid is prepared to support the needs and opportunities that could arrive as a political settlement. The trajectory remains clear, civilian assistance helps create economic and social conditions necessary for peace and selfreliance by focusing on longterm broadbased development and reinforcing efforts to reduce violence and to stimulate peace settlement to end the conflict with the taliban. Thank you for your attention and for inviting me here today. Thank you very much. Let me ask both of you this question. You both mentioned in your remarks by u. S. Assistance to afghanistan moving forward. Could each of you please explain which role the department could propose and how such good support the peace and reconciliation . Thank you. We were trying to ensure the level of assistance we were providing for afghanistan was sustainable and structured in a way that encourages the sector into it elicits the government performance so thagovernmentpere government increasingly has the capacity and the ability to assume all functions of a sovereign state and at the same time to add sure the investment in afghanistan reflects the level of investment within global threats. Obviously theres been a lot thats changed since 9 11. Afghanistan isnt the only country in which we face a terrorist threat and so we wanted to be able to signal through the posture and the restructuring that we are committed to the longterm development of afghanistan but not overcommitted to the point that we are assuming. As always best practices reviewed the mission presence worldwide. In afghanistan over the last 18 months, we established a new Development Strategy that focuses on establishing the conditions necessary for peace and selfreliance. And we responsibly revised portfolio based on Lessons Learned and input from the various stakeholders. So, during the recent embassy led assistance review, we sought to further consolidate the portfolio while ensuring its ability to manage and provide proper oversight over the taxpayers resources and ability to implement the program. We took into account the interest and feedback from our congressional committees and the administrations priority is to support the afghan Peace Process to preserve stabilization as an afghan state and to assist afghanistans transition to selfreliance. During the course of the review, we had a great deal of input and a lot of thought on what that consolidation should look like and took that old man as recently as a couple of months ago and we have consolidated the portfolio to mesh with the appropriate number of staff. The forces were responsible for more civilian casualties than the taliban in the six months of 2019. What accounts for the increase of the casualties at the hands of nato forces that have any significant changes. Coalition forces working with the afghans to do Everything Possible to try to avoid civilian casualties is one of thimplementthe highest levels of accountability, and i would contrast this with the focus of the taliban in targeting. Statistically, the taliban over time have been the largest contributors to the civilian casualties and statistics that we saw what we dont necessarily agree with the methodology on our operations, and i think the intent of the forces and Afghan Forces are very different from the intent of the terrorists who are literally terrorizing the afghan civilian population. Thank you. Do you gregory clarks thank you, mr. Chairman. The taliban postevent protected al qaeda both pre 9 11, on and after 9 11, so there is a healthy amount of skepticism about cutting a deal with the taliban. I remember visiting with the ambassador in kabul when this idea was launched. I guess the question is what other alternative do we have when they occupied 50 of afghanistan. I suppose that is a necessary step or is there any other alternative to that . They understand from the nine rounds of negotiations that that can only come about if they are committed it cannot be a platform for international terrorism. On that timeline, would that also include the complete withdrawal of the u. S. Forces . I cant speak to what its going to look like as you know for now, the process is suspended, but certainly the discussion was very much about the inner relationship between the troops International Forces and the ability of the taliban to ensure not only were they allowed to offer data on disloyal thathisloyal that theye over but no recruiting or fund d raising, no tolerance of the sanctuaries. Given the history levels im glad they kept the residual force and i think that we should have one in afghanistan for the foreseeable future if only to protect the homeland. Let me ask about isis when i was the chairman of the Homeland Security particularly 2015 to 2016, pretty terrifying briefings and one of the most active groups out there. The notion is that they are going to war with isis and the group terry at how accurate is the information . To combat the course, i think one of the reasons we put such an emphasis on peace is that they need to be united and isis has been able to take advantage of the fact of the insurgency in the war thatand the war thatsn afghanistan to exploit the territory despite what has been very fierce effort by the Resolute Support mission. Its difficult to eliminate their presence entirely. And that is based on the premise that they would be more willing to partner with the government and the word with isis . We would assume a Peace Agreement would unify and reflect the will of all of the Afghan People, and that would allow a concentrated effort against what will be terrorist forces in afghanistan. Theres a vegetable soup of the militant organizations that have a presence in afghanistan. Sometimes you have to deal with the world the way it is and theres not a lot of great choices here. Last question, a withdrawal from afghanistan, what assurances could you give, and you cant predict the future that this would result and then we have a taliban controlled afghanistan. What animates all of the diplomacy is the president and the secretary is commitment to the security of the American People. So any peace deal is going to be structured to ensure that afghanistan cannot and will not reemerge as a threat to america. On the hypotheticals, i dont like answering hypotheticals but let me put it this way. They say they want to be a legitimate part of the International Community. They argue that they want to attract the foreign direct investment. They say theyve learned lessons from the isolation of afghanistan under the taliban rule in the late 1990s going to have to be a government that upholds the standards and values that the International Community has been looking into and still theres a substantial amount of leverage on how we engage. You go to the mountain into the desert and there is an inherent potential conflict i think that is the greatest challenge the state department has. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, welcome back. We look forward to seeing you again. In my district theres a number of others we will have a peaceful and prosperous afghanistan unless pakistan wants to see a peaceful and prosperous afghanistan. The border between afghanistan and pakistan is the durand line, but no government of afghanistan has never accepted that and including the taliban and the current government seeme seems e on the position that it should actually be part of afghanistan. It seems unlikely that they will be voting for a peaceful and prosperous afghanistan if the Afghan Government is actively claiming a big chunk of the territory. Does the United States accept the line is the border between pakistan and afghanistan . We do recognize the boundary between afghanistan and pakistan. Can we persuade the government to if not permanently accept the line, declared they will not use violence in an effort to change the border. A great deal of effort has gone into trying to increase the cooperation between afghanistan and pakistan. Yesterday we were very pleased to see the Prime Minister opened up the border for 24 seven trade. Its going to be practical steps. I think we can move towards practical steps that we are also dealing with this festering problem we are supposed to have had a deal and then it came down and we rejected it. Since the deal seemed to have envisioned, there might be reasons. Im trying to understand why and the reason given by the president is that there is one instance in which one american soldier was killed, but at the same time, the secretary said we have engaged in the operations n that killed over a thousand taliban fighters. Did we really have a deal with the taliban that they wouldnt attack us but we would attack them and their violation of the field is wide we didnt go forward on the agreement. The president and secretary have spoken to this and basically what we saw, the taliban actions that we saw in the days leading up to the potential agreement on the political framework are inconsistent with the nine rounds of negotiations be held with them and we saw the taliban attempting to use violence as a form of intimidation and they took actions that were basically inconsistent with what was going to need to be a reduction in violence. There is this idea that they are going to prevent recruiting and fundraising by terrorists in their territory. By those in the United States where we have fbi offices in every major city, what verification system would we have on the ground in the tub and controlled areas to see that there wasnt a terrorist presence or recruited fund raising. Im not going to be able to speak to the specifics of what was negotiated that this was a conditionsbased approach and built into the discussions. Are you aware of any verification system or was their trust and dont bother to verify . It is very much about being able to verify and have confidence that they have taken the steps that they had undertaken to implement. But you are not aware of any verification systems. Im not in a position to discuss thank you for being here theres a generation of americans that have grown up approaching 20 years of age. Weve been at this conflict for 19 years and we know all of the expense and loss of life that can never be replaced. The person that brings the peace deal to this conflict will win a Nobel Peace Prize being able to lose that. The taliban said they learned from some of the mystique they made in the past, but they are going to sit across the table in any negotiation are those that have come of age also with these new freedoms and abilities to contribute to their society whether it is women or minorities and they consistently indicate that they dont want to give up the social and political gains. Thats going to have to be negotiated between the two sides. Whats interesting there are two points. The most conservative areas will be true in the government controlled areas as well for the boulders now to be educated it is a new reality. Are those people at the table that are demanding that collects the afghan negotiators will sit down across from the taliban and bringing the demands to the table. I hope that this winds down its understood it isnt accepted anywhere in the world with their high debt and bad terms initiatives and just recently the 16th of this month, china signals veto the standoff over afghanistan because the feelings were hurt because it wasnt brought up. Have the chines chinese then the influencing any of this either way or are they preventing a settlement for theyve looked with the ambassador as have other regional countries including russia and a media neighbors on a way forward on peace, so there is constructive engagement on how do we prosecute peace. But i think that its fair to say china has not contributed to the Economic Development of afghanistan. We have not seen any substantial assistance from china. It is a slogan. Its not a reality and we continue to warn our partners and the Afghan Government about falling prey to predatory loans that are designed to benefit only with the corruption they will fall right into that and if they havent contributed to the Peace Process or the rebuilding of this nation, they should have no say in this. And i hope that we stand strong on that because we have seen the effect china has done. Doing the work you are in need of making the games they were doing, i appreciate that and the rollout of the bill back in october, our goal was to establish, identify significant infrastructure develop that we can go in and as a trusted partner that we are going to do something that is best for the Afghan People to build their economy so we can develop jobs for them. Do you have any thoughts on where we can go with that . Let me echo the ambassadors bought on the onGoing Forward. Over the last 18 years, the change has been so great in terms of. Civil society, and its created a reflective demand in areas that you can see whats happened. In terms of infrastructure, we continue to work with the government to strengthen their ability so i think what you will be seeing in terms of the program is to involve the government and the private sector. Im out of time. Thank you. Good morning and thank you for being here, ambassador. The district i represent is across from the World Trade Center and we watched. It was beyond me what the thought process was. Can you tell me what was the thought behind that i think the president himself spoke openly about the process on camp david and vacation. I would underscore that again it shows this is an administration willing to take risks to promote peace, but i appreciate your concern. That is a little bit too much to swallow. It was days after the towers came down. Its not appropriate to bring them to camp david to do and negotiation. There are many places that you can meet to negotiate. I keep reading that they have been vocal about refusing to engage in the government and previous attempts. How will we be able to come to any kind of peace if these people dont talk to each other, what are the prospects of talking to each other. The series of negotiations was to bring them together to a negotiating table and the conversations we were having with the television with the prelude to the National Negotiating team the informal dialogue that took place in july included members of the government as a part of the delegation meeting so again i think that we have broken a new ground as the result of this last series of negotiations