Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Foreign Affairs Hearing On U.S. Afghanistan Policy 20240713

The committee will come to order. Without objection, all members will have five days to submit statement, extraneous material for the record subject to the limitation and the rules. Ambassador wells, miss friedman, welcome. Welcome to members of the public and the press, as well. We are glad to have our friends from cspan with us today, as well. We meet this morning so the committee can conduct oversight of the Trump Administrations policy towards afghanistan and ill 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. We all want the fighting in afg to end, but Congress Needs to know when a potential deal looks like, members on both side need to have the chance to ask questions and offer views. In the last few weeks weve seen the afghan reconciliation proseses is go off the rails in a spectacular fashion. We learn trade president ial tweet that the administration was planning to host the taliban at camp david the same week that we marked the anniversary of 9 11. We learned that the president up ended that arrangement and we learned that the peace deal evidently is dead. If reporting is accurate, the president s desire to get the credit and look like a dealmaker got the better of him again and now months and months of diplomatic efforts seems to be thrown out the window. As a committee that oversees American Foreign policy, we understandably had a lot of questions about this diplomatic effort and the administrations refusal to provide us and the American People answers prompted me a week ago to subpoena our top negotiator and ambassador khalilzad to testify today. Just to be clear. I do not take subpoenas lightly and i would not have issued this one had we not sent three letters inviting him and asking secretary pompeo to send him. We simply couldnt wait any longer and after i issued that subpoena, i spoke with secretary pompeo at the state departments request. He offered to send in an official from state affairs to testify and khalilzad to brief myself and mr. Mccall in a classified setting. I said i would consider the accommodation, but only if the ambassador briefed every member of this committee, democrats and republicans in a classified setting, the same courtesy that was afforded to the members of the Senate Foreign relations committee, anything less than that was a nonstarter for me, and for mr. Mccall. Ill leave him to speak for himself, but we were eye to eye. We saw this just the same way. We were defending the integrity of the legislative process and the integrity of our committee. Last evening, the state department finally agreed to the compromise and i withdrew the subpoena on ambassador khalilzad. We just wrapped up that classified briefing and were going there to continue our examination of these issues with the officials before us. So lets take a step back. I know that the idea of negotiating with the taliban may seem important. Im from new york city and for myself and a lot of new yorkers who lived through 9 11 is a tough pill to swallow. Many brave americans who have lost at the hands of taliban fighters. Heres the reality after 18 years of war. The taliban still exists. We need, unfortunately, to deal with, and believe it or not theres common bound for starters. The taliban want our troops out of afghanistan and we want our troops home. Where do we go from there . In my view any viable deal needs to be built on three pillars. First the taliban must pledge that afghanistan will never be used again as a base to plan attack against the United States and our allies. We understand that the administration secured that commitment from the taliban in earlier negotiations. Secondly, the taliban must agree to separate from al qaeda. Something theyve indicated they would do and its violence against the Afghan People or government and lastly, the taliban and Afghan Government must engage in a good faith process that can lead to reconciliation among all afghans. This area still has a lot of Unanswered Questions and with the president declaring the deal dead its not clear where we go from here. The way i see it, we need to use whatever leverage we can to promote irntafghan dialogue and the president suggested piece would not be possible unless we had a ceasefire in place. Guess what . There was a ceasefire in june 2018 to celebrate aid and what did we do to seize on this opportunity . Nothing. Why . Because the administration has hollowed out the state department. Weve complained about this for a long time. The state Department Inspector general found the bureau of south and Central Asian affairs has, quote, lost both staff and expertise under the administration with experts on peace talks with the taliban and reconciliation. So what will the administration do to get a second bite at the apple and an opening for more dialogue. I would like to hear from the witnesses about that among many other issues because 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 daft rouse attempt at deal making, its American Security interest. We need to consider those options. We always said the women who have fought and died in this bar or those that lost their loved ones on 9 11, and they dont want it see the country entrenched in a war. First, illyearold to mccall of texas for any opening remarks he might have. I want to thank him for his coop raegz. We work together, and we think it will bring Great Results for the American People as well. Thank you for holding this important hearing. I want it thank ambassador khalid z khalilzad for briefing the members. I look forward to staying engaged with him. I do want to say for the benefit of the members of this committee the chairman and i stand that a unified in our commitment to the preserving the integrity of this committee. This is a second oldest committee in the congress dating back to the continental congress. We do have article one constitutional oversight responsibilities, and we do deserve that respect. We commemorated the attacks of 9 11 that took the lives of 3,000en on sent people. One of the most tragic days in american history. Counter terrorism and Homeland Security became our top priority. It was necessary to go on the offense militarily and attack the terrorist abroad. That tragedy included invading afghanistan, and destroying al qaeda. Since 2001 we have achieved many successes on the battlefield and through diplomacy. Specifically, we have decimated the leadership al qaeda. We captured Khalid Sheikh muhammad, killed Osama Bin Laden and most recently removed his son and rising leader hamza bin laden from the battlefield. Most importantly, we have not allowed afghanistan to be the stabling ground for another devastating attack on our homeland. Weve also helped to implement social reforms. Millions of afghanistan people have voted in democratic elections at all levels and afghan women who are not allowed to attend school or hold a job during the brutal reign of the taliban in the 1990s have made significant gains, and i was pleased to hear women were part of these negotiations. These accomplishments have not been without great sacrifices. 2300 americans have given their lives in this conflict including sergeant 1st class Jeremy Griffin who was killed in action in afghanistan just on monday. Over 20,000 more have been wounded. We must never forget their courage or the price we paid in both blood and treasure to protect our homeland or to build our future for afghanistan. Unfortunately, the taliban has made significant gains. Today, they control almost 50 of the country and have become increasingly violent, but after 15 years on 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 particularly on the week of 9 11. Perhaps the current suspension of talks will allow us to reevaluate our strategy. And this committee, mr. Chairman, i should say, have a place in the process. I support the administrations efforts to bring a diplomatic resolution to this conflict, but theres also real doubt that the taliban can act as legitimate partners for peace. By all accounts that al qaeda remain intact and further, the taliban is not a monolithic organization. To encourage and engage with the organizations central leadership overlooks local power brokers who do not always follow them. We also have to keep in mind many in the taliban have longstanding objects to a negotiated peace. They think our military will come home no matter what. I think more extremist factions are responsible for that attack just to end the peace negotiations and as ambassador crocker has assessed and ive visited with him many times in afghanistan when he said, quote, the taliban will offer any number of commitments knowing that when we were gone and the taliban is back, well have no means of enforcing any of them. We must also avoid the same mistake President Trump made in iraq by withdrawing all of our troops. For the purposes of preventing another 9 11style attack on our homeland, i personally believe that we should keep a residual force in place to focus Counter Terrorism intelligence and parter in for his training. I would also like to think Ambassador Wells and miss friedman for being here and this hearing comes at a critical time. As i can say, we did commend the prior ambassador and special envoy this morning for his commitment and his 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. Thank you, mr. Mccall. Ill introduce our witness e alice wells is the acting assistant secretary of state for South Central and asian affairs. Karen freeman is the assistant to the administrator and the office of afghanistan and Pakistan Affairs at the United States agency for international development. I again, thank you both for your service and for your testimony this morning. Without objection the witnesses prepared testimony will be made part of the record and i will now recognize the witnesses for five minutes each to summarize their testimony. Well start with Ambassador Wells. Good morning, chairman rangel and Ranking Member mccall and distinguished members of the committee. I will testify this morning on the Trump Administrations policy in afghanistan. Last yeweek we commemorated the anniversary of the september 11th 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 and partnership with our nato allies has been a success. Since 9 11, no terrorist group has used afghanistan to attack our shore, but the threat remains significant. Afghanistan remains a haven for terrorist organizations. Isis corason has made an attempt to inspire attacks in the u. S. And europe. It has the capacity and willingness to indiscriminately kill civilians who do not support their ideology. In april, russia and china joined us to call on the taliban to make good on its commitments to cut ties with International Terrorist groups to prevent terrorist recruiting, training and fund raising and to expel any known terrorists. While the United States remains committed to countering the threat of terrorism from afghanistan, the administration understands that the American People are ready to end this war responsibly. Military power alone will not bring peace to afghanistan or eliminate the threat of terrorists exploiting afghan soil. The a negotiated, political settlement accepted by most afghans ensure a durable peace and to enable afghans to focus on ridding their country of international terrorives. In the last 12 month, weve made significant progress toward this objective. The taliban engaged with talks with the taliban, including Afghan Government officials that an International Afghan in qatar in july. Khalilzad and his team consulted with the govern the of afghanistan and stake holeholde across the society and enlisted the help of pakistan, china the gulf and eu members and regional partners and consultations within the u. S. Government are continuing on the best way forward. As we foster the conditions for direct negotiations between the afghans, were rationalizing our risk and our exposure to ensure a sustainable, diplomatic assistance and military presence. Diplomatically, weve reduced the civilian presence from over 1100 personnel in 2011 to around 500 staff today, developmentally they have tapered our civilian assistance from over 4 billion in 2010 to about 480 million today. Our International Partners are now contributing threequarters of all development and humanitarian assistance to afghanistan. Militarily, weve reduced our presence from over 100,000 troops to less than 14,000 today. Nato is constantly evaluating the requirements of the 39 allies and partners in Resolute Support mission. Afghanistan is a different country than it was in 2001. Afghan troops are leading the fight against isis k and the taliban. Over 9 Million Students are enrolled in school, 39 of them girls. Onethird of the 4 million voters in the parliamentary elections were women. Afghan farmers are beginning to export highvalue crops and a nascent private sector is strengthening supply chains and building market linkages with india and central asia, but challenges remain. Over half the afghan population lives below the government line. Corruption and opium production and threaten sustainability. We will continue to hold the Afghan Government accountable for combat and corruption and we will adjust the assistance levels accordingly. Afghanistan