0 so i thank you very much for the way that you have kept us engaged and informed as decisions have been made. as as you pointed out, the biden administration was dealt a very difficult hand on the withdrawal from afghanistan. we all recognized we needed to withdrawal the options were extremely limited. the mistakes made by previous administrations, we've talked about it, but i think we need to understand that many of us did not support the 2002 campaign to go into iraq. and one of those reasons was that we wanted to complete the mission in afghanistan when we had the chance to do it when the taliban was diminished after our military came in after the attack on our country. but instead we went into iraq, which was not engaged in the 9/11 activities and we never finished afghanistan. a mistake made by the bush administration. and we've already talked about the trump administration and setting a deadline and releasing prisoners and moving forward with the reduction of troops. when there was really very little options that the administration had. it doesn't negate the information that was made available to you about the strength of the afghan security forces and the ghani administration's will to stick with it in afghanistan. and i think many of us are interested in knowing how intelligence got that so wrong, and the contingency plans are ones that we really do want to review because it seems to us there had to be better ways to sec ire passage into the airport than what ultimately happened. but considering the hand that you were dealt, considering the crisis that developed, evacuating 124,000 was a miraculous task. so we congratulate all that were involved in the evacuation of so many people under such a short period of time under such difficult circumstances. i want to get to where we are today. during this process, the state department was very open to all members of congress, democrats, republicans, as we filtered information into you about vulnerable people in an effort to get them out of afghanistan. today our offices are still being deluged by requests to help people that are in afghanistan and ngo's are working aggressively. you could share us with the process that you're using in order to filter information about americans that still in afghanistan who want to leave, that applies for siv status and those at risk, how do we transmit that information and what is process is in place so that we could try to get these people out of afghanistan. >> yes, thank you, senator. as i noted, we've established a task force focused entirely on relocation. to help those who wish to leave afghanistan, whether they're any remaining american citizens, whether it is siv applicants, whether it is afghans at risk, whether it is the nationals of a part fer countries get out, and that involves a number of things. it involves for the american citizens, case management teams. 500 individuals whose task is to be in constant contact with any remaining american citizens who wish to leave and that is what they're doing. it also includes together with our legislative affairs office, being in constant contact with you, as well as with outside groups who have identified and are trying to help people who seek to leave. this here is the sum total of cases brought to us by members of this committee, just this committee that all of you or many you have been working and we are deeply grateful for those efforts, for this information. it ensures that when you send us the information, we put it into our data base, if it is not already there, we make sure that we are able to track it and make sure we're able to coordinate with you. an i recognize that especially in the early going, during the evacuation itself, some of the feedback was lacking. we're trying to do all of this in realtime making sure that we took in the information that you were providing and acting on it and in some cases we didn't get back to people to say here is what we've done. and we've been working to make sure that we get back to everyone. i think we had 26,000 inquiries from congress. we've responded to 21,000 or 22,000 of them. >> so you still have the categories of reporters that work for us that are still in afghanistan, we have women officials that were officials in afghanistan, that are at risk, we have ngo's that works with us in afghanistan. they're employees that are at risk. >> that is right. >> so you're saying we still have an opportunity to work with you to get that information to the sources that you're using to try to arrange for their exit from afghanistan. >> yes. absolutely. and we very much invite that and we want to make sure that we have as best as possible a unified coordinated list so that we know what everyone is working on and we can track and we can help or we can take on depending on the -- >> could i get your best guess on the the numbers. at one point when we started we thought there might be somewhere around a little less tan 100,000 u.s. citizens, sivs and afghans that wanted to leave. that number is already low. we've already evacuated over 124,000. do we know how many u.s. citizens are in afghanistan that want to exit today, how many are in siv status that want to exit and how many afghans at risk we want to help? >> on the american citizens who wish to leave, the number is about 100. and it is very hard to give a realtime number at any given moment because it is very fluid by which i mean this -- some people and we're in direct contact with this group, some for very understandable reasons are changing their mind from day-to-day about whether or not they want to leave. others continue even now to raise their hands and say i'm an american citizen in afghanistan. someone who had not identified themselves before. and again as i think you know very, very well, we do not require as a country our citizens to register or identify themselves to our embassies in any country in the world when they travel there or if they reside there. >> and do you have the numbers for siv and for -- >> so the siv numbers, that we're tabulating right now because we're trying to account for every one who has come in. some people remain in transit countries. other people are now in the united states. we're putting all of those numbers together to determine -- the overwhelming majority of afghans who have come out of afghanistan thanks to our evacuation efforts are in one way or another afghans at risk. some will be siv applicants and others will be p-1 or p-2 or afghans at risk. we're breaking down the numbers and we should have a break down in the next couple of weeks. >> thank you. looking forward to seeing that. mr. rubio. >> in your statement i think the most troubling thing is the following quote, even the most pessimistic assess. did not predict the government forces in kabul would collapse while u.s. forces remained and you also cite general milley who said