that took place. Would like some incentives be to engage in goodfaith dialogue with the government, what can we offer to them . I dont think we need to talk about incentives, but we need to talk about the mutual interest. They have an interest in being able to participate legitimately in a government that is recognized by the International Community and to avoid the cost of war. The appreciate is based on what they said publicly that there is a cost to the Afghanistan Development via the ongoing war and also the rise of other groups that oppose a risk to themselves into their future. In 2001, the taliban controlled the entire country, so, no. The taliban do not control any provincial capital. They do not rule in any province of afghanistan. When they fight a fight and then they have to leave because they cannot sustain control over the District Centers or the provincial centers. The taliban are very good at diplomacy and messaging. They are by no means controlling afghanistan. I hesitate to get involved because they can be very misleading. If you look at all with of disss and afghanistan where the majority of the population reside on the basi, this is undt control and benefiting from development of the last 18 years. My time is up. Thank you very much. I thank you both for being here and it means a lot that you are willing to take the time to talk about these tough issues. First off, we need a bit of a reset in the narrative from the endless war and look at where we are really after. I do want to say i think that im going to add myself t to the record, the meeting was an utter disaster that never should have happened and it infuriated me and people that wanted to get out of afghanistan and take them off. I have no clue how that could have gone through any kind of filter not just ideas but how they got to where it was going to happen. So i hope that never happens again. And especially on the anniversary of 9 11. So, i got back but i do want to say i think the thing we have to keep in mind is this fight but we are fighting is a generational battle. It took us decades to overthrow the soviet union and it wasnt through fighting. It took the generation behind the iron curtain to make the decision but they didnt want to live like that and that is what overthrew and tour down the iron curtain. Its great to be fighting them where they exist but also, and this is where usaid some of those initiatives, and. Linda hope and opportunity so they can see there is an opportunity for a life outside of radicalization that you can look past the age of 15 when they struck a suicide bomb to you and tell you to walk into a crowded cafe or Something Like that. Bringing hope and opportunity is how you are going to fix this situation in the United States and prevent people from recruiting terrorists. And i think that is what we have to keep in mind. We are the ones that reacted in a fierce and intense way and we need to understand that because if we leave afghanistan under the wrong conditions, which i think we are on track to do we are going to be back here today and talk about how this is the first time the kid is fighting the same war as his dad that we are going to have a grandkid fighting the same one as his grandpa if we leave afghanistan anin a bad situation because thy arent going to quit trying to come here and the reason we are not thinking of terrorism as much as they have in the past is because we are being successful in fighting it. To not be able to train and recruit as much as they used to be able to and we are keeping them on the defensive. I have to ask you a couple of quick questions. We killed a thousand taliban, maybe some hundred or thousand, a million, i dont know what it is but we did kill them after we came out of the negotiations. The question i have this doesnt mean we were not targeting them at all and we were allowing them to regroup and retrain or have we beethey been prosecuting thet anyway . We have been fighting and talking our way through the negotiations and the only distinction that i would make we distinguish between a nationalist insurgency and a group like isis so the ability to negotiate a peace settlement is to that insurgency so that consolidated government can focus on what is truly a generational threat to all of us. We do that through the prosecution and say we are willing to have peace but until we do, its going to be painful. Your kids and grandkids may have to fight this but hopefully we can get to a peace settlement. Whatever the word hes used which by the way is brandnew claiming he wants to leave a. We thought the Administration Made too many statements. I want to say thank you for your work and being here thanks for your service to the country and mr. Chairman, i will yield back. I also want to reiterate what my colleague just said. Thank you for your service and to the service of the diplomats and workers around the world. With the monetary investments that we have made over the last 18 years in the region, we want to give afghanistan the best possibility of success, and its not going to be easy so i can then most of you as negotiators to try to find the path forward. And weve got to continue as well as with the military that we will always have a mission that also knowing that and we want to focus on some of the countries within the region notably a few countries that are not having the best relationship right now are going to be vitally important to afghanist afghanistan. Lets insured the desire to get a deal in afghanistan potentially has been negotiati negotiating. From your perspective. What we see are the two countries that both have National Security interests in afghanistan, and both National Security interests in afghanistan, and both countries will benefit by an afghanistan that is truly at peace and stable. I think the principle that has to undergird relations between all the countries in the region is the respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, that no militant proxies, no nonstate actors are acceptable in being used as a lever of influence or pressure against another. And so in our diplomacy to the region, you know, that undergirds our approach. No you know, how do we have the region reap the benefits of peace, if you look at for instance, afghanistan being a blocking point now between the flow of trade including energy. You know, energy is ten times more expensive in south asia than it is in central asia, but you cant get it there because of the instability in afghanistan. So how do we frame an outcome, you know, where everybody pal pably benefits by being able to create stable and enduring political structures. Built out his conversations on peace with the regional actors. As we kind of take that multilateral approach, again, complicated region i would agree with you that, you know, you do need the players in that region who are close to afghanistan to be sitting at the table helping negotiate that peace deal, obviously as we start to withdraw with that comes a lot of resources that weve dedicated to and there are few countries in the region that, you know, india has dedicated billions of dollars to construction and investment. The hope would be that china in a responsible way, you know, potentially helps out there as well. Again, very complicated as we move forward here. Ms. Freeman, from the usaid perspective weve made investments in afghanistan as well trying to educate girls and trying to give them the best chance of success. What would you say our focus ought to be, again, working with the other countries in that region as well . I think that one of the shifts that we saw in our most recent Strategic Review has been one that really focuses much more on the private sector, much more on exchange, and really looking at the realistic flow throughout the region, be that the strengthening of the electrical grid that connects the region or extending trade throughout the region. Weve had a number of highly successful, in fact, there is another one comiing up next wee trade fairs in which we engage the indians and others in the region. Weve helped the government of afghanistan to strengthen its air corridors so that it can trade more rapidly within the region. So those that connect tivity really does follow trade, and weve worked very hard to increase the ease of that trade and the ease of the new negotiation within the region. Thank you for both of you for your service, and with that ill yield back. Mr. Zeldin. Thank you mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for the witnesses for both being here. First off with regards to the camp david meeting echoing sentiment that ive heard from colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i certainly share it myself. Im glad that the meeting with the taliban at camp david was canceled. I believe that that should not have been scheduled in the first place, and i would not want to see the taliban back at camp david in the future, especially on the anniversary of september 11th, 2001. Now, this isnt simple. If this was all simple this would have been resolved a long time ago. On september 11th, 2001, al qaeda terrorists murdered thousands of innocent americans and countless First Responders have died since because of exposure to toxic chemicals at ground zero in the days, the weeks, the months that followed september 11th, 2001. Our decision to go to afghanistan was correct and legitimate. Im glad that we made that decision when we did to deliver justice to defend america. Its been at great cost hear in our own country, justice has been delivered overseas. Osama bin laden is dead. There are many others who have followed his fate. There is great cost, the greatest cost at attacking u. S. Interests as we saw on september 11th, 2001. So while we mourn the loss of life here in the United States, what should not go unnoticed for our adversaries abroad is the unlimited amount of resolve and will of our country to deliver justice to anyone who seeks that harm to us. There are terrorists there, terrorist groups who are in and around afghanistan who would like to continue to kill americans. They would like to continue to target u. S. Interests, and here we are. Its 18 years later. Many in the United States want to end the war in afghanistan. Quite frankly, every american should want to end any war whether its in afghanistan or anywhere. We should not want war in the first place, but as i said in afghanistan our decision to go in was correct and legitimate. The taliban wants us out. I want to be able to ask you a question with regards to what the Afghanistan Government wants and how we deal with it. I think its naive to think that we just leave afghanistan today and everything just works itself out on its own. I believe strongly that the vacuum is not successfully filled at this moment by good people in Afghanistan Government, not right now. So how do we get to the result that we want . This morning this committee met with ambassador lazad. I thought it was a good meeting. Im not allowed were not allowed to get into it. It was a classified briefing. Ill just say it was very helpful for that meeting to take place i believe that that should happen again. I believe that we should be spending more time together. Its good for us here on this committee to hear from him in that setting, and i also think its good for the state department to hear from us to get fresh eyes, to get other perspectives, and that brings me back to my question. In our time left in an unclassified setting, can you speak to where were at with the Afghanistan Government, what they desire as far as an american presence, and how do we get the Afghanistan Government in a place where we can leave and the good guys in afghanistan, afghanistans government fill that vacuum so that we are in a position to leave . I think the critical point is that we dont want to leave or abandon afghanistan at all. What we want is to have a sustainable Enduring Partnership with afghanistan, currently with this Afghanistan Government. We have a myriad of mous that bind us together as partners and allies, and i think the Afghan Government very much wants to see that partnership with the American People and the american, you know, private sector, and the American Government to continue. Our provision of support, right now we provide about 80 of support for the security sector, you know, is absolutely essential. So i think we have to build confidence that, you know, in afghans as they sit down at a table with the taliban that the International Community is not looking to run away. And so today, for instance, in london there is a meeting of donors to discuss, you know, how what would we do in the event of a peace treaty . How do we respond to peace . How do we create economic programs that will help a new Afghanistan Government get on its feet and succeed, you know, as a nation state . And so through doing this kind of an organization, through engaging the Afghan Government and ultimately the taliban, i think we need to signal very clearly the objective is not to walk away. I appreciate that answer, ambassador wells, specifically with regards to military presence. I think its important to note that the days of the United States military having the amount of numbers that we have now is not one that we want to be continuing indefinitely, so that was specifically what i was getting at. Very much appreciate your answer and for being here. I thank the chair for hosting todays hearing. I yield back. Thank you mr. Zeldin. M ambassador wells what is the current state of the relationship between the taliban and al qaeda and what, if anything, did the taliban agree to with respect to that relationship in this framework, if they did . The taliban have never repudiated their relationship with al qaeda, and so thats the fundamental crux of the issue, and in the what has been said publicly about the conversations and negotiations that have taken place with the taliban is that in this conditionsbased, you know, framework, we were looking to the taliban to cut off all sanctuary, the ability of any you know, al qaeda members to reside there. To recruit there, to fundraise there, you know, to operate, and so it was a complete commitment to eliminate ties and presence of al qaeda. And with respect to terrorism broadly, is there is there a framework about the commitments that the taliban makes with respect to terrorism in this proposal . I cant its not