Today as the u. S. Military mission in afghanistan and the implications to the Peace Process on u. S. Involvement. We are doing this hearing both with some members present and some members remote. We also have two of our witnesses that will be remote. So we are its the first time weve bee back for a full comttee meeting, House Armed Services mmittee since the covid outbreak so i urge all of you participating and watching be patient as we work out the bugs and give everybody the chance to say what they need to say and run the committee in an orderly fashion. Before we start the basic rules and outline of how were doing the hearing. And i welcome those joining us remotely and those members are reminded they must be visible onscreen within the Software Platform, joining the establi established meeting and remaining a quorum and they must use the video platform during the proceeding unless they experience connectivity prlem. If a perso remotely have issues, the staff will help you get recorrected. Video of remotely, will be visible on television and the video feed. Members remotely will be asked to mute when not speaking. If they want to speak recognize verbally. Unmute their microphone pyre to speaking. Members should be aware theres a slight lag of a few seconds between the time you start speaking and the camera shot switching to youment members who are participating remotely are reminded to keep the Software Platform video function on for the entirety of the time they are in the proceeding. If he they leave, leave the video function on. If they going to be absent for a long time, they should leave it entirely and join when they return. And a designated, mute unmembers microphones to cancel inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the proceeding. And they may use the shout feature to alert the staff for technical remote issues only and see a five minute countdown clock on the software, if necessary i will remind members when time is up. I joked with staff, doing the hearings is like launching the space shuttle, not quite a technical, but a lot. This is incredibly timely and were lucky to have three outstanding witnesses with us today the honorable ryan crocker who will be appearing remotely. Career ambassador retired u. S. Foreign service nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former ambassador to afghanistan. And dr. Steven bitle, professor of affairs in Columbia University and advocate f reign relations. Here in person dr. Seth jones, the harold brown chair, director transnational threats project and senior advor for the International Security program at center for strategic and international studies. Now, as mentioned, this is an incredibly and important timely topic, just about 19 years ago we went into afghanistan and at the time we had a very clear mission, having just been attacked on 9 11, by usama bin laden and al qaeda out of afghanistan the we went in there and made sure that it never happened again, to stop the threat and to contain it and i think that continues to be the top mission,e faced a threat from transnational terrorist groups. We can debate how large that threat is, where exactly it comes from and how best to contain it, but its not debatable that the threat is there. Its worth noting for all the problems and troublesnd diiculties that we had that mission has been successful in one sense, we have not had a transnational terrost attack on the u. S. And when we think about all the men and women who served in the military, those who lost their lives, those who were injured, those who have suffered because of this, also all of the state Department Personnel and all the aid workers who have been there and allies and partners. Keep in mind this is not just the United States of america. Nato ap a number of countries have participated in this mission. And in that one key point, it has been successful and it should not be taken for granted, but the question is, where do we go from here . While that has been successful, there has also been a great cost as was mentioned in terms of the lives lost, people injured and the sheer cost to the nation in money as well. So where do we go from here and how do we move forward . I think its important that we continue to maintain the mission to stop transnational terrorist threats and some of the other costs associated with this is the fact that it is disruptive to have foreign troops in a country. And as we look to contain the terrorist threat and stop the spread of the toxic ideology that fuels it, the presence of u. S. Troops in Foreign Countries is one of those things that we cannot deny fuels it. And you can think of ur if you were in your own town wherever you live in america and a foreign troop came rolling through town telling you what you had to do, it would not make you feel good about that foreign country. We would be in a better place if we did not have to have our troops in Foreign Countries and i dont think we should ever forget that. The other aspect of this mission thats made it difficult is in addition to preventing transnational terrorist threats that mission has morphed a little into ying to bring peace and stability to afghanistan. Now theres a clear reason for in connection to the basic principle of stopping transnational terrorist threats. Weve learned that ungoverned spaces, failed governments make it easier for the terrorist groups to show up and take route and south asia is where there are a lot of that could take advantage of that, and that we could be right back where we were on 9 11. I dont think thats as quick a guarantee. And i think weve learned in 19 yes were not going to impose peace on afghanistan. How were going to bring a coalition together and reduce corruption and build confidence, outside forces are not going to bring peace to afghanistan. One way or the other, the people of afghanistan are going to have to make that choice. And when w look at afghanistan, i think we need to be very humble about imagining theres something