Transcripts For CSPAN Deputy Sec Of State Sullivan On Afghanistan Strategy 20180207

Sen. Corker the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will come to order. We thank all those in attendance. In rolling out its new south asia strategy last august, the administration underscored the United States hardfought security gains in afghanistan and reiterated our commitment to helping establish a foundation for political resolution. With the recent reports of shrinking government control of territory, continued high attrition of Afghan Forces and deadly attacks in kabul, it is clear that foundation is a long way off. But we are encouraged by the new strategy. 12,300 military personnel with additional requests approaching the level of our force commander requested in 2014. Our nato a nonnato allies have also reinforced their troop commitments and support to Afghan Forces through 2020. U. S. Commander nicholson says he has what he needs to assist afghans in achieving a sustainable outcome for the region. The new conditionsbased approach provides afghans, our allies and the taliban clear signal of american commitment as the National Unity government pursues fiscal reform and selfreliance efforts. This administration has also rightly drawn a clear line with pakistan, suspending Security Assistance of over 1 billion as long as islamabad continues to shelter terror groups that target innocent civilians as well as u. S. And allied forces. This more pointed approach is designed to confront pakistans duplicity and threats to our efforts in afghanistan. The administration has prioritized an effort toward a selfgoverning afghanistan that is at peace with its neighbors. I am pleased to hear that deputy general werethe recently in kabul after deadly attacks. These attacks highlight the deadly threats that remain and we must counteract them with a far more unified, international community. While President Trump and president ghani have stated these attacks might preclude a Peace Process with the taliban at the moment, it is incumbent on us to be ready when the moment occurs. I welcome our witnesses and hope to hear more specifics of the strategy, particularly in the area of economic and personal diplomacy, in order to make the most of the military gains. I will turn to our distinguished ranking member. Sen. Cardin i appreciate this hearing so we can hear from the administration, the strategies for afghanistan having for. We have distinguished witnesses and i particularly appreciate that the department of defense is present and represented here today. As you know, during the syria hearings, we were unable to get a representative from the department of defense and i think that was unfortunate to we still have not had a classified briefing on the u. S. Troop presence moving forward in syria and i hope that will take place. Afghanistan, 16 years of u. S. Combat in afghanistan, significant u. S. Investment of blood and treasure. We are finding out that it is much harder to make peace than war, which is something we always know was a challenge. All of us condemn the recent carnage that was caused by the insurgents and terrorists in the attack last month, and we very much are committed to ending the violence in afghanistan. The question is, what is the u. S. Policy as it relates to resolving longterm peace in afghanistan . Mr. Chairman, i will note President Trumps comment to the United Nations security council. Here i think we are finding conflicting messages as to what the u. S. Policy is in afghanistan. The president said, we dont want to talk to the taliban. We will finish what we have to finish, what nobody else has been able to finish, we are going to be able to do it. That raises the question as to whether the president believes this is a militaryonly operation, which i certainly disagree with. I notice that one day after the president s remarks, our witness, secretary sullivan, said the strategy is to convince the taliban or significant elements of the taliban that there is not a military solution to the security situation here, that ultimately the peace and security of afghanistan will be determined by peace talks. Mr. Secretary, i agree with that, and i think thats where our strategy should be. The question is, is it clear to our stakeholders globally what the u. S. Policy is in afghanistan . This administration really believe a simple suspension excuse me, do we have a clear message as to what the u. S. Policy is in regards to our partners in that region . I hope we will have a chance to talk about that today. I want to hear, as i mentioned to you before coming into the chamber, i want to review here today our regional efforts in regards to pakistan and how that impacts our strategy in afghanistan. Does the administration really believe that a simple suspension of Security Assistance is going to bring about a lasting commitment by pakistan to drop support for the Afghan Taliban or network . It has not before. We have tried to several times over the 16 years. I have little confidence that such behavioral change is coming. We prepared to do more to elicit the behavioral change we want or is this just more about the same . Assistant secretary schreiber, i hope you can give us a clear, detailed sense of the military conflict on the ground. I understand much of the u. S. Military strategy is on Afghan Security force efforts to protect Population Centers. Judging by the attacks in kabul, something is not working. We see the taliban control and increasing swaths of the afghan territory. It competes with isis for influence, leading to more and more brutal attacks. The Current Situation is grim. Bottom line, the administration consistently says it has a conditionsbased strategy to track with the approach by the obama administration, at administration has yet to articulate what those conditions are. What is the end of state the u. S. And nato troops are fighting for . Should people simply accept this is a forever war . To me, the answer is a clear and resounding no. There is no military solution to the conflict in afghanistan. Last year, i proposed legislation that would boost diplomatic engagement on a Peace Process as well as hard work on pursuing justice for wartime atrocities and abuses and corruption by afghan officials that continue to undermine the Peace Process. I stand ready, as i think the members of the committee, to work with the administration so we have a clear policy for an endgame in afghanistan that can bring stability to the people of afghanistan, allow our troops to come home and really achieve what i hope is our objective. Sen. Corker with that, i would like to recognize our distinguished witnesses today, our first is the honorable john sullivan, the deputy secretary of state. Our second witness is the honorable randall schriver, thank you both for being here. We appreciate you for this timely hearing. If you could keep comments to around five minutes that would be great, any written testimony you have without objection will be entered into the record. With that, secretary sullivan, if you will begin, we would appreciate it. Sec. Sullivan thank you, mr. Chairman, good morning. Thank you for inviting me here today to provide an update to south asianrations policy, particularly as it applies to afghanistan. Ble to kabul last week and we are engaging with their partners on a regional approach in south asia to bolster civility in the region and afghanistan in particular. During my trip, i was first and foremost able to extend in person condolences, thoughts and prayers to the hundreds of victims and their families, all of those who were affected by the recent terrible acts of violent terrorism. The United States remains firmly committed to supporting the Afghan People and their governments efforts to achieve peace, security and prosperity for the country. Kabul, i met with afghan partners. Every leader reiterated support for our strategy and their commitment to committing grading the commissions their commitment to creating the conditions to establish an environment for sustained peace. These leaders also reaffirmed ther support for afghanistan compact, a series of benchmarks established by the afghans to implement reforms and dutch reforms in security, government, rule of law, economic develop and and peace and reconciliation. President ghani and i cochaired an executive meeting of the compact where we reviewed and highlighted progress on those benchmarks. I also discussed with the afghan leadership the critical importance of timely come a credible and transparent elections. It is vital that parliamentary and president ial elections take place this year and next respectively and they reflect the will of the Afghan People and create an inclusive government that continues to implement these fundamental reforms. In addition to shifting to a conditionsbased approach instead of one predicated on arbitrary timelines, the south asia strategy marks a change from the status quo in u. S. Pakistan relations. We intend to hold pakistan accountable for its failure to deny sanctuary to militant proxies. We also encourage restraint in pakistans military and Nuclear Missile programs and seek continued closer alignment of pakistans nonproliferation policies with our own. We continue to value our relationship with pakistan and recognize the benefit of cooperation. Pakistan has played an Important Role in pushing you pushing al qaeda closer to defeat, combating isis, securing nuclear weapons, hosting afghan refugees and providing access for supplies and equipment used by u. S. And Afghan Forces. We also acknowledge the enormous sacrifices pakistani people and Security Forces have made to combat terrorism. We have shared with pakistan our staff asia strategy in detail expectations clear to pakistan, emphasizing they must take Decisive Action against all militant in terrorist groups placed there. In january, the president suspended Security Assistance to the Pakistani Military with limited exceptions for programs that requisite for u. S. National security interests, which will be decided on a casebycase basis. We will consider lifting the suspension we see decisive and sustained actions to address our concerns, including targeting all terrorist groups operating within its territory without distinction. The United States is committed to doing our part to reduce tensions in the region in ways that address pakistans legitimate concerns. To be clear, we oppose the use of terrorist proxies by any country against another country anywhere in the world. The use of terrorism has no place in a rulesbased, international system. We hope the pakistanis will also help to convince the taliban to enter into a Peace Process. We continue to deepen our Strategic Partnership with india. Secretary tillerson travel to new delhi