for me and certainly not in this setting to go into the details of the of what was negotiated. I wasnt part of the negotiating team, but what animates the approach of the administration is that issue you know, we the Peace Agreement must be founded on the principle that American Security is not imperilled, you know, that we continue to ensure that afghanistan not become a pla e platform, that we have confidence that afghanistans not going to become a platform. I can assure you these concerns are at the top of the negotiating agenda as was evidenced in the last nine ro d rounds of talks. What mechanisms will be available to the United States if it draws down its military presence and the taliban fails to live up to the commitments it makes . Are we working with International Partners who are interested in supporting the talibans or ensuring that the taliban meets its obligations, or whats the enforcement mechanism . How do we avoid getting back into the situation where they make a commitment, it doesnt happen, and were back again to some suggestion that we need to increase military engagement in a place weve been for 18 years . Again, i cant prejudge what a Peace Agreement would produce, but what ill just cite the secretarys comments on this, and that is, you know, we have a very powerful and capable military, and were confident that were able to prosecute and protect our interests. My question really is what mechanisms do we have to ensure that the taliban complies with an agreement that we may reach with them . I cant prejudge, you know, what will come out of and what will be finally negotiated in a political framework agreement. Okay. Do you think its important that the agreement be reached between the Afghan Government and the taliban prior to any decision on the withdrawal by u. S. Military personnel, and what are the risks if our troop withdrawal precedes that or precedes even a country wide cease fire . All i can say is that publicly we have underscored the expectation that an intraafghan dialogue would be taken would be undertaken in good faith and quickly. And finally, how should the United States and our International Partners enforce any taliban commitments on human rights, of course particularly with respect to the progress for minorities, women, and girls . Do we have what is your view on how we can most effectively enforce commitments that are made, and what is the role of our partners in the International Community . This is an area of deep concern, i think, to many members of this committee. I think its very important that donors speak with one voice about the importance we attach to the values enshrined in the constitution, in particular respect for the rights of women and girls to education, to work outside the home. Protection for minorities and, again today in london, there will be a meeting of donors where one of the central goals is just to underscore this common commitment that we have. So if the taliban wants to be or if a government that includes the taliban wants to be a legitimate member of the International Community, you know, thats going to be the expectation of the International Community. And are there women engaged in the actual negotiations that have been underway actually at the negotiating table, so in addition to issues related to women and girls, are there women who are participating in this process . At the intraafghan talks that took place in doha, 25 of the nontaliban participants were women. Women are members of the High Peace Council in afghanistan, president ghani has given public assurances of his intent to have afghan women on any pan afghan negotiating team. Afghan women are certainly a critical audience for us as we engage with stakeholders across afghanistan to explain our approach and to understand their concerns. Thank you, i yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Perry. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your attendance today. Seems to me that the enemy is not leaving anytime soon, whether its al qaeda, isis, taliban, elements, you name it, theyre all either operating, increasing operations or waiting to fill the vacuum, and we dont certainly want to abandon the Afghan People or our very, very significant investment in the stability and peace in afghanist afghanistan. That having been said, i just wonder i think you said that were providing 80 , is that right . 80 of the strong support, the strong support role for Afghan Security forces . Thats right, and 25 of economic and humanitarian assistance. Based on that, it just seems when will they be able to sustain themselves . I mean, i think, look, america and americans i think are rightly weary of the treasure both in lives and that continues and economically that afghanistan has cost our country with, i would say, i think in a lot of peoples minds marginal results for so long a slog here, and were trying to figure out, i think as Many American citizens how much longer will it be . And it almost seems like i know theyre trying to develop capability, but they have an incentive to not develop capability, as long as were willing to be there at 80 , and its got to come down, and theyre going to have to theyre going to have to take on more of the role, and quite honestly some of the neighbors in the area that have a vested interest in afghanistans safety and security have got to take a bigger role. Will the Afghan Government as far as you know allow american basing as a part of any negotiated deal and settlement that has a diminution of activity or forces in strong support of Security Forces over the long haul, will they allow us to stay in some regard . We cant know or predict whats going to come out of a negotiation between afghans and the taliban. What i would im talking about the Afghan Government and the United States negotiations between the United States. I know the taliban doesnt want us there. Thats part of the problem. But with the Afghan Government we do have a bilateral security arrangement. We reside on afghanistan bases. We have a military presence on afghanistan bases, and very much, you know, our support for the Afghan Government is premised on afghanistans sovereignty, but i agree, sir, and the president and the secretary have spoken forcefully about the 30 billion or so a year that we spend to maintain the operations in afghanistan, so were looking to reduce those numbers by trying to rationalize our presence and our approach to the battle in afghanistan. Weve actively and successfully increased the amount of burden sharing, and i think if you point to the economic section i dont mean to interrupt you, maam, i just want to make sure we consider japan and germany sovereign nations, but were afforded basing in those countries over the longterm, and it seems to me that afghanistan should be in the same position, but they need to secure their own country, their own sovereign nation and not depend on any percent, an 80 solution set if from the United States in that regard. Because of the neighborhood that afghanistan resides in, you know, ive been to kabul, it looks indefensible to me as a military as a military guy, and i wonder if you can assess if were going to remain in afghanistan for americas interests, even if it might not be for the sake of the Security Forces of afghanistan and their and supporting them at 80 or anything close to that, but were going to remain for our own National Interests and National Security interests so that we can operate in afghanistan as necessary when al qaeda, isis, korizon, whoever pops their head up, what is the best defensible position geographically that we can also sustain. Understand pakistans on one side. Youve got china up there, youve got iran on the southern and western side. Is it on the border with uzbekistan . If we were going to remain there indefinitely like we have in germany and japan for our own National Security, what is the best geographic location in your assessment to do that . Were not looking for permanent basing in afghanistan, and you know, to the contrary, we would like to be able to create the conditions for our troops to come home, but in the absence of the conditions allowing that, if there continues to be the enemys going to remain as you know. If you posit that the enemys going to remain, certainly we would welcome the opportunity to have a Counter Terrorism relationship with whatever government emerges in afghanistan. I cant predict, or you know, conclude whats going to be the case at the end of a negotiation. But what when it comes to the 80,000 figure, i would just add i think everyone agrees, including afghan officials that the size of the afghan army now is not sustainable. Its a function of the war thats being fought in partnership with us, but you know, a sustainable afghanistan, an Afghan Government that can support its own Economic Development and support its own Security Forces would look very different. My times expired. I yield. Thank you mr. Perry, ms. Titus. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I was just kind of surprised to hear you, ambassador, say belgian road as a slogan, not a reality. Weve been hearing an awful lot about the reality of Infrastructure Projects across africa, ports ranging from sri lanka, i think its more than a slogan. I appreciate mr. Cicillini bringing up the point about women. I dont think i can share your optimism that we can trust the taliban to negotiate in good faith with the Afghan Government and protect the gains that have been made by women over the last 18 years, because theyre really not at the table, and theyre not part of the negotiating process. But i want to ask you about is something we havent talked about and thats the poppy trade. Opium poppies are afghans most valuable cash crop. They brought in 863 million last year. Afghanistans the Largest Global producer and counts for 82 of the worlds production. We know how many lives have been lost as a result of being addicted to heroin. Afghanistans productions reached record highs over the last two years except for a small dip because of the drought, and all our efforts over there have been unsuccessful. The special Inspector General found that alternative Development Programs were too short. They didnt bring about lasting reductions in the cultivation, sometimes they contributed to increased production. The d. O. D. Also ended a military Counter Narcotics Campaign in 2017 that failed to yield results. Could you talk about how this played into the negotiation . What are our efforts now . What do they plan to be . Was poppy cultivation part of the conversation at all . And why was this so unsuccessful . Quickly just to clarify, belgium road is very real, but in afghanistan its a slogan. The chinese simply havent put money. Theyve tried to lockdown lucrative mining contracts but not followed through with investment or real resources. We share your concern on poppy, how its criminalized the economy. The expanding role of opium production in undermining governance and transparency. It is fundamentally, though, i think an issue that is tied to security. You know, 80 to 85 of opium in afghanistan is pruszoduced in as that are controlled or under the influence by the taliban. Thats been what has, i think, prevented the much more sustainable approaches to eliminating opium production including alternative livelihoods, crops, high value crops that are more valuable than opium. Where weve had some success is in establishing some of the structures, the laws, the regulatory structures, the special police units, whether its the counter under the counter narcotics police. We have a sensitive Investigation Unit and the National Interdiction unit, theyre doing real seizures. But this is in the context of something that really fundamentally has to come out of an improved security environment that we dont have right now. Was this part of any of the negotiation with the taliban, what to this is their main source of revenue, what were going to do about that in the future . Or are we just going to turn a blind eye to it . I cant speak to what was said during the course of the negotiations, but the taliban have been very public about saying and pointing to their past record of having eliminated opium production, and so we know thats not true. They for complex reasons, immediately right before their downfall, they did issue a fatua against opium production that effectively reduced opium pru production in the areas they control. We would welcome it to today im sure we would. Which theyve not done. This is all very cynical, but i dont want to suggest that its only a taliban problem. Drug money in afghanistan is everywhere. You know, it permeating everywhere. It criminalizes the broader economy, it is a distorting factor, you know, in afghanistans ability to develop as a selfsustaining nation. You want to speak to that from your point of view . Well, from a Development Point of view, one of the alternatives is to look at creating a reflection and what usaid has sought to do is to create improved markets, improved access, look at value chains. Try to extend from out into the rural areas an ability to produce legitimate crops and get those to market in a timely fashion. Has that been successful . That has been very successful, whether its how do you measure that success . Whether its drawing away from the opium trade, that i cant tell you. In terms of improving livelihoods and improving peoples incomes, yes. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you ms. Titus. Mr. Lieu. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you ambassador wells and ms. Freeman for being here. None of my comments or questions are meant in any way to criticize your dedicated and lengthy public service. We have had bipartisan failure in afghanistan for over 18 years across administrations. The Trump Administration is continuing that failure. I understand youre simply executing orders of the president , but i do want to get some facts out here to the American People. Ms. Wells, approximately how many u. S. Service members and u. S. Civilians have died in the afghan war . 2,400. Okay. With civilians over 4,000, is that correct . I actually dont have that statistic, but i take your data. But how many u. S. Service members . 26,000, sir . Correct, over 20,000, at least. How many u. S. Troops are currently in afghanistan . Around 14,000. Okay. In 2016, before donald trump took office, how many u. S. Troops were in afghanistan . 