we can do to make that different. We can help, certainly, we cannot ultimately solve the problem and we have to balance that against all of the costs i just laid out and seems to me at this point the common sense thing to do is to have the absolute minimum presence that we require to meet our goal of stopping that transnational terrorist threat. I happen to believe that we need to draw down there because of the cost, becau of the impact, and because of the fact that its become clear that were not going to be able to impose peace upon afghanistan. There are a lot of different ways to contain troublesome regions that could potentially pose transnational terrorist threats. We have an enormous experience with doing just that, libya, yemen, somalia, or several Different Countries in west africament the disruptions there, the instability ap presence of violence groups in some cases with transnational ambitions shows us we have to work hard with local partners in a variety of different ways to contain that threat. It doesnt require thousands of u. S. Troops. My hope today is to ge us guidance how best to contain the threats coming out of afghanistan and south asia more broadly while minimizing the risk, cost expense and crucially minimizing that disruptive effect that the presence of u. S. Troops on foreign soil has, that the propaganda, that it hands to our enemies, to argue about what the u. S. Is doing that requires this ideology extremism. How do we balance that . This is timely because the president just made his announcement hes drawing down to 2500 troops in afghanistan. Its absolutely crucial that we work with our partners on whatever our plans are, but i think its a crucial moment as we decide what our future is in afghanistan. Nobody wants to be there forever. Now people said we cant have forever wars and i personally never liked that phrase because a war that lasts kone day done for the wrong reaps and wasnt necessary is completely and totally wrong. On the other hand, if youre going to war, if youre fighting because you nd to protect a core interest and it lasts as long as it lasts. I never imagined myself wanting to quote lindsey graham, but when he said you maybe tired of fighting isis, but isis is not tired much fighting you, i think thats an important thing to think about as we try to contain e threats and minimizing the threat and imct and costs of doing that. I look forward to the witnesss testimony. And with that il turn it over to Ranking Member thornberry for his Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman and i have to say it is good to be back in our Armed Services commtee home. Andecause this may well be the last hearing of this session of congress, i want to take a moment a just express appreciation toou and to the staff for the way you have det with incredibly channinging circumstancchannin channing challenging circumstances in coviand weve pressed ahead with hearings, pressed ahe with having our bill passed overelmingly on the floor. House in confence now with e senate. So our business has connued in spite of th challenges and that is in no small measure attributedo you and thetaff dealingith all the technal challenges that we face and i appreciate it. I agree with you that this is an incredibly important topic. Rightfully, our National Security our military and National Security apparatus is more focused on Great Power Competition, but the terrorist threat has not gone away. And so it is one of the challenges of our time that wed have to worry about this wide rangef threats. The other thing i just want to emphasize, which you mentioned and i think we maybe dont say it enough, is that when it mes to National Security, its really hard to prove what did not happen. And in the case of americans who have fought and some died, to pvent a repeat or worse of 9 11, i think it is very important for those who paicipated and family members who lost loved ones to know that i has been the last 19 years has seemed far greater success than i ever expected on september 11th, 2001. The idea that we would be this far removed there have been terrorist attacks against our meland, but nothing on the scale of 9 11 and we know from our classified briefings that they were planned, attempted and some far worse even than that day. So appropriate appreciation as you s to the military, but alsontelligence community, Law Enforcement who have helped prevent that is probably something we need to say and recognize more often. I think it is very impornt to have this hearing toda i should say, by the way, that a hearing on afghanistan has been on our agenda for months, but it turns out, that this is very timely hearing today. The goal all of us have is for the afghans to be able to handle the Security Issues on their o so that no transnational threat emerges from that territory, but i do t believe that they are there yet. I have tremendous respect for each of our witnessesoday and look forward to hearing from them. What they see i the state of the conflict today. What effect our unilateral withdrawal in the midst of negotiations may have and any advice they have for the incoming biden administratio on how to deal with the afghan and broader situation in south asia. So i look forward to heari from nem and appreciate their participation today. I yield back. Thank you, our first witness will be the honorable ryan crocker who is participating remotely. Ambassador crocker, you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member thornberry. Are you able to hear me . Yes, we got you loud and clear. Go ahead. Excellent. I would note that i come to you this morning from the great state of washington. Its about zero dark thirty out here, but im honored to be here. I approve of that and wish i were there as well. Mr. Chairman, you and the Ranking Member have summarized, i think, ve, very well the central question tt we as a nation are dling with. Why are we in afghanistan . After 19 years . Its pretty simple, pretty basic and pretty crial, to