David F. Helvey, acting assistant secretary of defense for Indo-Pacific security affairs; and Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Matthew G. Trollinger, Joint Staff deputy director for Middle East politico-military affairs, testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the drawdown of U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan, May 20, 2021.

Transcript

let me call the hearing to order. The committee meets this morning to examine the process and implications of transitioning all the United States and coalition forces from Afghanistan by mid september helping us better understand these challenges. Are two witnesses. Mr David, healthy, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for indo pacific security Affairs and Brigadier General Matthew G. Frolander, Deputy Director, Political Military Affairs brought the Middle East from the J five and General challenger. Let me congratulate you on your recent selection for promotion to Major General. Congratulations sir. I don’t like to thank the witnesses from hearing here today to give us a snapshot of what is happening at this time. However, I want to note that I have repeatedly asked along with the ranking member for General scott Miller, commander of NATO’s resolute support mission to testify. This committee has not had an open hearing on Afghanistan with d. o. d. officials since 2017 And the last closed briefing was in December 2019. That is far too long to hear about a mission involves so many americans. I understand that General Miller is now very busy with the transition that is underway, but I will continue to press for his appearance at the appropriate time. Last month, President Biden announced the withdrawal of all forces from Afghanistan by September 2021. It must be noted that none of the options available to the president were particularly palatable. It could have left May one as agreed to by the previous administration or continue to press on with the United States longest war. It appears that the president concluded that more troops might buy more time and more casualties, but more time will not create a more effective afghan government. The president’s decision, however, should be seen as a transition, not closure and should not mean an end to our counterterrorism efforts. We must ensure that Afghanistan will not be a source of planning, plotting or projecting of terrorist attacks around the globe, including particularly against our homeland. Despite great progress over the last 20 years, the threats from al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups still remain. The Director of national Intelligence stated in the 2021 annual threat assessment that IsIS and al Qaeda remain among, in her words, the greatest terrorist threats to US interests overseas and that they seek to conduct attacks inside the United States. Although sustained us and allied counterterrorism pressure has broadly degraded their capability. To do something, We must look to transition to a new counterterrorism architecture in the region. To continue to degrade al Qaeda ISis and other terrorist groups and prevent their ability to attack the homeland. Centcom Commander. General Mackenzie recently provided the committee some assurances that such a counterterrorism posture in the region was possible, but cautioned that it will reduce the capability with longer ranges and heightened risk and will require greater resources. I would be interested in hearing from the witnesses what progress has been made in constructing a follow on or over the horizon posture. Additionally, while the United States and coalition forces will physically transition from the country, international support to the Afghan government, including support to the Afghan security forces, will remain vital to security and stability there. Ultimately, the Afghan government must find a way to govern in a way that earns the confidence of its people, especially beyond the limits of the city’s by providing basic services to include security, education, health care and justice. It is broadly understood that the Afghan government will struggle to hold the taliban at bay if international support is withdrawn and it will be increasingly difficult for the international community to justify continuing to provide such assistance without a functioning afghan government partner. The difficulty of providing such support to the afghan security forces is further compounded by the fact that the deal of previous administration negotiated with the taliban includes the departure of all security personnel, logisticians and contractors. When the United States transitions from the country, the international presence that is the foundation for security assistance is dramatically reduced if not entirely removed. I’d like to understand what plans are in place to continue training and assistance to the Afghan forces in light of these factors and how we balance that against need to conduct robust oversight of funding that is provided by the United States and the international community. Lastly, what must do our part to aid those afghans who have aided us? There are already troubling examples of taliban plan to target those who have helped the United States. We must ensure that we have the capacity to bring them to safety. That is why I joined 20 of my colleagues and signing a letter to President biden this week emphasizing our support for the special immigrant visa, the S. I. V. Program for afghans. I’m particularly grateful to center jean for leading this effort. It’s an important effort and she is doing an extraordinary job. I would ask the witnesses to share with the department what perception the department sees as its role in such operations and if any additional authorities might be required in order for duty to assist the State Department or other agencies leading these efforts. I want to thank you both again for being here this morning and I look forward to your testimony. Before I turn into recommending remember in all, I’d like to remind my colleagues that there will be an informal classified briefing which will include an appropriate D. I. A representative immediately following this session and spc to 17. The Office of Sand Security. Moreover, I would like to remind my colleagues and request their assistance. We will need to gather a quorum at the president’s room at the noon vote to run out the civilian nominations of Michael McCord for comptroller and Ronald Moultrie for undersecretary for intelligence. I ask that everyone trying to be helpful so no one has to wait too long and that that noone vote if you could assemble and be prepared to do so. I’d appreciate it very much with that. Let me recognize ranking member. Thank you. Mr Chairman. I first of all I opposed have expressed myself myself several times about The full withdrawal of all troops by September 11 year. The fact that the president chose its date, The 20th anniversary of the most horrific terrorist attacks in our nation’s history indicates this was a calendar based political decision. It was not based on conditions on the ground, which is the strong bipartisan recommendation. Congress has given to both the republicans and democrats. Presidents over the last decade. This isn’t just my interpretation. And unnamed senior administration official told the Washington post quote, the president has judged that a conditions based approach is a recipe for staying in Afghanistan forever. Now, I’m troubled by that statement that’s been made over and over again, framing the issue, which pretends that there are only two options unconditional us withdrawal or so called forever war and nobody wants see the United States troops in Afghanistan forever. We understand that that’s why I supported a third option maintaining a relatively small troop presence. Until the conditions Outlined in the February 2020 us Taliban agreement are fully implemented. I will be talking about that was the questions to the witnesses. So under that agreement, the troops were supposed to be withdrawn as the taliban met US counterterrorism equipments commitments. And when progress was made in the intra afghan dialogue, a bipartisan majority of the Senate warned President trump against doing this. Two years ago, President trump listened, President Biden did not listen. The precipitous drawdown from Afghanistan carries many risks. First, there is the risk of severe chaos and violence and instability in the Afghanistan. As the Taliban uses our withdrawal to escalate its attacks around the country. And in Kabul, as we saw after President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq In 2011, terrorists will export this instability 2.5 years after the U. S. Troops left, Iraq ISis captured Mosul secondly, the complete withdrawal of US troops who will make it much harder and more expensive to effectively support our afghan security partners over the horizon. Counterterrorism does not work. General Mackenzie, the centcom commander testified, quote, the ranges will be greater, the resources will be greater. The risk will be will all be greater. Third the US drawdown puts at risk thousands of afghan. Uh And I think a lot of people realizes this article that