is holding a president ial election on september 28th. Weve called for the Afghan Government and electoral institutions to ensure the election will be credible and transparents. We emphasize that all candidates are with the code of conduct pledging to respect the electoral process. Afghans have the right to vote without fear of intimidation with attack and violence and the taliban statements threatening election workers and voters are naked intimidation. We offer our strong support to the Afghan Security forces who are in charge of electoral security and sacrifice their lives on a daily basis. Even as afghanistan goes to the polls, afghans cannot pause their efforts to advance peace. Every afghan must be invested in a political process that brings security and reconciliation after 40ers y years of violence. For too long the taliban have taken comfort in their conviction that our engagement is unsustainable. Our friends and adversaries should understand our interest in protecting american citizens is enduring as we advance a way toward peace, development and security in afghanistan. Thank you. Thank you, Ambassador Wells. Miss friedman . Chairman engle, Ranking Member mccall and members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the role of usaid in supporting u. S. Interests in afghanistan. Since may of this year, development and humanitarian partners have sustained three separate attacks by the taliban that resulted in loss of life and injury of staff. These are senseless attacks on people who have dedicated their lives to improving afghanistans future. Usaid extends our condolences to the families of the deceased and we hope for a fast recovery to those who have been wounded and we echo secretary pompeos call for the taliban to stop attacking civilians. This weeks attack by the taliban on Energy Infrastructure in the bagram province cut electricity to 12 afghan provinces including power to kabuls industrial parks. We are glad to hear this morning that power is being restored and were happy to note that the usaid constructed the power plant is providing immediate backup supply of energy as intended for critical uses including hospitals and the kabul airport. This morning theres also news of an attack that damaged a hospital. Attacks on civilians as well as projects that facilitate and advance the economy and the standards of living for the Afghan People must stop. Earlier this year, the u. S. Embassy in kabul led a review of all civilian assistance which directed departments and agencies to focus on three objectives. Supporting the afghan Peace Process and promoting stabilization of the afghan state and assisting afghanistans transition to selfreliance to create conditions for a political process. Usaids strategy aligns with and supports these objectives by accelerating private sector led Economic Growth and advancing 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 of afghanistan to take the lead in the countrys own future and make the Development Gains sustainable. Just a few weeks ago i joined my usaid colleagues in kabul to close the formal review of u. S. Government civilian assistance to afghanistan. We unequivocally stressed to the minister of finance that transparent, effective and citizen response of Government Systems are essential to achieving private sector growth and attracting investment. The u. S. Government continues to convey to all afghans that their countrys relationship with the International Community will depend heavily upon the inclusivity of any potential settlement which must preserve the rights and dignity of women. We also expect the upcoming president ial elections scheduled for september 28th to be transparent and credible. The Afghan Government must recommit and redouble its efforts to enhance transparency and increase citizen responsiveness and reduce the corruption that weakens the afghan citizens faith in democratic and civilian government. Over the past 18 years u. S. Funded gains have been significant. In the Energy Sector more than 30 of afghans now have access to the power grid. More importantly, usaid is working with the afghan utility to improve its Management Systems and ability to collect revenue. This assistance has helped to double revenue collection and increase its Customer Base by 73 in just a few years. In health, usaid is working with the Afghan Ministry of Public Health to increase access to private health care and ensure sustainability through the development of effective public, private partnerships. In the education sector, not only have usaid programs supported millions of students, but women will have opportunities s. T. E. M. Fields such as result of a usaid partnership with texas a m university. Afghanistan is a dirpt place than it was in 2001 and as people are capable of more as it achieves Good Governance and transparence, usaid is prepared to support emerging needs and opportunities that could arise from a political settlement. The trajectory of afghanistan remains clear. Civilian assistance helps create the Economic Conditions necessary for peace and Self Reliance by focusing on longterm, broadbased development to reduce violence and stimulate a peace settlement to end the conflict with the taliban. Thank you for your attention and thank you for inviting me here today. I welcome your questions. Thank you very much. Let me ask both of you this question. You both mentioned these remarks, three calibration efforts of u. S. Assistance to afghanistan moving forward. Could each of you please explain what drove the department to propose the significant cuts to our assistance and how such a cut would support interafrican peace and reconciliation . Thank you, sir. We were trying to ensure that the level of assistance that we were providing for afghanistan was sustainable, was structured in a way that encourages the rise of the private sector and that it elicits better government performance so that the government increasingly has the capacity and the ability to assume all functions of a sovereign state. At the same time ensure that our investment in afghanistan reflects the level of investment give know global threats. Obviously, theres been a lot thats changed since nech and afghanistan is not the only country in which we face a terrorist threat and so we wanted to be able to signal through the embassy posture and the aid restructuring that we are committed to the longterm development of afghanistan, but not overcommitted to the point that we have an unreasonable or counterproductive level of nation building. Miss friedman . Thank you for the question. As always, best practice and usaid reviews its presence worldwide and 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 responsibly, revise the portfolio based on Lessons Learned and input from the various stakeholders. So during the recent embassyled assistance review we sought to further consolidate the portfolio while ensuring its ability to manage and provide proper oversight over taxpayers resources and our ability to implement the program. We took into account the interests and the feedback from our congressional committees and from the administrations priorities to support the afghan Peace Process to preserve the stabilization of the 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 the consolidation should look like and took that all in as recently as a couple of months ago, and have honed down and consolidated the portfolio to mesh with the with the appropriate number of staff. Thank you. Thank you. The u. N. Assistance mission to afghanistan found that the nato and Afghan Security forces were responsible for more civilian casualties than the taliban in the First Six Months of 2019. What accounts for the increase of civilian casualties at the hands of nato and progovernment forces. Have there been any significant changes and the rules of engagement. Is that the reason . And how has this impacted afghans view of the Security Forces. Ambassador . Coalition forces and Coalition Forces do Everything Possible to try to avoid civilian casualties and implement the highest levels of accountability on and i would contrast this, sir, what is the focus on the attack against the hospital and all of which have just happened this week. I think statistically, the taliban, over time, have been the largest contributors to civilian casuallies. The statistics that we saw which we dont necessarily agree with the methodology are an abhoration and the attempt of the u. S. Forces and Afghan Forces is very different from the intent of the terrorists who are literally terrorizing the afghan civilian population. Thank you. Miss freeman, do you agree . I would say that, achltd wells. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mccall. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The taliban post hosted and protected al qaeda pre9 11 on 9 11 so theres a healthy amount of skepticism about cutting a deal with the taliban. I remember visiting with ambassador crocker in kabul when this idea was launched and our military. I guess the question is what other alternative do we have when they occupy and own 50 of afghanistan. I suppose ambassador, that is a necessary step or is there any other alternative to that . The peace Framework Agreement that was negotiated by the u. S. Government in discussions with the taliban is very much a conditionsbased approach. The taliban are focused on securing the removal of u. S. And International Forces from afg g afghanistan. They understand from nine rounds of negotiations that that can only come about if they are committed to working to ensure that afghanistan cannot be a platform for international terrorism. Im glad to hear thats condition based and not a time line. Would that also could that include the complete withdrawal of u. S. Forces . I cant speak to what ultimately a Peace Agreement will look like. As you know for now the process is suspended, but certainly the discussion was very much about the interrelationship of troops and International Forces and the ability of the taliban to ensure that not only were the no International Terrorist ashls ad to soil and no recruiting, fundraising and tolerance of sanctuary and any kecconnection whatsoever. And it would snap back, if you will. Correct. I always think given our history lessons from iraq and im glad the president decided to residual force in syria and we should have it, if only to protect the homeland about 11. Let me ask you about isis and the corzine group. When i was head of security in 20152016, pretty terrifying briefings. External operations and the corzine group always was one of the most active groups out there and the notion is that the taliban is going to work with isis and the cor ziep grouzine. How accurate is that information . . They devote resources significant, manpower resources to combat the taliban or to combat isis corzine. I think one of the reasons we put such an emphasis, and isis has taken advantage of the fact of the insurgency and the war going on in afghanistan to exploit territory despite what had been very fierce efforts by Resolute Support mission and others to target them. We see a resilience and an enduring presence in nandahar to eliminate their presence entirely. And the taliban would be more willing to partner with the Afghan Government than they would with isis . We would assume a Peace Agreement would unify pull out a unified government that would reflect the will of all of the Afghan People and that would allow a concentrated effort against what will be remnant terrorist forces and not just corazon, and theres a vegetable soup of militant organizations that have some presence in afghanistan. I commend the state on what is a very difficult negotiation. We all understand the drill here. The taliban are not very nice people, but sometimes, you know, you have to deal with the world the way it is, and theres not a whole 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 not result in the taliban eventually overthrowing the Afghan Government and then we have a talibancontrolled afghanistan . What animates all of our diplomacy is the president and the secretarys absolute commitment to the security of the American People and 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 and let me put it this way. The taliban say they want to be a legitimate part of the International Community. They argue that they want to attract, foreign and direct investment. They say theyve learned lessons from the isolation that afghanistan experienced under taliban rule in the late 1990s and early 2000s. For any Afghan Government that includes the taliban to have those relationships and to attract that foreign, direct investment, its going to have to be a government that upholds standards and values that the International Community has been working to instill over the last 18 years. So i think that theres a substantial amount of leverage that the International Community will continue to have in the form of assistance, monies and how we engage. I think thats correct. The problem with the taliban, they live in the mountains and the desert and we have the kabul and theres an inherent potential conflict and thats a challenge the state department has. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Sherman . Ambassador wells, welcome back. We look forward to seeing you again next month at the asia subcommittee for our hearings on human rights in south asia, and of course, theres considerable interest in my district and a number of others on events in kashmir. It occurs to me that its unlikely that well have a peaceful and prosperous afghanistan unless pakistan wants to see a peaceful and prosperous afghanistan. The border between pakistan and afghanistan is the line and no government of afghanistan has ever accepted that and all and including the taliban and the government seem to have taken the position that a huge chunk of pakistan should actually be part of afghanistan. It seems unlikely that pakistan is going to be rooting for a peaceful and prosperous afghanistan if the government is actively claiming a big chunk of pakistani territory. First, does the United States accept as in violent the direct line between pakistan and india or pakistan and afghanistan . We do recognize the dur and line is the boundary between afghanistan and pakistan. And is there any prospect that we can persuade this Afghan Government to not permanently affect the line to not use violence in an effort to change that border. A great deal of diplomatic effort has gone to increase afghanistan and pakistan. Yesterday we were very pleased to see Prime Minister khan open up the border for 24 7 trade. Its going to be these practical steps on. I do think we can work toward practical and tactical step, but i hope we are also dealing with this festering problem. As long as those claims are made and at some future point india and afghanistan can agree that pakistan should be well, ill move on to the next question. Were supposed to have had a deal and then the tweet came down and we rejected the deal and at least put the deal, and i believe negotiations are frozen. Since the deal seemed to envision a camp david visit on 9 11, there might be reasons, but im trying to understand why this deal has not been effectuated and the reason given by the president is that there was one instance in which one american soldier was killed and at the same time, secretary pompeo has said during this same period of time we have engaged in successful military operations that have killed over 1,000 taliban fighters. Did we really have a deal with the taliban that during that they wouldnt attack us, but that we would attack them and their violation of that deal is why we didnt go forward with the agreement . Both the president and the secretary haveec intoen to this. Basically, what we saw, the taliban actions that we saw in the days leading up to a potential agreement on a political framework were inconsistent with the nine rounds of the negotiations that we held with them and we saw the taliban attempting to use violence as a form of intimidation and they took actions that was inconsistent and there would be a redugz in filence. I think forcing down is a violent, and we have recruiting and fundraising by terrorist organizations in the United States where we have an fbi office in every major city. What verification system would we have on the ground in talibancontrolled areas to see that there wasnt a terrorist presence, wasnt terrorist recruiting and wasnt terrorist fundraising . Again, im not going to be able to speak to the specifics of what was being negotiated, but very much this was a conditionsbased approach and the built into the discussions that khalilzad had. Are you aware of any verification system that we had at all or was it trust and dont bother to verify . This was very much about being able to verify and have confidence that the taliban had taken the steps theyd undertaken to implement. But youre not aware of any verification systems . . Im not in a position to discuss the details of what was being discussed. Thank you. Mr. Yoho. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i have an Opening Statement that id like to submit for the record. Without objection. Ambassador wells and miss freeman, thank you for being here. There are a generation of americans that have grown up and actually, theyre approaching 20 years of age and they werent around when 9 11 happened and weve been at this conflict, this war for 19 years and we know the expense and the lost lives that can never be replaced and the person that brings a peace deal to this conflict will win the nobel peace prize, and i appreciate the work youve done. Ive got two concerns and work and the progress that has been made with the electric grid and the education thats going on and the economy, women going to school and being allowed to go to school to lose that, in your opinion, do you see if the taliban gets if we pull out and negotiate with the taliban, are they going to continue that or go back to where they were with sharia law . Snot taliban have said that they learned from some of the mistakes they made in the past, but the afghanistan that they are going to the afghans theyll sit across the table from on any negotiation are africans that have come up with whether its women, whether its minorities and afghans consistently in polls indicate that they dont want to give up the social and political gaups. . Will that ha there are two points. They are under pressure to open girls schools. In the most conservative areas there are no schools and that could be true in governmentcontrolled areas, as well, but there is a demand consistently among afghans for their daughters now to be educated and thats a new reality. Are those people at the table that are demanding that . They will be. I mean, the afghan negotiators will sit down across from the taliban. Will be bringing these demand, im sure, to the table. Im hoping as this winds down that its understood that radical, islamic terrorism is not accepted anywhere in the world especially when they come to attacks with america it will be met with severe ranges and we wanted to bring attention to the chinese growing influence in afghanistan with the belt Road Initiative and just recently in reuters, the 16th of this month, china signals veto standoff with the u. S. Over afghanistan because their feelings were hurt because it wasnt brought up. Has the chinese been there influencing any of this or are they preventing a settlement . The chinese have worked with ambassador khalilzad as have other regional countries including russia and the immediate neighbors on their way forward with peace and theres constructive behavior with china on how to prosecute peace and i think its fair to say that china has not contributed to the Economic Development of afghanistan and weve not seen any substantial assistance from china. The road is a slogan and its not any reality and of course, we continue to warn our partners and we would certainly warn the Afghan Government about falling prey to predatory loans or loans that are designed to benefit only the chinese we know the way the chinese work, with the corruption theyll fall right into them. Its an easy road for them, if they havent contributed, they should not have a say on this, because weve seen the effect on what china has done. With what youre doing with usaid and doing the work and youre in a tough neighborhood and making the gains youre doing, i appreciate that. With the rollout of the act in o establish, identify significant infrastructure developments that we can go in and we can go in as a trusted partner, that we are going to do something that is best for the Afghan People, to build their economy, so that we can develop the jobs for them, so that we have trading going on. Do you have any thoughts on that . Where we can look at. Thank, you sir. First of all, let me just echo some of the ambassadors thoughts on Going Forward. I think its important to note that over the last 18 years, the change in afghanistan has been so great in terms of the laws, education, the development of a very active and a very vocal private sector. The increases in trade, the strengthening of Civil Society, and its created a reflective demand in areas that can see whats happened. In terms of infrastructure, we continue to worked with the government of afghanistan, to strengthen their ability to develop the infrastructure, and i think what you will be seeing in the core of the usaid program there is to involve the government with the private sector. I critical point is that we dont want to leave or abandoned afghanistan at all. What we want is to have a sustainable, Enduring Partnership with afghanistan. Currently, with this Afghan Government, we have a bilateral security arrangement, 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 Private sector and the american to continue, a provision of support, we provide about 80 of support for the security sector, its absolutely essential, i think we have to build confidence in afghans as they sit down at the 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 what we would 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 as a nation state. And through doing this kind of organization, through engaging the Afghan Government and the taliban, 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 think the chair for hosting todays hearing. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Cicilline . Ambassador, what is the current state of the relationship between the taliban and alqaeda, and what, if anything, did the taliban agreed to with respect that relationship in this framework, if they did . The taliban have never repudiated their relationship with al canada, and thats the fundamental crux of the issue, and what has it been said publicly about the conversations and negotiations that took place with the taliban is that in this conditions based framework, we were looking to the taliban to cut off all sanctuary, the ability of any alqaeda members to reside their, to recruit their, to fundraise their, to operate. It was a complete commitment to eliminate ties and presence in alqaeda. With respect to terrorism broadly, 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 in the details of what was negotiated. I was not part of the negotiating team. But what animates the approach of the administration is that we, the Peace Agreement must be found it on the principle that American Security is not in peril. That we continue to ensure that afghanistan, not become a platform, that we have confidence that afghanistan is not going to become a platform. So i can assure you that these concerns are at the top of the negotiating agenda, as was evidenced over the last nine rounds of talks. Ambassador wells, 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 ensuring that the taliban meets its obligations . Whats the enforcement mechanism, how do we avoid going back to the situation where the commitment, it doesnt happen, and we are back again to some suggestion that we need to increase military engagement in a place weve been for 18 years . Again i cant really judge what Peace Agreement should do, but i will say the secretarys comments on, this we have a very powerful and capable power in our military and we can protect our interest. My question really is what mechanisms do we have to ensure that the taliban comes with this i cant prejudged what will come out of me and what will be finally negotiated in a political Framework Agreement . Do you think its important that the agreement be ridge between the Afghan Government and the taliban prior to any decision on withdrawal by the u. S. Military personnel and god or the risks if our troop withdrawal proceeds that or proceeds even a country wide cease fire . All i can say is that publicly we have underscored the expectation that an inter afghan dialog will be undertaken in good faith and quickly. And finally how should the United States and our International Partners in force any taliban commitments on human rights, of course critically with respect to progress for minority women and girls, what is your view on how we can most effectively enforce commitments that are made and what is the role of the partners, i think this is an area of deep concern. I think it is very important that donors us speak with one voice about the importance we attach to the values enshrined in the constitution, particularly respect for the rights of women and girls and education to work outside the home and protection for minorities, again today in london and there will be a meeting of donors, where one of the central goals is to underscore this common commitment that we have so if the taliban wants to be, for a government that includes the taliban wants to be a legitimate member of the International Community that will be the expectation of the International Community. Are there are women engaged in the actual negotiations underway, at the negotiating table, in addition to issues related to women and girls by women are participating in this process . At the inter afghan and talks that took place in doha, 25 of the non taliban percent were women, president ghani has given a public assurances that he is hesitant to have afghan women on a path afghan negotiating team, afghan women are certainly critical audience for us as we engage with stakeholders across afghanistan into both explain our approach and you understand our concerns. Thank you i yield back mister chairman. Thank you very much, mr. Perry. Thank you mister chairman, i thank you for your attendance today, it seems to me that the enemies are now leaving anytime soon whether it is alqaeda, basis, tell abandon