[inaudible conversations] call the committee to we call the committeeal to order the full Committee Hearing a Us Military Mission in afghanistan and the implications for the Peace Process with us involvement. We are doing this hearing was some members present in some members remote also to witnesses are remote so this is the first time we have been back for a full Committee Meeting since the covid outbreak i urge all of you participating and watching to make sure we work out the bug before we start our read the basic rules and outlines how we do this hearing i welcome the members joining us today to establish and maintain a quorum to participate and vote. Experience connectivity problem. If a person remotely have issues, the staff will help you get recorrected. Video of remotely, will be visible on television and the video feed. Members remotely will be asked to mute when not speaki. If they want to speak recognize verbally. Unmu their microphone pyre to speaking. Members should aware theres a slight lag of a few seconds between the time you start speaki and the camera shot switching to youment members o are participating remotely are reminded to keep the Software Platform video function on for the entirety of the time ty are in th proceeding. If he they leave, leave the video function on. If they going to be absent for a long time, they should leave it entirely and join when they return. And a designated, mute unmembers microphones to ccel inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the proceeding. And they may use the shout feature to alert the staff for chnical remote issues only and see a five minute countdown clock on the software, if necessary i will remind members when time is up. I joked with staff,oing the heings is like launching the space shuttle, not quite a technical, but a lot. Thiss incredibly timely and were lucky to have three outstanding witnesse with us today the honorable ryan crocker who wl be appearing remotely. Career ambassador retired u. S. Foreign service nonresident senior flow at Carnegie Endowment for iernational peace and a former ambassador to afghanistan. And dr. Steven bitle, professor of aairs in Columbia University and advocate for foreign relations. Here in person dr. Seth jones, the harold brown chair, director transnational threats project and Senior Advisor for the International Security program at center for strategic and international studies. Now, as mentione this is an incredibly and importantimely topic, just out 19 years ago we went into afghanistannd at the time we had a very clear mission, having just been attacked on 9 11, by usama bin lan and al qaeda out of afghanistan the we went in there and made sure that it never happened again, to sto the threat and to contain it and i think that continues to be the top mission, we faced a threat from transnational terrorist groups. We can debate how large that threat is, where exactly it comes from and how best to contain it, but it not debatable that the threat is there. Its worth noting for all the problems and troubles and difficulties that had that mission has been successful in one nse, we have not h a transnational terrorist attack on the u. S. And when we think abt all the men and women who served in the military, those who lt their lives, those who were injured,hose who have suffered because of this, also all of the stateepartment personl and all the aid workers who ha been there and allies and rtners. Keep in mind this is not just e United States of america. Nato ap a number of couries have participated in this mission. And in that oneey point, it has been successful and it shld not be taken for granted, but the question is, where do we go from here . Ile that has been succsful, there has also been a great cost as was mentioned inerms of the lives lost, people injure and the sheer cost to the nation in money as well. So where do we go from here and howo we move forward . I think its important tha we continue to maintain the mission to stop transnational rrorist threats and some of the other costs associated with this is the fact that iis disruptive to have foreign troops in a country. And as we look to contain the terrorist threat and stop the spread of th toxic ideology that fuels it, the presence of u. S. Troops in Foreign Countries is one of those things that we cannot deny fuels it. And you can think of your if you were in you own town wherever you live in america and a foreign troop cam rolling through town telling you what you had to do, it would not makeou feel good about that foreign untry. We would be in a better place if we did not have to have our troopsn Foreign Countries and i dont think we should ever forget that. The other aspect of ts mission ths made it difficult is in aition to preventing transnational terrorist threats that mission has morphed a littl into trying to bring peace and stability t afghanistan. Notheres a clear reason for inonnection to the basic principle of stopping transnational terrorist threats. Weve learned that ungorned spes, failed governments make it easier forhe terrorist groupso show up and take route and south asia is where there are a lot of that cld take advange of that, and that we could b right back where we were on 9 11. I dont think thats as quick a guarantee. And i think wve learned in 19 years were not going to impose peace onafghanistan. How were going to bri a coalition together and reduce corruption and build confidence, outside forces are not going to bring peace to afghanistan. One way or th other, the people of afghanistan are going to have to mak that choice. And when we look a ghanistan, i think we need to be very hule about imagining theres something we can do to make that different. We can help, certainly, we cannot ultimatelyolve the problem and we have to balance that again all of the costs i just laid out and seemso me this point the common sense thing to do is to have the absolute minimum presence