was written, the USA today makes it very clear and it’s kind of scary and we’ll be talking about that in the questions that I have to ask. So I thank both of you for your testimony and look forward to working with you in this endeavor. Thank you. Mr Chairman thank you Senator Ian Hawke and Mr Hell we would you be in place? Uh Good morning. Chairman Read. Ranking member in Hoff members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide an update on the withdrawal of the remaining U. S. Forces from Afghanistan. I appreciate your and this committee has continued interest in this matter. Following a rigorous review. As you know, the president determined that the best path forward to advance american interests is by ending US military involvement in the war in Afghanistan accordingly. And as directed by the president on april 14th, the department offense began a safe, orderly and coordinated withdrawal of US forces on May 1st and plans to have all US forces out of the country by september. This is the amount of time that we determined will be necessary to bring our forces and those of our coalition partners home safely and a retrograde transfer or disposal of responsibly equipment and other property. As part of the interagency review of U. S. Policy in Afghanistan. The administration assessed that the threat from violent extremist organizations against the United States now emanating from Afghanistan can be addressed without a persistent US military presence in that country. At the same time, we’ll work closely with the Afghan National Defence and security forces or and DSF and with our allies and our partners to maintain counterterrorism capabilities in the region, sufficient to ensure that Afghanistan cannot become a safe haven for terrorists to threaten our security in this context. And in coordination with our Afghan and international partners were working to reposition our counterterrorism capabilities including by retaining assets in the region to prevent a re emergence of a terrorist threat to the United States homeland from Afghanistan and to hold the Taliban to its commitments to ensure that al Qaeda does not once again gain a foothold there. Or that ISIS or any other terrorist group could use Afghanistan as a base to attack us or our allies and we’ll refine our counterterrorism strategy to monitor and disrupt terrorist threats to our homeland and our interests in a way that corresponds to the dispersed threat landscape that we face today. Now, Mr Chairman, I’d like to thank Congress in this committee specifically for the continued support for the Afghan Security Forces fund or S. F. F. This is the mechanism through which the United States provides the majority of funding necessary to sustain the A. And E. S. F. And its combat operations, while developing the NDF into an effective and independent force capable of securing Afghanistan, protecting the Afghan people and contributing to regional security. As secretary, Austin has said, will continue funding key capabilities such as the Afghan Air Force and Special Mission Wing will continue paying salaries for Afghan security forces and will continue delivering certain military supplies. And we’re developing the mechanisms to provide appropriate oversight for the use of these funds, most of which will continue to be executed through diode contracts. And we’ve discussed with your staff how best to do this with efficiency and accountability. Although we’re withdrawing U. S. Troops from Afghanistan were standing squarely with our Afghan partners in redoubling our diplomatic efforts to achieve a lasting peace. Afghan forces are performing heroically against the relentless adversary. The Afghan army takes heavy losses daily, but they remain in the fight and they’re an institution of which the Afghan people can be proud. Mr Chairman. The department strongly supports the ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve a negotiated political settlement in Afghanistan, one that the Afghan people themselves endorse and we’ll continue working with our colleagues at the State Department to ensure that we take care of those afghans and their families who’ve helped us over the past two decades, most notably afghan employees of the Department of Defense and will continue providing sufficient support to the Department of State to maintain the important diplomatic mission that will continue after the Department of Defense is departure. In closing. I want to thank members of this committee for your continued support for all those who have served in Afghanistan. I thank you for this opportunity to brief you and I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you. Mr L. V. I believe general tetralogy. Usually I have a statement. That’s correct. I do not. Thank you very much sir. Before I begin, my question is, let me remind my colleagues that because of the hybrid nature of this hearing, we will not be using the early bird rule. We’re going by seniority also, we’ll have five minute rounds and I would ask everyone to mute the microphone if they’re not speaking. Thank you very much. Now. Mr Hell V uh and General Hollander, uh one of the critical aspects is maintaining that over the horizon capability to disrupt counterterror to terrorist groups. General Mackenzie described it as feasible but more demanding in terms of resources and other issues. Has there been any change in general Mackenzie’s assessment? Mr Holland, Elvis Mr Chairman, I believe that joe McKenzie statement is still very much accurate. I mean the geography is the same. We are working uh to develop the options to be able to provide the type of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and other you know, necessary um you know, elements to maintain an appropriate C. T. Or counterterrorism capability. Those those the planning and the discussions are ongoing on how to do that. Um in the interim, I would note that we do have significant capabilities that are resident in the Persian gulf region in the Middle East. Uh that obviously creates time and distance between between there and any type of operations that we may need to undertake. Uh and we’re looking at options that could be closer in within the region um in those conversations, in the planning for that is ongoing, general astrology. Do any comments on the steps that have been taken? Uh Most recently too mitigate the risk that General Mackenzie spoke of. Mr chairman, I would only offer that uh as we approach this particular problem, there is a sense of urgency and earnest uh planning effort ongoing so that we can maintain a seamless transition from that capability that resides in Afghanistan, but we would be required to be located elsewhere. So that planning continues in earnest. Now, with these activities be undertaken with our coalition partners, Are they fully integrated into the planning and the execution and also with regional uh countries. Was healthy. We are in some discussions with certain coalition partners with respect to uh you know, future CT architecture. Uh and obviously if we have any new arrangements made for access basing and overflight, that would be undertaken in consultation with local partners. Uh and these these are the types of negotiations that are that are under that are underway now that we’re supporting our State Department Intelligence community colleagues are also playing a role in that one of the uh specific articles in the agreement that the trump administration sign was the removal of all contractors. And yet you indicated in your statement that we will be using contractors to pay, distribute and overview the distribution of resources. How do we reconcile the appears complete withdrawal of contractors with contractors? Uh Mr Chairman, I had indicated it was duty contracts which may not necessarily involve dont contractors on the ground in Afghanistan. So we are looking at ways that we can provide the type of oversight for our security force assistance uh from an over the horizon posture. And we’re looking at options that we can continue doing that internally. I think the key things that we’re focused on uh are things like paying afghan salaries. A vast majority of the of the service members that are paid have electronic bank accounts, for example. And so there are ways that we can provide that uh, to the Afghan Ministry of Finance without necessarily having somebody there. But we do, we are looking at how to provide the right type of oversight uh, mechanisms so that we have confidence that the resources that were providing are going to its intended recipients. And we want to make sure that we’re working very closely with Congress to ensure that Congress is comfortable with those mechanisms as well. General Astrologer, one of my impressions is the key contractors are those mechanics that service their aircraft, Those especially trained individuals and the Afghan. After 20 years to our chagrin. Uh, we have not created a cadre of those types of individuals. How can they effectively maintain aircraft and uh, others fairly sophisticated pieces of equipment. Mr Chairman. We continue to work with them, uh, uh, looking at the potential ways, a variety of ways that we can get after continuing to support them, uh, to