there was no indication that there would be a rapid collapse of the afghan army and government. for many of last year i was the acting chairman of intelligence, i'm now the vice chairman of intelligence. i've been tracking this very, very closely. going back to the beginning of this year, i could just obviously i can't quote the titles of pieces but let me suffice it to say there will numerous pieces that will be categorized as it is going to hit the fan. but for a moment, let's put that aside. because i think any analysis of those pieces would have led nip to that conclusion. putting that aside for a moment, we have every reason, we had every rn to believe and to plan f -- of the rapid collapse of afghan government. at the beginning of 2020 we have a bad status quo in afghanistan. we had a small footprint but a strong commitment to air support and that sustained the afghan security forces ability to resist the taliban. the security forces in afghanistan were suffering the 10,000 casualties a year. the taliban was suffering casualties too. but they enjoyed safe haven in pakistan. they were able to go there to rest, to refit and to train and to recruit. so and in summary, we had a terrible status quo. security forces, small number of u.s. forces continued to die, we have u.s. losses as well, i want to mention that. but the afghan government was still fractious and corrupt and the taliban had unchallenged safe haven in pakistan and pair a frading your own words from opening statement after 20 years and hundreds of billion dollars of dollars in support and training there is not enough for for the afghan government to become more resilience or self-sustained, what do we think is going to happen as that support began to be removed? what do think we think was going to happen when the terrible status quo was changed? it doesn't stake in exquisite piece of intelligence or brilliant analysis to conclude that if you radically change an already bad status quo by removing u.s. and nato forces by enabling air support that the status quo will collapse in favor of the taliban. this is not an argument in favor of staying. i think that ship has sailed. we're not debating the withdrawal. what i'm arguing is we have a terrible status quo and the afghan government after billions of dollars and was not self-sustaining and we should begin to know as we draw down that we'll see the potential for a collapse and that is what all of the pieces pointed to as well. and no one shaw all of this and could conclude there that would be a rapid collapse. more to that point, we began to seek clear signs weeks ago that this is where it was headed. without air strikes, the taliban now began to mass and maneuver going from intimidating the small afghan outposts, to actually getting them into -- we were seeing afghan outposts and they went from surrounding the small provisional capitals to surrounding major cities. this is weeks before and at same time as i believe on july 8th president biden was still giving this naive optimistic prediction about the fighting capabilities of the afghan forces and so forth. we could see them meticulously focused on the north. they were splintering the sclerotic remain of any resistance. you could see the taliban was oshts verge and they were going to isolate kabul from the north cutting off all of the supply routes. so we knew weeks before that we were headed for a taliban controlled north, all of the traditional routes of taliban encroachment on kabul were nearly sealed, the south and the east, and kabul faced the prospect of no fuel and unable to mount any viable opposition and sustained defense. what do we think was going to happen. and the most concerning part of it if we didn't have an analysis that looked at all of this, this wasn't a failure of analysis or this was a failure of policy and planning. we have the wrong people analyzing this. someone didn't see this or didn't want to see this because we've established this that we want the to be out by september 11th so we could have some ceremony arguing that we pulled out of afghanistan on the anniversary of 9/11. the fact of the matter is where it leaves us now on top of the other things mentioned here from a geopolitical perspective is not a good place. i think china and russia and iran, they look at this botched withdrawal and what they see as incompetence that they think they might be able to exploit and lead to miss calculation. i think the europeans, our allies who have very little control over the timing or execution over this, they have to wonder about our reliability, our credibility, but they have to be really upset at the prospects of a massive refugee crisis landing on their borders here very soon. and india, there is a meeting of quad fairly soon which is a good development except they're in the pacific region. if you're india, you're looking at this and saying if the united states allowed pakistan to unravel their standing, the pakistani role in all of this and i think multiple strapgss are guilty of ignoring it, the pakistani role in enabling the taliban is a victory for those taliban hardliners in the pakistani government, they have to be looking at this and saying if the united states could have a third rate power like pakistan unravel its aims, what chance do they have of confronting china. so i think this leaves us in a terrible situation. but i go back to the initial point. i don't know how it is important. if in fact the people in charge of our foreign policy did not see all of these factors and conclude that there was a very real possibility of a very rapid collapse, then we've got the wrong people making military and diplomacy decisions in our government. >> senator, i'll respond briefly in the time that we have. as you know, from your own expertise in leadership on these matters, there are constant assessments being done and in this particular case assessments being done of the resilience of app began security forces, of the afghan government and different scenarios established from worse case to best case to everything in between. and ultimately the preponderance of the intelligence and assessment land someplace. and they're always going to be voices and critically important that we listen to all of them who may be talking about exclusively the worst case, some best case, some in between. here is what i could say in this setting. and we could take this up as well in other settings. back in february, the assessment of the overall assessment of the community was that after a complete u.s. military withdrawal, that could potentially in the worst case scenario lead to the taliban capturing kabul within a year or two. so that is back in february. and that was more or less where things stood in the winter and into the spring. by july, and you're exactly right, that the situation was deteriorating as the taliban continues to make progress on the ground throughout the su summer, in july, they indicated it was more likely than not that the taliban would take over by the end of the year. the end of this year. that said, we, the intelligence community, did not say that the country wide collapse of all meaningful resistance would likely to occur in the matter of days and you referenced chairman milley as i did earlier. nothing that i saw, that i saw, that we saw suggested that this government and security force would collapse in a matter of 11 days. and you're right that i think we need to look back at all of this. because to your point we collectively over 20 years invested extraordinary amounts in those security forces and in that government. hundreds of billions of dollars, equipment and training and advice, support. and based on that, as well as based on what we were looking at realtime, again, we did not see this collapse in a matter of 11 days. but it is important that we go back and look at all of this. >> the time has expired. >> thank you. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you secretary blinken for appearing for the committee today. i appreciate and share the frustration of my colleagues over the challenges with the evacuation, over the situation of special immigrant visa applicants and the taliban treatment of women and girls and other mine oorities and i also agree that assessment and given by several others that where we were when we got that that evacuation was because of the failure of both democratic and republican administrations. and i want to know where that outrage was when year after year for ten years starting with senator mccain, i and others in the senate tried to get more special immigrant visa applicants through the process so that they could leave afghanistan, leave the threat and come to the united states. and there were a few republicans in the senate who blocked us year after year from getting more siv applicants to the united states. and i want to know where that outrage was during the negotiations by the trump administration and former secretary pompeo when they were giving away the rights of women and girls and when secretary pompeo came before this committee and blew off questions about what they were doing to pressure the taliban to have women at the negotiating table for that peace treaty. so i think there is a lot of regret and a lot of recriminations to go around and the important thing for us to do now is to figure out how we could work together to address those people who still need to be evacuated from afghanistan, and also to ensure that we could do everything possible with the international community to help protect the human rights of the women and girls who remain in the country and those minorities. so, mr. secretary, that is where i'm going to put my effort. do you think we need an accounting. that is important for history and for us going forward. but let's stop with the hypocrisy about who is to blame. there are a lot of people to blame. and we all share in it. now, mr. secretary, as you know, i was one of those who was opposed to our withdrawing from afghanistan. i'm not going to resist that. but a lot of my concerns were around the rights of women and girls if afghanistan fell into the hands of the taliban. so i want to ask you now and you've been very specific on briefing calls that you share the concern and i recognize that you believe it is a priority for this administration to do what you can to protect the rights of women and girls. so you could talk specifically about what steps the department is taking to provide for the safety of women and girls and how we're trying to rally the international community behind that effort. >> yes. thank you senator. and let me start by thanking you personally for your leadership for a long time now on these issues. both on the sivs, and the work that we've actually been able to do to try to improve the program but more work needs to be done. as well as on women and girls. from advancing women peace and security, and that agenda, to ensuring that there is an equal playing field for women and girls. you made a huge difference. and i have to say over the last 20 years, we have made a difference. collectively in afghanistan. and possibly the biggest difference we made was for women and girls. access to education. ses to health care. health care , access to work an opportunity. all of that was as a result of many of the efforts that we made and that this congress made and supported including with very, very significant assistance. this is -- this is hard. i was in kabul after the president announced his decision. i met with women leaders from the then parliament and ngo's, a lawyer, a human rights defenders and listen and heard from them about their concerns about the future. just the past couple of weeks when i was out in doha and then in ramstein, i talked to a young woman and girls that we evacuated and heard from both of them. both of their gratitude for having been evacuated but also deep concerns more than deep concerns about the future for the women and girls who remain in afghanistan. so, with that very much in mind, we have done a few things and this is where we really want to work closely with you and with every member. one, we've worked to rally the international community to set very clear expectations of the taliban going forward. to include the expectation that it will uphold the basic rights of women and girls as well as minorities. and that's visible in the statement that more than 100 countries have signed in our initiative. and it is also in a u.s. security council that we initiated and got passed. people say it is a statement or a security council resolution and it doesn't matter. well in the case of the security koups resolution, just to site one example, there are significant sanctions that from the united nations on the taliban. there are travel restrictions on the taliban and if the taliban is in violation of the security council resolution that we established, it will get any relief just on that alone. the u.n. sanctions or travel restrictions, i think that is pretty clear that that won't happen. that is just one point of leverage. we've been working to make sure that the international community speaks with one voice and acts topgt including on this. that is one. second, we want to make sure that assistance continues to flow. humanitarian assistance including assistance directed at the special needs of women and girls. we're doing that consistently with our sanctions and able to do that by working through ngo's and the u.n. agencies. now, i don't want to sugar coat this because we know that while the taliban seeks and will probably support and protect basic humanitarian assistance through these agencies, like for food and medicine, it may be a different story when it comes to things that are directed specifically at women and girls so we're going to be very focused on that. and trying to make sure that that assistance can go through, that it is monitored and effectively and including by the agencies doing it and i spent some time talking with the head of the united nations effort on this in terms of having a clear monitoring mechanism for this and to carry that forward. and next, we will soon appoint at my direction a senior official responsible for focusing all of our efforts on support for women, girls and minorities in afghanistan. i think it is very important that we have a focal point in the u.s. government at the state department who is responsible to carry forward this agenda working closely with you in the weeks and months ahead. >> well thank you very much. i'm out of time but can you share with us who that official is as soon as they're appointed. >> yes, of course. >> thank you. >> senator johnson. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, if i were just to read your testimony, not having watched any news, i would litly think this was a smashing success. but i do read the news as most americans do and we realize tthis is a complete debacle. what concerns me the most among many things is the detachment from reality. the same denial reality on the the border. a self-inflicted wound, a crisis created by president biden's policies that have completely thrown open our borders and yet the administration denies that we have a problem at the border. so i have a number of questions. first of all, approximately what is the dollar value of the equipment that has been left behind that now the taliban controls. what is the dollar value of that. >> senator, i believe the equipment provided over the last 20 -- well 15 years was about $80 billion. of that equipment that remains as you know it was given -- to the afghan security force and of course so that is now in the hands of the taliban. >> so i was also struck by your comment that in your testimony that even the most pessimistic assessment didn't predict that the government would collapse as quickly as it did. but you just in your testimony said that the realistic predictions before the complete withdraw was that it would collapse by the end of the year. so the administration continued with their plans of withdrawal, of evacuation of surrender, knowing that taliban would be in control of $80 billion worth of sophisticated equipment at the end of that, correct? i mean, did that -- that discussion come up in terms of maybe that wouldn't be a good idea leaving all of that equipment behind as we bug out of afghanistan? >> that is that assessment came in july. much of the equipment and again i'll defer to my colleagues at the pentagon who are more expert in this than i am, much of that equipment was made inoperable. other pieces of equipment will become inoperable because there is no ability on the the part of the taliban to maintain it. none of it to the best of knowledge poses a strategic threat to us or nay neighbors. >> so we have an over sight letter, we'd like response on that. let's talk about the decision to close down bagram. the president said this is unanimously decided by the military. but isn't it true that the president decided what the troop level would be. a very minimal troop level. the president decided that we could keep the embassy open and had to be protected. he firsted -- he forced their hand. >> the president makes the strategic decisions when it comes to the draw down, the retrograde to use the technical language, those were decisions made by his military commanders. he sought their best advice and that is what was carried out, including the timing of the decision to -- >> another troubling piece of your testimony, he said when the president announced the withdrawal nato immediately unanimously embraced it. joseph berrel, the foreign affairs chief of the european union, his statement on the surrender is that it is, quote, a catastrophe for the afghan people, for western values an the credibility and the developing of international relations. the "wall street journal" summarizes it quite nicely in their piece just the title, how biden broke nato. and the chaotic afghan withdrawal has shocked and angered u.s. allies. again that is detachment from reality that are alleys are on board with this thing. they are not. >> senator. >> that is note what we're hearing. >> i went to nato well before the president's decision and as well as secretary of defense austin and spent the day listening to them, their views, their prescriptions and what they wshould do moving forward n afghanistan. we factors in everything into our own decision making process. >> just like you planned for every contingency. >> if i could continue. >> it is bureaucratic speak. i have some questions. so, again, my concern is the detachment from reality. so as we surrendered, as we're evacuating and bugging out, we're hearing all of these soothing comments from the administration, this is almost like a well oiled machine here. we have flights just leaving and 124,000 people being evacuated. we heard something completely different. so tell me what is wrong about what i heard. first of all, prior to the taliban providing perimeter security, there was no security and basically tens of thousands of afghanis flooded into the kabul airport, correct? >> there was security around the airport established -- >> but we did not know who the people were. we didn't know they were special immigrant visa controllers. >> we control the city -- >> so we had tens of thousands of people in the airport. reports on ground was many had no form of i.d. whatsoever. when i went to fort mccoy, i asked the commanding general, every contingency, when did you first find out that your mission would be as an intake facility for the afghanistan refugees. he said ten days ago. i asked the commanding general and i asked the representative for the department of state and the department of homeland security, do we know that every refugee that you've received so far and there is only a thought at that point in time do we know they have some form of i.d. and we didn't. we're hearing all of these assurances that we're getting biomet biometrically screened, a 14-step plan. i asked the head of northern command at fort mccoy, describe those steps to me and what are re screening them against? are isis terrorists, al qaeda terrorists, have we biometrically screened them in the past that we could compare them to a data base. what is that 14 step process in detail. tell me and describe to us in detail how are we keeping this nation safe from such a chaotic situation? >> so, senator, the 14-step process referred to the special immigrant visa applicants and there is a lengthy process. >> so had you about the for other 124,000 people. >> so to come to your point, senator, a couple of things. we arranged as you know transit countries