that we require to meet our goal of stopping that transnational terroris threat. I happeno believe that we need to draw down there because of the cost, because of the impact, and because of e fact that its become clear that were not going to be able to imse peace upon afghanistan. There are a lot of diffent ways to contain troublesome gions that could potentially pose transnational terrorist threats. We have an enormous experience with doi just that, libya, yemen, somali or several Different Countries in west africament the disruptions there, the instability ap presence of violence groups in some cas with transnational ambitions shows us whave to work hard withocal partners in a variety of different ways to contain that threat. It doesnt require thousands of u. S. Troops. My hope todays to give us guidance how best to contain the thrts coming out of afghanistan and south asia more broadly while minimizing the risk, cost expense a crucially minimizing that disruptive effect that the presence of u. S. Troops on foreign sl has, that the propaganda, that it hands to our enemies, to argue about what the u. S. Is doing that requires this ideolog extremism. How do we balance that . This is timely because the president just made his announcement hes drawing dow to 2500 troops in afghanistan. Its absolutely crucial tt we work with our partners on whatever our plans are, but i think its a crucial moment as we decide what our future is in afghanistan. Nobody wants to be there forever. Now people said weant have rever wars and i personally never liked tt phrase because a war that lasts kone day done for the wro reaps and wasnt necessary is completely and totally wrong. On the other hand,f youre going to war, if youre fighting becse you need to protect a core interest and it lasts as long as it lasts. I never imagined myself wanting to quote lindsey graham, but when heaid you maybe tired of fighting isis, but isis is not tired much fighting you, i think thats an important thing to think about as we try to ntain the threats and minimizing the threat and impact and costs of doing that. I look forward to the witnesss testimony. And withhat ill turn it over to Ranking Member thornberry for his Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman and i have to say it is good to be back in our Armed Services committee home. And because this may well be the last hearing of this session of congress, i want to take a moment and just express appreciation to you and to the staff for the way you have dealt with incredibly channinging circumstancchannin anning challenging circumstances in covid and weve pressed ahead with hearings, pressed ahead with having our bill passed overwhelmingly on the floor. House in conference now with the senate. So our business has continued in spite of the challenges and that is in no small measure attributed to you and the staff dealing with all the technical challenges that we face and i appreciate it. I agree with you that this is an incredibly important topic. Rightfully, our National Security our military and National Security apparatus is more focused on Great Power Competition, but the terrorist threat has not gone away. And so it is one of the challenges of our time that wed have to worry about this wide range of threats. The other thing i just want to emphasize, which you mentioned and i think we maybe dont say it enough, is that when it comes to National Security, its really hard to prove what did not happen. And in the case of americans who have fought and some died, to prevent a repeat or worse of 9 11, i think it is very important for those who participated and family members who lost loved ones to know that it has been the last 19 years has seemed far greater success than i ever expected on september 11th, 2001. The idea that we would be this far removed there have been terrorist attacks against our homeland, but nothing on the scale of 9 11 and we know from our classified briefings that they were planned, attempted and some far worse even than that day. So appropriate appreciation as you say to the military, but also intelligence community, Law Enforcement who have helped prevent that is probably something we need to say and recognize more often. I think it is very important to have this hearing today. I should say, by the way, that a hearing on afghanistan has been on our agenda for months, but it turns out, that this is a very timely hearing today. The goal all of us have is for the afghans to be able to handle their Security Issues on their own so that no transnational threat emerges from that territory, but i do not believe that they are there yet. I have tremendous respect for each of our Witnesses Today and look forward to hearing from them. What they see is the state of the conflict today. What effect our unilateral withdrawal in the midst of negotiations may have and any advice they have for the Incoming Biden Administration on how to deal with the afghan and broader situation in south asia. So i look forward to hearing from nem and appreciate their participation today. I yield back. Thank you, our first witness will be the honorable ryan crocker wh is parcipating remotely. Bassador crocker, you are recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member thornberry. Are you able to hea me . Yes, we got you loud and clear. Go ahead. Excellent. I would note that i come to you this morning from the great state of washington. Its about zero dark thirty out here, but im honored to be here. I approve of that and wish i were there as well. Mr. Chairman, you and the Ranking Member have summarized, i think, very, very well the central question that we as a nation are dealing with. Why are we in afghanistan . After 19 years . Its pretty simple, pretty basic and pretty crucial, to ensure that nothing again ever comes out of afghanistan that strike us in our homeland. After two decades its again, very important reminder, so that and a