work on the aircraft in country and then looking at options whereby we can facilitate more extensive work on those airframes elsewhere. A final question. General Collins. We missed a lot of signals in 2014 about the status of the Iraqi Army and then suddenly they collapsed before Mosul. And it was a a rush to safety on their part not to contact with the enemy. How can we avoid that same situation on the ground in Afghanistan? At least knowing the that the strength and uh fighting capabilities of the force on the ground. MR Chairman, as we execute the retrograde, we’re going to continue to maintain contact with R. N. D. S. F. Partners, do what we can uh from elsewhere from outside the country and maintain good situational awareness of their current capabilities and any areas where we where they may be challenged and we may be able to help them. Thank you very much. Senator. Normal Police. Thank you. Mr Chairman. I know I sound like a broken record, but I’ve only had, I’ve had two consistent concerns with the action in Afghanistan. And I want to ask you each one a specific question about each of these things, one of course, being with what was supposed to have been done before, we would have a withdrawal and the other having to do with a concern for our coalition forces in their safety. So, and the first one, I think You all were are very familiar with the document of February 29 2020. That was the US Taliban agreement established a conditions based approach drawing down troops in Afghanistan. According to this agreement, the Taliban was supposed to take certain steps against terrorist groups and participate in in intra Afghan dialogue on the country’s political future. Now, what I’d like to ask each one of you to briefly respond to in your assessment, what areas has this agreement come to, what’s behind us now? What successes have we had In which conditions have been met, in which ones have not been met from that agreement? In February 29, 2020. To start with you, Mr Secretary, sir. Thank you for that question. I would I would say right up front that the taliban’s compliance with the agreement has has been uneven over time. And I think in terms of areas that we have seen uh young eh they follow through or you know, success um they did comply with their agreement not to conduct attacks against the U. S. Or coalition forces following the signing the agreement. And that is largely held with some very minor minor exceptions. So I think in terms of the attacks against US and coalition forces, they complied with that as I’ve testified publicly and said publicly previously. However, their violence against the Afghan forces uh in the afghan people remained very high throughout this period with respect to the entering into inter afghan negotiations. They did do that last september. They began discussions with the with the Afghan government on on future peace arrangements. Those uh those discussions have not been have not been fruitful. Uh but they did begin, that’s fine. We’re running out of time here. General. Do you generally agree with the comments of the answer that was given by the secretary Senator? I do agree and would just offer that as mr healthy mentioned since that agreement was signed, the Taliban has not targeted the U. S. Or coalition forces. I think that’s kind of a mixed answer. I understand, I appreciate it but I don’t think we’ve met the conditions that we talked about and of course this is a different administration. Now. The second area that I’ve been concerned about for a long period of time came from a number of articles, an awareness that’s out there we’ve seen. And one of them was that I actually had talked about was found in the USA Today May chance now in this thing. They talked about what’s what’s going to happen with our allies, people who stood by us and if we withdraw in a manner that they’re talking about and such things in the article, say, quote, that you will see the dead bodies every street and uh where he said he’s already being tracked by the the taliban. There were slaughterers. They’re in a panic right now because there’s been such a backlog of these visas, it goes on and on. And I do want to ask you at this point in the record, Mr Chairman, that must be a part of the record and without etcetera. So I’d like to know from each one of you what has happened, What have we been doing? What are we doing now to try to assuming that these problems are very real, and I don’t think anyone’s going to deny that they are that we can help our allies for the great job they have done for us. I’d like to have each of you respond. Let’s start with you on this one general. What can we do right now? To minimize the event? Senator? We continue to coordinate very closely with our coalition partners. Um We we went into this together. We’ve adjusted over the years together and we’re coming out together and we continue to work together uh to do our best to support the A and E. S. F. And and and the government of Afghanistan. You say we’re coming out together? That’s correct. Look at that to me, that makes that even worse. What do you think? Mr Secretary Uh senator, thank you for that question. And I agree with you. We have a moral obligation to help those that have have helped us over the past 20 years of of of our presence and work in Afghanistan. We are working very closely with our State Department inter agency colleagues to look at programs like the special immigrant visa program. However, as you know, that that program in of itself is limited, uh we’d like to be able to work with Congress to be able to increase the quotas and the resources for special immigrant visas. But there are certain categories of our Afghan partners that wouldn’t need the thresholds for special immigrant visas. So we need to look at other tools and other mechanisms uh to help those that have helped us, uh whether that’s uh significant public benefit or humanitarian parole or other types of mechanisms that we can use to to facilitate this. And we are working within the inter agency to be able to identify those and and get the proper resources attached to them with respect to special immigrant visas. Were working very closely with State Department to identify and provide data that can help to provide the identification the identities of those employees of the Department of Defense that would qualify. We’re also looking at biometric data, which can also help to provide information and insight on who may qualify for that type of that type of Okay, my my time has expired, but I don’t get a lot of comfort out of those answers. I’m very much concerned about those. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Thank you. Senator Inhofe. Senator Shane. Please Thank you. Mr Chairman Mr Hell V. I want to begin by sharing the chairman’s frustration with the fact that we don’t have not been able to hear from our general in Afghanistan. It’s very difficult for this committee to conduct its oversight responsibilities when we can’t get the appropriate people in front of us and there is no excuse for that. So I hope you will take that back to the department and share that with them. Um general challenger. There have been multiple reports over the last months since the February 2020 agreement that the Taliban have not broken their ties with Al Qaeda. That Al Qaeda continues to operate with the Taliban in Afghanistan and that ISIS also is operating in Afghanistan. Is that your understanding and is that the understanding of our military people on the ground in Afghanistan Senator? It’s clear that the uh the taliban’s compliance with the agreement has been uneven, but I would prefer to go into detail on that in our closed session. I appreciate that however people are going to know very soon. Once we pull out whether Al Qaeda and Isis continued to operate in Afghanistan. Mr Harvey. I appreciated your support for those Afghans who have helped us during our 20 years in Afghanistan. Um but I think we’ve got to be clearer about what we’re doing to address that. Currently there are estimated 18,000 Afghan s ivy applicants currently in process. These applicants and their families, as we know, are in imminent danger from the Taliban. Many of the delays in the S. I. V. Programs stem from the difficulty that those applicants have and obtaining employment verification letters from former and often defunct employers. And considering that many of those applicants have served in support of the military and directly with the Department of Defense, do we have a centralized database that can be used to verify the employment of those s ivy applicants? Sarah is my understanding that we we are drawing from a centralized database to to collect and provide biometric data to facilitate that type of identification. I don’t have the specific the scope for how long that biometric data has been collected. So I think there are some gaps in that. But since we began the collection and maintenance of that biometric data, we’ve been able to use that. There are uh Afghan individuals that have supported us prior to the collection of that biometric data that we are. We’re looking to pull other resources of data to provide that type of information to State Department. Can