elements, they are oh either operating, increasing operations or waiting to fill the vacuum and we dont want to abandon the Afghan People or our very significant investment in the stability and peace of afghanistan, that having been said, i just wonder, i think you said that we are providing 80 , is that right 80 of the strong support, the strong support role for Afghan Security forces . Thats right at 25 of economic and humanitarian human systems. As i based on that it seems that, when will they be able to sustain themselves . I think, look americans are rightly weary of the treasure of both on and economically that afghanistan costs our country, i would say a lot of peoples minds marginal resolves for so long and we are trying to figure out as Many American citizens, how much longer will it be . And it almost seems like, i know they are trying to develop capability but they have an incentive to not develop capability as long as we are willing to be there at 80 and it has to come down and they are going to have to take on more of the rules and some of the neighbors in the area that have a vested interest in afghanistan safety and security have to take a bigger role. Will the Afghan Government as far as you know allow america to be seeing as part of any negotiated deal it settlement that has a definition of activity and forces instrument support of Security Forces in the long, haul will they allow us to stay in some regard . We cant know or predict what is going to come out of a negotiation between afghans and the taliban. Im talking about the Afghan Government and the United States negotiations between the United States, i know the taliban doesnt want us there that is part of the problem. With the Afghan Government we have a bilateral security engagement, we rely on afghanistan we have a military presence in afghanistan bases and our support for the Afghan Government is premise john afghanistans sovereignty but i agree sir, the president and the secretary have spoken forcefully about the 30 billion a year we spend on maintaining the operations in afghanistan so we are looking to produce those numbers by trying to rationalize our president s and our approach to the battle in afghanistan. We have actively and successfully increase the amount ofq[z sharing by our dons and the economic section that is. I dont mean to interrupt, i just want to make sure that we considered gia pena interments offered nations but we are afforded bases in the country for a long, term it means that afghanistan should be in the same position but they should be able to secure their own country and sovereign nation and not depend on 80 , and 80 solution is set from the United States in that regard. Because of the neighborhood that afghanistan resides and, i have been to kabul it looks indefensible to me as a military guy and i wonder if you can assess if we are going to remain in afghanistan for americas interests, even if it may not be for the sake of the Security Forces of afghanistan and supporting them at 80 were anything close to that, but we will remain for our own National Interest and National Security so we can operate in afghanistan as necessary when alqaeda, isis, whoever pops their head up, what is the best defensible position geographically that we can also sustain and understands that pakistan has on one side, you got iran around the southern and western side, is it to jack is dead, is it on the border with uzbekistan, if we are going to remain there indefinitely like we have in germany in japan for our own National Security, what is the best geographical location in your assessment to do that . We are not looking for permanency in afghanistan and to the contrary we would like 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 enemy will remain as you know, so certainly we would welcome the opportunity to have a counterterrorism relationship with whatever government emerges in afghanistan, i cant predict or conclude what will be the case at the end of a negotiation but 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 impression up with us but sustainable afghanistan and afghans government that can support its own Economic Development and Security Forces would look very different. My time has expired, a year old. Thank you mr. Perry, missed titus. Thank you mister chairman, i was just kind of surprised to say the belgian road it is a slogan not a reality, we have been hearing a lot of infrastructure problems across africa, with sri lanka to lima, i think it is more than a slogan, second i appreciate mr. Seasonally may bring up the point about women, i dont think i share your optimism that we can address the taliban to negotiate with the Afghan Government in good faith that protect the gates that have been made by women over the last 18 years because they are really not at the table and they are not part of the negotiating process. But what i want to ask you about is something we havent talked about and that is the opioid poppy trade, on 863 million a dollars last year afghanistan was the Largest Global producer and accounts for 82 of the worlds production and we know how many lives have been lost as a result of being addicted to heroin, afghanistan production has reached record high except for a small a dip because of the drought and all of our efforts there have been unsuccessful, especially the Inspector General found that the alternative Development Programs were too short, they didnt bring about lasting reductions and sometimes they contributed to increased productions and the gop ended up military Counter Narcotics Campaign and that failed to yield results, can you talk about how this played it to the negotiation, what our efforts are now and what they plan to, be and was poppy cultivation part of the conversation at all and why was this so unsuccessful . Quickly just to clarify, this is very real and the chinese simply havent put money and they have tried to lock down lucrative mining contrasts, but we share your concern about poppy and how it has criminalize the economy and the expanding role of opioid production undermining governance and transparency fundamentally though i think an issue though is tied to security, 80 to 85 of opioids in afghanistan or produced in a place that is controlled uncontested by detail about, that is been what has prevented the much more sustainable approaches to eliminating the production as well as the crops and are more valuable than opium and where weve had some success is in establishing some of these structures, the laws, the regulatory structures, the special police units whether it is under the counter narcotics and sensitive Investigation Unit and they are doing real seizures but this is in a context of something that really fundamentally has to come out of security environment that we dont have right now. Was this part of the negotiation with the taliban, this is their main source of revenue, are we just gonna turn a blind eye to it . I cant speak to what was said during the course of the negotiations, the taliban have been very public about saying and pointing to their past record of eliminating production. We know that is not true. For conflicts reasons, immediately right before their downfall they did issue a fatwa against production and effectively reduced opioid production in the areas they controlled and we would welcome the taliban issuing a fatwa today say that. Which they have not done, so this is all very cynical but i dont want to suggest that it is only a taliban of problems, drug money in afghanistan is everywhere, it permeates everywhere, it criminalizes the broader economy it is a distorting factor in afghanistans ability to develop as a selfsustaining nation. Do 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 usa id has sought to do is improve markets and access, look at value chains and try to extend from out into the rule areas an ability to produce legitimate crops and get those it in a timely fashion. Has that been successful . It has been very successful. Whether it is drying away from the opioid trade i dont know, but in terms of improving livelihoods and incomes yes. Thank you. Mr. Lieu. Thank you Ambassador Wells for being here, none of my comments and questions are a man in any way to criticize you are dedicated and lengthy public service, we have had bipartisan failure in afghanistan for over 18 years across administrations, the trump V Administration is continuing that failure, i understand that you are simply executing the orders of a president but i do want to get some facts out here to the American People, miss well so approximately how Many Service Members and civilians have died in the afghan war . About 2400. And before it was 4000, is that correct . I dont have that statistic. But how many u. S. Service members have been wounded in the war . 26 thousands are. Correct so over 20,000 at least, how many u. S. Troops are currently in afghanistan . Around 14,000. And in 2016 before donald trump took office, how many troops were in afghanistan . 8600 or 8400. So donald trump ran on a campaign of getting u. S. Out of any wars, getting out of dumb wars in the middle east, and he had failed to deliver on that, promise in fact he has increased troops in afghanistan by approximately 70 , do you know the cost of how much the u. S. Has spent in afghanistan swells . I dont have an exact figure, we havent been able to produce an exact figure, we talk about 30 billion a year total in afghanistan. Thank you so according to the washington posted has been over one trillion dollars, and the troop increase adds to one trillion and 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 we are 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 terrorist recruiting that much easier, so i want to ask you about the article that came out today, documenting that yesterday a u. S. Drone strike in afghanistan killed at least 30 civilian and farmers, are you aware of that drone strike . I have seen press reports that an afghanistan strike may have produced civilian casualties, that is being investigated and looked into, if true it would be very tragic and i would now that again the civilian attacks or civilian casualties are made, happen more easily because of the fact that isis in taliban ambrose themselves in the population and 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 . I dont know if the report you are mentioning is a drone attack, they suggest that this was something that, i dont know the details of the incident and i dont wanna comment on it. When i served and active duty, one of the things that 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 it is a disproportionate use of force, so if you were to think that there may be one or two terrorists there and you end up killing 30 civilians you cant launch that strike either, so i look forward to the administration providing information as to in fact the strike killed the civilians and what the purpose was and how does this happen when we have complete air superiority and our air assets cannot linger over targets for a fair amount of time, all of this does bring me to how do we now conclude our failure in afghanistan, so one is the next meeting that the administration is going to have with the taliban, has that been scheduled . Now the talks are opposed at this stage. So we now had over 4000 members killed in afghanistan by your estimate 26,000 wounded, over one trillion dollars spent on this war, we are in a still meet and the administration has now zero strategy, zero scheduled talks, now ability to get us out of this, it is time to bring our troops home, i yield back. Thank you, is miss wild here . I have questions for each of, you i only have five minutes i will be a quick and ask that you be circumspect in your answers, miss friedman to start, to the United States is investing in enormous amount of human life, money and time in the conflict and attempting Peace Process in afghanistan as we all now, since 2000 intos congress has appropriated more than 132 billion dollars in aid for afghanistan, more than 2000 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 womens rights is not lost if we withdraw from the country and i asked 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 we have made in afghanistan will be maintained long term . Thank you, i think that the most succinct answer is that the programming of sustainability and working on a systems which i was trying to highlight in my own testimony, its not a matter of just the number of students but it is the infrastructure that is built, that infrastructure may be physical or institutional and strengthening the systems and i think that 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 area that i would point to in terms of sustainability is the, the development of stronger voices enough candidates tend to sustain themselves Going Forward, the voices of women, and the voices of the private sector and educators that will Carry Forward through time in terms of their expectations. Thank you i am deeply concerned and i appreciate your response, i think it is a good one but i hope we dont negate the progress that we have helped build in that country and the sacrifices, particularly that our troops have made by pulling out with a plan in place and sustained lasting peace, i would like to return it to Ambassador Wells and my question to you is