so any afghan coming out of afghanistan would initially go to a transit country where we could initiate the screening. the vetting and the back ground checks. we surged customs and border protection officials to those transit points as well as other security law enforcement agencies to do these checks with biometric, biographic, other information that we have. then, as people were cleared and these transit points, they then come into the united states. but they're not being re-settled immediately. once they land at dulles or philadelphia, they are then being sent to military bases where the checks continue and are completed. >> but, again, what checks. we need specific -- >> the time of the senator has expired. i'm sure you could follow up for the rest of your questions. senator coops. >> thank you. thank you for this hearing and thank you secretary blinken for your service and your testimony today. we have, i'm sure, a lost opportunities to look backwards at the 20 years of our engagement in afghanistan and our decisions. but i had hoped this committee would rise above the temptations of partisan politics and use this hearing to consider the urgent questions still before us and i hope we'll get a few minutes to focus on this, mr. secretary. how do we get the remaining citizens and permanent residents and those afghans who served alongside us or worked with and for us and who are most at risk out of afghanistan? and how do we make sure afghanistan doesn't become a safe haven for terrorists again and deal with the taliban with leverage to have in doing so and to also make sure humanitarian aid gets into afghanistan and most urgently, how do we support and re-settle those afghan refugees who we've evacuated to third countries and that much smaller population that has reached the united states. let me just start with my thanks to the state department, to the employees in kabul and qatar and the d.c. based task force that is worked with the evacuation repatriation of americans and afghans and to the many delawareans and americans who i've heard from, former military, folks who served in afghanistan, former diplomats and development professionals eager to help and i look forward to continuing to coordinate with you and with agencies of our government, at volk asy groups and other partners on resettlement efforts. i'm glad that the former governor of delaware that's been asked to step forward and help coordinate this re-settlement effort and i was keencouraged t see a broad multi-faith bipartisan national organizationco chaired by three former presidents, bush and obama and clinton, and dozens and dozens of faith groups an nonprofits to welcome afghans to the united states. so let me start with i question about visa status. senator sullivan and i wrote a letter in mid-august urging expanded eligibility for the siv program. i'm interested in how you're working to expand eligiblibility under the existing visa programs to include family members and to support those the u.s. government supported and worked alongside but who we were not direct employees. i want to start if i could mr. secretary by asking question yes or no answers. there was voice of america, radio for liberty who were not evacuated. if the department prioritizing they're evacuation. >>? yes. >> and the department committed to evacuating our parters from ndi. are those also be prioritized. >> yes, they are. >> and from our partners from the university of afghanistan as well. >> yes. so if you could take the four minutes we have left and explore with me how do we ensure safe passage across land, borders, whether into tajikstan or pakistan with safe and regular flights out of afghanistan, whether from sharif or kabul and how do we get documents into the hands those that don't have identity documents because tler were destroyed in our embassy or they destroyed them themselves out of fear of the taliban and how do we make sure that we're providing the financial support needed for the whole group of refugees who after thorough vetting ultimately reach the united states. >> thank you very much, senator. those are all very important questions and let me try to respond briefly to them and take on the details after the session if need be. first, we needed and we have established a clear expectation from the taliban about allowing people to continue to leave the country. to include american citizens, green card holders, afghans who have are properly documented with a visa. including specific those who worked in some capacity for the united states. and not only do we have that understanding in public statements by the taliban, of course it is built into everything we've done with a large coalition of countries in terms of seventying an expectation and making very clear that the failure to fulfill that expectation will have significant consequences which we could get into. second, very important to make sure that there are ways to travel freely from the country. we made an intensive effort before we left to understand and share with qatar and kturkey, what has necessary to make sure that the airport in kabul could continue to function and ultimately, not to have charter flights and then commercial flights going in under international civil aviation organization standards. we did work and brought the american contact back in the midst of the evacuation who had been running the airport to work that. we hand the off a very detailed plan which is now being implemented. third, the land crossings. we've worked with pakistan, uzbekistan, and tajikstan, to make sure that as we moved people out of afghanistan, they would facilitate their crossing into their countries. we would have officials surged in the necessary places to handle people coming out in that fashion. and now, to your very important point about documentation and this is something that maybe we to take offline. we're working on a mechanism and means by which and there are multiple ways to do this, to make sure that people that don't have the ness documents, for example, a physical visa to get that to them. and i prefer to go into more detail on that in a another setting. >> understood. if i might just as a closing question, you kwr asked at the outset what are the factors as we decide the future of our relationship with the taliban and we're in this difficult situation, many of us recognize the taliban is a terrorist organization that has done horrific things within afghanistan in the past, yet we need to have some working relationship with them to secure the safe passage out of thousands of people who we still care deeply about and a number of americans citizen delaware ties who i've been in contact with didn't leave because they're families were still in afghanistan. and there are clear measures that they should be expected to meet that you laid out in your opening statement. what do you think will be