you share with me and with this committee specifically what we’re doing with that data? Uh Senator. If I if I can provide that in in writing just to provide this, that would be great. I appreciate that. Um In fiscal year 2014 N. D. H. A. Required that the Secretary of Defense designate a senior coordinating official and I’m quoting with sufficient expertise, authority and resources to carry out the duties with regard to the issuance of S. I. V. S. Um It tasks the official with developing proposals to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. Can you tell me if we have someone designated to do that, who that person is and if not, are we going to appoint someone to do that? I will have to get back to the center. I think that I mean state departments in the lead for this program. Um And so let me find out who that if there is such a special coordinator performing that function, I can tell you that. I don’t believe that there is. So I would urge the department to take a look at. Um finally, let me just ask you in the time that I have left about the status of women and girls in Afghanistan. We know that on May eight There was a best bombing that killed more than 80 people. Many of them were schoolgirls. We have seen the violence against women, particularly women in the media and women working in Afghanistan over the last months. And we based on what we understand from the taliban, we expect that continue once the United States pulls out. So, can you speak to any steps that we’re taking to try and support the women and girls of Afghanistan, and particularly in the context of the Women, Peace and Security Act in 2017, which requires the department to incorporate a gender lens, decision making into its policies and actions. Are we doing anything to involve women as we’re looking at what happens after we leave uh senator with respect to what we’re doing today? We we are using some of the funding within the Afghan security forces funder, Asif to uh encourage and build in the Afghan women in particular into the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces. And so that is something that we are doing with respect to what we’ve been doing that for some time, though. Is that Not correct? Yes. Sen. That that is something that we have been doing in compliance with the law uh in terms of where we need to go. I agree with you 100%. We want to be able to maintain uh and see the gains that we’ve made over the past 20 years preserved. We are this is something that we’re working with our State Department us, I’d colleagues and our coalition partners who are equally interested in this. Uh I think, you know, fundamentally this is going to have to be something that the the the Afghan government and the Taliban, if they are able to sit in and determine the arrangements for the future of Afghanistan, to figure out how to get to that peaceful outcome, outcome and to to be able to preserve these gains for all afghans. Uh I think as with respect to what the taliban does in the future, this is something that Ambassador Khalilzad has talked about at some point there. If they are in a position where they are exercising power influence in Afghanistan, they’re going to need to have international support. And that does provide a degree of leverage that the international community would have on the taliban in how it treats the people within the borders well, I appreciate that answer, but we have had a lot more leverage if we had made the point to the taliban when we were negotiating a peace agreement before we signed it. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Thank you. Senator jean. Now, let me recognize via Webex. Senator round. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Um Gentlemen, first of all, let me thank you both for being here before us today. Uh we most certainly appreciate your candor. We can’t hear you. How about now? We can hear you on webex but maybe not in the committee room. So mike we can hear you on web back so staff just has to turn up your volume in the committee room. Yeah, I think they need to He got it now. We can hear you now. All right, great, Yeah, thank you. Thanks Senator joe brand, appreciate that. Uh Gentlemen, first of all, let me just begin by saying thank you very much for your time in front of the committee today. I don’t think this is necessarily the type of uh of a meeting that you relish to come before the United States Senate. Um, I want to begin by acknowledging that there is no perfect answer. So what should be done next in Afghanistan? We’ve been in a protracted state of war for almost 20 years, At least 20 448 service members and civilians have died. An additional 20,722 service members and d. o. d. civilians have been wounded in action. According to the current diode website. The human cost has also been borne by our NATO allies, the Afghan National Security Forces and the Afghan people. Finally, we can never forget the 20 997 people who were killed in 911. My question is this, is there a middle ground where we continue or what we could continue to support the government of Afghanistan that would recognize the lives sacrificed in the hundreds of billions of dollars our citizens have invested in this endeavor, one that provides the resources to Afghanistan to prevent a return to being a haven for terrorists or the creation of a power vacuum which would benefit China Russia and Iran. While the Afghan government develops the unique capabilities that only we currently can provide. Gentlemen, Sarah, thank you for that question. And uh if I made that, that is that is the path that we are we are seeking to embark upon while we are uh retro grading the forces out of Afghanistan, We are, we want to make sure, and the president has been clear he wants to continue providing support and assistance to our afghan partners. So to the extent that we can we’re looking at ways to be able to continue providing the critical support to the N. D. S. F. Uh in terms of continue paying their salaries, continue providing assistance for contracted logistics and maintenance and providing support for the Afghan air forces in the special Mission wing. Which are, let me just ask this, are you talking about providing that until we are out of the country? Or are you talking about providing that over an extended period of time? We’re talking about providing that after we leave. In addition, the challenge that we face today is making sure that we’ve got the right type of oversight mechanisms that were working. But the intent would be that we would maintain that support provided. We also continue get the support from Congress. Uh The intent would be we would maintain those resources and that assistance to the Afghan government. Um Yeah, well, thank you. I appreciate. I think you’re answering my question on I do want to ask general trolling your rather than asking you the same question are expecting you to respond. I think because this will be a policy decision that the administration will be making. I want to go to you and I want to ask you this with the US withdrawing U. S. Forces from Afghanistan by september, want to ask to question the ability of the Afghan security forces to stand their ground against the Taliban and our ability to successfully conduct over the horizon counterterrorism operations. I know we’ve kind of touched on that little bit, but I want to ask it this way in your professional military judgment, can we successfully and continually combat threats posed by the Taliban, al Qaeda and other violent extremist organizations via over the horizon operations? I absolutely believe we can senator we have the capabilities uh to be able to posture in the region where it’s required. We have the capabilities to be able to monitor uh potential adversaries, attractive as adversaries and then strike when conditions permit and allow. Do we have the will to do that? Is that the plan right now? The plan right now would be to uh make a seamless transition from what we have currently in Afghanistan uh to other locations that would be able to meet our overarching objectives of ensuring that Afghanistan doesn’t become a safe haven for terrorists that would attack the US our allies. General, thank you for your answers. Mr Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much centered around now. Let me recognize Iowa back, Senator Gillibrand, thank you. Mr Chairman. I’d like to continue the questioning that Senator Shaheen started general Challenger with the U. S. And NATO’s departure. Human rights groups, non governmental organizations, schools and business are left trying to figure out contingency plans for female employees for female students should the taliban returned to power by force or through an agreement with the Afghan government? Considering the Taliban is already restricting the human rights of women and the territories they control. What is the U. S. Doing to ensure peace negotiations result in a deal that protects women throughout the country, particularly after the withdrawal. Senator. We continue to support the A. And E. S. F. And intend to do so going forward. Even as we retrograde from Afghanistan, we also continue to work with our coalition allies and partners to facilitate