for consultation in october of. 17 and we expect to launch our inaugural two plus two dialogue with india in washington this spring with secretary tillerson and secretary mattis meeting with their indian counterparts to further deepen our security ties. The United States and india share economic and humanitarian interest in afghanistan. India has allocated more than 3 billion in assistance to afghanistan since 2001. India further strengthened ties with afghanistan with the signing of a Development Partnership agreement last year. We appreciate these contributions and look forward to more ways to work with india to promote Economic Growth and security in afghanistan. The United States is also strengthening our partnerships with the Central Asian republics. We are committed to supporting their independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty and fostering regional connectivity. Two weeks ago, i attended a c the plus one, the c being five Central Asian republics plus United States, on a discussion about afghanistan, where we discussed our multilateral efforts to support afghanistan and enhance Central Asian cooperation. Akhstan innospec a stand vided in portent access provided important access. This is helped to provide stability in afghanistan and provide more Economic Opportunity for the people of central asia. Recent setbacks stemming from her ethic and a senseless acts of violence we witnessed recently, the president s south asia strategy is showing some kind of progress. On the battlefield, we are seeing the taliban momentum begin to slow. No major Population Center has fallen to the taliban since its temporary occupation of a city in 2015. Afghan forces are on the offensive. And nato partners contributing more than 6500 troops, are actively supporting our vision for a stable afghanistan and a more prosperous south asia. In the Afghan Government, we have a partner tackling economic, political and governance challenges, including corruption, that have greatly hindered progress to date. Thank you in a look forward to answering your questions. Sen. Corker thank you very much. Secretary schreiber, thank you sir. Sec. Schreiber thank you very much. I am thankful for the opportunity to give a dod perspective on the implementation of our south asia strategy. In august, the president announced our new integrated regional strategy, and this strategy was developed to address the enduring interest we have in south asia and in afghanistan in particular. Twoh asia is home to Nuclear Armed countries, it is also home to the highest concentration of u. S. Designated foreign terrorist groups, so we have an enduring interest there. Our strategy emphasizes Regional Corporation to reduce the threat of terrorism, reduce the threat and possibility of nuclear conflict, and put pressure on the taliban and other parties that seek reconciliation. In afghanistan, we remain engaged with pakistan to protect americans, to protect our homeland and in there are no safe havens from which terrorists can plan, operate and support attacks. Our strategy focuses on the region as a whole and shifts from a timebased approach to conditions on the ground approach and promotes political settlement. Regarding afghanistan, we focus on four key pillars known as the. Ocalled for rs let me update you on each. Regionalization focuses on sharing, her in neutralizing potential spoilers and trading conditions for durable clinical solutions. Noted,deputy secretary we are also pleased with indias role in this regard and their decision to increase economic and humanitarian aid to afghanistan. As he also noted, we have shifted our approach on pakistan. They are an important partner in absolutely key to our strategy succeeding. Ipring secretary mattis tr last year pakistan, he may clear we appreciate the sacrifices they have made in the war on terror, or interest in continuing to partner with them but he made clear we must see a change in their behavior, in particular in areas where we have great concerns. Improvingent involves the afghanistan nationals offensive National Defensive capabilities and effectiveness. We do so by reviving advisory support, Taylor Quitman and training, and assistance in expanding the size and reach of the more highperforming forces. We also do this by assisting in areas where they lack key capabilities, such as in aviation and intelligence. Coalition partner of us are underway, and will continue through 2018 and our own uplift is underway. U. S. And nato will seek increased afghanistan control of Population Centers, reduction of violence, increased capabilities of Afghan Special forces and an increase to the independence of sdf operations. Simultaneously, we are relying u. S. Military and civilian assistance to coincide with our overall objectives and strategy. Major realignment initiatives include adjustments to our authorities, seeking a unity of effort within the Afghan Security forces, and a shift resources outside of afghanistan into theater. The leadership and kabul seek to double the size of the special forces and modernize their force, which we are contribute to and helping them with. Next steps will include the deployment of u. S. Security assistance for grades into the existing structure and we will continue to evaluate and determine how this affects how those efforts impact the effectiveness of Afghan Security forces. Reconciliation does remain our overarching objective. We seek to drive the taliban into understanding they will not achieve their goals on the battlefield or through violence. To do so, we will continue to support the Afghan Security forces on the battlefield, to ship the choices of the taliban and any other opponents of the government. We seek to drive all of the parties to a political selling that inical settlement the conflict, reduces violence and denies safe haven for terrorists. Thank you, i look forward to any questions you may have. Sen. Corker thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. Secretary schreiber, let me start with you if i might. A good part of the u. S. Engagement in afghanistan is to maintain the confidence of the inple that we are there interest of having a government that will protect the rights of all of its people. You have been some reported , that involve behavior involving Afghan Security forces and children that it has been reported u. S. Soldiers witnessed, and were told it would be better to leave it alone rather than reporting misconduct. We have a very clear policy among our military that the United States has a responsibility to make sure there is accountability, including the forces that we are working with, to report any abuse of human rights and make sure the accountability for atrocities are in short are ensured . Sec. Sullivan we do. He certainly reject any of that kind of behavior and would seek to address that. Thatlcome any scrutiny reveals that, including reporting by our forces and certainly we have seen the same kind of reporting and work has been delivered to our forces that they have a responsibility to report this kind of activity should they see it. Its really important, we have had this conversation with secretary sullivan and the state department, the part of the healing process in afghanistan is accountability for those who have committed gross violations of human rights. Whether they are the insurgents, terrorists, or local forces. Mr. Secretary, that is still the policy of the United States on accountability as part of the settlement of what is going on in afghanistan . Sec. Sullivan emphatically so. We bring it up repeatedly with our partners in the Afghan Government and i did during my visit last week with president ghani in his cabinet. Sen. Cardin would you briefly review with us the status of the opportunities for regional diplomacy and whether the United States will be participating in the meetings in the kabul is a scheduled to take place at the clear this month. There are an number of opportunities. Ae kabul process and then conference in kazakhstan. Sen. Cardin who will represent the United States . Sec. Sullivan the United States will be represented, i dont know if thats been determined, i might be the representative. Sen. Cardin lets talk a little bit about pakistan. What is the strategy here . Have we seen any change in behavior positive for United States as a result of the announced policies on International Aid . Sec. Sullivan personally hasnt been any change that we would consider final and irrevocable. Weve had a number of discussions with our pakistani partners on expectations change and expelling terrorists from areas in which they have been allowed to operate. They understand what we expect. Our suspension of security istance continues and continues until we see more evidence they are in fact taking action feud they have engaged in discussions with us, but there hasnt been a significant amount of action such that we would be lifting that suspension of Security Assistance. What is our objective in regards to taliban with their participation in the Peace Process . The role the u. S. Place, the role afghanistan plays, how does that come about . What is the diplomacy that comes about a meaningful process that leads to these . Sec. Sullivan weve engaged in discussions with the government in kabul and islamabad about the need for Peace Process to resolve the security situation in afghanistan. Sen. Cardin including the taliban . Sec. Sullivan including the telegram. The we havent seen any inclination from every significant elements of the taliban. They are still engaging in horrific acts of terrorist violence, as we saw last month bul. A everyone else seems willing to engage in a discussion at a peace conference except those elements of the taliban who are engaged in killing innocent men and women and children in kabul. Sen. Cardin one last question, the common perception is that pakistan is not doing enough to change that equation. Is that your assessment . Sec. Sullivan certainly our assessment that pakistan has not done enough to expel elements of the taliban that have been operating in sanctuaries in pakistan and able to cross the border. Sen. Cardin thank you. Sen. Corker senator young. Young secretary schreiber, in your prepared statement, you talked about allowing deaf can forces to become more capable. You touched on the efforts to translate transfer to u. S. Made aircraft. I support that effort. It will provide them secure capability, more lifecycle sustainment of equivalent and increased interoperability with our own forces. Secretary schreiber, do you this will yield benefits for afghan partners and the United States . We believe it will and it is an important part of our approach. Sen. Young im glad to hear you say that. As a happy coincidence that this will also provide benefits to