the most important aspects of our le leverage to ensure that the taliban will perform in ways that we'll accept and which what will be the turning point in which we'll make decisions with our allies to take sharper messures against the taliban. >> simply put the nature of the relationship that the taliban would have with us or most other countries around the world will depend entirely on its conduct and actions. specifically with regard to freedom of travel, as well as to making good on its counter-terrorism commitments, upholding basic rights of afghan people, not engaging in reprisals, et cetera. these are the things that not only we but countries around the world are looking at. and there is, i think, significant leverage that we and other countries hold when it comes to things that the taliban said it wants. but won't get if it does not act in a way that meets these expectations. for example, we talk the a little bit before beabout the existing u.s. sanctions on the taliban. these are significant. as well as travel restrictions. there is now a new security council resolution that we initiated setting out the expectations of what the taliban has to do. if it is in violation, it is hard to see any of the u.n. sanctions being lifted. travel restrictions being lifted. and indeed, additional sanctions could well be imposed. similarly, the foreign reserves of afghanistan are almost exclusively in banks here in the united states, including the federal reserve and other banks about $9 billion. all of that has been frozen. there are significant resources as well that are in the international financial institutions that afghanistan would have access to, those, too, have been frozen. over the last 20 years or so, the foyt community has provided about 75% of the afghan government's annual operating budget. that, too, has been frozen. so among many things that the taliban said it seeks, both basic legitimacy and basic support, the united states, the international community has a hand on a lot of that. much of that. most of that. and so we'll have to see going forward what conclusions the taliban draws from that and what its conduct will be matching these basic expectations that we've set. >> thank you. >> senator romney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you mr. secretary for taking time to answer our questions today. i'd like to associate myself with the comments that senator rubio made about planning for a potential immediate collapse of the afghan government and security forces. it seemed that as the taliban was running the table, throughout afghanistan, that the prospect of them continuing to run the table by coming into kabul was a significant probability that should have been planned for. in your view, mr. secretary, has the taliban abandoned their sympathy and collaboration with groups like al qaeda and the haqqani network, do they continue to have the same aim and are they of like spirit or has that -- has that relationship been severed? >> the relationship has not been severed. and it is a very open question as to whether their views an the relationship has changed in any kind of definitive way. i think it is fair to say two things. one, whatever the taliban's views on al qaeda, they do know that the last time they harbored al qaeda and it engaged in an outwardly direct attack on our home homeland certain things followed which i believe they would have an interest in not seeing repeated. so to allow it engage in outwardly directed attacks and which the is assistment is they're not going to do. and isis k is a different thing because the taliban and isis-k are sworn enemies. over the last five or six years sin the emergence isis-k, taliban is taking most of the territory that isis-k sought to hold on to into afghanistan. and the question is less whether they have the will to deal with isis-k and more whether they have the capacity. >> given that response, i know that previously the position of the administration and the state department was that the 2001a umf no longer played a role of significance but given the developments in afghanistan and the taliban's on going collaboration with and sympathy with al qaeda and the haqqani network, and like-minded groups, is it not appropriate for the state department to revisit your recommendation that we abandon the 2001 aumf. >> i think we need to look to make sure that we have all of the authorities that we need for any potential contingency including the re-emergence as a threat of al qaeda or the further emmencence and if we don't have the authorities we should get them, whether that that means writing new ones which is the most appropriate thing to do if necessary. we need to look at that. >> i appreciate your willingness to change your point of view and in part because of the conditions that have developed in the most resecent weeks. nothing wrong with conditions leading to a change in perspective. i for one thought some years ago that we should withdraw from afghanistan, the conditions that i saw in the ensuing years convinced me that i was wrong and i like senator shaheen was one of those that felt that president trump was in an agreement to enter an agreement or that president biden would continue with that agreement to withdraw and i was appalled by the disaster out withdrawal process itself. for us today, however, i guess i would like to focus more on the moral stain of leaving people behind. and understand what we could do to make sure that we're not leaving people behind. i understand that we're down to a small number of americans, it is hard to know exactly how many are left behind. but in terms of legal permanent residents, is your priority just as high to get them out as it is to get out citizens or is there a different level of commitment for a legal permanent resident's return to the united states relative to a citizen? >> senator, our number one priority is american citizens and that has long been the case. in this situation, in afghanistan and this emergency evacuation in afghanistan, we did everything that we could to make sure that green card holders would identify themselves to us. we don't know at any given time how many there are at any given country around the world and to make resources to help them but our number one priority is any remaining residents who wish to leave. >> and i didn't recognize there is a second authority for the legal permanent resident. we don't know the exact number, but how many legal permanent residents are we convinced are still in afghanistan? >> we don't have a exact number. >> a round number. >> in the thousands. >> pardon? >> in the thousands. >> in terms of siv holders or applicants or people who worked with us that have been our partners through the years, how many of them approximately are still in afghanistan that want to come to the united states? >> so this is what we're doing an accounting