uh diplomatic pressure that can be put on against the taliban to work out a peaceful agreement negotiations with Gero uh such that women’s rights, girls rights et cetera are protected. Mr healthy. Over the last two decades, the United States has spent more than $780 million dollars to promote women’s rights and gender equality in Afghanistan. And the efforts have yielded mixed results. What kinds and amounts of funding should we expect in the future? How will funding be implemented given the security situation after troop withdrawals? Uh and second Afghan women have pointed to the vocal support by the United States and other international actors as key factors to advancing rights and participation in the public sphere. What will the U. S. Do to continue to advance women’s rights and gender equality? Senator? Thank you for that question. And uh and you’re right to point out, we have we have spent resources to to promote the rights of women and girls and other minorities in Afghanistan as part of our policy and approach there. I I don’t want to get ahead of the President’s budget in terms of what types of future funding would be, you know, would be requested or required. But with respect to the in response to this previous question to Senator Shaheen. Uh yes, it does have specific uh requirements for promoting women in the Afghan defence and security forces. And our intent would be that that would continue. We also continue working with our state uh and U. S. A. I. D. And coalition partners uh in providing the type of diplomatic support uh and pressure, uh pardon me, pressure on on the Taliban because I think fundamentally the best way to protect the rights of women, girls and minorities in Afghanistan is to realize a negotiated, peaceful A settlement and outcome to the war that’s been in Afghanistan for the better part of 40 years. Um I have some counterterrorism questions and assessments of Taliban strengths that I will ask in closed session. But let me just ask one more question of General Challenger before my time expires, what’s your assessment of the security of the U. S. Embassy in Kabul? And what is your assessment of how the security situation in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of troops will affect the ability to conduct diplomatic and other operations? I think our diplomatic facilities in Kabul remains secure um And and planning is ongoing currently, uh to ensure that that remains the case as we continue to conduct our Rachel retrograde and then any diplomatic security presence that that remains we want to ensure has the appropriate security force to protect our diplomats and their important mission. And then can you please, um I know you requested to answer Senator Shaheen’s question in closed session, but can you give us um your general assessment of the likelihood of Afghanistan falling under Taliban control? And if it does not fall completely the likelihood of central government only having control of Kabul. And what effect that will have on the Afghan people and our ability to fight terrorism. And perhaps maybe whether a piece or power sharing agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government, afghan government could prevent a Taliban takeover. I will acknowledge the range of potential outcomes uh in the months as we go forward. Everything uh from uh Taliban takeover to A. And E. S. F. B. And support are being successful in defending against the Taliban and Gero uh maintaining its ability to effectively govern uh and everything in between. But I will say that the A. And E. S. F. Is A. They’re capable force. They have capable ground air and special operations forces And uh here very recently they’ve effectively both defended against taliban attacks as well as going on the offensive to disrupt taliban activities. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Thank you Senator Gillibrand. Now let me recognize Senator Arch, please thank you Mr Chair and thank you gentlemen very much for Being here today. 20 years ago, of course, our nation service members deployed to deliver justice to the terrorists who had carried out the deadly and deliberate attacks on our homeland. And thousands of Iowans have proudly served in Afghanistan, risking life and limb. And I am hoping that I can assure the Iowa families and the american people that the threat to our homeland has been reduced and we have the measures in place to keep this threat at bay. So I know we have talked about our ability to project over the horizon. I understand that, but Mr Hell v what is your assessment of our adversary’s ability to plan for and conduct attacks on America from bases in Afghanistan after we have gone. So let’s talk about the reverse. What is their ability to plan? Not our ability to respond. What what is their ability to plan attacks on us when we have left? Their ability today has been significantly degraded in that degradation is due in large part to the presence that we’ve had in that country with respect to the specifics. I’d prefer to to to keep those specifics in the closed session. But I can say with confidence that the ability of international terrorist groups to plan recruit, train, organize and execute attacks against the United States from Afghanistan has been significantly reduced, significantly reduced because we are there and we’re enabling efforts on the part of the Afghan National Defence and Security forces correct our presence has had a significant impact on that. I would also add though, that the nature of the international terrorist threat Over the past 20 years has become much more diffuse. So, you know, as as we know, we’ve got uh terrorists, international terrorist groups operating in the Middle East and Africa, northern part of Africa. It’s not the nature of the threat has has changed over the past 20 years, but the threat emanating from from Afghanistan to the United States and our allies has been significantly degraded. And please don’t mistake me. I do believe that at some point we have to bring this war to an end. Absolutely, we have to do that. However, not leaving a remnant or a small number of troops within Afghanistan intelligence officials in Afghanistan, we are leaving a void and I do worry that while the threat has been diminished that it will reconstitute in Afghanistan. Um So just worries there and I hope that everything goes smoothly and that the impacts to stability are minimal. Um I do also share the concerns raised by Senator Shaheen and by Senator Gillibrand and Senator Gillibrand and I went to Afghanistan pre pre pandemic and we were able to visit a number of training facilities where Afghan women were being trained in various secretary and clerical positions, but also as women warriors. And I am very, very concerned about what will happen to them. What will happen to girls that have attended school and are now working in businesses. So I just want to reemphasize that um Senator Shaheen is leading a letter. I am a co lead to our president asking for those special immigrant visas. It is something that we are very concerned about. Um Just in the news this morning coming from Iowa, we have an Afghan interpreter in Iowa Falls and his asylum request has been denied. You just received the letter the other day. So if you can also work with the State Department and just stress to them as we are stressing to them how important it is that as we are withdrawing, we’re also making sure that we are protecting those who have enabled our forces in Afghanistan. It is extremely important. It’s not just the men that have served as interpreters, but it will also be the women and girls that have stepped up to assist us as well. Um so I am running out of time. I know this is a very important hearing. You can hear the level of frustration in all of our voices as we’re going through this. Um I do believe that again that we need to withdraw our forces. I think that is important but we need to do it in a smart and meaningful way. And I sincerely hope that this is the right plan because if not we will see a significant threat increase to our homeland, to our allies but most certainly to the people that we are leaving behind. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you Senator Orange. Now let me recognize Senator Kaine. Please thank you Mr. Chair and thank uh ranking member and thank our public servants for their testimony. Um Every concern expressed by everyone on this committee on this issue is very legitimate. I don’t think there’s just a a completely clear answer but I just want to stay quickly as I have before that I support President biden’s decision with respect to the removal of US. troops. We have been in Afghanistan, it’s the longest war in American history. 