this, we know that in july 2018 an unprecedented move the Trump Administration entered into direct highlevel negotiations with the taliban and without afghan representatives and in doing so the administration reversed longstanding u. S. Position that any Peace Process would have to be afghanowned an afghan led and this harkens back to the questions and i was asking miss freeman, from close to a year they held continuous meetings with taliban representatives and im not gonna go through what happened on september 11th because some of my colleagues have and we all know, but we know also that for decades the taliban carried out violence against women and egregiously violated womens rights, afghanistan is ranked the worst place in the world to be a woman, 87 of their women are illiterate and 70 to 80 are in forced marriages and 90 have experienced domestic abuse, so our president loves to refer to himself as a great negotiator and deal maker but we havent seen any successful deals on behalf of the American People yet, i am wondering, my question to you is this when the Trump Administration engages and high level talks, for almost a year with the taliban and without the Afghan Government, how do we expect these negotiations to alternately be successful and bring long term peace . Congresswoman i think it is a mess characteristic characterization, we have been in constant engagement with afghanistan and we are working in parallel tracks that we have discussed issues of the taliban and we were discussing the same issues with the Afghan Government and coming up with an agreed upon approach and ambassador bass is there every, day general mueller is there every day and that the ambassador has spent more weeks there and i can calculate, so we are very committed because the outcome of this and national set of conversations was to get to the inter afghan dialog, negotiation, wants to get the afghans to sit down at the table which the taliban has refused to do and we started to see that break down with the afghan conversation that happened in july, so this is not about ignoring the government and to the contrary who is creating the preconditions that would allow afghans finally to sit down and begin to find the appropriate compromises to move forward to a unified government in peace. Thank you, my time is up i hope we do not lose the progress that is made by excluding imported parties. Thank you mister while, mr. Burchett. Think you chairman thank you for allowing me to speak, giving that the pakistani inner Service Intelligence has long given support to the taliban, is there a role that pakistan must play in negotiations with the taliban and if so, what Prime Minister can have trouble getting the Pakistani Military to help . Pakistan does have an Important Role in ensuring negotiations take place and are successful, we have seen constructive supported by pakistan and helping to ensure that there was an authoritative negotiating, Team Pakistan released him from prison where they were holding ham and he then took over leadership of the taliban negotiating group, we are working closely with pakistan and ambassador holy olds consultations include and are based on the expectation that pakistan will provide this support, from minister cohen has publicly banned forward leaning in his support for peace in afghanistan and we appreciate the steps that he has taken and members of his government have taken to improve relations with afghanistan, because pakistan relations will be critical to sustainable peace, but this is an area where we will continue to have expectations and asks of pakistan. Thank you pan. And the 90s the taliban i believe they said that bin laden and alqaeda were not a threat to the u. S. ,. Through verification, through means that our security is not being eroded as a result of a Peace Agreement. So its not really trust for verified . Yes maam, thank you. Given all the uncertainty with the taliban negotiations. The afghan president ial election should still be held or postpone . The afghan elections are being proceeded, we have long argued that the government of afghanistan and the electoral bodies need to do everything they can to it sure that they are transparent to the Afghan People, the United States have provided support through funding of the un mission in afghanistan and we have also provided Technical Assistance and developing protocols i think certain steps have been taken that could improve some of the technical aspects of the election this time around including the Polling Center based registration list that 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 afghan electoral institutions are going to have to respond to afghan concerns of misuse of government uses and other efforts to elections. What are some ways to incentivize the direct talks . I think that both sides have an interesting piece and whats remarkable is in spite the incredible violence and indiscriminate violence against civilians that have been inflicted by the taliban, the Afghan People remain committed to try and find a way forward and remain committed to a peace negotiation because as long as afghanistan is racked by violence you cant get them to create one that is normal and sustaining, the taliban and their interests, as i said before are motivated by a desire to be seen as legitimate and to be able to engage in a way that they have not with the International Community and to participate in a functioning government and in a country that is economically more prosperous. Thank you, thank you. Miss spanberger. Thank you to the chair and our witnesses today, Ambassador Wells i would like to start for a question for, you after a military involvement in afghanistan and the country stands and a bloody stalemate and thousands have lost their lives, talks with the taliban broken down and the American Public is more weary as reconciliation and security efforts and nancy i am particularly concerned that afghanistan will again be used by International Terrorist groups like alqaeda to lodge and plan attacks on the United States or our allies, as youve already discussed if the previous rounds of talks had continued as planned the taliban was going to agree and preventing terrorist groups to plan and launch attacks, it is not clear that the taliban would follow through on this pledge or even have the ability to rein in the numerous terrorist organizations, they have made and failed to keep similar pledges before but my question is what do you see as a realistic path forward to ensuring that afghanistan is not right for a terrorist groups to plan and launch attacks and how can we proceed with and forcing any agreement relating to that type of promised . Again i would say, i think it is a bit of a mischaracterization and it is a bloody stalemate, we have a situation that the afghan is doing overwhelming majority of the fighting, the taliban dont control on capitals, they are not in control of the capital or the people and we have a situation where we have succeeded in ensuring that afghanistan has not been used as a platform against us again so the baseline goal and the reason that we went into afghanistan, americans, americas security is going to have to be the four most objective and the president has spoken to that, the secretary has spoken to that and that is why any Peace Agreement needs to be conditions based, i cant give specifics now and i would leave it to further briefings, if and when peace negotiation resumes but i think the Afghan People and the tall above and we agree that this is not a conflict that will 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. How much do you think that the fact that afghanistan hasnt been used as a platform to launch additional attacks against our u. S. Interests outside of afghanistan, how much do you think that is results of the presence of our forces, my question being specifically, if we were to move towards removing u. S. Forces how many does that significantly change the dynamic then the ability that you just discussed. In the context of an active war against the time about, the presence of forces has been critical. Okay so in the 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 negotiations or potential successes for the type of enforcement that would allow us to ensure that afghanistan cannot devolve into a place where terrorist networks are able to find safe haven again and potentially plot against the United States . I think as had been said publicly and a condition based agreement, what the taliban want is a mobile forces and to be able to achieve our mobile forces that would have to be confidence on our part that the undertakings are being upholds by the taliban and its members, i cant about what may or may not come out of a future agreement and what specific measures will be included but i would go back to the basic point, the United States has the most capable and powerful military in the world and we are committed to protecting our military interests and we are protecting our options. The challenge related to this is if the taliban want u. S. Departure from afghanistan and 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 mister chairman i yield back. Thank you, thank you so much mister chairman, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in afghanistan there more civilian casualties in 2018 then in any other year since they began counting and i was also reported that for the First Time Since the United Nations began undocumented civilian casualties in afghanistan more civilians were killed by Afghan Government than by American Forces and by the taliban another insurgents, i dont think there can be a clear sign that u. S. Military intervention there has failed to secure the Afghan People, Ambassador Well it is good to see you again and why should we expect that doing more of the same thing that we have that for the last 18 years will lead to a better a different outcome than the statistics suggests . First i want to say that the u. S. Military does Everything Possible to avoid casualties, now and it is more meticulous and its planning and as thoughtful and its efforts and i say that to the economy too we face, that deliberately target civilians and we have seen that over this last week of targeting of hospitals and election workers. So do you dispute the statistics from 2018 . As i mentioned earlier we questioned some of the methodology and i think this is an admiration and i think the approach of the forces couldnt be more different, i think we can have confidence and respect for the u. S. Militarys efforts to reduce civilian casualties and Afghan Forces, this isnt a static or this is not a static situation, there has been a significant change over the last 18 years and one of the significant changes is the fact that it is the Afghan Forces who are doing the fighting and dying, and we still suffer tragic losses and we suffered a tragic loss last week but the numbers bear no resemblance to the beginning of this conflict and the height of this conflict and as time goes by what we have seen and what capable Afghan Forces and higher life expectancy, more sophisticated population, and those are trend lines that work in our favor and speak very highly of our own value approach to support afghanistan. I want to talk about the non estate militias in afghanistan, like the host protection for us that are trained and run by the cia, this that was said in september that i would like to quote from, the cia funded militias of operated on constrained battlefield rules designed to protect civilians, conduct ignite, rates tour, killings with near impunity and a Covert Campaign and thats a afghan and american Officials Say undermining the wider american effort to strengthen afghan institutions, in july the ambassador said that this would be addressed in a peace deal, so ambassador walls did the proposed u. S. Troop withdrawal include this for non state 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 the only way for peace in afghanistan and quote from our side indoors are open for negotiations and we hope the other side rethink their decision regarding negotiations if we are not talking about these things you think we can achieve a sustainable solution . There is an agreement that there isnt a military solution and there needs to be negotiated solution but there also has to be confidence that the taliban after rounds of negotiations are acting in good faith and has been said publicly by the president and the secretary, currently the talks are suspended the administration is reviewing options. So just as a final question, its sometimes hard to explain to my constituents what is going on, how it i say that the suspension of negotiations was good . What was the reason for. I we saw behavior that was inconsistent with the continental go she asians an event taken place and it was that inconsistent behavior that led to the decision, we would like to see the taliban take actions actions that would make it possible to return to negotiations. Thank you i yield back mister chairman. Thank you mister chairman, i would like to thank you both for stepping up and being, here i would say that ambassador has been negotiating and talking to the taliban for the last year and refusing to speak to the United States congress, i do not believe that it makes sense 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, it