u. S. Workers. It is certainly true for my own constituents in the state of indiana. In the northern part of my stay, we are proudly building thousands of new humvees for the Afghan Security forces. My constituents take great pride in that work, knowing that a more capable and better protected Afghan Security forces and safer america, as well. How afghan partners should not have to write against terrorists in pickup trucks, which is somewhere having to do. Ally inonsider me an the effort to facilitate transition to u. S. Equivalent for the Afghan Security forces to u. S. Equipment for the Afghan Security forces. Secretary sullivan come on a quick but important note, i want to thank you and your department for your assistance related to some ethiopian adoptions we have been trying to consummate. This has been very important to a number of families in my own state, and i have received a specific and unequivocal equivalent from the new ethiopian ambassador, you should know, related to certain cases that are still in the pipeline. So i am hopeful and optimistic that the new ambassador will honor his commitment to me regarding these specific cases and i wanted to publicly articulate my hopefulness and gratitude to your department. If for some reason this commitment is not honored, i may need to request your assistance with again. Conversatione that in the coming weeks depending on the answer i get . Sec. Sullivan of course, we have this conversation going back almost two year now and we are aware of recent developments and he the opiate with respect to adoptions and the need for special treatments for those cases already pending. I would be happy to discuss that with you further. Sen. Young thank you so much. Ittly, i would like to turn the socalled afghanistan compact. I applaud the of for shifting to a conditions based rather than calendarbased approach to the military campaign in afghanistan. Our National Security interest in objectives, the situation on the ground and advice of our diplomats and military leaders should guide our force posture in afghanistan. However, military progress is necessary but not sufficient. If we dont see progress in governance, rule of law and development, any military gains will not be sustainable and the military gains will not lead to durable attainment of our objectives in afghanistan. This is what our national therity adviser often calls need to consolidate our gains. In youry sullivan, prepared testimony, you mentioned the afghanistan compact, a series of reform benchmarks established by the afghans to implement reforms in the areas of security, governance, rule of law, Economic Development and peace and reconciliation. According to a statement by our sets more kabul, this than 200 benchmarks. Secretary sullivan, you also write in your repair testimony that during your trip to afghanistan last week, you reviewed and highlighted progress on those benchmarks. Testified last september that the Afghan Government has asked us to hold them accountable to this commitment. Secretary sullivan, where is the Afghan Government falling short of these benchmarks and what is being done to address the shortcomings . Sec. Sullivan the principal ,ocus of our meetings last week ambassador bass and i met with ,resident ghani and his cabinet it is the executive committee that formed the socalled compact. Our focus last week was on correction and on correction and anticorruption efforts. The afghans have adopted a legal structure which we applaud and have supported. Where we need to see more action is on followthrough. On cases that are brought under the legal regime that has been anpted, they have adopted office to prosecute corruption cases, but we need to see that office and those legal remedies actually employed. There have been some cases brought, but i pointed out that there really have not been as many as we would have expected given the scope of the problem. Sen. Young your secretary, you strike me, every time you are before the committee, your forthcoming and i thank you. What i really think we need is more detail as a committee so we can fulfill our article one oversight responsibility. Can you commit to providing a list of the afghanistan compact benchmarks and a detailed, specific and written assessment of where the Afghan Government is falling short on these commitments and how kabul presumably plans to address the shortcomings . Sec. Sullivan i do, i welcome it. Thank you. Thank you both for being here. Senator shriver, i am secretaryhere schriver, i am particularly glad to see you here, i think it is good to see how state and dod are working in conjunction on issues like afghanistan. Having said that, there are some measures that suggest the oriban is in control of contesting more territory today than at any point during 2001. You all have referred to the horrific terrorist attacks that killed so many afghans in recent weeks. Am trying to better understand how this strategy is going to move afghanistan fort. Forward. President trump declared in august of last year that america is not nationbuilding again, and so i am not clear what exactly that means, because like senator young, i share the concern that big if not bigger issue in afghanistan then the military situation. Nationbuilding, does this mean we are less committed to human rights, to fighting corruption, promoting Good Governance . What exactly does that mean . I guess this is for you, mr. Sullivan. Sec. Sullivan the United States is committed to supporting and afghan led process that develops a government that is suitable for the Afghan People and acceptable to them. We are not going to dictate the terms of either a peace settlement between the Afghan Government and the taliban, for example. We have certain irreducible benchmarks for a basic stability in the country so that, for example, you mentioned taliban controlled areas. When the taliban controls and area, there is massively increased drug cultivating and production, decrease in security, it has a dramatic effect on the afghan economy. So we want to have a stable afghanistan that is not a base for terrorism, as secretary schriver said, and respects the afghan constitution, which includes protections for women. Those are our ace it, irreducible, basic thresholds for a resolution of engagement in afghanistan. Sen. Shaheen and we are continuing to support the afghan efforts both with personnel and with resources . Sec. Sullivan yes, we are. And that with the general nicholson when i was there last week and secretary schriver can go into greater detail. We are providing both with our nato partners and u. S. Military, support for Afghan Security forces, army, police, a particular focus now security in kabul, developing a Security Force there to prevent the types of violent terrorist acts we saw last month. Sen. Shaheen good. On pakistan, do we really believe that pakistan has the ability to convince the taliban to go to the negotiating table as you suggested in your testimony . Sec. Sullivan they certainly have the ability to urge the taliban to do so. The we believe they have ability to do also is to expel them from sanctuaries in their country. They may not be able to actually drive them to the negotiating table, but they can help and eliminate sanctuaries in their country where they currently operate. And ihaheen they have, am not trying to make excuses for pakistan, but they have over a period of time lost thousands of pakistanis in the effort to throw the taliban out and other terrorist groups out of the territory. With some success, but not entire success. And there has been suggested over the years that one of the challenges with the network is the ties to isi and whether the government would be able to removend an effort to the network because of the potential to create instability within the government. Do we believe that to be true, and if so, how is our pakistan strategy accommodating that concern . Sec. Sullivan we certainly understand the challenges that pakistan faces with these terrorist organizations within their borders. Some of them directed at pakistan itself, others directed at other countries in the region, afghanistan, india, elsewhere. Pakistan has suffered previously from terrorist attack, as we all know and as i cited in my testimony. What we are looking for from pakistan is more support from them against terrorist organizations that are outward focused in addition to their focus, the pakistan governments efforts on terrorist organizations that threaten palestine threaten pakistan. I understand it is a delicate effort and we want to do all we can to support them in the effort and we have provided and a norm is a not monetary and otherwise, to the pakistani government. What we are looking for is an indication from them, more support directed at those outward focused terrorist organizations. Sen. Shaheen thank you, thank you mr. Chairman. Sen. Corker center isaacson. Senator isaacson. Senator isaacson part of our strategy is about military effort. It sounds like Reconstruction Teams we did in iraq for a while, is that part of it whatsoever . I will just elaborate a little bit. To bringwhen we try over more of the iraqi people to our site versus the hussein side, we created a provincial Reconstruction Team that used military focus, and i was with their personally with them, to make microloans of things like that to build local businesses and a trust in them as well as other participations like that with the state department. Is anything like that being contemplated in afghanistan . Sec. Schriver i think the idea of integrating our approach is use that same synergy of economic assistance and other support along with the military campaign. So although it is structured somewhat differently in terms of the campaign, the best practice is lessons learned, i think he can still be applied when we are knitted up as two departments. Secretaryon schriver, you made an interesting comment in your verbal statement, you said we are moving from measurement of a congressman and not time. Is that correct, in how we measure our success . Sec. Schriver conditions based. Sen. Isakson that to me is a world of good. When you use time, you say we are there until this time and that we are gone. A leftt with that with administration for a long time, we kind of protracted our investment in the country. Now that we are measuring a compliment, we can see what we are doing to copper steel ultimate goal, independence, Regional Cooperation and hopefully less dependence on the taliban and people like that. Mr. Sullivan, if the afghan contact one of those benchmark measurements we will use to measure are a compliment in afghanistan our conscience and afghanistan . Sec. Sullivan yes, as senator aung mentioned some it has number of benchmark measurements for corruption, Economic