20 years come this September it took us 10 years to find and kill Osama bin laden the perpetrator and mastermind of the 9 11 attack. And then for 10 years we’ve done our best to build up and train and afghan security apparatus that was essentially non existent. When we began the war in 2001, the civil war in Afghanistan had degraded the Afghan military and national security forces and police to such a degree that we pretty much have to start from scratch 20 years in. I think I’m right, although I will certainly accept correction from the experts. The Afghan army is now about 180,000. As by my sort of quick Analysis. The Afghan Air Force is 7000 with hundreds of aircraft. The Afghan National Police is 116,000. Um All of these security components have been funded built carefully, carefully trained over these two decades by the United States and by other allies. The Taliban is estimated to be at about 55,000 to 85,000 And so the combined Afghan national security apparatus. If I’m correct. And this is over 300,000 and the Taliban a formidable Fighting Forces 55,085,000. The commitment of these witnesses and I hope congress will continue to meet this commitment is that the United States will continue to provide massive support to our partner and ally Afghanistan military support, including the payment of salaries of Afghan security forces, diplomatic support, humanitarian support, economic support. But we will remove 3500 us troops When President Biden made his announcement in April at that point, the official count of US. troops in Afghanistan was 2500. There were other reporting suggesting that possibly involved in special operations or additional missions. The total might have been 3500 Is 3500 us troops. The difference between success and failure in Afghanistan after 20 years, I don’t believe that it is. I don’t believe the 3500 us troops because no one in this committee, as far as I’m aware is proposing to increase the number of us troops. I don’t believe 3500 us troops after 20 years is the difference between a success or failure in Afghanistan when there’s an Afghan national security apparatus of more than 300,000 matched up against the Taliban of 55,085,000. What is the ingredient that will determine the success or failure in Afghanistan going forward? It’s the Afghan people, the Afghan people who have experienced a significant increase in life expectancy, who have experienced a significant increase in the education of their young, including the education of young women, a dramatic improvement in public health infrastructure in other elements of civil government. The Afghan people will have to decide, is it worth fighting for and it can’t be worth more to us than it is to them. And that’s kind of a painful thing to say. It’s kind of a cold, tough thing to say. But success in Afghanistan can’t mean more to the United States than it means to the afghans. And at the end of the day, I believe it won’t mean more to us than the Afghans. I believe the Afghans having seen the benefits of improved quality of life over 20 years, we’ll decide that they want to keep that rather than to go backwards and experience what they were during the time when the Taliban and others were engaged in a massive civil war of the country. But if the Afghans choose at the end of the day, that that doesn’t matter to them. There’s no amount of U. S. Troops, none, there’s no amount of U. S. Troops that would make a difference. And so I think this is a painful decision and the comments of my colleagues who feel differently about it, I completely get every legitimate concern they have and it’s a very legitimate concern. But we cannot want success in Afghanistan more than the Afghans do. And having built up a security apparatus with a continued commitment to funding that apparatus and being a supporter of our colleague of our allied nation going forward, I think that is the right role for the United States to play right now. And that’s why I support President Biden and his decision And I thank the witnesses for appearing today. Thank you. Senator Kaine. Let me recognize now. Senator Cramer, thank you. Mr Chairman, Thanks to both of you for being here. Question came up, Mhm. Based on some of the things I heard, um have we committed to completely supporting the current government in Afghanistan? Should it fall into all out civil war? And if so, what would that commitment include? Uh Senator, Thanks for that question. We we have committed to continue supporting the the Afghan, the Afghan government. We have a bilateral security agreement with the Afghan government, in which we indicate we will continue to seek funding uh to provide support to them to support the A and E S. F. Uh you know, through the mechanisms that we’ve specified in terms of training, advising and assisting salaries, you know, contractor logistics and assists and an assistant. So we have committed to supporting our Afghan partners and through this negotiation period through the implementation of the US Taliban agreement, we have continued supporting our our our Afghan partners as they’ve been fighting. The taliban. Obviously cost benefit analysis would include include your risk analysis, analysis would include the cost of preventing an all out civil war versus entering, having to come back and try to clean it up. And I I can associate myself with every comment that’s been made by my colleagues, even the ones that conflict, that’s how conflicting this is. I think for a lot of us as it is, no doubt for for you all. Um I think it was an early might have been in response to a question from the chairman, but I’m gonna maybe get more specific. Uh I think you mentioned something about I. S. R. Capabilities and whatnot. What type of unmanned or space born capabilities do we need to maintain or even enhance? To minimize the possibility of global terror threats? Do you have a sense of that? With with respect to uh you know, Afghanistan? I think the best way to characterize how we need to look at it is based on three concentric circles. There’s the type of uh yeah um footprint or apparatus that we would do in within Afghanistan is based largely on our relationships with local partners uh and DSF and the Afghan government to be able to understand what’s going on within uh within Afghanistan, then there’s a regional component to it which is outside which, you know, the things that we can’t have in Afghanistan, we’d want to be able to maintain to be able to provide the type of access basing and overflight that would allow us to have a type of presence. Um then there’s kind of like this broader global global framework where it includes not only national technical means, but also the types of capabilities that may not be resident within the region, but that we could flow into the region on an as needed basis. And I would also note that over the past 20 years we’ve had a lot of different changes in how we as a government that indeed as a society have been combating international terrorist organizations. You can’t get on a commercial aircraft or or or open a new bank account without understanding how we have changed in ways that help us to better understand and illuminate the types of terrorist threats that would seek to do us to do us and our allies harm. So I think all of these things have to be working in concert in order to be able to maintain the type of broader threat picture. If you will, the types of terrorist threats that we may need to face general. Maybe you could answer the same question in more specificity as it relates to afghan or the region, um, regarding assets, whether they be unmanned or space, is there more we can be doing to shore up this, this new, this new way of providing some security? Well, Senator, I think certainly the capability that we currently have and and use to achieve our objectives, we want to continue to uh huh uh, to utilize and make the technological advances that we’re able to to uh to better enable us. But in terms of specificity, I can’t offer you that right now. Very good. Thank you both. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Thank you. Senator Corman, now via webex, let me recognize Senator Manchin. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Um I want to thank all of you for your service and for being here today. And I want to pre congratulate Senator. We’re going to have to raise your volume. So if we withhold for a minute. Okay. Yeah, can you hear me now? MR will be better. Okay, I’ll talk louder. Yeah. Better. Okay. I want to say I want to thank everybody for their for their service. I want to pre congratulate uh rita General Challenger for his. Hopefully it is advancement, very proud of that. First, let me say I completely support the Afghanistan withdrawal and we have to shift our focus to other priority threats, the future of Afghanistan and the global impacts rest on where the government can prevail by securing Their country and upholding their 2004 Constitution between 2 9 and 2020. We increased And decreased troop strength at least five times these shifts in end strength range from a few 100 As much as 23,000 personnel. Additionally, we experienced major diplomatic and operational delays in 2012 With insider attacks and in 2013 with President Karzai temporarily suspended security talks with the US. More recently, the Taliban continues to refuse to negotiate negotiate efforts until all foreign forces are out of Afghanistan. So one question I would have to General Challenger. How we are withdrawal from Afghanistan? Impact other combatant commands. Mhm. Senator, if I understand your question correctly, as we withdraw from Afghanistan, how will that impact other combatant commands? And the only thing I