is that correct . How about has sanctuary in pakistan. Yet there is nothing in the agreement that commits the taliban to break with all kinds our any other terrorist groups that it may be cooperating with in pakistan or in fact any of the 20 or so whether fta is beyond alqaeda and isis, the Economy Network that operated both afghanistan and pakistan, is that correct . I cant speak to the details of all i can now that it is conditions based with this game and two and two organizations. Well the only interest organizations are those two and everything that you have said suggest that their responsibility and an afghan soil, so in fact it doesnt really force the taliban to break, there is no ceasefire contemplated, no nation wide ceasefire contemplated so apart from a few named places under what was contemplated the taliban would be able to continue terrorizing the Afghan People and yet as i understand it we may go where this process to continue we could go below 8600 troops, we could go all the way to zero troops in afghanistan even if there is no afghan agreement so long as we have, if i may quote you 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 discuss it is the principles that drove, it and the foremost one was American Security but it also has to be sustainable and what we are looking for is a sustainable solution and peace in afghanistan. Well those are two different things, if the condition is American Security has narrowly defined by do not cooperate with alqaeda and isis that what that suggests is what happens to the Afghan People in that scenario is immaterial so long as we have minimal commitment with the taliban we could go to zero which puts us in a position where we can to monitor or enforcement minimal commitment, you said we have been in Constant Contact with the government on this question and im sure thats true, but any of us who have spoken to the Afghan Government and now 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 we are assured that they are not going to be cooperating with two of the 20 or more in terrorist organizations that have save even in afghanistan. My understanding is that we are not willing to say, you are not willing to say the taliban right here right now that we will not go to zero if there is no inter afghan agreement, you cannot say that categorically . Im not here to comment on the specifics of a negotiation that i was not a part of, all i can discuss are the principles, again the principles and i think you are mischaracterizing the approach of the administration for what we seek to achieve. This is what i heard from the administration, again if you are not able to speak to the agreement thats why master encounters dad should be sitting there after one near of talking to terrorists he should be willing to talk to the United States congress, would at all im asking for here is honesty there are different views about whether we should stay or go on both sides of the aisle but what we are being sold here is not a potential Peace Agreement, will were be sold here is a bedtime story to be feeling better about leaving afghanistan, we are talking about this as if its supposed to be bringing peace but we know that the taliban intends on continuing to fight because their aim is not legitimacy it is power in afghanistan which they are 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 and they will go to the gulf and bases potentially and central area so we can maintain the president s and the region to strike terrorists in afghanistan and we will continue to mount strikes but from a further distance, which means there will be more civilian casualties and if we conduct counterterrorism rates and we do it from a distance itll be more dangerous to our troops, so im asking for honesty, if we are going to leave let us simply say we do not have an interest in investing in afghanistan anymore and we are going to leave them to the tendencies of the taliban if we believe that is not right lets say to the American People that we have a long term commitment here like we have and south korea, or, many other places, pick go on and lets stop telling bedtime stories about what this is going to break. Im delighted that there was an opportunity this morning for the community to be briefed by the alabaster, this is not a negotiation of withdrawal its a Peace Agreement and what we are losing 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 so this administration has been creatively working towards that goal. They had no say and you know perfectly well that they are terrified. This is the only process that is producing direct conversations between the taliban and afghan stakeholders. I yield. Mr. Phillips. Thank you mister chairman into our witnesses, i want to echo the sentiment that my colleague for an appearance by mr. Cohen was a, terribly disappointing and i hope that it is something that we can quickly rectify, former diplomat and the endowment for peace told us and recently said quote, any attempt at reconciliation through a negotiated bargain through negotiations and insurgents would fail to deliver stability that the u. S. Seeks, do you agree with that statement, they are set up both of you. The administration is exploring or has been exploring whether or not you can create a political framework that produces the dialog that gives confidence an American Security will be met, so obviously i would not agree with doctor tell us. So why would you choose to enter negotiations with such little progress, strategically, is that something, is that a question we should be asking . This is not a conflict that will be solved on the battlefield and you have 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. The government and stakeholders throughout the society and the complex one in the taliban and the assessment is that the taliban are different than isis and that this has been an answer journey that their tactics have become concerning over the last several years but they remain committed to and afghanistan and are prepared to engage in negotiations and that needs to be tested and so with the work that has been done, it has been done to create conditions were afghans can actually for the first time sit down and began to have those conversations. Can you think of a precedent where we have been successful of applying this type of strategy . I think every war is unique but certainly the american role is critical added essential and driving any process forward and so i would focus on the fact that america has received the support of the neighboring countries for the most part and we have certainly been able to work productively with our likeminded partners, the ambassador has been able to work with the chinese because fundamentally this is about interests and the region does have an interest in afghanistan stabilize a. We speak of russia and chinese interest, how would you articulate those relative to afghanistan right now . I think both countries are concerned about the prospect of the terrorist situation worsening and to that extent we can have a conversation about how to move forward in advancing peace, im not going to suggest that they dont have other motivations but i get be able to exploit the fact that both countries are concerned about what isis represents and the problem and afghanistan cant get worse as well as get better is what allows us to head what has allowed us to organize very dynamic and Productive International gatherings and diplomatic architecture in support of Peace Process. So you think the chinese and russians are part of the solution . I think that an important regional countries dont support peace it will be hard to achieve a Peace Agreement. But thats different being part of the solution. 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. Ambassador wells, you know this eerily has the residents of the paris negotiations between Henry Kissinger and lee at the end of the vietnam war and pledges were made, that was there to allegedly, pledges were mayor not to invade the south at promptly ignored and we turn a blind eye to it making it look like what they indicated, a bedtime story, can you ensure us what we are not looking at here at that this is different . President trump is seeking peace and negotiated settlements, he is not seeking a withdrawal agreement. Thats a heck of a real assurance i am sure every american could take that to the peak and feel confident. So the gentleman yields back . Im sorry he was mr. Full lips time. And i do yield back. Just briefly, discussed at different times the role of women and negotiations and women are not part of that and we know that the Afghan Government to my knowledge is trying to exclude in the information that is related to them you know women as part of that agreement but what do you envision Going Forward, the role of women and even 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 games of women and society that up in there since our involvement in afghanistan and also considering the view that the taliban has two women. How afghans govern themselves need to be determined by afghan so obviously what we hear from the Afghan Government and from non taliban members of canada and society is their commitment to the gains, the importance they attach to the Constitutional Rights and it included to this which is backed by polling, shows an increasing number of afghans that support education and womens participation in the workforce and womens for, a third of all candidates in the parliamentary elections were women so i think we have profoundly influenced the development of against in society in a very positive way and those gains, afghans are going to have to fight and preserve those gains in a dialog oriented negotiation with the taliban, we can be very Crystal Clear about it and i think you will see this in the donor meeting that is happening in london another sessions that will happen with international donors, for afghanistan to enjoy the support and benefits of being a part of the International Community it would have to uphold these fundamental rights and that is the power that i think we have for the greatest power that we have, you are not going to get assistance or Foreign Direct Investments or 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 will soon be coming forward to say that if there is other types of resources Going Forward that the us is going to supply to the Afghan Government 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. Thank you, ive been waiting for that moment for a long time, yes and 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 and we have been actively working with Civil Society and womens business chambers, etc to help them improve their negotiating skills and help them home their messages, their expectations and to be realistic and pragmatic about the way forward and to ensure that when and if they do have the meeting that they will be ready for it, thank you. Well thank you and i hope that this committee moving forward will be able to put that forward and have additional safeguards to protect the gains that women and girls have a Better Development afghanistan, would like to thank you and thank the panel for what was a very lake the hearing this morning and thank you for taking the time to do that, we will pause briefly so that this stuff can really set the witnesses for the second panel, thank you again. The committee will reconvene, i would like to introduce the second panel and thank you for your patients after very extensive first panel hearing, and the ambassador is a senior fellow at the south asian and part of the maxwell school, he served in the department in a wide range of roles and using his distinctive career from 2012 to 2014 and the asia society and the American Academy of diplomacy, thank you for being here. So the director of the crisis groups where she leads the analysis and policy advocacy dealing with that region from 2013 into 2017, she was the deputy and then acting special representative for afghanistan and pakistan in the state department and Previous Service to the department worked on numerous issues including peace negotiations that you also served for the staff and the National Security council, welcome and thank you again. Mr. Thomas is a senior fellow and a Senior Editor of ftcs long werent journals, he worked as a trainer for the fbi Counter Terrorist division and he has talked about counterterrorism issues of counterterrorism. And the witness testimony will be made part of the record and now we will 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 the u. S. Special representative, it may not be known but it raises serious concern about the failure and its application, now that President Trump has called a halt to discussions with the taliban the opportunity exists if the administration will take it to seek a better deal that will lead to a better deal leaving the conflict, a goal that was said two years ago and this is not grounded in the context of a Peace Agreement risks putting afghanistan into chaos and the growth of the islamic terrorist threat, the american Afghan Peoples and our International Partners in afghanistan deserve better, one side negotiating a deadline has had a severe disadvantage on the other is not and the ambassador has been operating under complex situations, that agreement that fails to open