Development, etc. That we will use to measure the progress of the Afghan Government. Sen. Isakson what do you see as the consequences for not reaching the benchmarks for the players involved . Sec. Sullivan ultimately for the players involved, for the Afghan Government, if the success of their effort to govern the country, to govern effectively, to have a democracy in afghanistan, to eliminate corruption, to promote the rule of law and to develop the economy, it is in the afghan selfinterest to meet those benchmarks. They themselves have adopted those benchmarks and advocate for them. Sen. Isakson this thursday at fort benning, we are standing up a group, and i understand to draw mattis will be there, he just made the announcement today. The Security Forces Assistance Brigade will be going to afghanistan i think march 1. That is a significant commitment. My state of georgia with fort forced would arrive at to work with the investment we have in manpower and material, going to afghanistan. Success is huge for the people in my state. What is this group going from georgia, what will it add to our effort in afghanistan and what will be look for them to achieve . Integratever to those brigades into the train, structuredassist mission, which is to ultimately create a more lethal ineffective han Security Source gosh Security Force, as well as key capabilities that are gaps for the Afghan Services currently. Mainly it is the train, advise, central to improving Afghan Forces so they can operate more independently. Sen. Isakson i since we are making a bigger effort to train afghan troops and they are fighting for themselves, is that correct . Sec. Schriver that is a major focus, yes, sir. Sen. Isakson at Moody Air Force base, we are Training Afghan pilots in a threeyear training, another investment we are making, training the afghans themselves. Is that correct . Sec. Schriver the air force modernization is another key piece, and includes not only American Equipment that the training so they can provide that key enabler to their operations. Sen. Isakson thank you both for what you are doing. Menendez. R sen. Thank you forez holding the hearings, its been a year and a half since we have hold a hearing on the longest war, so i appreciate both of you for your testimony. Been nearly six months since the admin stray shower announced is the strategy for whicha, which i can as far as i can tell is quite like the old strategy. I understand the administration is based on conditionsbased metrics, but i hope we can get our clarity to exactly what desired outcomes are for our troops and our foreignpolicy goals in afghanistan. Secretary sullivan, you and your testimony, and as well in your responses, youve talked about a number of meetings and consultations you cap during your tenure, but i havent had havent heard about the role our plans to support Good Governance instructions or Economic Development, critical components of successful countries. Are we talking about, for example, a civilian surge here to try and create Good Governance . I think some of the reasons the taliban has had some success is because of because the Central Government is not as responsive to its people and needs as it should be. Can you speak to that . Sec. Sullivan it is a very important component. I will give you specific examples. Is giving them support to run their elections this year, parliamentary and president ial elections this year and next year. My message to president ghani, which he was receptive to and embraced, was how important it was that the afghans considered their record of commitment to democracy. They have had a number of elections, some more successful than others in the last 16 or 17 years, but it is important that these elections go for it. Usaid is providing support to the government. I met with the opposition political leaders while i was there at the embassy to talk to them about the importance of free and Fair Elections and the support that the United States government through usaid was going to be providing to that end. Sen. Menedez the sq, your testimony says elections are vital. What specific diplomatic developmental and governments tools areovernment you utilizing to support those and what is a realistic timeframe to be part of delivering it through those entities . Sec. Sullivan the timeframe is tight. The original schedule for parliamentary elections was this july. Based on my conversations in kabul, that will likely move to this fall, likely october, but they cannot move to next year, they have to be done before president ial elections. Sen. Menedez what are we doing . Support,ivan specific for example, funding and providing advice on creating lls andoles voter ro assistance. What we do here in the United States to support our elections, providing advice and monetary assistance to the Election Commission both at the National Level and provincial level so that the vote is fair and accurate. Sen. Menedez me ask you, would you agree that the taliban are able to build marginal support for some key constituents largely due to their disillusionment and discuss with the Central Government in kabul . Sec. Sullivan i think the taliban is a broad term. There are elements of the taliban more successful and more influential than others. Some have more of a political following than others. One of the strategies of engaging ghani is in the taliban to the extent that we can in political discussions, killing off those elements of ling discussions, pee off those elements that we can reconcile with and then going after those elements that despite all of our efforts and entreaties, are still dedicated to violence and terrorism. Sen. Menedez i was pleased the Senate Passed the afghan accountability act which laid out a framework for the United States to work collaboratively with afghan and International Partners to implement meaningful reforms to promote accountability and transparency in the Afghan Government. Hope we can week i hope you can revisit the legislation and ensure the committee is effectively overseeing diplomatic efforts United States is making in afghanistan and in sure we are supporting Institutional Reforms to safeguard governance structures. I look forward to speaking to the chairman about that. Let me take one last moment. The 2017aring at trafficking in persons report in july, you offered to brief me on the departments determination regarding the child soldiers list. As i understand it, the secretary decided to include a waiver for afghanistan despite the recommendation of his step, knowing full well afghanistan into his child soldiers. You also offered to brief me on a written plan submitted by the cuban government to become eligible for a waiver for a downgrade to tier three in verification on relations of great despite clear statutory language stating else twice. It has been nearly seven months since that hearing, and despite repeated attempts from my office and requests to follow on, we have received no information. Yourself, after seven months, to give me the briefing you said you would give me, and to provide the information you sent you would provide . Sec. Sullivan i apologize for that failure, senator, i commit to that now. I was not aware of the request but i cannot blame anyone other than myself. I make those commitments and will follow up immediately. Sen. Menedez i appreciate it. I want to go back questions isaksons about measuring a competent. I dont need exact numbers but i want basically your assessment of troop levels of our enemies. Where is the, what was the number of members of the taliban right now . Sure ihriver im not can give you a number have great confidence in. Sen. Johnson a ballpark . Are we talking thousands, tens of thousands, where we at . Sec. Schriver in terms of actual, dedicated fighters, with your permission, i would feel more comfortable taking the deputyn because the secretary said, there is different variations of taliban and they have a tendency to melt away during nonfighting season. If your permission, i will take the question and provide for you sen. Johnson i want that data. The percentage of the worst element . Sec. Sullivan im sorry . Percentagen which would you consider the terrorist element versus those we could negotiate with . Sec. Sullivan all caps it defer to my i would have to defer to my colleagues at dod and intelligence. Sen. Johnson you can expect that for written questions to the record. Also, the network. Before i move on, is it your assessment that the force of the taliban is growing, declining or stabilizing . Think we will i have a better assessment of that when the traditional fighting season starts and we can see the impact on the battlefield of our new strategy. Again, different variations of dedicated fighters and those that are supported politically, ideologically, that not dedicated nationally dedicated necessarily to taking up arms. The i want the , deceit the progress that is being made. And then i want to ask about isis. Is it a growing presence . Do you have an assessment of how many isis fighters are in afghanistan . Sec. Schriver again, we will get assistance from the Intelligence Community to get us better figures. There is concern about returning foreign fighters, given developments in syria iraq, so its something were watching carefully and will provide an assessment. So you mentioned i was going to go here next, what is the strategy . They would melt back and we would leave them alone. Can you describe in greater detail what exactly we are doing as well as any change in rules of engagement . Sec. Schriver from a u. S. Military perspective, there are several elements. One is the uplift to reinforce part of it. Key to that is the role that any Additional Forces would play, so that relates to the realignment of resources as well. Toare involved in trying increase the lethality and credibility of the Security Forces, and that is and equipment, part of it is training. Part of that is actually being an enabler to some of their operations. I think what we can say in terms of another change is the afghan approach of the conflict in addition to trying to hold gains, there is more offensive action taking the fight to the taliban. We are helping with that to fill in key capabilities as enablers. Ultimately, we want an afghan force that can operate more independently and less reliant on the support of u. S. And nato forces. Sen. Johnson is it safe to say we are keeping up the pressure even during the winter months versus the last administration, or have we eased off . Sec. Schriver the overall tempo is down but the pressures continue to some extent. Sen. Johnson is that one of the reasons, secretary sullivan, we are seeing terrorist attacks . Sec. Sullivan i wanted to add to that, when i met with general nicholson last week, particular