can offer is that it is not in any way adversely impacting others. Thank you. Mr. Healthy. One of my fears about our withdrawal from Afghanistan as it will become a power vacuum in which terrorist organizations can recruit, train and operate from with nearly no assets on the ground. We’re going to have to rely on regional partners to work with us to stay ahead and on top of counterterrorism efforts. Are you confident in our regional partners and their capacity and commitment to driving terrorism out of the region? Thank you, senator. We will have to work with our our local and regional partners and we want to continue developing those capabilities and those partnerships to be able to ensure that we’ve got the right type of confidence in the right type of framework to address our CT threats. That’s one of the things that we as a department in concert with our interagency uh, colleagues are doing today is to make sure that we’ve got the right type of arrangements, relationships and framework so that we can ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorism. Could you outline your assessment of Pakistan and specifically the Pakistani intelligence service dc, and the role you expect them to play in our future. Pakistan has played an important role in Afghanistan and they have supported the Afghan peace process. Pakistan, as you know, also has allowed us to have overflight uh and access to be able to support our military presence uh in Afghanistan. We will continue our conversations with Pakistan because they’re supporting their contribution uh to the future of Afghanistan. The future peace in Afghanistan is going to be critical. Thank you, General Challenger. The amount of assets that we have accumulated in Afghanistan has to be significant special. Specifically, we have provided the Afghan forces with Black Hawk helicopters, 8 29 super tucano planes, armored vehicles, mine rollers, command and control capacity and large generators. What assets are you planning to leave behind for the Afghan forces? What assets will be withdrawn and what assets will be destroyed? Senator, As we conduct the retrograde? We will be uh transferring facilities, some vehicles, um, and other equipment that the Afghan National Defence forces can utilize in their ongoing efforts to secure the country. Uh, we will be retro rating that equipment that we’re able to bring back uh, to bases and stations, uh, an account of the United States as well as elsewhere. Um, and then we’ll be disposing of equipment that essentially is either obsolete, um, is inoperable or uh, legally, we’re not able to transfer to Afghanistan. What I always say is for those for the assets that you’re going to leave with uh, with the afghan people. What guarantees do the american people have, the taliban won’t get their hands on and use it against them? Senator, I don’t I think there are any guarantees. Again, I would acknowledge the range of possible outcomes over the coming months um, uh, from the dire uh, certainly to the to the positive. So I couldn’t offer any guarantees on that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. Senator Manchin. Now let me recognize Senator Blackburn, please. Thank you. Mr Chairman Secretary, healthy. Yes or no. Do you expect the taliban will take over Afghanistan when we leave? Sorry, Sarah. Yes or no. I do not expect the taliban to take over Afghanistan after we leave. So then what does the ISIS annual threat assessment say the taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield and the Afghan government will struggle to hold the taliban at bay If the coalition withdraw support, Sarah, I don’t believe there is any inconsistency. I would say there’s an inconsistency. Oh yes or no. Now have we seen a steady stream and violence out of the taliban over the last year? Yes. Sen. Yes it has risen 169%. They’re getting really aggressive. Yes or no. Have the Taliban previously demonstrated a propensity for human rights abuses? Cultural Genocide. Ethnic cleansing efforts historically? Yes. Yes they have and we have thousands of undocumented cases and we know that the U. S. Still needs a presence in Afghanistan stand to resist Iran’s malign interest and their plots. And if we fail to recognize the opportunity Afghanistan presents to what the India’s sites as rogue regimes and revision powers. We’re kidding ourselves. General troll injure. Yes or no for you. Do you agree with the I. C. S. Annual threat assessment that and I’m quoting Iran will hedge its bets in Afghanistan, threatening stability. Is worried about a long term U. S. Presence in Afghanistan and as a result this building ties with both the government in Kabul and the Taliban. So it can take advantage of any political outcome. Yes or no. You agree? I would agree. Okay thank you. And to you again general troll injure yes or no has a run provided support to the Taliban at this point in time. Not to my knowledge. Not to your knowledge. Okay. Uh as a Middle East subject matter expert on the joint staff, do you assess that Iran is intent on taking advantage of a US withdrawal in Afghanistan? And what does that look like? I would assess that they would be opportunist and looking for every opportunity to gain a an advantage, a decisive advantage, a slight advantage of any opportunity they might perceive that they have. They would look to take advantage of that. Do you believe that Iran is prepared both politically and militarily to compete on two fronts? I can’t answer that question. Okay, could you answer that in closed session? I could talk to you more about that includes such excellent thank you. Within 48 hours of the announced Afghanistan withdrawal, the Washington Post wrote, and I’m quoting Beijing, should use its leverage with Pakistan to keep the Taliban true to the February 2020 agreement and encouraging a ceasefire among fighting parties in Afghanistan. China has some incentive to do this lest Afghanistan become a source of instability, particularly with in Xinjiang. So secretary healthy. Do uss china Iran are both will inject themselves into the affairs of a post US occupied Afghanistan. And what form do you see that taking? Uh Senator? I do agree that I think china will become more involved. They are involved in Afghanistan. Do you think Beijing looks at Afghanistan as an investment opportunity? Yes, Senator. They’re they’re looking at it primarily for economic purposes. But also they do have concerns about counter terrorism and extremist threats, rare earth minerals. Uh that would that would fall within an economic opportunity yesterday. Thank you. Uh knowing what you know about China’s belt and road initiative specifically there overland routes. Are they predicated on the access to Central Asia? A significant part of one belt. One road does transit through Central Asia and Pakistan. From an exclusively geographic standpoint, if china had unfettered access to Afghanistan, knowing that they share that border, would there be anything standing between them and their land based br I route to Tehran? I would have to look into that a little bit more in detail. We I’m aware of the investments through Central Asia and Pakistan. Um There’s also maritime routes to to Iran as well but that I would I would submit that’s not the that’s not the objective. Uh I would appreciate getting that in writing because I think it would give them that unfettered access. The ability to build that consistent. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Thank you Senator Blackburn and let me recognize Senator King. Thank you. Mr Chairman. I think my first question Mr Halsey is the Trump administration entered into agreement an agreement in February of 2020 That all US. troops would be out of Afghanistan by May one of 2021. The taliban had indicated that if that did not occur they would begin attacking U. S. Troops which they had not done during the period leading up to that. My specific question is have there been attacks on US troops Subsequent to May one or has the Taliban tacitly accepted the fact that it’s the timetable has been extended to September senator? I there have been no Taliban attacks against U. S. Or coalition forces. Uh Since May one, I can’t speak to what the taliban’s thinking is or what if there’s been a tacit internal acceptance of that? But there have been no attacks against U. S. Or coalition forces. But the taliban has gained ground in the last several months, have they not? Senator? Yeah. Yes the Taliban has has gained some some ground in Afghanistan. Uh And they’ve continued uh positioning themselves uh you know, within Afghanistan. Um you know, over the past several months, a question for both of you. Uh This is the this is the definition of a difficult decision. Uh Were we to decide It’s an over it’s a vital national interest to preserve the existing civil government, to protect women, women’s rights and otherwise stifle the power of the taliban in the country? What would it take in terms of a commitment by this country? In terms of troops, money? Air power, Are we back? 200,000 troops? A surge such as occurred some years ago? General? Your thoughts, what would it take, Senator? I can’t answer that question specifically. I don’t I don’t uh I won’t