reminder of who we fa out there. An of 9 11 the taliban was given a choice, it could give up the al qaeda terrorists that were enjoying safe haven in afghanistan and we would not take military action or they could stand pat and suffer the consequences. They chose the latter, mr. Chairman and have been in exile now for almost two decades. Unfortunately we are at a moment when the taliban sees the end of its exile and the opportunity to return to control. Mr. Chrman, i have the privilege of opening our embassy in afghanistan in the beginning of january, 2002. What i saw there was a scene of utter devastation. A shattered city, a destroyed country. And as bad as the physical damage was, was immediately aware of the profound damage two decades of conflict had gone done to the Afghan People, especially during the period of taliban rule to women and girls in afghanistan. I thought it important to move swiftly to try to repair the damage to the human capital, as well as the physical. So we opened girls schools right away. Still, in january of 2002, i had the privilege of hosting the then chairman of the Senate Foreign relations committee, senator joe biden. I took him to visit a girls school. We sat in on a First Grade Class that had girls ranking from age six it age 12 and the 12yearold came of age when the taliban took over the country. So i saw a unique opportunity here. As this commitment knows so well, we often find tension between our Cory National gals and our National Security agenda. In afghanistan, the two came together. Our values and our interests dictated that we be present, and that the al qaeda did not return with allies and the best way to do that was developing the human capital. So when i arrived in 2002, there were about 900,000 students, all of them boys in ghan schools. I returned as ambassador a deca later and when i ended that ambassadorial post, there were eight million students. And around 35 of them were girls. Over the long run, mr. Chairman, it is the Afghan People, as you rightly note, who have to make peace, certainly an educated population and with girls and women playing the role they deserve in these momentous decision is the best way to ensure our own longterm security. It will take strategic patience and tend u. S. Engagement. The Peace Process, socalled, was launched now almost two years ago, represented a very bad u. S. Concession. We agreed to longstanding taliban demand that we talk to them, but not with the Afghan Government in the room. They considered it a puppet regime. So we gave in and it underscored, i think, that this again, socalled Peace Process, thats not whathis is about. These are surrender talks. Were watching the white flag, basically saying to the taliban, you win, we lose, lets dress this up as best we can. And an eerie reminder othe paris peace talks on vietnam. But i wouldnt push that parallel too hard and too far. In vietnam neither the viet cong nor the north vietnamese had attacked the homeland or ever considered such a step. Al qaeda did attack the homeland from afghanistan, posted by the taliban. They have not become kinder and gentler in the intervening years. Itis, im afraid to say, folly to think that a full u. S. Troop withdrawal is somehow gng to make us safer or uphold our core values. We have, as you point out, nato in the mix. I think thats very importan weve heard from the cretarygeneral of nato, expressing his concern over the president s decision this week to cut in half the already small number of troops we have in afghanistan. So again, i commend you for holding this hearing. I do believehere is a way forward in afghanistan that will minimizeur costs andur human losses,hich have to be an imperative. Ill be part of a wking group put together by the Rockefeller Fund and the Atlantic Council to do just that, but we have to show the strategic patience we need to face dow a determined enemy. Id like to teust a moment on another special groupf kids that have sacriced a great deal for u and those are our intpreters and other afghan individls who have helped our mission in that country. Mr. Chairman, youve recently received a letter from senators shaheen andwicker asking that the necessary steps be taken to grant 4,000 visa for these individuals and their families. Theres a backlog oflmost 18,000 cases and, hey, tse are individuals thatre at enormously serious risk. No one lt behind a group dedicated to bringing our interpreters and oths here to fety calculates about 300 individuals, interpreters and their family members have been killed while waiting for the visas weve promise them and have delivered slowly and in disappointingly small numbers. So i would urge this committee as it moves ahead to do the right thing, the thing we promised. Bring these brave people re. Bring them home, their new home. We will never regret having done so. If we fail in this endeavor, we have have introduced, i think, our own core values, the nature of w has changed. There is no more total war, we can be grateful. And in the future goingo require interpreters and the world is watchings to see how we handle this case. Again, i commend ts smythe for the visa program and irge to take necessary steps to see that these people are able to leave danger behind and come here to us. They earned it, they paid for it. Thank yo mr. Chairman. Thankou very much. Next, we have dr. Steven bitle coming to us remotely. Dr. Biddle, you are recognized for your opening remarks. Thank you,r. Chairman. Id le to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak with you today about afghanistan and the important choices that face us there. Id also like to say that its a horn to be part of such an august panel, with two colleagues ive long respected and admired. Normally i would use my opening remarks for the key points for the submission, but that submission was written prior to tuesdays announcement of the 50 reduction of troop strength. In light o