with respect to operations against isis that those have continued and in fact, there have been in recent days, significant operations ongoing. There is a fighting season. Traditionally in afghanistan. They are trying to change that. Thank you, senator murphy. For murphy thank you both being here, appreciate your service, as has been mentioned. Things are not going well today in afghanistan. The u. S. Backed coalition controls less territory than ever before. A series of very highprofile attacks. Foundation, i think, lies a significant confusion about what u. S. Policy is. I want to explore as senator shaheen has, some areas. Most significantly is this administrations position on the Peace Process going forward. I appreciate your response, secretary sullivan, that there is a role for the taliban in a Peace Process is process going forward. Haley echoed that earlier this year. He was definitive. He said we dont want to talk with the telegram. There may be a time, but it will be a long time. That seems to be in direct contradiction with the position you articulated to this committee. That the state department believes there is room for the taliban in those negotiations. You can see that the world and those involved in the Peace Process may be pretty confused about what the u. S. Position is. What is it . The position you articulated before the committee, or the position of president articulated a week ago . I think the president s position i had an opportunity to speak with president ghani shortly after President Trumps statement. I think president ghanis view and President Trumps view are fairly well aligned. What President Trump was expressing was a reaction to terrorist activities, the horrible terrorist activities last month and in kabul. Many are not willing to negotiate in it will take a long time before they are ready to negotiate. That was the thrust of the president s remarks. And that is the view president ghani has. He was extremely upset about what happened and wants to take a very hard stands against those elements of the taliban that slaughtered innocent men, women and children in the streets of kabul. Sen. Murphy but you just said in response to president senator corker that there is a place for the taliban. But the president said, we dont want to talk with the telegram taliban. Do they have a place at the negotiating table, or not . For those that plotted those terrorist attacks last month, they are not showing indication they are willing to sit at the table. Theink that is what president the sentiment he is expressing. Sec. Sullivan i know youre in a difficult position when the president has no subtlety to this statement. He said definitively, we dont want to talk with the taliban. You can understand when the president makes statements, it holds more water than what the secretary may make. I know there are enormous amounts of cotton confusion. Secretary schriver, i want to talk to a little about transparency. There were disturbing reports recently that the department of defense limited special inspector regarding information they can make public. They were notrmed to release public data on a number of districts, population living in them, influenced by the Afghan Government or resurgence was protested by both. This is by instructions about the special inspector was not allowed to release numbers regarding losses by u. S. Back Afghan Forces. This is the first time the special inspector has been told they cant disclose information that was previously public and is not classified. I am very concerned the department of trying to pull the cover over data we all use, including our constituents, to understand what is happening in afghanistan, given some really disturbing trend lines. This does not suggest this administration wants to make sure that my constituents have enough information to make decisions going forward. Can you speak to the limitations put on the special inspectors reports to congress . Sec. Schriver we will work closely with a special investigator to make sure there is transparency you need, we all benefit from. There may be considerations in the future about operational security, the things you do not want to telegraph to the enemy. You our goal is to be transparent. We need this the support of the people in this committee and congress. The way to do this is to be transparent and open. We will work with the special investigator to achieve that. Sen. Murphy why was he stopped from her for reporting losses . To report thele number of casualties among afghan troops. I think there may be misinformation. They classified themselves and that made them, based on what information was provided to the afghans and their own classification. As a general matter, senator murphy, we will work to resolve that and be transparent. It is important to us. Sen. Murphy thank you. Senator palmer. Palmer after 16 years, thousands of lives, and probably 1 trillion spent, the afghans dont seem to be able to defend themselves. People say if we left tomorrow, the taliban would take over, therefore we have to stay. When will they be able to defend themselves, mr. Schreiber mr. Schriver . I would beer hesitant to put a time frame on it. The scrutiny is understandable. I would share every frustration you share about the time and investment. I do think the approach we adopted, we are six months into it. We are not into the new, traditional fighting season just yet. It gives us a better chance for achievers on the battlefield, which gives us a better chance at political settlements. The original mandate was to go after those who attacked us on 9 11, or those who aided and abetted us. Who is left there who aided and abetted the attack on 9 11 . Stilldividuals we are looking for that aided or abetted or were involved in the 9 11 attack . Senator, ier believe there are both elements of al qaeda, remnants of al qaeda, still in existence in afghanistan, as well as the more lethal development of isis in afghanistan. Those would be the terrorist elements we would be most sen. Paul there is a real question whether they want to attack us here or control afghanistan. Inther this is a civil war afghanistan. I think there is a real question whether this has anything left to do with 9 11. Favoredsay the tories not letting us leave and there are still tories and he went. Are we going to be discussing this 250 years from now . There is an argument be made that our National Security is made more perilous the more we spend and the longer we stay there. I am not saying we dont go after those who attacked us and plot to attack us, but were not i dont think we are doing enough nationbuilding. If you look at the list of things we have spend money on, 45 Million Dollars on a natural gas gas station in the Defense Budget because we are greening up afghanistan. We have to put a green footprint on afghanistan. Turned out nobody had a natural gas car. Nobody had money, so we got them credit cards to use the natural gas gas station. That is absurd and people are horrified what we have done with that. We spent 79 million on an embassy that never opened. It was done at clinton and holbrooks request. They found out there was a courtyard with Tall Buildings around it. And they said, we cannot have an embassy where everyone can shoot down into a courtyard. It was not occupied, had a 10 year lease. Millions and millions, almost trillions of dollars spent. There is no military solution. We dont know who to negotiate with. We dont know who the good guys and the taliban are, or if there are any. We not forthright about how many people are fighting. We cannot answer senator johnsons answers, one Million Television . Sure, they slink away. We had 100,000 troops there. We could win, they all slink away when there are 100,000 troops. But they come back when we are not. How can we defeat them with 10,000 when we could not with 100,000 . Maybe we need to have a frank discussion with congress about whether we could defeat taliban. We can have a pay raise and bring everyone home from afghanistan. We could upgrade the nuclear arsenal. There are all sorts of things we could do with 50 billion a year. But they are thrown down the hatch in afghanistan. We need to reassess this. How do we negotiate with the taliban . To negotiate with of the people they just exploded something . Obviously not. Is there a good guy meeting of the taliban . We are in an impossible situation. I see no vote for it and feel sorry putting the military in this position. We should not be nationbuilding, we are not good at it. I hope somebody will come here it is time toy, reassess what we are doing in afghanistan. I do not see a Bright Future for afghanistan. I do not fall to the military, i just do not think there is a military solution. Would you like to respond to that . Sure. Senator, i think our policy acknowledges there is not a military solution. For a complete solution. The military has to be part of the solution and we have to train and equip the afghans to fight this war against the taliban. Have, for 16t we years. When is enough enough . Sec. Sullivan i understand it is americas longest war. But our security interest in the region are serious enough, our commitment made to the afghan we areent over 16 years, doing with the minimal amount of troops and money that we think can be committed to back of the Afghan Government in their struggle against the taliban. To get to your original point about terrorists, everybody is against even the taliban is against isis. It is a complex battlefield. The taliban and is fighting isis. It is a very complex political and military situation. Our strategy is trying to navigate those complex waters in a way that supports the Afghan Government, both militarily and politically, so we can get the taliban to the negotiating table, at least negotiate with elements of the taliban that are not committed to blowing up men, women and children on the streets of kabul. If there is a more reasonable element, which we believe there is, which will negotiate a settlement to a more stable situation. Just out of curiosity, what is our annual spend rate right now, all in . For afghanistan on assistance for assistance it is roughly 780 million a year. But im talking about support. Depending on how you look at the current year we are in is about 5 billion. We support directly the u. S. Forces that are in country and i believe that is roughly 13 billion. There are supporting elements to the overall military effort, which might bring the total number closer to 45 billion. Just out of curiosity, we jumped from the 18 million you are talking about the 45 million. Tell me how we got to that. Big efforts outside the immediate country for logistics support. It does depend how you calculate the number. There is a big would just exchange, a big support