ensure that nothing again er comes out of afghanistan that strike us in our homeland. After t decades its again, very important render, so that and a reminder o who we face out ere. An of 9 11 the taliban was given achoice, it could give up the al qaeda terrorists that were enjoying safe haven in afghantan and w would not take military action or they could stand patnd suffer the consequences. They chose the latter, mr. Chairman and have beenn exil now for almost two decades. Unfortunately we are at a moment when the taliban sees the end of its exile and the oprtunity to return to control. Mr. Chairman, i have the privilege of opening our embassy in afghanistan in the beginning of january, 2002. Wh i saw there was a scene of utter devastation. A shattered city, a destroyed country. And as bad as the physica damage was, was iediately awe of the profound damage two decades of conflict had gone done to the afghan pele, especially during the perd of taliban rule to women a girls in ahanistan. I thoht it important to move swiftly to try to repair the damage to the human capital, as well as the physical. So we opened girls schools right away. Still, in january of2002, i had the privige of hosting the then chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, senator joe biden. I took him to visit a girls hool. Weat in on a First Grade Class that had girls ranking from age six it age 1 and the 12yearold came of age when the taliban took over the untry. So i saw a unique opportunity here. As ts commitment knows so well, we often find tension between our Cory National gals an our National Security enda. In afghanistan, the two came together. Ouralues and our interests dictated that we be present, and that the aqaeda did not return with allies and the bt way to do thatas developing the human capital. So when i arrived in 2002, there were about 900,000 students, all of them boys in afghan schools. I rurned as ambassador a decade laternd when i ended that ambassadorial post, there were eight million students. And around 35 of them were girls. Over the long run, mrchairman, it ishe Afghan People, as you rightly note, who have to make peace, certainly an educated population and with girls and women playing the role they deserve in these momentous decisions the best way to ensure our own longterm security. It will take strategic patience and tend u. S. Engagement. The Peace Process, socalled, walaunched now almost two year ago, represented a very bad u. S. Concession. We agreed to longstanding taliban demand that we talk to them, but not with the afghan govement in the room. They considered it a puppet regime. So we gaven and it underscored, i think,hat this again, socalled peace ocess, thats not what this is about. These are surrender talks. Were watching the white flag basically saying to e taliban, you win, we lose, lets dress this up as best we can. And an eerie reminder of the paris peacealks on vietnam. But i wouldn push that parallel too hard and too far. In vietnam neither t viet cong nor the north vietnamese had attacd the homeland or ev considered such a step. Al qaeda did attack the homeland from afghanistan, posted by the taliban. Theyave not become kinder and gentler inhe intervening years. It is, i afraid to y, folly to think that full u. S. Roop withdrawal is somehow going t make us safer or hold our re values. We have, as you point out, nato in the mix. I think thats very important. Weve heard from the secretarygeneral of nato, expressing his concern over the president s decision this week to cut in half the already small number of troops we have in afghanistan. So again, i commend you for holding this hearing. I do believe there i a way forward in afghanistan tt will minimize our costs and our human losses, whichave to be an imperative. Ll be part of a working group put together by the Rockefeller Fund and the atlanticouncil to do just that, but we have t show the strategic patience we need to face down a determined enemy. I like to take just a ment on another special group of kids thatave sacrificed a great deal for us and those are our interpreter and other afghan individuals whoave helped our mission in that country. Mr. Airman, youve recently received a letter from senats shaheen and wicker asking tha the necessaryteps be taken to grant 4,000 visa f these individuals and their families. Theres a backlog of almost 18,000 cases and, hey, these are individuals that are at enormously serious risk. No one left behi a group dedicated to bringing our interpreters and others here to safety cculates about 300 indivials, interpreters and their family members hav been killed while waiting for the visas weve promised them and have delivered slowly and in disappntingly small numbers. So i would urge this committee as it moves ahead t do the righing, the thing we promis. Bring these brave people here. Bring them home, their new home. We wil never regret having done. If we fail in this endeav, we have have troduced, i think, our own core values, the nature of war has anged. There is no more totalwar, we can be ateful. And in theuture going to require interprers and the world is watchings to see h we handle this case. Again, i commend this smythe for the visa program and i urge to take necessary steps to see that these people are able to lee danger behind and come here to us. They earned it, they paid for it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Next, we have dr. Steven bitle coming to us remotely. Dr. Biddle, you are recognized for your opening remarks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak with you today about afghanistan and the important choices that face us there. Id also like to say that its a horn to be part of such an august panel, with two colleagues ive long respected and admired. Normally i would use my opening remarks for the key points for the submission, but that submission was written prior to tuesdays announcement of the 50 reduction of troop strength. In light of this development i thought id take my