peace for afghanistan will be a defeat for u. S. Leadership and values and sacrifice unnecessarily afghan interest in that troubled region, certainly a discussion with the taliban about any conflict is to be welcomed but hope for dialog is not a strategy and there is little to suggest that the taliban version of peace will be acceptable to the vast majority of afghans were to the International Community, taliban representatives have told other afghans that the United States is defeated and that they will restore the Islamic Emirate and while they suggest that they would be less severe and barbaric there is little doubt what that would mean for todays afghanistan are for the risks that it would pose for afghan women, negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible but on a different bases, actually ending the conflict, the sound deal with the taliban will involve the Afghan Government, it will end the violence by making the discussion of the u. S. Withdrawal contingent upon the cease fire that ends the killing of afghans, well forces can be reduced based audit conditions as a cease fire takes hold it will make a durable Peace Agreement by a Afghan Government and the taliban, for the ultimate withdrawal of International Forces, that negotiation must take into account the reality as demonstrated by the horrific bombing of a wedding hall last month, that future Afghan Governments will likely require International Assistance in combatting terrorism, they will also without a doubt require Significant International donor support for a Peace Agreement, a new taliban emirate will be deserving of neither, there has been much discussion about the futility of the engagement in afghanistan an american fatigue and cause for withdrawal, often without addressing the consequences, peace negotiations on the terms that we most afghans and our International Partners would seek would be difficult but not impossible to create, we have not adequately tested this and it requires a complex diplomatic and military effort and continue support for the Afghan Security forces, we have long recognized at a military solution but a Peace Process does require instruments for a multilateral, multifaceted highlevel Diplomatic Campaign to set the conditions for negotiations, the irony of where we are today as the south asia strategy announced two years ago corrected the shortcomings towards handicapped and establish a Peace Process, knowing that obama had a timeline for bringing our troops home, the taliban had no incentive to negotiate, 2017 the President Trump agreed to restore military capabilities needed to strengthen the american train and assist counterterrorism conditions and focus on creating conditions for negotiations, the strategy for peace correctly aligned bolstering the Afghan Security forces, facing the reduction and eventual withdrawal from military forces and not artificial deadlines and focusing on afghanistans Regional Government particularly the nefarious role of pakistan, that strategy was aimed at success and a political settlement excluding respect for the constitution and its protections for human rights, women and the free media, it appears to be coming apart, the reestablishment of unrealistic deadlines will undercut the Security Forces, dead lives and the ever present threat and encourage taliban in stretch of events and risk the demise of the democracy in afghanistan, washington appears yet again to allow pakistan to avoid concrete action to change the calculations of the 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 a generational conflict between extreme islamic ideology and terrorism and civilized world which most people including muslims inspire, our 18year effort in afghanistan has had several distinct phases and mistakes have certainly been made, but yelling to fatigue rather than correcting our strategy would be the greatest mistake of all, the costs of appeasement in afghanistan are much lower than the past and can be lower yet and our sustainable, as with the cold war it will be required to win the conflict with islamic extremism which afghanistan is a chapter, we can certainly bit smarter and a factor but the premature withdrawal from afghanistan with the prospect of peace unsecured will be much higher, among the most reported of the cost will be the direction of the notion that the United States is a reliable and durable partner when there is a price to be paid for leadership and offense of values, thank you. Thank you ambassador, miss miller. Thank you congressman for your ignorance today and my thanks for the committee to inviting me for this hearing ive been asked to assess the administrations effort i will summarize my ran in statement and explaining why negotiations, President Trump declared dead should be revived, those talks produced a draft taliban agreement according to both sides was ready to be side, according to the u. S. It has three basic options, first the withdrawal, they could plan executed pull out of all forces and the conflict would continue and it would probably intensify have become more chaotic, there is a strong chance the anti taliban would fracture, hopefully that would happen will depend on whether the government in kabul continue to receive funding in which it very heavily depends, second this day the core option, they could keep the current or reduce member of troops, continue fighting the taliban, continue operations against the Islamic Branch and other groups within afghanistan, he wore currently the deadlys in the world would remain the bloody stalemate that it is today and that Many American, senior American Military officers have said it is, one that is been eroding and the taliban favor over several years, keeping u. S. Troops in afghanistan would keep feeding the taliban narrative of Foreign Occupation that they used to recruit, staying the course meaning perpetuates the conflict of the nose foreseeable and, third a negotiation option, they could try to negotiate an end to the war, american diplomats have engaged in about 90 years of waxing and waning efforts to launch a Peace Process, only this year have they put pursuing a peach deal at the center of its policy, the third option is the only one of the potential to reduce violence and enable the u. S. Troops to withdraw all in permissive conditions, it is also the option of the best chance of preserving the social and Development Games of afghanistan, to be clear none of the options has the realistic potential to result in a military victory for u. S. In the southwest allies, neither of the first two allies would enable the Afghan Government to become self sustaining in the fight against taliban in any foreseeable time and only the negotiation option aims that reduction of violence, some have criticize the administration from negotiating extra exclusively with the taliban and cutting out the afghan tell it is understandable it is deeply frustrating and frankly it is distasteful to many in washington in, the u. S. Decision to negotiate first with the taliban prior to talks was a concession to the taliban stubborn sequence, they resisted the sequencing and the cost was no Peace Process, it is worth underscoring of the u. S. Already tried and failed to deliver the more desirable kind of Peace Process but the Afghan Government at the table and with an early ceasefire, no evidence suggests that 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 it is crucial to recognize that the u. S. Taliban deal would and would not be, we would cover a limited set of issues and exchange for taliban commitments to prevent afghanistan being the safe harbor for terrorist groups, we would not be a Peace Agreement, there is no deal between the u. S. And taliban that could bring peace or address womens rights and other issues, the deal would be the First Step Towards peace making, a would condition a gradual u. S. Withdrawal which the taliban wants and the taliban entering negotiations with the Afghan Government and other powerbrokers, the reward is clear, the deal would open the door to an afghan Peace Process. Afghan talks ones started might stall or fail for many reasons, the gap between the parties political visions might prove to great, internal divisions might prove too difficult to overcome and if negotiations fail the u. S. Will still be in 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 want the air putting peace efforts at the forefront and 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. Well thank you for having me here to testify today, i will go through this very quickly, i agree that one of the main they basically exclude the Afghan Government in you can see the tweet that i had put on march 12th of this year the ambassador said explicitly that once a deal is finalized and exchanging a truth withdrawal then the inter afghan negotiations process would, start that is a crucial mistake an obvious even when you try and launch a Peace Process having american troops is your biggest bargaining chip, giving that away at the outset and makes no sense to, me and i want to talk about why the talibans words shouldnt be trusted, there is some skepticism on the panel and i only ignores that skepticism, i will 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 least a video in which they said 9 11 was the heavy stop on their dark faces, was the consequence of the intervention policies are not our doing, another work they were just by 9 11 and they dont blame alqaeda or announce to harbor, these it is a result of the policies which is a top and when they had since 2001 in addition participating it as a top negotiator said he didnt know 9 11 and if we had evidence of this thing maybe we could bring it forward and try to prosecute it, i will just say this we know who did 9 11 and you can see in my testimony ive answered quite a few of these reports showing the talibans complicity and safe haven for alqaeda and how crucial that was in the roll up to 9 11. And there is citations in my testimony to this, so we dont need them to tell us who did it, but the key point there is they are not willing to come clean about the past why are you willing to believe what they say about the future, why are you believing that their assurance Going Forward is from, second point in july 2016 the ambassador just before this committee throwing this hearing actually highlighted the fact that the head of alqaeda of sward his personal allegiance to the supreme leader, for the taliban, the ambassador said that it shows that the relationship continues, i reported on that about a week or two earlier and as far as i can tell there is no evidence that he is going to renounce and as part of any talks that you heard about the assurances from the taliban about braking from alqaeda and restraining him in that sort of thing, here is a very concrete example of what the taliban could do in that regard and should you in that regard if youre going to start to believe them, which is that their leader should disown the legions, very quickly, the third point the number two is the man who siraj a connie and it took a lot of time to get in by the u. S. And a county network remains closely with alqaeda, siraj is not only the number two in the taliban but actually oversees the talk about more machine across afghanistan, there is a lot of evidence in my written testimony about how their intertwined is allocated and theres no more you can see in that regard and i have no more evidence that they were going to break with alqaeda or any others, number four this is highlighted in my testimony as well which was created in 2014 and there is plenty of evidence that it is fighting along the taliban members in the country and they serve as religious and military instructors, they remain embedded in the taliban and in fact a special report submitted highlighted that many, many alqaeda members are actually dual all kind of members, so a lot of times you cant tell who is the taliban guy whos, not sometimes you can tell whos who but that is how intertwined they are and fit there is a sort of constellation of Central Asian jihadi groups fighting under the talibans better in afghanistan, i see no reason to believe the taliban has agreed to strain them in any meaningful way, we are talking about uzbek groups, these all make movement of uzbekistan, and the Islamic Party that fights in afghanistan and the un reports and i said in my testimony all document there presence and i find it hard to believe that they will restrain all of, them thank you. Mr. Phillips. Thank you mister chairman and to our witnesses i will start with you mr. Johnson and clearly from your testimony you have little faith or confidence in the taliban being trustworthy for a good reason so what should we do in light of the fact that they are not in youre estimating what would be in our best interest . I have no problem with trying to bolster a process that includes the afghan in talks and my main problem is one i think there is a lot of credibility when it came to the words on assurances and others, to the Afghan Government didnt have a formal seat at the, table you heard Ambassador Wells talk about how members were able to take part in talks, that was in personal capacity and representatives of the backed government, we were insisting that they are part of any legitimate Peace Process i know youve been in part of