8,600 or 8,400. So donald trump ran on a campaign of getting the u. S. Out of endless wars, of getting us out of dumb wars in the middle east. He has failed to deliver on that promise. In fact, he has increased troops in afghanistan by approximately 70 . Do you know what the cost of how much the u. S. Has spent in afghanistan, ms. Wells . I dont have an exact figure. I dont think weve been able to produce an exact figure. We talk about 30 billion a year total in afghanistan now. Thank you. So according to the Washington Post, its been over 1 trillion. Theres an article in the Washington Post saying trumps afghanistan troop increase adds to 1 trillion in war costs, and we have very little to show for this. We are still in a stalemate. There is no indication if we stay another 18 years that were going to achieve any sort of victory. In fact, what ends up happening is because we keep killing civilians and other folks in afghanistan, it makes terrorists recruiting that much easier. So i want to ask you about a reuters article that came out today documenting that yesterday a u. S. Drone strike in afghanistan killed at least 30 civilian farmers. Are you aware of that drone strike . Ive seen press reports that an afghanistan strike may have produced civilian casualties. Thats being investigated and looked into by Resolute Support mission. If true, it would be very tragic. I would note that, you know, again, the civilian attacks or civilian casualties are made happen more easily because of the fact that isis and taliban immerse themselves in the civilian population, dont distinguish how they dress, and themselves directly target civilians. Thank you for that. We do have complete superiority in afghanistan, correct. Yes and our drones can linger over a target for a fair amount of time, correct . Sir, i dont know whether the report that youre mentioning is a drone attack. The reports ive seen have suggested this was something that was i dont know the details of the incident, so i dont want to comment on it. Sure. When i served on active duty in the u. S. Military, one of the things i did is i briefed commanders on the law of armed conflict. As you know intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. It is also a war crime if its a disproportionate use of force. So if you were to think that there may be one or two terrorists there and youre going to end up killing 30 civilians, you cant launch that strike either, so i look forward to the administration providing us information as to if, in fact, this strike killed at least 30 civilian, what their purpose of that strike was and how does this happen when we have complete air superiority and our air assets can linger over targets for a fair amount of time . And all of this does bring many e me to how do we now conclude our failure in afghanistan . So when is the next meeting that the administration is going to have with the taliban . Has that been scheduled . No, the talks are paused at this stage. Right. So not only excuse me, suspended. Have we now had 4,000 Service Members, civilians killed in afghanistan, by your estimate, 26,000 Service Members wounded over 1 trillion spent on this war in afghanistan, we are in a stalemate, and the administration has now zero strategy, zero scheduled talks, no ability to get us out of this quagmire. It is time to bring our troops home. I yield back. Thank you mr. Lieu. Is ms. Wild here . Ms. Wild. I have questions for each of you. I only have five minutes as you know, im going to be a little quick and just ask that you be circumspect in your answers. Ms. Freeman to start, the United States has invested an enormous amount of human life, money, and time into the conflict and attempted peace building process in afghanistan, as we all know. Since 2002, congress has appropriated more than 132 billion in aid for afghanistan. More than 2,000 u. S. Troops have lost their lives in afghanistan, and currently we have 14,000 troops there. My question to you is this. How is the Trump Administration working to ensure that the investments the u. S. Has made in afghanistan like building hospitals, schools, supporting ngos and advancing human womens rights is not lost if we withdraw from the country, and i ask that in the context of this, particularly because the Trump Administration has not included the Afghan Government in peace negotiations, how are we making sure that the progress weve made in afghanistan will be maintained longterm . Thank you. I think that the most succinct answer to your question is that the broad program of sustainability and working on systems, which i was trying to highlight in my own testimony. Its not a matter of just the number of students that are trained, but its the infrastructure that is built. That infrastructure may be physical or it may be institutional in strengthening the systems within the government, and i think we have a great deal of success to be shown in terms of strengthening internal systems to advance afghanistans own ownership of its development. The other the other area that i would point to in terms of sustainability is the development of stronger voices in afghanistan to sustain themselves Going Forward. The voices of women, the voices of the private sector, the voices of educators that will Carry Forward through time in terms of their expectations. Thank you. Im deeply concerned, and i appreciate your response, and i think its a good one, but i hope we dont negate the progress that weve helped build in that country and the sacrifices particularly that our troops have made by pulling out with a plan in place to create and sustain lasting peace. Id like to turn to ambassador wells. And my question to you is this, we know that in july of 2018 in an unprecedented move, the Trump Administration entered into direct high level negotiations with the taliban and without Afghan Government representatives. And in doing so, the administration reversed longstanding u. S. Position that any Peace Process would have to be afghan owned and afghan led, and this of course harkens back to the questions i was asking ms. Freeman. For close to a year the u. S. Held almost continuous meetings with taliban representatives. We know also that for decades the taliban have carried out violence against women and egregiously violated womens human rights. Afghanistan is ranked the worst place in the world to be a woman. 87 of their women are illiterate, 70 to 80 of them are in forced marriages, and 90 have experienced domestic abuse. So you know, our president loves to refer to himself as a great negotiator and a great deal maker, but we havent seen any successful deals on behalf of the American People yet, and im wondering, my question to you is this. When the Trump Administration engages in high level talks, for almost a year with the taliban and without the Afghan Government, how do we expect these negotiations to ultimately be successful and bring longterm peace . Congresswoman, i think its a mischaracterization. Weve been were in Constant Contact and constant engagement with the government of afghanistan. We were working in parallel tracks z. As we discussed issues with the taliban, we were discussing the same issues with the Afghan Government and coming up with an agreed upon approach under this political framework. You know, ambassador bass is there every day, general miller is there every day, ambassador has spent weeks in afghanistan over the last eight or nine months than i can calculate. Were very committed. The outcome of this initial set of conversations was to get to an intraafghan dialogue, a negotiation. Was to get the afghan to sit down at the table, which the taliban have refused to do over the last 18 years, and we started to see that break down with the intraafghan discussion that took place in doha in july. So this was not about ignoring the government of afghanistan, freezing it out of negotiations. To the contrary, it was creating, you know, the preconditions that would allow afghans finally to sit down and begin to find the appropriate compromises to move forward to a unified government and peace. Thank you, my time is up. I just reiterate. I hope we do not lose the progress that has been made by excluding important pareties. Thank you ms. Wild. Mr. Burchett. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing me to speak. Given that the pakistani interservice intelligence has long given support to the taliban, is there a role that pakistan must play in the negotiations with the taliban, and if so, would the Prime Minister have trouble getting the Pakistani Military to help . Pakistan does have a very Important Role in ensuring that negotiations both take place and are successful, and weve seen constructive support by pakistan in helping to ensure that there was an authoritative negotiating team. Pakistan released from prison where they were holding him, and he then took over leadership of the taliban negotiating group. Weve been working closely with pakistan and ambassadors consultations very much include and are based on the expectations that pakistan will provide this support. Prime minister khan publicly has been forward leaning in his support for peace in afghanistan. We appreciate the steps that hes taken and members of his government have taken to try to improve relations with afghanistan because improved afghanistan, pakistan relations are also going to be critical to a sustainable peace, but this is an area where we will continue to have expectations and asks of pakistan. Thank you, maam. In the 90s, the taliban, i believe they said that bin laden and al qaeda were not a threat to the u. S. How can we trust them now when they say that they will not allow foreign terrorist organizations on afghan soil . Theres no intention to trust, and i think any Peace Agreement or any negotiations with the taliban will be conditionsbased, and the United States will have to have confidence that our security will not be imperilled. Say that again about trust . What was the wording . The agreement cant be based on trust. It has to be based conditionsbased where we have confidence through verification, through means that our security not being eroded as a result of a Peace Agreement. So its not really trust but verify. Its not really trust but verify. Verify. Verify, yes, maam, thank you. Given all the uncertainty with the taliban negotiations, the afghan president ial elections still be held or postponed . The afghan elections are proceeding on september 28th. Weve long argued that the government of afghanistan and the electoral bodies need to do Everything Possible to ensure that they are transparent and credible to the Afghan People. The United States has provided support for the elections through funding of the u. N. Mission in afghanistan. Weve also provided Technical Assistance through usaid and developing protocols. I think certain steps have been taken that will could improve some of the technical aspects of the elections this time around including voting polling centerbased registration lists, which will make it less possible for industrial fraud. But at the same time you have fewer polling stations that will be opening in this election compared to 2014, and certainly the afghanistan Electoral Institutions are going to have to be able to respond to aft afghans concerns over the misuse of Government Resources and other efforts to influence elections. Okay what are some ways to incentivize the direct taliban Afghan Government talks . I think that the both sides have an interest in peace, and whats remarkable is despite the incredible violence and just, you know, indiscriminate violence against civilians that has been inflicted by the taliban, the Afghan People remain committed to trying to find a way forward and remain committed to a peace negotiation because as long as as long as afghanistan is racked by violence, you cant achieve the security to create, you know, a normal state thats selfsustaining, and you know, the taliban, you know, their interests as i said before, i think are motivated by a desire to be seen as legitimate, to be able to engage on, you know, in a way that they have not with the International Community, to participate in a functioning government and in a country that is economically more prosperous. Thank you. Thank you mr. Burchett. Ms. Spanberger. Thank you to the chair. Thank you to our witnesses today. Ambassador wells, id like to start with a question for you. After 18 years of u. S. Military involvement in afghanistan, the country stands in a bloody stalemate. Thousands of american Service Members have lost their lives. Talks with the taliban have broken down, and the American Public is war weary. As reconciliation and security efforts advance, i am particularly concerned that afghanistan will again be used by International Terrorist groups such as al qaeda or Islamic State to launch and plan attacks on the United States or our allies. If the previous rounds of talks had continued as planned, the taliban was going to agree to preventing terrorist groups from using afghanistan to plan and launch attacks. Yet it is not clear that the taliban would follow through on this pledge or even have the ability to rarein in the numero terrorist organizations. They have made and failed to keep similar pledges before. My question is what do you see as a realistic path forward to ensuring that afghanistan is not ripe for terrorist groups to plan and launch cross border terrorist attacks . And how can we proceed with enforcing any agreement related to that type of promise . Again, i would say i think its a bit of a mischaracterization to say that its only been a bloody stalemate. We have a situation now where the afghans are doing the overwhelming majority of the fighting. We have a situation where the taliban dont control provincial capitals. Theyre not in control of the country or in control of the people. We have a situation where we have succeeded in ensuring that afghanistan has not been used as a platform against us again, and so the baseline goal and reason why we went into afghanistan i think weve upheld. You know, americans americas security is going to be the foremost objective of any peace negotiation that we support, and, you know, the president has spoken to that. The secretary has spoken to that, and that is why any Peace Agreement needs to be conditionsbased. I cant give specifics now, and i would leave it to