chain. A lot of that would be contractors and others who are helping support the direct efforts underway by our own troops. Sec. Sullivan correct, and other military efforts supportive of the in country fight. Senator corker again, this is for edification. All in, what you think our annual effort is there . Department,e state the other departments underway doing other kinds of things, we have multiple departments working together to help what is occurring in afghanistan transpire in a positive way. Plus the efforts we have with contractors, troops and others. What is the number on an annual basis . Sec. Sullivan back of the envelope, the assistance these, 45 billion, close to 46. I was going to ask if we could get that break down number. It is a large number. It looks like about 2 of the total budget in diplomacy in trying to find an end to the war, 98 is pursuing the security war efforts. I think some of us wonder if it is the right mix. I am using part of my time to ask questions on the front end. I support a conditionsbased effort. I think that is the only way you will get to a place where people are going to negotiate with you. I understand there are elements pushing the taliban, fighting isis. Ofis an Interesting Group characters, if you will, that we are dealing with an afghanistan. The point that has been made and therue, the fact is, afghan, if you took their entire gdp, it could not support the security efforts that are underway. Just would not pay for it. All of this discussion about eventually mining Precious Metals in the mountains that has no railway to them, i have been hearing that forever. I know it is likely not to occur during my lifetime. I think the point is well made. We are in fact here for a long, long call. I think it is true without the 30 of thehave, folks part of the Afghan Military security leave each year. Exercises,training they just dont stay. They go back home. They have had significant fatalities. Over the last 12 months of activity, how many fatalities have we had with u. S. And or nato forces . Again, i prefer not to give you an incorrect statistic. It has been relatively light since our new strategy. I will get you an actual number. As we look at embedding some of our best and brightest a little more deeply into the afghan operations, what is our sense . I know there have been conversations where there are concerns about some of the most talented folks we have serving in our military being embedded in that way. Thate anticipating casualty rates to increase . Or do we feel like we can continue on this low casualty rate trend . Sec. Schriver our hope and expectation is based on increasing the capabilities of the Afghan Forces themselves. They will be more successful on the battlefield. Even if we are providing a train and assist or enabling function, the force themselves would result in less casualties. We will learn more about the effectiveness, if and when the fighting picks up in the traditional fighting season. Senator merkley. Senator merkley thank you, chairman. Thank you to both of you for your testimony. Secretary sullivan, thank you for your assistance with the resident in sudan, who has been freed in large part to your efforts. As we talk about these macro issues, i have an enormous amount of frustration. Feel like i hear the same story every couple years, adopting modestly different strategy. We say we are turning a corner. Inheard from president ghani october of last year, were turning a corner. But what do we hear back in 2011 . We heard from president barack obama we had turned a corner after the surge deployment. We heard from robert gates we had enjoyed success and were turning a corner. We heard from general petraeus the forces had turned a corner. We have the same set of hopes and aspirations. This somehow will keep training and now it will result in a fighting force that fiercely wants to fight for the government of afghanistan . And yet we never get there. We continually believe and hope there will be a Marvelous Development to a functional government, but we dont get there. Right now we have the Vice President out of the country, not being allowed to return. We have growth in ethnic to other from uzbek areas. Paralysis between the National Unity government in terms of the ceo, abdullah abdullah, and the president. And we have other aspirations. Now we are really turning the corner on corruption. We cherry pick little pieces to say there is a little improvement here and there. But in general, no. Massive corruption that destabilizes all of the efforts, whatever efforts the Afghanistan Government is making. Our money has been helping to drive the corruption. The price on every position has become higher because of the money we have poured into the country. Very fact thate our presence remains a recruiting mechanism for the taliban. This sense of deep in the soul of the villagers of the taliban that they do not like foreigners, goes back throughout history. They have stopped one Foreign Invasion after another. Poetl the words of the Rudyard Kipling who often wrote about wars around the world. His palm and afghanistan goes something along the lines of, if you are wounded and lying in the role on yourlane, rifle and blowout your brains before the women of afghanistan come out and carve up what remains. Of yes, weis set will get there on corruption, but we dont. Yes, we will get there on a politically effective government, but we dont. Meanwhile, we continue to paint a very rosy scenario. We heard a very rosy scenario today. To rip thise going as a nation, as a government. We have to have a really honest conversation about our perpetual aspirations that are not realized and why they are not realized and why they may be impossible to realize. One of those aspirations is the political settlement. That is another piece of that. Why do the taliban want a political settlement . They control more territory than they did since 2001. They are gaining ground, containing creating chaos. The are getting through capital and assaulting international hotel, blowing up key locations, packing an ambulance full of explosions. It gets into the middle of the city and blows things up, massive explosion. And hope, that we will have an honest discussion about these things we keep putting forward in slightly different versions, but are really not gaining ground. I will just throw that out to you for your comments and thoughts. I dont know there is a lot you said, senator, that i would necessarily disagree with. I do not think there is a rosy situation in kabul. And i do not think president ghani would agree there is. The attacks last month were a real shock to many people in the government and in a number of ngos and people, political leaders i met with. There is no doubt there is a serious challenge we face in dealing with afghanistan. To come upmonths with the Regional Policy we developed because it is that challenging. The situation you posited is as challenging as it is. One option is to simply withdraw. We decided we could not do that. We are proposing this policy, a Regional Policy. As i mentioned in my opening statement, we met with Foreign Ministers in new york with the five Central Asian countries that border afghanistan to the north. We are also working with india. India has made millions of investment in afghanistan. It cannot just be the United States that solves afghanistan, it is a regional strategy. I do not want to come here and say henry kissingerlike that is at hand. Ce we want to stick with it, persevere. Andhink it is the outcome the significance of u. S. Thatnal security as such we cant do our tent folder our tents just because there tents justd our because there were terrorist attacks. I will just close with this comment. My concern about no set timetable the no clear metrics for success just a means we are setting ourselves up to accept whatever level of failure occurs and still just say we are staying, we are staying, because it is always hard in any situation to ever say the strategy is not working, the eighth twist on the old strategy, colin a new strategy, it will fail. At some point we have to there are things that make our policy ineffective. Just one more interjection. Maybe another one later. Iraq weappear that in it does came back, appear there is a reasonable chance of the Country Holding together with proper governance and becoming a more fully functioning country. But they have resources. Afghan has no resources, afghanistan, never going to have any resources, that compared to the iraq situation. Credible, even in an event of reconciliation with taliban, if you will paint to us a picture of what it would look was an the event there actual, they control more territory, i know we expect to gain another 20 and get things back to where they were a few years ago. But they are still going to control a tremendous amount of territory. To have all going tremendous amount of illicit behavior taking place. In the event they were to reconcile somehow with of the current government, with ghani and others, give us a picture of what that would look like going forward, and what our role would be. I think the picture has to be, as i said to senator merkley, afghanistan integrated into a region, as opposed to simply focus on afghanistan itself. As you pointed out, afghanistan does not sit on 1 trillion worth of oil wells, as iraq does. A large amount of which is now funding Government Operations in iraq. We have to integrate afghanistan into the region. There has been discussions with the uzbek government on transitions of electricity into afghanistan, for example. The discussions with india, indians want to do business in afghanistan. Ultimately, as we have urged president ghani, the bilateral relationship between pakistan and afghanistan have to improve. If that does, we think if there is a viable future economically for afghanistan, the key in my opinion is, the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan. If we cant solve that, this problem is not going to go away. Interest toistans solve the situation in afghanistan. Senator gardner. I think the men and women in the armed forces. For carson in colorado, home to the fourth infantry division, will be deploying troops to afghanistan later this ring spring. I think them. I thank them. Taliban fighters who u. S. Forces try to spend billions to defeat, are active in 70 of afghanistan. The study conducted by bbc show the taliban and is now in control of 14 districts and have an active and open presence in 263 districts. Presence. Could you address that a little bit . When we were in afghanistan two years ago, i believe it was, we met with then general campbell to talk about authorities we were operating in under a interest in afghanistan. Report, do we need an additional change to those