Peace Processes, in general terms, what does a good peace negotiation look like and what does a good agreement look like . It wouldve been my preference and my recommendation and 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 try to prove sue i was personally involved in trying to get it started that way, it didnt work and the taliban refused and it is a sad fact that the taliban has leverage in this equation so as i said in my statement it was a concession and i think it was unfortunately necessary concession to split it into two separate tracks and an inter afghan track that it is now called an intern of what a Peace Agreement could actually look like, the preliminary agreement between the u. S. And the taliban is only setting the stage for a potential agreement and 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 and security arrangements and implementation planters and verification measures so will be complex and will take time to negotiate that and frankly the u. S. Taliban agreement is only useful in so far as you actually get to that second stage it doesnt as i said bring peace to afghanistan and now or is it actually necessary for the United States to negotiate with the taliban the terms of its withdrawal and if all the u. S. Wants to do is withdraw doesnt need to negotiate that with anyone and i would agree that counterterrorism assurances in that context are meaningless those only because 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 i think we have to be a little bit cautious in painting, i am no disagreement with the negative characteristics of the whole intel bad but we must not pain this in black or white, terms there are plenty of non taliban afghans, including some that are closely allied with the Afghan Government, they also have very conservative viewpoints on social issues and thank you past history with alqaeda, with alqaeda i repeat, its a complicated picture that is not a pure black and white situation, i hope i answered your question. In your past negotiations are there any that are analogous that you can point to. I would say that in general terms yes but i dont think that there is a clear and obvious template for this and i have looked at, i have done research on comparative Peace Processes and compare to the situation in afghanistan, there is no one a situation you can point to, i think what you can say is that one of the factors that makes peacemaking in afghanistan more difficult than other circumstances is that it is a stalemate that you dont have, this is a columbia where the government was overwhelmingly more powerful than this is in a situation like bosnia where the outside powers that were back in inside powers really had to say and decided they would go with the Peace Process and nato would be able to apply overwhelming force to the situation, this is more complicated because this is a stalemate and neither side has truly come to terms with their ability to succeed or fail militarily. Im at a time but i know there is a long line behind me, thank you. Thank you, President Trump said that peace talks are dead, do you believe their dad . I believe that they are not dead and they shouldnt be dead, do you believe the president when he says the peace talks are dead . I believe the president has shown remarkable agility and being able to change his positions rapidly and so i think it is certainly, there is a lot of opportunity here to resuscitate the Peace Process and it may take a little time and some saving to do it. Do you agree that the peace talks are . Dead i dont know but from the outset they said this is a 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, we dont even now if they are dead or not, or if they are there, so that is the status of it. Lets assume that we go forward, whether they are suspended, ambassador i thought you brought in a very important point forward, if that is going to happen and whatever term you want to use, lazarus superiors and they are no longer dead, the importance of while these negotiations are going on and being able to maintain a cease fire i think its critical, what is your opinion . I would think it is important to get to a cease fire as quickly as possible, particularly given the Ongoing Campaign against afghan civilians being waged by the taliban as we are talking about creating a Peace Process, this is obviously leverage for the taliban, they are 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 clear line between this discussion and the actual negotiation of peace and exists, you have a better understanding about the agreement that we do, you have been briefed and we have it. 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, the agreement as loyal said it is a key to getting into a peace negotiation, my problem is, its not clear that it will work for that it is strong enough. Heres another point, mr. Jostle and measured the ambassador measured pakistan, it seems like these factors may not be front and center and some of these negotiations and without that discussion, how inhibited is our ability to proceed . I think our ability is gravely inhibited. I would say that you look at the ambassadors, he was very forthcoming about the ambassadors role and others who are directing the attacks in afghanistan and that is an issue that i do not think its going to be solved. I would just suggest one other thing, we are going to reset or whatever might happen, words count and when youre dealing to put magically with negotiations tonight i think if you have any comments on this regard instead of talking about a u. S. Withdrawal we should be talking about afghan and the Afghan Government and being able to negotiate our presence, it might sound like semantics but i dont think it is. I think that is a good point and i dont exclude at the end of this process which will take a lot longer than any one will want, i would not exclude that there would be an enduring u. S. President s in a much lower level that would be focused on a counterterrorism mission, there is no reason as i handed out in my statement there is no reason to think that a future Afghan Government even 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, mr. Phillips is still here and he wanted, last few minutes to ask some more questions. Ambassador cutting him, you said there will be any negotiation between the taliban and the afghans, the afghans will need a legitimate political authorities to have that discussion, so perhaps you can tell us about the status of elections in afghanistan and what we, congress and the United States can do to strengthen and secure democratic elections. The status now, although another problem with the way these discussions have been connected up to now is that they have created wide series of rumors within afghanistan about what the american attitude was towards the elections and that created a lot of uncertainty, obviously. Now it looks like they will be held at me apparatus is in place in they will be flawed as a live through the last elections he was a most unpleasant experience and they will be fought again and i think they will be successful in establishing and reestablishing a Political Authority in afghanistan as a result of the exercise of the voting franchise by the Afghan People, one thing we do know about afghanistan is that they like to vote, even if it is dangerous for them to do so and i expect and hope that will be the case and i hope very much so that the Election Results will be clear enough and will lead to a series of protracted disputes as it did last time around. Is there anything that we should be doing to provide Political Support and economic support to the actual negotiations themself, messaging the afghan Political Class if they have a responsibility not to allow this to degenerate into a political conflict as it did before and providing encouragement for a political outcome that will be supported by the United States and our partners. Thank you in a final question for each of you i asked this of the last panel and i will repeat it, senior fellow for International Peace said recently that any attempt at, conciliations on former exchange of obligations as opposed to insurgents would fail to deliver stability that the u. S. Seek so on the suspect love your thoughts respectively on a strategy that we should be considering to inspire that defection of the insurgents that we are battling. Anyone who wants to start, this mueller. There has been a number of strategies that have been implemented aimed at that, aimed at trying to split the taliban or encouraged defections they are almost entirely failures and i do not expect there is any strategy that can succeed in that and there is a lot of talk about fractures and lack of cohesion and a lot of that is frankly Wishful Thinking and propaganda, yes there not an entirely monolithic organization but 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 to effect from the group because they have been cognizant of the fact that cohesion, sufficient cohesion has been their comparative advantage, so there is no quite defection strategy to resolving this. I have a very graham view and last youre a row that in terms of where this is headed especially with President Trumps commitment to withdrawing troops and i think basically i find a very hard to believe that there will be some turnaround here militarily, my issue Going Forward and i agree totally and i said this publicly if you can withdraw troops i have no reason to absolve taliban on counterterrorism issues, who doesnt make any sense to, me especially when youre not getting any Firm Commitments that theyre actually trying to sit down with the Afghan Government or anything along those lines, i dont think there is a turnaround strategy at this point, there is no Silver Bullet at this point, unfortunately. Ambassador. I agree, i dont think that there is a strategy of attrition or withdrawal that will work that we will want to see certainly that attrition will take place over time hopefully in the can of a political agreement that does establish protections and rights and obligations, there are serious and issues that need to be addressed like the status of the constitution and the role of women and education, all those things that made todays afghanistan so different from what it was 18 or 19 years ago, those things need to be built into a fabric that has a solution, cant be drifting along, that can happen in my view. One final question, just a yes or no, do you think that the taliban will be willing to agree to just about anything that would alternately lead to the withdrawal of our troops, anticipating that we will be hesitant to have a return. Whether they would be willing to do almost anything i doubt but they certainly have an incentive, depending on the crucial question, what the timeline is, they want this out, they will be willing to do what is necessary to get us out, the question is will that be at the end of a Peace Agreement or before there is a Peace Agreement, one thing i think you can count on is that they wont have any problem for taking advantage of a situation that we are not there. They have their read lives 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. I dont think they would agree to do anything but if youre greta believe on Counter Terrorism assurances obviously the agreement looks but with Officials Saying that they believe the taliban counterterrorism assurances then show me. Thank you all for being here for your testimony and council, appreciate it, i yield back. Well thank you, thank you for being here, you know this is extremely important, it doesnt receive as much of the public attention that it deserves and i echo the sentiments of some of my colleagues that we shouldve had better representation but people that are directly in negotiations currently here informing us and the American Public what goes on, we should do that for the families and the people that lost their lives both in the military side in this long war, we should do that for the military and civilians and families and loved ones that are currently there in that region and as i conclude i think of one story that when i was there a few years ago, visiting our troops and getting briefed, i often asked our military, our brave military soldiers if there is anything that we can do for you let us now and at this occasion and they asked bias, yes there is, there is someone we would like you to meet and think and they took us to the marketplace and there we met 1 million from afghanistan and i wont mention even one province although i suspect he is not alive at this point but he had been risking his life and providing information to our troops, about tactics where undoubtedly he was saving lives, and they asked us and myself to go to my mom to go to this man then came, in when i had the opportunity i asked, him why he was risking his life doing that. At that point he went from behind and pulls out his eight year old 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 for our country but for those people as well, with that thought i will call a hearing adjourned, thank you. The house will be in order. For 40 years good evening everyone. I am tally a evans. I am part of the Public Affairs team here at the kansas city public library. We are thrilled to have you here tonight. We have harry laver have our speaker. This is the latest of