further briefings, you know, if and when a peace negotiation resumes. But i think that the Afghan People, the taliban, and we agree that this is not a conflict, that it is going to be one militarily. So the question of how we get back to a sustainable Peace Process is one that is under active review by the administration. And how much do you think the fact that afghanistan hasnt been used as a platform to launch additional attacks against us or u. S. Interests outside of afghanistan, how much do you think that that is a result of the presence of our forces . My question being specifically if we were to move towards removing u. S. Forces, how does that significantly change the dynamic that has allowed us to achieve some of the stability that you just discussed . In the context of an active war against the taliban, the presence of american and International Forces has been critical. Okay. And so then in thinking through a the type of agreement that we could make with the taliban and looking at what sort of enforcement would be possible, what do you see as potential levers for negotiation or potential successes for the type of enforcement that would allow us to ensure that afghanistan cann cannot devolve into a place where terrorist networks are able to find safe haven again and potentially plot against the United States . I think this has been said publicly in a conditionsbased agreement, what the taliban want is the removal of forces and to be able to achieve a removal of forces, there would have to be confidence on our part that the undertakes were being upheld by the taliban and its members. You know, i cant hypothesize about what may or may not come out of a future agreement and what specific measures will be included, but i would just go back to the basic point, you know, the United States has the most capabilitcapabilityable anl military in the world. We are committed to protecting our citizens interests. We are not without options. The challenges i see related to the conditions based discussions is if the taliban want u. S. Departure from afghanistan, then what is the next step that we take when, in fact, they are not complying with negotiated terms as you see it, what would be our response if we have in fact removed forces . Where do we go from there . I cant hypothesize about that scenario. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, ms. Spanberger. Mr. Levin. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. According to the United Nations Assistance Mission in afghanistan, there were more civilian casualties in 2018 than in any other year since they began counting, and it was also reported that for the First Time Since the United Nations began documenting civilian casualties in afghanistan, more civilians were killed by Afghan Government and American Forces than by the taliban and other insurgents. I dont think there can be a clearer sign that the u. S. Military intervention there has failed to secure the Afghan People. Ambassador wells, its good to see you again. Immaterial i want to ask you that why should we expect that doing more of the same thing weve done for the last 18 years will lead to a different and better outcome than these statistic suggest . First, i want to say that the u. S. Military does Everything Possible to avoid civilian casualties. Nobody is more meticulous in its planning and as thoughtful in its efforts, and i contrast that to the enemy that we face that deliberately targets civilians. And weve seen that over this bloody last week of targeting of hospitals, targeting of election workers. Yes, its horrifying, but do you dispute the statistics from 2018 . I think as i mentioned earlier in another response, we do question some of the methodology. I think this is an aberration. I hope youre right. And the approach of the forces couldnt be more dichb different, and so im very i think we can have confidence and respect for the u. S. Militarys efforts to reduce civilian casualties and reduce the Afghan Forces civilian casualties. This is not a static this is not a static situation. Theres been significant change over the last 18 years, and one of those significant changes is the fact that its the Afghan Forces who are doing the fighting and dying. We still suffer tragic losses, and we suffered a tragic loss last week, but the numbers bear no resemblance to the fwing beg of this conflict and the height of this conflict. As time goes by, what we have seen are more capable Afghan Forces, more educated afghanistan citizens, higher life expectancy, more sophisticated population. Those are trend lines that absolutely work in our favor and speak very highly of our own values approach to supporting afghanistan. All right, i want to talk about the nonstate militias in afghanistan like the Protection Force that are trained, equipped and funded by the cia. These militias were the subject of a New York Times report in december that id like to quote from. It said that the cia funded militias have quote, operated unconstrained by battlefield rules designed to protect civilians, conducting night raids, torture, and killings with near impunity in a Covert Campaign that some afghan and american Officials Say is undermining the wider american effort to strengthen afghan institutions. In july ambassador kalil asad said militias would be address instead a peace deal. I want to ask you did the proposed u. S. Troop withdrawal from afghanistan include withdrawing u. S. Support for nonstate militias funded by the cia . I cant speak to that, sir. Well, in an interview with the bbc this week, the talibans chief negotiator said that the negotiation was, quote, the only way for peace in afghanistan, and quote from our side, our doors are open for negotiations, and we hope the other side also rethinks their decision regarding negotiation. If were not talking about these things, do you think we can achieve a sustainable solution . Theres agreement that there isnt a military solution. Theres an agreement that there needs to be a politically negotiated solution, but there also has to be confidence that the taliban after the nine rounds of negotiations are acting in good faith, and so as has been said publicly by the president and the secretary, you know, currently the talks are c talks are suspended. The administration is reviewing options for moving ahead. And so if just as a final question, its sometimes hard to explain to my constituents whats going on in this complicated situation. How would you suggest that i explain to them why the president suspended negotiations at this point . Whats the reason for it . We saw behavior that was inconsistent with the substance and conduct of the negotiations that have taken place over the last nine rounds. It was that inconsistent behavior that led to the decision. We would like to see the taliban take actions that would make it possible to return to political negotiations. All right, thanks. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank you both for stepping up and being here, but i also wanting to say quite bluntly that it does not absolve ambassador kalizad whos been talking to the taliban for the last year and refusing to speak to the United States congress. I do not believe that a classified briefing meets his responsibility to explain to the American People what we are doing here. With that let me ask you a few questions. The taliban operates both in afghanistan and pakistan, is that correct . Taliban has sanctuary in pakistan. And yet there is nothing in the Draft Agreement that commits the taliban to break with al qaeda or any other terrorist group that it may be cooperating with in pakistan or in fact any of the 20 or so other ftos beyond al qaeda and isis, such as the Hakani Network that operate in both pakistan and afghanistan, is that correct . I cant speak to the details of the text. All i can note is that it is conditions based with preemminence given to ending ties with terrorist organizations. Well, the only terrorist organizations mentioned are those two and everything that you have said suggests that their responsibility ends on afghan soil, so in fact this doesnt really force the taliban to break with terrorists. There is no ceasefire contemplated, no nationwide ceasefire contemplated by the agreement, so apart from a few named places under what was contemplated, the taliban would be able to continue terrorizing the Afghan People. And get, as i understand it, we may go were this process to continue, we could go below 8,600 troops, we could go all the way to zero troops in afghanistan even if there is no final intraafghan agreement so long as we have, and if i may quote you, confidence that our security is not impaired. Is that a Fair Assessment . Again, i cant speak to the details of the agreement that was being discussed or the political framework that was being discussed. All i can address are the principles that drove it. The foremost principle is American Security, but that has to be also sustainable. What were looking for is a sustainable solution, a sustainable peace in afghanistan. Well, those are two very Different Things. If the condition is American Security as narrowly defined by do not cooperate with al qaeda or isis, then what that suggests is that what happens to the Afghan People in that scenario is immaterial so long as we have that minimal commitment from the taliban, we could go to zero which puts us in a position where we cant even monitor or enforce that minimal commitment. You said weve been in Constant Contact with the Afghan Government on this question. Im sure thats true. I know thats true. But any of us who have spoken to the Afghan Government know that they do not agree with the basic framework of this agreement for precisely that reason, because it leaves them to the mercy of the taliban so long as were assured that theyre not going to be cooperating with two of the 20 or more terrorist organizations that have safe haven in afghanistan. My understanding is were not willing to say, youre not willing to say to the taliban right here right now that we will not go to zero if theres no intraAfghan Government, is that correct . You cannot say that categorically . Im not sheer to comment on the specifics of a negotiation that i wasnt a part of. All i can discuss are the principles. Again, the principles are not i think youre mischaracterizing the administration, what were seeking to achieve. This is what ive heard from the administration. If youre not able to speak to the agreement, thats exactly why the ambassador should be sitting in that chair right now. After one year of talking to terrorists, he should be willing to talk to the United States congress. All im asking for here is honesty. There are different views about whether we should stay, whether we should go on both sides of the aisle. But what we are being sold here is not a potential Peace Agreement. What we are being sold here is a bedtime story to make us feel better about leaving afghanistan. Were talking about this as if its supposed to bring peace when in fact we know that the taliban intends on continuing to fight because their aim is not legitimacy, their aim is power in afghanistan, which theyre not willing to share with the Afghan Government as they have told us many times. We are being told that this is about bringing our troops home when in fact those troops are not coming home, they will go to the gulf, they will go to bases potentially in southern asia so that we can maintain a forward presence in the region to continue to strike terrorists in afghanistan. We will continue drone strikes, but from a further distance, which means there will be more civilian casualties. If we conduct counterterrorism raids, if we do it from a further distance, it will be more dangerous to our troops. So im asking for honesty. If were going to leave, let us simply say we do not have an interest in investing in afghanistan anymore and were going to leave them to the tender mercies of the taliban. If we believe thats not right, lets say to the American People that we have a longterm commitment here like we have in south korea, germany and other places. Pick one, but lets stop telling bedtime stories about what this is going to bring. Im delighted that there was an opportunity this morning for the committee to be briefed by ambassador but not the American People. This is not a negotiation of a withdrawal, its a Peace Agreement. And evenii think what were los sight of is the overwhelming majority of afghans who very much want to see america involved in supporting a Peace Process. Afghans do not want to fight to the last afghan, they seek peace. And so this administration has been creatively working towards that goal. They have had no say in this process, and you know perfectly well that they are terrified, the vast majority of afghans, about where this is going. This is the only process thats producing potential of direct conversations between the taliban, Afghan Government and afghan stakeholders. I yield. Mr. Phillips. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses. I want to start by echoing the sentiment of my colleague, mr. Malinowski relative to the lack of an appearance by mr. Kalilizad. Terribly disappointing and i hope its something we can quickly rectify. Former diplomat and senior fellow at the carnegie skboument for peace recently said any attempt at reconciliation through a negotiated bargain centered on the formal exchange of obligations as opposed to the quiet and progressive defection of insurgents would fail to deliver stability that the u. S. Seeks. Do you agree with that statement . I ask that of both of you. The administration is exploring or has been been exploring whether or not you can create a political framework that produces the dialogue that gives confidence that American Security will be met. So i obviously would not preemptively agree with dr. Talis. So why would we choose to enter negotiations with such little progress on the battlefield strategically . Is that something isnt that a question we should be asking . This is not a conflict thats going to be solved on the battlefield. Youve seen over the last ten years the number of troops and soldiers go up and go down. What hasnt been able to move forward is the conversations that need to take place between the parties. You know, the government stakeholders throughout afghanistan society, which is a very complex one, and the taliban. The assessment is that the taliban are different than isis. That this has been a pashtun nationalist and tactics who have with been concerning but they are committed to afghanistan and are prepared to engage in negotiations. So the work thats been done has been done to create the conditions where afghans can actually for the first time sit down and begin to have those conversations. Can you think of a precedent in which weve been successful employing this type of strategy . I think every war is unique, but certainly the american role is critical and essential in driving any process forward. And so i would focus on the fact that america has received the support of the the neighboring countries for the most part. Weve certainly been able to work productively with our likeminded partners. The ambassador has been able to work with the russians and the chinese because fundamentally this is about interest and the region does have an interest in afghan stabilizing. You speak of russian and chinese interests. How would you articulate those relative to afghanistan right now . I think both countries are concerned by the prospect of the terrorist situation in afghanistan worsening. And to that extent we can have a focused conversation about how to move forward in advancing peace. I am not going to suggest that they dont have other motivations. But again, being able to to be able to exploit the fact that both countries are concerned about what isis represents, that the problem in afghanistan can get worse as well as get better is what allows us to and what has allowed us to organize very dynamic, Productive International gatherings and diplomatic architecture in support of a Peace Process. So you consider the chinese and russians at this stage to be part of the solution . I think that if important regional countries dont support peace, it will be hard to achieve a Peace Agreement. Thats different than being part of the solution. Are they currently weve been working with the countries because we do believe that their support will be helpful in advancing a Peace Agreement. Thank you, ambassador. I yield back my time. Actually, would my friend yield to me for a second . Yes, absolutely. I thank my friend. Ambassador wells, this eerily has the resonance of the paris negotiations between Henry Kissinger and lee ducto at the end of the vietnam war. Pledges were made. That was a Peace Agreement too allegedly. Pledges were made not for the north veietnamese not to invade the south, promptly ignored, and we turned a blind eye to it making it look like what mr. Malinowski indicated, a bedtime story. Can you assure us this is not what were looking at here, that this is different . President trump is seeking a negotiated political settlement. Hes not seeking a withdrawal agreement. Thats a heck of a reassurance. Im sure every american can take that to the bank and feel comforted. Does the gentleman yield back . Im sorry, it was mr. Phillips time. And i do yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Just briefly, weve discussed at different times the role of women in negotiations. The Afghan Government isnt involved women are not part of that. We know that the Afghan Government to my knowledge is trying to include in the information thats relayed to them women as part of that agreement. What do you envision Going Forward the role of women, even in negotiations such as they are, not directly, but also Going Forward should we move forward with this agreement, really trying to put something in the agreement that guarantees so many of the gains of women in society that have been there sense our involvement in afghanistan and also considering the view that the taliban has to women . How afghans govern themselves needs to be determined by afghans. And so obviously what we hear from the Afghan Government and from nontaliban members of Afghan Society is the commitment to the gains of the last 18 years. The importance they attach to the constitutional rights, including the rights of women and girls. Thats backed up by polling, which consistently shows every year an increasing number of afghans who support education, who support womens participation in the workforce, who support womens voting. A third of all candidates in the par parliamentary elections were women. So weve influenced society in a very positive way. And afghans are going to have to fight and preserve those gains in a dialogue or in a negotiation with the taliban. What we can be very Crystal Clear about, and i think youll see this in the donor meeting that is happening in london and other sessions that will happen with International Donors is for afghanistan to receive the support and get the benefits of the International Community, it will have to uphold those fundamental rights. Thats the power that i think we have or the greatest power that we have is that youre not going to get assistance, youre not going to get foreign direct investments, youre not going to get the respect of the International Community if you seek to repress or put women back in the home and out of schools. I have sponsored legislation that hopefully soon will be coming forward to say that if theres other types of resources Going Forward, that the u. S. Is going to supply to the Afghan Government, that those guarantees for women remain in place. Is that something you agree with . All of our programs have embedded in them womens participation and support for womens rights in afghanistan. Its an operating principle. I think karen can speak to that. Yes, miss freeman. Thank you. Ive been waiting for that moment for a long time. Yes. In every Single Program that we have, there is a requirement for the inclusion of women in those programs. In particular and with respect to the current question at hand, we have been actively working with Civil Society and womens business chambers, et cetera, to help them to improve their negotiating skills, to help them to hone their messages, their expectations, to be realistic and pragmatic about the way forward and to ensure that when and if they do have a place at that meeting that theyll be ready for it. Thank you. Well, thank you. And i hope that this committee moving forward very shortly will be able to go forward with that and put additional safeguards to protect the gains that women and girls have certainly been advantaged from in afghanistan. Id like to thank you. And id like to thank the panel for what was a very lengthy hearing this morning and thank you for your taking the time to do that. Well pause just briefly so that the staff can reset the witnesses for the second panel. Thank you again. The committee will reconvene. Id like to introduce our second panel and thank them for their patience this morning, which indeed was after a very extensive first panel hearing. Am bass dorp James Cunningham is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council of south asian center and ajungt fak culty member at syracuse. He capped his distinguished career with his time for ambassador to afghanistan from 20122014. Hes a member on the council of foreign relations, the asia society and the American Academy of diplomacy. Thank you for being here action ambassad ambassador. Miss Laurel Miller is director of the crisis groups asia program where she leads the research, analysis and policy advocacy dealing with that region from 2013 to 2017. He was the deputy and then acting special representative for afghanistan and pakistan in the state department. In Previous Service at the department worked on numerous issues, including peace negotiations in bosnia. She also served in the staff of the National Security council. Welcome and thank you again, ms. Miller. Mr. Thomas jocelyn is a senior fellow at the foundation of defense of democracies and Senior Editor of fdds long war journal. He has worked as a trainer for the fbis Counterterrorism Division and worked on counterterrorism. Id like to welcome you all. Your prepared testimony will become part of the record. Ill allow the witnesses to testify for five minutes each to summarize their testimony. Lets start with ambassador cunningham. Thank you, sir. Appreciate the opportunity to be here today. While the specifics of the deal negotiated by u. S. Special representative for afghanistan reconciliation kahlil zad remain known, theres serious concern about its failure and application. Now that President Trump has called a halt to the discussions with the taliban, the opportunity exists if the administration will take it to course correct and seek a better deal that will lead to a political agreement ending the conflict. The goal which President Trump correctly set two years ago. A flawed deal on withdrawal of u. S. Forces, one not grounded in the context of an actual Peace Agreement risks the collapse of afghanistan into chaos, the return of the oppressive and extremist taliban emirate and the growth of the islamist terrorist threat to western values. The americanAfghan Peoples and many partners deserve better. One side negotiating against a deadline is at a severe disadvantage when the other is not and the ambassador has been operating under complex conditions. But an agreement which fails to open the way to peace for afghanistan will be a defeat for u. S. Leadership in values and sacrifice unnecessarily u. S. And afghan interests and stability and security in that troubled region. Certainly a discussion with the taliban about ending the conflict is to be welcomed. But hope for an intraafghan dialogue is not a strategy and there is little to suggest that a taliban version of peace would be acceptable to the vast majority of afghans or to the International Community. Taliban representatives have told other afghans that the United States is defeated and that they will restore the islamic emirate. While they suggest that the emirate would be less severe and barbaric, there is little doubt what that would mean for todays afghanistan nor of the risks that outcome would pose for afghan women. Negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible but on a different basis geared to actually ending the conflict. A sound deal with the taliban will involve the Afghan Government. It will as a first step end the violence by making the discussion of u. S. Withdrawal contingent on a ceasefire which ends the killing of afghans. While forces can be reduced based on conditions as the ceasefire takes hold, it will make the agreement the sine que non. That must take into account the reality as demonstrated by the isis bombing of a wedding hall last month that future Afghan Governments will likely require International Assistance in combatting terrorism. They will also without doubt require Significant International donor support for a Peace Agreement. A new taliban emirate will be deserving of neither. There has been much discussion in the past weeks about the futility of continued u. S. Engagement in afghanistan and american fatigue and calls for withdrawal often without adjusting the consequences. Peace negotiations on the terms we, most afghans and our International Partners would seek will be difficult but not impossible to create. We have not adequately tested the proposition which requires a complex, diplomatic and military effort and continued support for the Afghan Security forces. We have long recognized that a military solution is not in the offing, but a Peace Process does require an adequate military instrument in support of a multilateral, multifaceted highlevel Diplomatic Campaign to set the conditions for negotiations. The irony of where we are today is that President Trumps south asia strategy announced two years ago corrected the shortcomings that handicapped president obamas efforts to withdraw u. S. Forces and establish a Peace Process. Knowing that president obama had a timeline for bringing our troops home, the taliban had no incentive to negotiate. In 2017, President Trump agreed to restore military capabilities needed to strengthen the american train and assist and Counterterrorism Missions and to focus on creating conditions for negotiations. His strategy for peace correctly aligned three elements for getting the taliban to genuine negotiations. Bolstering the Afghan Security forces, basing the reduction and eventual wall on conditions and not artificial deadlines and focusing on afghanistans regional context, particularly on ending the nefarious role of pakistan. That strategy was aimed at success. A political settlement including respect for the afghan constitution and its protections for human rights, women and a free media. It appears to be coming apart. The reestablishment of unrealistic u. S. Deadlines will undercut the Security Forces, deadlines absent an agreement encourage taliban intransients. Speculation risks demise of democracy in afghanistan. Washington appears yet again to have allowed pakistan to avoid concrete kz to change the calculations of the taliban leadership in pakistan. Afghanistan is neither a failed state nor to be dismissed as a forever war. Afghanistan is a struggling democratic islamic partner in the generational conflict between extreme islamist ideology and terrorism and the civilized world to which most people, including muslims, aspire. Our 18year effort in afghanistan has had several distinct phases and mistakes have surely been made, but yielding to fatigue rather than correcting our strategy would be the greatest mistake of all. The cost of engagement in afghanistan are much lower than in the past, can be lower yet and are sustainable. As with the cold war, staying power will be required to win the idea logic conflict with islamic extremism. We can certainly be smarter and more effective but as with iraq, the cost of premature withdrawal from afghanistan with the prospects of peace unsecured will be much higher. Among the more important of those costs will be the accelerated erosion of the notion that the United States is a reliable and durable partner when there is a price to be paid for leadership and defense of u. S. Values. Thank you. Thank you, ambassador. Ms. Miller. Thank you, congressman keating for your endurance today and my thanks to the committee for inviting me to this important hearing. Ive been asked to assess the administrations efforts to secure a peace deal. Ill summarize my written statement briefly reviewing u. S. Policy options and explaining why the negotiations President Trump declared dead last week should be revived. Those talks proud