authorities, and what does that mean . We have certainly seen these reports and are concerned about taliban gains in some of the less populated areas. They dont control any major Population Center. They have been denied their strategic goal of overrunning a province, but we are clearly not where we want to be. Part of our trade and enabling function is to help the Afghan Security forces win on the offense, and ultimately have to be able to hold territory as well. The will hopefully change calculus of the taliban and understanding cannot prevail on and lead to ad, political process. To authorities need to be expended or refined on top of what has already been done . Sec. Schriver i think where we stand right now, our commander in the field is comfortable process of will be a continuing to evaluate the effectiveness of our support to the Afghan Forces, through continual evaluation there may be a case in the future we would revisit that, but at this point we are comfortable. Secretaryer seligman, you mentioned we need to integrate afghanistan into the region. This region also includes china, iran, russia. Can you talk about what you are seeing in terms of iranian and russian involvement . Dep. Sec. Sullivan certainly. We have seen with respect to russian involvement, i was at the Un Security Council couple weeks ago to discuss this. We have seen Russian Support for elements of the taliban as a , and somerategy accusations that the u. S. Is , falseing isis information campaigns. Is this a Conspiracy Theory they are trying to generate . Dep. Sec. Sullivan trying to generate. Very unhelpful and wildly inaccurate. There is a shia minority population in afghanistan. Afghanistan shares a long border with iran. Just as iraq and iran have to coexist as neighbors, so does afghanistan and iran. Concerned about pernicious influence in iran that would undermine afghan sovereignty, with respect to in theinfluence in iraq same way. China has made investments in afghanistan. For allwe are looking countries in the region to support a peaceful prosperous afghanistan. Its not just going to be the u. S. Thats going to be able to achieve that ultimate goal. Sen. Gardner thank you. When you say Russian Support for elements in the taliban, what are you referring to . Dep. Sec. Sullivan there are reports that russian russia has provided support to groups in northern afghanistan that are aligned with the taliban. Its sort of a hedging strategy, it is playing both sides dealing with the ghani government in kabul, but also supporting the taliban. We are not willing to go to the peace table today with the taliban because of their violent terrorist activities in kabul. Elements of the taliban, at least, we believe, are dealing with some parts of the russian government. Was going to i shift a little bit asia, but we are out of time. Thank you both. Senator markley. I mean, sorry. I do that often. Mind. Ont thank you, mr. Chairman. Thatnk that we can agree the United States needed to take swift action and Decisive Action after september 11. Was important to reduce the likelihood that afghanistan would continue to be a sanctuary for terrorists who would be seeking to harm americans. The december 2017 statement of the National Security strategy is that the u. S. Will give priority to strengthening states yet thehanistan, National Defense strategy released the following month stated that the central challenge to u. S. Prosperity and security is the reemergence of longterm strategic competition, not fragile states. Like afghanistan. Schriver, i heard you announced 45 billion a year in afghanistan . Sec. Schriver it depends on how it is cut related, but bringing in elements outside the theater that our support, you can have that number and we can provide the breakdown. So, 45 billion a year is an amazing amount of money to be spent. Just by comparison, andrew, who works at brandeis university, the director of their opioid he said thatlity, if you just took two months of andanistan spending dedicated it towards the opioid crisis, we could have an Opioid Center in every county in the u. S. Justin messages alone, we had 2000 people die just in massachusetts alone, we had 2000 people day from opioid overdose. We still dont have a lot of inricans who need treatment treatment. We could be looking at a vietnam war every single year in america, just from opioids. And the funding is completely inadequate. From my perspective, as you look at priorities, saving american lives, making sure we are protecting people, including veterans who dont receive the ieatment which they need, would like to ask you to reflect upon that and the amount of money which we ares ending there,ashar spending knowing that it is coming out of money that could save tens of thousands of lives, if the resources provided that kind of help. Would either of you like to speak to that resource allocation issue . Dep. Sec. Sullivan i think we need to be mindful. We certainly welcome the oversight and the scrutiny and we need to be held to task if we are making gains. It is very fair and an important question to ask. I think we looked at the enduring interests we had, and that was the starting point, looking at a region with two Nuclear Armed countries, a region with terrorist organizations. We think we have developed a strategy that will give us a chance for success. As the deputy secretary said earlier, theres no attempt to paint a rosy scenario. These are significant challenges, to be sure. As thec. Sullivan secretary schriver said, it is an enormous cost. You have drawn a stark contrast with what we could do with that money. The assessment we made in this administration was that the threat to u. S. National security withdrawal from afghanistan was such that we needed to make that commitment. The problem that we face is i will give you an example from the state department. We made a commitment to have the. Mbassy in kabul the number of u. S. Direct hire state Department Employees is in the hundreds. 500 something employees. We need 6000 security personnel to protect that small group. Once we make a commitment to go in, and we make a commitment at the safety and security of our people, the cost multiplies i understand, and of course, we thank everyone who takes the responsibility, but 40 5 billion, we could take care of this crisis over a period have time, and we dont have the resources. Are testifying on behalf of the administration for 45 billion more, yet the administration has not given any for somethingckel that is killing americans every day, many of them veterans, and theres no money. They say it is hard to find the money, yet we just cut your andet down by 7 billion, we could put an Opioid Center in every county in america. I just ask you to be mindful of that tradeoff, because every decision is draining from things that would help families that are over there serving us. Senator udall. Sen. Udall thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for your service. I wont repeat it, but i also share the frustration you have heard from both sides of the aisle in terms of where we are in afghanistan and i want to look back a little bit, because i remember at the time when i was in the house, and we voted for the authorization of force, president bush was very specific about us going after terrorists of global reach. That was the term he used. When i look at President Trumps quote here on the new strategy last summer, he says we are not nationbuilding again, we are killing terrorists. What im probing from both of on is, are we focusing terrorists that have global reach, that we believe are there in afghanistan, and how many are there . Focusing like the president says, just killing terrorists . I have a longer statement here, but it basically says, we are turning this over to afghanistan, we are going to let them govern, we are not going to tell them how to do it, and we are not nationbuilding. Terrorismocus on the of global reach . I think we have extended way beyond that, not only in afghanistan, but around the world. I thought the way president george w. Bush phrased that was very important. Dep. Sec. Sullivan you are absolutely right, senator. The reason we are in afghanistan is because of what happened on september 11. It is still the reason we are in afghanistan. There are still the remnants of al qaeda. Isis has metastasize into afghanistan. If the taliban were to regain control of the country, we would very likely see the same platform for that global reach of terrorist that struck new york and washington and pennsylvania on september 11. Having made that decision that we need to stop that platform from being recreated by the taliban, then causes as i was discussing with senator markey a decision for the u. S. To maintain a presence in afghanistan automatically, because of the security situation generating enormous costs just for the state department. Our strategy is an effort to reconcile the cost, to minimize the cost to the u. S. Government both in treasure, and more valiantly, lives, so my colleagues at the state department and colleagues in uniform, but also do all we can to support the Afghan Government so we dont have a taliban that resumes using afghanistan as a platform for terrorists. Add he could you mentioned isis again. We have seen with our allies and others the defeat of isis in the capital in raqqa. How many isis fighters have now come over into afghanistan . There has been some discussion about that. It is certainly something we are watching carefully, to defeat isis in one location only to have them reinforce elements in another would be harmful to our interests. Our counterterrorism mission, sometimes in combination with the Afghan Forces, sometimes unilateral, is exactly as the deputy secretary said, to prevent afghanistan from being a place in which terrorists can launch, plan, support and an attack against american citizens, our homeland, or the interests of america. Our assessment of walking away with create the potential for such a platform to reemerge. Sen. Udall do you have a number for me . Can you get me one for the record on how many isis fighters there in syria and other places have made it in since the fall of raqqa . We will work with the Intelligence Community to see what assessment can be made available. Sen. Udall the one thing that i think was shocking to some of committee, this 46 billion when you add it all is, them wondering people we are fighting, the taliban, isis, al qaeda, you have mentioned them. What kind of resources do they have . Countries outside and their own local resources, are they . Utting up 46 billion a year they have controlled more territory since 2001. How much are they putting up . Sec. Schriver as dep. Sec. Sullivan past secretary schriver said, the taliban control unpopulated areas. What they are