Presuppose a decision or a possible outcome and can’t speak to what it might take in that. But if the president said to you, I want to stabilize, I want to get Afghanistan back to where it was five years ago. Your military advice would be we need a lot more troops. Mr. President and I s our air power a greater investment. Isn’t that true? I mean, uh We’re not going to do it with 2500 4000 troops. Isen’t that correct? I would I would guess that if if that guidance and direction was given and the objectives were changed, then yes, we would. We would look to have significantly more capability For an indefinite period. That’s that’s that’s what’s very difficult about this. We’ve been there 20 years and here we are, with somewhat the same situation that we were in when we entered the country. So it’s not only is it a question of investment, but it’s a question of persistent investment. Over, as I say, an indefinite period, would you agree you probably don’t want to? But I’m asking you. Well, again, I think if uh I don’t want to Presuppose, uh certainly an outcome or direction that were given in terms of uh maybe our objective, changing what it is we need to do based on a potential outcome. Mr Hosie, uh, We’ve invested a huge amount in Afghanistan terms of dollars, lives 10s of thousands of people wounded. And yet, here we are, on the brink of It’s debatable. We’ll know in a year or so, a Taliban retaking the country and we’re right back where we were in 2001. My question is, why couldn’t the the Afghan government succeed given the level of support that they’ve had? Why they’ve had airpower, they’ve had is our they’ve had economic support. They’ve had infrastructure support. And yet we see this terrorist group taking over in rural areas and approaching Kabul. What is this? Is this something in the nature of the afghan polity that central government has not going to succeed? Or or was it the people in this government? What why are we, why are we where we are given the level of investment we’ve made senator. That that’s a that’s a complicated question. I mean, in part, I think you’ve hit on a number of points, I think, yeah, uh, you know, the central government in Afghanistan has not been strong. It’s been over the course of afghans history. Uh, it has not been pronounced by strong central government. In fact, it’s largely been weak and and diffuse and distributed what we have a scene. And what we’ve tried to tried to promote is a greater central government, bringing all afghans to the table and being part of a governing system that can ensure security for the country in economic development. That has been, that has been difficult and that’s been that is not yet complete. I think in terms of why we were there center, I think it’s important that we were there, we were there because of the attacks against this country. It was a counterterrorism mission. It was a counterterrorism mission. That’s why we were authorized forces to go there and it succeeded for 20 years. It has it is it has it has largely succeeded. We brought the perpetrators of the 9 11 attacks uh to justice and we have significantly reduced the threat of international terrorists emanating from Afghanistan. I think the president’s decision reflects his determination that american interests uh can best be served by uh by by completing and ending the U. S. Military involvement in Afghanistan. That doesn’t mean that the U. S. Involvement in Afghanistan concludes we will continue to work with the Afghan government, will continue to maintain a diplomatic presence and we’ll continue providing support to our Afghan partners because we do have interests still in Afghanistan. But the president’s determination is our interests can best be served without a military presence in that country. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator King. Let me recognize Senator Tuberville, please. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today. Uh, Today 41 of our veterans served in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s our largest group of veterans ever. 7.8 million. We paid the ultimate price. Yeah. As a nation and in discussion on withdrawal needs to bear the sacrifice. And minor Afghan veterans will be listening closely today. Um General, uh, where will our nearest base be to Afghanistan? After we pull out? Where will our nearest base be? After we pull out of Afghanistan? After we pull in Afghanistan? I believe our nearest base would be in the Arabian gulf free. Yeah, thank you. And your experience. Has the US been successful in over the risings counterterrorism efforts uh, in the past? Yeah. You know, I’ve got Tell me a little bit uh went through Vietnam uh 18 years old. The stop the draft. I didn’t go, had a lot of buddies that went some didn’t come back. I can, one of my worst memories is that helicopter over Africa over our embassy and when we’re pulling out and we left behind millions of people that supported us and a lot of them were slaughtered. Hope to heck we don’t do this and this one, we did the same thing in a in Iraq. Sooner or later we’re gonna have to understand why we get in these wars, we get them to win them. Uh And the american people deserve to know that we spend trillions of dollars. Uh uh Secretary of the U. S. Embassy in Afghanistan is already known as a variable military bunker. Do you believe that we’ll be able to maintain that embassy senator? Yes. And we are we are working today with our State Department U. S. Embassy Kabul, uh Joint Staff Central Command young counterparts to determine what specifically the requirements would be to to maintain that embassy and and how to resource that. That’s also something that we’re undertaking in concert with our with our coalition partners as well. Thank you. Thank you. Mr Chairman, thank you Senator Tuberville. Now recognize Senator Peters please? Thank you. Mr Chairman and gentlemen, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your service. Uh Mr Harvey. I’ll just start with a statement because I know you’ve been asked this question many times here uh this morning regarding special immigrant visa program and I just wanted to add my two cents worth of uh I appreciate your willingness if you’ve committed to working on that. Clearly folks who have been helping us over many years and served this country, we have to make sure that they are taken care of in a way that doesn’t bring harm to themselves with their families. So I I appreciate your commitment that that you have already made here and hope that that will indeed occur. My question to you first, Mr Harvey is the absence of Taliban attacks on us and NATO personnel since May one indicates a capacity. It appears to adhere to the agreements that were made with us. But the peace process is ultimately between the Taliban and the Afghan government. And my question to you is how do we remain optimistic when over 400 pro government forces and Afghan civilians were killed just in the first two weeks of May? Uh Senator I I wouldn’t say that I’m optimistic. I would say that work still remains to be done and that the best future for Afghanistan will arrive through a negotiated peace settlement. And that’s something that we as a department uh and as a government are continuing and committed to supporting this is this is a critically important work, but fundamentally the best path to a safe, secure and more prosperous future in Afghanistan is going to be the Afghan people themselves sitting down in determining determining their future. Indeed, a challenge that way, it’s a significant one going forward. General. Uh the joint doctrine of stability list for fundamentals of stabilization, which I’m sure you’re very, very familiar with unity of effort, conflict, transformation and host nation ownership and capacity by the measure of the joint doctrine for stability is Afghanistan clearly are currently stable and if not how does how would that relate to these four fundamentals of stabilization? Senator, I think that Afghanistan is clearly very challenged right now um in those different areas, given that the the the pressure that the Taliban or exerting in different areas of the country um and the challenges that the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban face with their efforts to get after a negotiated peace settlement mr Harvey um in addition to funding capabilities and paying salary, will the Department of Defense continue institutional capacity building, such as the Military of Defense Advisor program going forward? Uh Sarah, I think those uh those capabilities or those programs will have to be adjusted. I think the principal vehicles that we’re gonna be looking to support is the salaries, support for the Afghan Air Force and Special Mission Wing and then the logistics and supply. Now, how we do that type of training and mentoring can be adjusted. So we’re looking at different mechanisms and ways to be able to do that. Some of that can be done over the horizon. We would also look to maintain some type of security cooperation, you know, presence, which is typical and traditional through an embassy that can allow us to maintain those types of connections at the ministry level. Very good. Thank you Mr chairman.