a draft u. S. taliban agreement that according to both sides was ready to be signed. The u. S. Has three basic options. First, the withdrawal option. The u. S. Could plan and execute a pullout of all u. S. Forces. The conflict would continue and it would probably intensify and become more chaotic. Theres a strong chance the antitaliban side would fracture. How quickly that would happen would depend on whether the government in kabul continued to receive foreign funding on which it very heavily depends. Second, the stay the course option. The u. S. Could keep the current or somewhat reduced number of troops, continue fighting the taliban alongside the government, continue operations against the Islamic State branch and occasionally other terrorist groups from within afghanistan. The war, currently the deadliest in the world, would remain the bloody stalemate that it is today and many senior American Military officers have said it is. One thats been eroding in the talibans favor over several years. Keeping u. S. Troops in afghanistan would continue feeding the taliban narrative of Foreign Occupation that they use to recruit. Staying the course means perpetuating the conflict with no foreseeable end. Third, the negotiation option. The u. S. Could try to negotiate an end to the war and to the u. S. Military presence. American diplomats have engaged in about nine years of waxing and waning effort to launch a Peace Process but only this year kid the u. S. Put it at the center of its policy. The third option is the only one with the potential to reduce violence in afghanistan and enable the u. S. Troops to withdraw in per missive conditions. Its also the only option with the preserving afghanistans gains. To be clear none of these options has the result of military victory for the u. S. And its allies. Neither of the first two options would allow the Afghan Government to become selfsustaining at any foreseeable time and only the negotiation option aims for reduction violence. Some have criticized the administration for negotiating with the taliban, supposedly cutting out the Afghan Government. Its understandable this approach is deeply frustrating to many afghans and frankly its distasteful to many in washington. The u. S. Decision to negotiate first with the taliban prior to talks among afghans was a concession to the talibans stubborn insistence on that sequence. The u. S. For many years resisted that sequencing and the cost was no Peace Process. Its worth underscoring that the u. S. Already tried and failed to deliver the more desirable kind of Peace Process with the Afghan Government at the table from the outset and with an early ceasefire. No evidence suggests the Afghan Government on its own could launch this preferred form of peace talks, certainly the u. S. Has not stood in the way. But its crucial to recognize what a u. S. taliban deal would and would not be. It would cover a limited set of issues, the withdrawal of u. S. Troops in exchange for taliban commitments to prevent afghanistan being a safe harbor for terrorist groups. The deal would not be a Peace Agreement. Theres no deal between the u. S. And taliban that could bring peace or address governance of womens rights and other issues. The deal would be the first step toward peace making. It would condition a gradual u. S. Withdrawal on the taliban entering negotiations with the Afghan Government and other power brokers. The reward is clear, the deal would open the door to an afghan Peace Process. After talk talks might fail for many reasons. The gap might prove too great. Internal divisions might prove too difficult to overcome. If negotiations fail, the u. S. Will still be in a position to choose either of the first two policy options i described earlier. After nearly 18 years of prioritizing military action and failing to defeat the taliban, the u. S. Has spent only one year putting peace efforts at the forefront. In that time it appears to have come close to clinching a deal that would lead to an afghan Peace Process and allow for the withdrawal of u. S. Troops. The u. S. Should not abandon this effort now. Mr. Jocelyn. Well, thank you for having me here to testify again today. Im going to go through this very quickly. I agree that one of the main critiques of the process that the Trump Administration went through and these talks basically excluded the Afghan Government. You can see in a tweet that i march 12th of this year, the ambassador said explicitly once a deal is finalized, exchanging a troop withdrawal for the supposed counterterrorism assurances from the taliban, then the interafghan negotiations process would start. Thats a crucial mistake. Obviously if youre going to try and launch a Peace Process, having american troops in country are your biggest bargaining chip to get that launched. Giving it away at the outset in exchange for the talibans words makes no sense to me. I want to talk about why the talibans words shouldnt be trusted when it comes to counterterrorism assurances. Theres some skepticism in the earlier panel on this regard and i wholly endorse that skepticism. Ill run through five key issues in that regard very quickly. First, the taliban hasnt come clean about its past at any point in time. In july the taliban released a video in which they said that 9 11 was a heavy slap on their dark faces. It was the consequence of their interventionist policies and not our doing. In other words, they were justifying 9 11. They didnt blame al qaeda, didnt renounce their decision to harbor al qaeda and said it was a result of our policies, which is a talking point they have had since 2001. In addition, since august, a chief taliban negotiator said he didnt know who did 9 11. If we have evidence of this maybe we can bring it forward and prosecute it. Ill say this, we know who did 9 11. You can see in my testimony ive excerpted quite a few reports of this report showing the talibans complicity and safe haven for al qaeda and how crucial that was for al qaeda in the runup to 9 11. Theres a number of reports and citations in my written testimony to this in that regard so we dont need him to tell us we dont know who did it. But the key point there is if theyre not willing to come clean about the past, why are you willing to believe what theyre saying about the future . Why are you willing to believe that their assurances Going Forward are really firm . The second point, in july 2016, the ambassador testified before this committee. During that hearing he highlighted the fact that the head of al qaeda had sworn hi personal allegiance to the supreme leader. They call him the emir of the faithful for the taliban. The ambassador said that showed that the relationship continues. We agree. I had reported on that a week or two earlier. As far as i can tell theres no evidence that to date hes going to renounce the oath of allegiance or al qaeda. As part of any talks that you heard a lot on the first panel about how theres assurances from the taliban about breaking from al qaeda and restraining them. Heres a very concrete example of what the taliban can do in that regard and should do in that regard if youre going to start to believe them which is that their leader should disown his oath of allegiance. Very quickly, the third point. The number two of the taliban is akani. We tracked him for a lot of years. It took a number of years to get him designated as a terrorist organization. That was designated by the network remains closely allied with al qaeda throughout its history from the 1980s to this day. Hes not only the number two in the taliban but oversees the talibans war machine across afghanistan. Theres a lot of evidence in my written testimony about how he is intertwined with al qaeda. Ive seen no evidence that he was going to break with al qaeda or anybody was going to do that. Number four, this is highlighted in my testimony as well. It was created in 2014. Theres plenty of evidence that its fighting alongside the taliban members throughout the country. They serve as religious and military instructors for the taliban and remain embedded in the taliban. In fact a special Inspector General report submitted to Congress Earlier this year highlighted the fact many are dual al qaeda and taliban members. Thats how integrated they are. Sometimes you cant tell whos the taliban guy and whos the al qaeda guy. Thats how intertwined they are. Fifth, in terms of counterterrorism assurances from the taliban, there are theres sort of a constellation of groups fighting under the talibans banner in afghanistan. I see no reason to believe the taliban has agreed to restrain them in any meaningful way. Theres the Islamic Jihad union, the turkish and islamic party, the u. N. Reports i cite in my testimony all document their presence in afghanistan under the talibans banner. I find it hard to believe that the taliban would restrain all of them. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Phillips. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and to our witnesses. Mr. Joscelyn, ill start with you. Clearly from your testimony you have little faith or confidence in the taliban being trustworthy, for good reason. So what should we do in light of the fact that theyre not in your estimation . What would be in our best interests . I have no problem with trying to bolster a process that includes the Afghan Government in the talks and insisting on that from the go. My main problem with what happened here was, one, i think there was a lot of kre dual tee when it came to the talibans words and, two, the Afghan Government clearly didnt have a formal seat at the table. You heard ambassador wells talk about how some members were able to take part in talks but that was in a personal capacity, not as formal representatives of the u. S. Backed Afghan Government. If youre going down that path, its fine. But as long as youre insisting that the Afghan Government is part of any legitimate Peace Process. Ms. Miller, i know youve been involved in peace negotiations in bosnia, kosovo and macedonia. In general determines, what does a good peace negotiation look like . And what does a good agreement look like . It would have been my preference and my recommendation that the Peace Process should have included the Afghan Government, the u. S. And the taliban at the table simultaneously from the start. However, that was the format that the United States long tried to pursue. I was personally involved in trying to get peace efforts started that way, but it didnt work. The taliban refused. And its a sad fact that the taliban has leverage in this equation. As i said in my statement, it was a concession but i think an unfortunately necessary concession to split the peace talks into two separate tracks, a u. S. taliban track followed by an intraafghan track, as its now called. In thamerms of what a Peace Agreement could look like, the preliminary agreement between the u. S. And the taliban is only setting the stage for a potential Peace Agreement and a Peace Process. An actual Peace Agreement between the afghan parties is going to have to address a wide range of issues, including political arrangements for afghanistan, security arrangements for afghanistan, implementation measures, verification measure, and so it will be complex and take time to negotiate that. And frankly, the u. S. taliban agreement is only useful insofar as as you get to that second stage. It doesnt, as i said, bring peace to afghanistan nor is it necessary for the United States to negotiate with the taliban the terms of its withdrawal. If all the u. S. Wants to do is withdraw, it doesnt need to negotiate that with anyone. I would agree that counterterrorism assurances in that context are meaningless. Those only become meaningful if you have the second stage of a Peace Process and you are able to form a consolidated Afghan Government that brings the taliban into the political fabric. I would just add to that, you know, i think we have a little to be a little bit cautious in painting i have no disagreement with the negative characterizations on the whole of the taliban. But i think we need to be careful not to paint this in black and white terms of the there are plenty of nontaliban afghans, including some who are closely aligned with the Afghan Government, who also have very conservative viewpoints on social issues and, frankly, who have a past history of very close involvement with al qaeda. With al qaeda, i repeat. Its a very its a complicated picture that isnt just a pure black and white situation. I hope i answered your question. And in your past negotiations, are there any that are analogous to this current dynamic that we have in afghanistan that you can point to . I would say in general terms yes, but i dont think that theres a clear and obvious template for this. I have looked ive done research on a sort of comparative analysis of Peace Agreements and Peace Processes around the world compared to the situation in afghanistan and theres no one situation you can point to. Evening what you can say is one of the factors that makes peace making in afghanistan much more difficult than in other circumstances is that its a stalemate, that you dont have this isnt columbia where the government was overwhelmingly more powerful than the farc. This isnt a situation like bosnia where the outside powers that were backing the inside powers really had the say and decided they were going to go with a Peace Process and nato was able to apply overwhelming force to the situation. This is more complicated because its a stalemate and neither side has truly come to terms with their own ability to succeed or fail militarily. Indeed. Im out of time but i know theres not a long line behind me. Maybe ill have another chance in a few moments. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Phillips. President trump said the peace talks are dead. Do you believe theyre dead, ambassador . I believe theyre not dead and they shouldnt be dead. Ms. Miller, do you believe the president when he says the peace talks are dead . I believe that President Trump has shown remarkable agility in being able to change his positions rapidly and so i think its certainly theres a lot of opportunity here to resuscitate the Peace Process. It may take a little time and some facesaving in order to do it. Mr. Joscelyn, do you agree with the president that the peace talks are dead . I dont know. All i can say is that i know from the outset i think it was very clear the president has wanted a full withdrawal or something close to it and that was the framework for the entirety of the talks. I would say the fact that any of you or members of congress can answer that question presents a problem with the talks. We dont even know if theyre dead or not or if theyre there, so thats the status of it. Lets assume we go forward, whether theyre suspended, whether they begin anew at some time. Ambassador, i thought you brought a very important point forward. If thats going to happen and whatever term you want to use, lazarus appears and these are no longer dead, the importance of while these negotiations are going on being able to maintain a ceasefire i think is critical. What is your opinion . I would i would think its important to get to a ceasefire as quickly as possible, particularly given the Ongoing Campaign against afghan civilians being waged by the taliban as were talking about creating a Peace Process. Now, this is obviously leverage for the taliban. Theyre trying to use military force and terrorism to enhance their position. But as we go about resetting this, i would hope that there would be a serious effort to draw a clearer line between this discussion and the actual negotiation of peace that i think exists. You have a better understanding now of the agreement than we do because youve been briefed and we havent. We dont know if the agreement is alive. The agreement needs to be adjusted, i think, but the goal needs to be kept in mind that the agreement is really, as laurel said, the agreement is kind of a key to getting into a peace negotiation. My problem is its not clear that that key is going to work or that its strong enough. Heres another point. Mr. Joscelyn mentioned pakistan. I mean it seems like these factors may not be front and center in some of these negotiations. Without that kind of discussion, how inhibited is our ability to proceed . I think our ability is gravely inhibited. It has a key role to play here. Mr. Joscelyn. I would say you should look at the ambassadors personal twitter account and youll see he was forthright about pakistans role in harboring and sponsoring the ones directing the attacks in afghanistan and that is an issue that i think is not going to be solved. I would suggest one other thing. If we are going to reset or whatever might happen, words count when youre dealing diplomatically in negotiations. I personally think if you have any comments on this in this regard, instead of talking about a u. S. Withdrawal, we should be talking about afghan and the Afghan Government being able to negotiate our presence involved. It might sound like semantics but i dont think it is. Ambassador. I think thats a good point. I dont exclude at the endi of this process, which will take a lot longer than anybody would want. I dont exclude there would be an enduring presence in afghanistan, a much lower level that would be focused on a counterterrorism mission. Theres no reason as i hinted at in my statement, theres no reason to think that a future Afghan Government, even if constituted under a Peace Agreement, is going to have the capability on its own to deal with terrorism within afghanistan and the region. I only hope that any further negotiations have the tenacity of mr. Phillips. Hes still here and he wanted ill allow him to have the last few minutes to ask some more questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador cunningham, youve said that if theres going to be any negotiation between the taliban and the afghans, that the afghans will need a legitimate Political Authority to have that discussion. So perhaps you could apprise us as to the status of elections in afghanistan and what we, congress and the United States, can do to know strengthen and secure democratic elections . The status now, although another problem with the way these discussions have been conducted up to now, is that among other things it created a wide series of rumors within afghanistan about what the american attitude was toward elections and whether they would be held or not. That created a lot of uncertainty, obviously. Now it looks like they will be held. Theyre scheduled. The apparatus is in place. They will be flawed. I lived through the last elections, it was a most unpleasant experience. They will be flawed again. But they will be, i think, they will be successful in establishing, reestablishing legitimate Political Authority in afghanistan as a result of the exercise of the voting franchised by the Afghan People. One thing we do know about afghanistan is that afghans like to vote, even if its dangerous for them to do so. And i expect and hope that that will be the case again this time. I hope very much so that the Election Results will be clear enough that it wont lead to a series of protracted disputes, as it did the last time around. Is there anything that we or the International Community can and should be doing proactively to provide Political Support and economic support to the actual negotiations themselves . Messaging the afghan Political Class that they have a responsibility not to allow this to degenerate into a political conflict as it did before and providing encouragement for them that when they have a political outcome, that it will be supported by the United States and our partners. Okay, thank you. And then a final question for each of you. I asked this of the last panel. Ill repeat it. Dr. Ashley tells us that any attempt at reconciliation on a negotiated bargain centered on the formal exchange of obligations as opposed to the defection of insurgents would fail to deliver stability that the u. S. Seeks. On the subject of defection of insurgents, id love your thoughts respectively on strategies that we should be considering to inspire the defection of the insurgents that were battling. Anyone who wants to start. Ms. Miller . There have been a number of strategies that have been implemented over the years aimed at that, aimed at trying to split the taliban or encourage defections. They are all almost entirely failures. I do not expect that theres any strategy that can succeed in that. Theres a lot of talk about the fractures in the taliban, lack of cohesion within the taliban. A lot of that is, frankly, Wishful Thinking and propaganda. Yes, im not saying theyre an entirely monolithic organization, but lets face it, they have remained more unified and more cohesive than the other side has in this conflict. And they have been very careful to protect their cohesion, including through harsh measures of imposing ultimate sanctions on those who have sought to defect from the group because they have been cognizant of the fact that cohesion sufficient cohesion has been their comparative advantage. So theres no quiet defection strategy to resolving this conflict. Mr. Joscelyn . I have a very grim view of the answer to your question. I think i wrote last year that i think in terms of where this war is headed, weve already lost if you game it all out, especially with President Trumps commitment to withdrawing troops. I think that he basically i find it very hard to believe that theres going to be some turnaround now here militarily. My issue is that Going Forward, and i agree totally and have said this myself publicly. If youre going to withdraw troops, i have no reason to absolve the taliban on the way out the door on counterterrorism issues. It doesnt make any sense to me, especially when youre not getting any real Firm Commitments that theyre going to sit down with real talks with the Afghan Government or anything along those lines. But i dont think there is a turnaround strategy at this point. Theres no silver bullet, unfortunately. Ambassador . I agree, i dont think these theres a strategy of attrition or withdrawal that will work in any time frame that we would want to see, certainly. That attrition will take place over time, hopefully in the context of a political agreement that does establish protections and rights and obligations. There are serious issues that need to be addressed, like the status of the afghan constitution and the role of women and other things that we have been talking about that have education. All those things that have made todays afghanistan so different from what it was 18, 19, 20 years ago. Those things need to be built into a fabric that provides a solution. It cant be kind of left to drift along. That wont happen in my view. One final question, just a yes or no from each of you. Is it in your estimation, starting with you, mr. Ambassador, do you think that the taliban would be willing to agree to just about anything that would ultimately lead to the withdrawal of our troops, anticipating that we would be hesitant to ever return . Whether they would be willing to agree to almost anything, i doubt. But they certainly have an incentive to depending on, again, the crucial question what the timeline is. They want us out. Theyll be willing to do whats necessary to get us out. The question is will that be at the end of a Peace Agreement or before theres a Peace Agreement. One thing i think you can count on is that they wont have any compunction about taking advantage of a situation in which were not there and the afghans are weak. Ms. Miller . They have their red lines, and they you know, regardless of anything that President Trump or president obama said about desiring to get out of afghanistan, they know for a certainty that america will not be in afghanistan forever and they will. Well said. Mr. Joscelyn. I dont think theyd agree to do or say anything but the point of my testimony is if youre going to believe counterterrorism assurances, ive given you five Different Things to look for in terms of any sort of agreement in that regard. With Officials Saying that they believe in the talibans counterterrorism assurances, i say, okay, show me the following. Thank you all for being here for your testimony and counsel. Appreciate it. I yield back. Well, thank you. Thank you for being here. You know, this is extremely important issue. It doesnt receive perhaps the greatest public attention that it deserves. I echo the sentiments that some of my colleagues that we should have had better representation. Not that youre not great, but people who are directly involved in negotiations here informing us and the American Public what goes on. We should do that for the families and friends of loved ones that lost their lives both in the military side and civilian side in this long, long war. We should do that for the military and civilians and their families and loved ones that are currently there in that region. And as i conclude, i think of one story. When i was there a few years ago visiting our troops and getting briefed, i often asked our military, brave military soldiers, if theres anything i can ever do or we can do for you, let us know. And on this occasion, they asked us, yes, there is. Theres someone wed like you to meet and thank, and they took us to the marketplace. There we met a civilian from afghanistan. I wont mention even what province, although i suspect hes not alive at this point. But he had been risking his life providing information to our troops about why ieds were placed. Undoubtedly he was saving lives. They had asked us and myself to just go to this man and thank him. That it would mean a lot. And when i had that opportunity, i asked him why he was risking his life doing that. And at that point he went from behind him and pulled out his 8yearold son and he said because i would love him to have a chance in life. A chance he doesnt have under the current conditions. And i hope that this intervention, this action by america will give him that chance. So i hope that we do the most in these negotiations, as difficult as they are, not just for those who have sacrificed so much and continue to do for our country, but for those people as well. With that thought, i will call the hearing and adjourn. Thank you. Tonight on the communicators one of the nations top Telecom Market analysts, craig moffit on television, video, and media industries. Youll see the live tv model only survive for sports and news and that almost Everything Else will move toward ondemand models. The purveyors of content Live Entertainment content or streamed realtime entertainment is to young people a kind of an oxymoron to begin with. The idea there is a time of day for a particular show is sort of an odd concept for anything other than a sporting event. Tonight at 8 00 p. M. On cspan2. The student cam experience is really valuable to me. Student cam had a huge affect on our lives and has helped us grow and learn as people going into our college years. For past winners of cspans student cam video documentary competition, the experience sparked their interest in documentary production. I currently attend drake university, and thats in des moines, iowa. The fun part about that, i get to be right in the middle of the caucus season. Ive gotten to meet so many candidates. Because of cspan ive had the experience and the equipment and the knowledge to be able to actually film some of them. And this year were asking middle school and High School Students to create a short video documentary answering the question, what issue do you most want president ial candidates to address during the campaign . Include cspan video and reflect differing points of view. Were awarding 100,000 in total cash prizes including a 5,000 grand prize. Be passionate about what youre discussing to he can press your view no matter how large or small you think the you a yeaudience will receive it wi be. The greatest country in the history of the earth. Your view does matter. For more information to help you get started go to our website, studentcam. Org. The house will be in order. For 40 years cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. , and around the country so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979. Cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. And now the House Judiciary Committee holds an oversight hearing on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act known as fisa. The Committee Considers whether to renew several fisa provisions including the lone wolf provision set to expire at the end of the year. Representatives from the justice department, fbi and National Security agency talk about their agencys use of the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.