doing in those areas are cultivating and producing narcotics, which they are selling. To get to senator markeys point, the production of narcotics in afghanistan from regions that are controlled by the taliban is skyrocketing. Sources, principal more than 50 sen. Udall what cost do you put on that . Dep. Sec. Sullivan i dont have a dollar estimate, but whatever we can get you from the intelligence, but the dollar figure from the taliban, whatever the definition of the taliban is, putting a dollar figure on that, 65 rough estimate on how they finance themselves is through the production and sale of narcotics. Udall so you will try to get us an overall number . Im very interested in the idea that what our overall number is w hat there is is theirs is. One of our great diplomats, richard holbrook, he started this strategy because of the s, he said thatie we will allow them to grow them until they shift over to another product. A legitimate firming product or Something Like that. Are we trying anything like that in the areas we end up capturing, or are we just eradicating fields and putting a small farmer out of business . Dep. Sec. Sullivan first on the somestics you asked for, senators have already asked for, so we will commit to providing that information. Some of it may be classified, but we will produce the best numbers we can get you on facts and figures. With respect to narcotics, the state department has a limited for counterdget narcotics in afghanistan. The u. S. Military is also committed to the counter narcotics effort. Thank you both for your service. Thank you mr. Chairman. We are no longer and we had a major spring operation, if you will eradicating poppy fields, and then that stopped. That is no longer a robust program. Is that correct . Right. Sen. Corker just out of curiosity, it is not a robust program, because . Dep. Sec. Sullivan i believe that the u. S. Military has focused on the narcotics production in areas that are controlled by the taliban both to limit the production in the country, but also to cut off the source of revenue to the taliban. So, the destruction of taliban financing, so to speak. Sec. Schriver thats correct. There is a more comprehensive effort of eliminating illicit financing, but in terms of the drug production and trade and money they may make off of that, there is certainly an effort to storage facilities, distribution points, etc. It is something the Afghan Forces are focusing on and we are assisting with. Sen. Corker but not the fields themselves . Sec. Schriver not similar to the programs we once had that were mentioned earlier. Sen. Coons thank you for your testimony and your dedicated work in some extremely difficult areas of undertaking. Two questionsd that i think have been addressed in detail or just in passing by one of my colleagues. First, about other actors in the region. Chriver, your s mentioned that part of regional i think the approach is neutralizing potential spoilers to u. S. Efforts. Part of what i think has bedeviled our efforts in afghanistan is the lack of support from regional players. I think senator gardner asked from support from russia and iran. Lets look at china, and the reports they were planning to construct a military base in eastern afghanistan. Do you think theres a chance china could be a viable counterterrorism constructive partner in afghanistan . Do you think our pressure on pakistan will only succeed in pushing them closer to china . And how do you see china playing a constructive or destructive role in the diplomacy and Development Efforts underway, and the military security efforts underway . Sec. Schriver thank you, senator. I think there is the possibility that china, on the counterterrorism front, could be a partner. Own concernsir about terrorism within china and the potential for linkages between terrorist groups operating elsewhere and that seeping into china. Historically, weve had difficulties with what they define as a terrorist group in china and what we define. There is an interest. In there is an interest ultimate Political Revolution resolution, and i dont see the how we get there without addressing the terrace problem terrorist problem. It is an agenda item on how we can promote cooperation and ensure they are constructive participants in the process underway in afghanistan. Dep. Sec. Sullivan with respect to Economic Developments, certainly afghanistan would be included as a small part of what oneboat,s chinas one vote initiative. Somevation to it significant investments the chinese have made, billions invested in a coppermine that they have yet to be able to develop, and it sits dormant. There are significant challenges in Economic Development in afghanistan that the chinese have discovered that senator coker senator corker and i were discussing earlier. Accessing the mineral potential in afghanistan is something that may not have been in our lifetime, i agree. This is an insight into just how remote and rugged it is as a nation. They may have vast mineral resources, and they are still there because they are hard to access. Let me turn to humanitarian issues. That you and reports nearly the u. N. Reports that nearly half a Million People became displaced in the last year, and about 60,000 refugees returned from outside the country. Does the Trump Administration plan to increase the budget request to help refugees within afghanistan, and how does the administration account for the dramatic number of afghan refugees in pakistan, and how that destabilizes the region, and how that humanitarian challenge continues to be a contributor . Dep. Sec. Sullivan that last point you raise is very significant and was brought up with almost every interlocutor i had with my discussion in kabul last week. The potential for pakistan to send back the huge number of afghan refugees that are now in pakistan would be very destabilizing. Credite area where we the pakistani government for what they have done in supporting those refugees. Weve got, the one hand, our concerns with their lack of terroristsliminate from these safe havens, but on the other hand, they have provided this support to all of these refugees, which if they didnt, if they went back into afghanistan, would be a huge burden for the Afghan Government. President ghani is very concerned. Sen. Coons if i understand, there are more than 2 million refugees in pakistan, many of them dating from the soviet invasion. Dep. Sec. Sullivan yes. A could be sent over the border. Ask aoons let me question, how does it affect our moral authority and having that conversation with the pakistanis when the administration has recently decided to begin deporting folks who have also been in the u. S. For decades under temporary protected status, fleeing conflict or natural disasters in their countries of origin . How does that impact those conversations about saying to the pakistanis, we would be appreciated or supported if you would continue to host millions of refugees, do they turn around and say, why are you deporting hundreds of thousands who came to york country from civil wars your country from civil wars or natural disasters . Dep. Sec. Sullivan that issue has not been raised to me in my discussions on this issue, but i take your point. It is rhetorically something that they could. I would draw distinctions between the legal status therwent under which individuals were admitted here to the u. S. , but i take your point. Sen. Coons more broadly, i must say take you for your work. It is striking. The number 45 billion is going to hang over my thoughts for a number of weeks. 16, 17 years in, im not convinced we have a strategy to win, but a conditions based strategy and looking harder at our partners in the region, that strikes me as at least giving us the potential for progress. I listened to testimony from both of you in the question and answer from both republican and democratic members. I dont think there is a clear path out of afghanistan, and i worry that the taliban will simply wait us out, regardless of how long we are there, and at result, we as a may be there for the rest of our life. Thank you. We are going to close. Are there any comments that were left hanging that you would like to respond to . Dep. Sec. Sullivan not for me, mr. Chairman, no. Corker we know you came ino office and you have been now for a year and a month. This is something you inherited. I think most of us appreciate the conditions based approach, the fact that you are dealing with the region, the fact that we are pushing back against some of the duplicity that pakistan has been putting forth for years, and i think we are all struggling just like you are to try to figure out a path forward when its pretty murky right now as to how we get to a place where afghanistan is able to function without significant support from the west and other countries. The strategyk that that you have laid out is a better strategy towards that end. For asly, we may ask classified briefing in the near future to get some of the details we were not able to discuss here, but we thank you for your efforts, we thank you for your transparency and your service to our country. We will leave the record open until close of business on thursday. If you can fairly promptly answer any additional written questions that might come in, we appreciate it. With that, the meeting is adjourned. Announcer cspans of washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, discussing the latest on the deal to avoid a government shutdown. And then live from jackson, mississippi, for the next top on the 50 capitals tour. Mississippiill be attorney general hundred to talk about key policy issues in his state. Then Kathi Maloney on efforts to avoid the u. S. Government shutdown. Live this morning at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. Join the discussion. Announcer current government funding runs out on thursday. The house voted to fund the government through march 23. The legislation now heads for action in the u. S. Senate. Live coverage here on cspan and in the senate on cspan2. Announcer when sam the cspan networks, the house returns at 9 00 a. M. To deal with and at 10 00 a. M. On cspan2, the Senate Homeland Security Committee looks at the operations of the department of homeland security. And the Senate Returns at 11 30 defensetalk about u. S. Appropriations and talk about the possible government shutdown. At 2 30 p. M. , countering weapons of mass destruction. Announcer the house debated and passed two bills related to sexual harassment. The second aims to reform the antirussman claims Congress Claims in congress. Here is the 50 minute debate. Ask mr. Speaker, little more than three months ago you task the committee on House Administration with a great responsibility. To understand our review to guard against