of right now, based on two things. based on the the pipeline of applicants as it existed, before the evacuation, and then looking at those who we were able to evacuate. we don't have those numbers yet because as we moved to evacuate people, a number of them are still at transit points around the world. >> it would be tens of thousands? >> so, realistically, two things. one, we talked about this a little bit earlier, but of the applicants in the program, and as i said we inherited by 18,000, about half of those and this remains more or less the case now, are at a point where it is before the cleave admission has given his or her approval that they are eligible for the program. >> and we focused on -- i was looking for a number and the question i was leading to is that given the fact that the siv process was to slow and not undertaken during the trump years in a significant way. you sped it up. that is great. you knew that there was no way you were going to get all of these people out in time. >> let me put a final point on it. >> given the rapid collapse of the afghan security forces. and you said yesterday that you inherited a date, but in fact you didn't inherit the date. it was may 1st and you pushed it to august 31st. why didn't you push it much la later so we could process the siv applicants and those who have worked with us that had not yet applied. i don't understand why i date was not inherited or selected that would be sufficient to actually remove people from the nation in a way that would be in keeping with our moral commitment to honor our citizens, our green card holders as well as those who have worked with us over the years? >> two things if i may. first the -- we took some risk in terms of what the taliban would do or not do after may 1st in pushing beyond may 1st. and we of course worked this very hard. >> well it is a risk with other people we took. >> it is a risk -- >> it was a risk on people we cared for. >> just to be clear the military told us in order to do the drawdown from afghanistan in a safe and orderly way, it needed three to four months. that's why we pushed to move beyond may 1st and get to the end of august, early september. second, to your point, an important and good one, our expectation was that beyond august 31st, beyond the military drawdown, the government, the security forces were going to remain in control of kabul, of the major cities, our embassy was fully planned to remain up and running. we were leaving about 600 military behind to make sure that we could secure the embassy. so that it would continue to operate. we had a robust plan to include bringing out anyone who wished to leave, notably sivs. that was very much the plan and the expectation. what was not -- what we did not anticipate was that 11-day collapse of the security security forces. cha changed everything. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary for spending so much time with us. i think what links our failures in iraq and afghanistan is that they're both fundamentally failures of hubris, believing that we can control things and influence events on the other side of the world that are beyond our control, or influence. america can be a force for good in the world, but there is a limit to what we can achieve, and so there's been decades' long magical thinking with respect to what's in our control and what's outside of our control. as it turns out, it wasn't within our control to be able to stand up in american style. democracy in american-looking military in afghanistan that was going to be able to protect the country from the taliban, but we spent 20 years trying tie chief it. so, mr. secretary, you covered some of this in your opening remarks. i wanted to ask you a series of questions to try to level set for the committee the situation you inherited. right? what was in your control? what was outside of your control? and then to look at the events of the last 30 to 40 days with that same lens. what was in your control? what was outside of your control? i think these are yes or no answers. some of it you've covered in your testimony. i think it's important to get it on the record. mr. secretary, mr. president biden had chosen to breach the agreement that president trump signed with the taliban, would the taliban have restarted attacks against u.s. troops and bases? >> yes. >> as you said in the opening testimony, by the time you -- the administration took office, the taliban was on the outskirts of several provincial capitols. if president biden had chose ton breach the agreement, would the taliban begun offensive on the urban centers? >> yes. >> so if the taliban had begun the siege on attacks and resumed attacks on troops, would 2500 have been enough to have stopped the -- >> no? >> i think it was the assessment of our military leaders that not to put a number on it but significant additional u.s. forces would have been required both to protect ourselves and to prevent the onslaught from the taliban against the capitals and kabul. >> was it decision between leaving and the status. this was between a significant commitment of new u.s. resources to the fight or the continuation of withdrawal plan? >> that's correct. >> okay. let's talk about the last month. once the afghan government and military disend grate, it seems it was predictable and understandable there would be panic on the ground among the afghan people. so could it be expected a few thousand u.s. troops and diplomats on the ground at the time would have been able to prevent this panic? >> no. >> much has been made about these dramatic heart breaking scenes at the airport. were 2500 or 5,000 troops enough to stop the afghan people from rushing to the airport? it created this security nightmare for you, but was there any way for the limited number of personnel there to prevent individuals from rushing to the airport? >> no. they could control the airport as we did. they could establish a basic immediate perimeter around the airport as we did, but they couldn't control what happened beyond that perimeter. >> and so let's talk about that perimeter. others say we should have controlled a bigger perimeter and should have taken back over parts of kabul to secure the passage of americans and afghans to the airport. i mean, let's say you would quadruple the number of troops you had. let's say you had 10,000 troops there. without the afghan military or a functioning government, would that have been enough to retake kabul to be able to secure the passage to everybody at the airport? >> i don't want to profresz to be a military expert. i can i say think safely it would have taken a substantial number of forces to try to retake the city or establish a much broader perimeter, and, of course, if that was ultimately opposed by the taliban, in a sense, it would have defeated the purpose. anyone outside that perimeter would not have been allowed to get through it to come to the airport. among other things. >> right. once the afghan military collapses, we don't have enough troops to retake kabul, and we are in the position of having to rely on the taliban or at least communicate with the taliban to make sure that we get individuals to the airport? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> i just think this is important to put on the record in a clear and concise way. because we have to have a reckoning in this country about what we can accomplish and what we can't accomplish. it's extraordinary this administration got 130,000 people out of afghanistan, given those circumstances. given the situation that they inherited that you inherited in january of this year. and my worry, mr. chairman, is that the malady that we suffered for the last 20 years, this idea that it was just a bad plan, right? it was a failure of execution as to why we couldn't succeed in iraq or afghanistan. it's plaguing us again today. that right now we're having a conversation as if if we just had a better plan or executed better, we could have avoided these scenes at the airport. we could have guaranteed the easy and safe passage of everyone into that facility. it is heart breaking what happened. it was impossible for americans to watch. but if we just simply leave today, believing that if we had planned better, if we had better execution, we could have avoided this panic and confusion, i think we're just inviting another iraq, another afghanistan in the future. finally, mr. secretary, just quickly expand on your point about the message that it sends to china. this idea thatd chie ha needs would love it if we stayed another ten or 20 years and why this isn't a sign of weakness, and it's an ability for you and the national security infrastructure to reorient resources toward fights we can win. >> i think, nsenator, you put i well. in my assessment and the assessment of many others, as i said, there's nothing that strategic competitors like china, like russia, or adversaries like iran or north korea would like better than for us to reup the war, double down on it, and remain bogged down in afghanistan for another year, five years, ten years, 20 years, with all of that dedication of resources, all of that energy and focus on that as opposed to the challenges that we have to face today, and i might add, this committee has done i think a very good job on trying to refocus on. notably the competition from china. so i think that would have been doubling down on this war after 20 years. after nearly $2 trillion, after 2,461 american lives lost. 20,000 injuries, and not to preserve the status quo that existed before may first. that would have been one thing. but to be in a situation where the war with us was restarted. the taliban attacking our forces and partners and allies, going on an offensive across the country to retake the cities. that would have required a doubling down on a war, and the bottom line is this. we were right to end the war. we were right not to send a third generation of americans to afghanistan to fight and die there, and i believe we were right in the extraordinary efforts made to make sure we could bring out as many people as possible, and now we have an obligation to make sure we continue to do that, and to guard against the reemergence of any threats coming from afghanistan. >> thank you. all right. for two hours now the secretary of state, tony blinken, has faced a grilling on capitol hill over the chaotic and deadly withdrawal from afghanistan. he's faced tough questions from democrats and republicans alike. some substantive and important. he did not answer some of the very important questions like
Related Keywords
Qatar , Doha , Ad Daw Ah , Afghanistan , Iraq , United States , India , Bagram , Parvan , Land At , Punjab , Pakistan , Uzbekistan , China , Delaware , Togo , Russia , Kabul , Kabol , Americans , America , Afghan , American , Afghans , Tony Blinken , Al Qaeda , Us , Way , Administration , Biden , Withdrawal , Decisions , Hand , It , Many , Administrations , Options , Mistakes , Campaign , 2002 , Taliban , Country , One , Military , Reasons , Chance , Mission , Attack , Trump , Activities , Mistake , Deadline , Prisoners , Bush , 9 11 , Information , Troops , It Doesn T , Reduction , Afghan Security Forces , Strength , Airport , Ways , Contingency Plans , Passage , Want , Sec , People , Evacuation , Crisis , Evacuating , Miraculous Task , 124000 , Siv Process , State Department , Members , Congress , Republicans , Circumstances , Democrats , Effort , Offices , Ngo , Requests , Risk , Leave , Siv Status , Order , Senator , Task Force , Place , Yes , Citizens , Countries , Siv Applicants , Wish To Leave Afghanistan , Nationals , Part , Relocation , Offer , Number , Things , Individuals , Contact , Task , Case Management , 500 , Groups , Affairs Office , Wall , Committee , Efforts , Cases , Sum , Data Base , Some , Realtime , Acting , Going , Feedback , Evacuation Itself , Everyone , Inquiries , 21000 , 26000 , Officials , Women Officials , Work , Categories , Reporters , 22000 , Opportunity , Employees , Exit , Sources , Invite , List , A , Numbers , Sivs , Guess , Somewhere , Tan , 100000 , Exit Today , Realtime Number , 100 , Group , Mind , Others , Someone , Hands , American Citizen , World , Embassies , Siv , Applicants , Evacuation Efforts , Thanks , Sp 1 , Majority , 2 , 1 , Mr , Thing , Statement , Break Down , Rubio , Capturing Kabul , Collapse , Quote , Milley , Indication , Army , Intelligence , Vice Chairman , Acting Chairman , Beginning , Pieces , Analysis , Conclusion , Titles , Fan , Nip , Afghan Government , Reason , Horn , F , 2020 , Commitment , Ability , Status Quo , Casualties , Air Support , Footprint , 10000 , Summary , Safe Haven , Losses , Support , Training , Resilience , Opening Statement , Pair , Words , 20 , Piece , It Doesnt Stake , Nato , Favor , Argument , Government , Billions , Ship , Staying , Potential , Shaw , Point , Signs , Air Strikes , Afghan Outposts , Cities , Capitals , Outposts , Forces , Capabilities , Fighting , Prediction , July 8th , 8 , Resistance , North , Sclerotic , Supply Routes , Routes , Encroachment , South , Wasn Ta Failure , Prospect , Opposition , Defense , Fuel , Least , Failure , Planning , Didn T , Policy , Fact , Matter , Perspective , Top , Ceremony Arguing , Anniversary , September 11th , 11 , Allies , Europeans , Calculation , Incompetence , Iran , Control , Credibility , Timing , Refugee Crisis Landing , Prospects , Execution , Reliability , Development , Meeting , Borders , Squad , Pacific Region , Role , Victory , Standing , Strapgss , Taliban Hardliners , Situation , Rate , Power , Claims , Factors , Foreign Policy , Diplomacy , Charge , Possibility , Leadership , Expertise , Case , Assessments , Matters , Scenarios , App , Everything , Assessment , Voices , Preponderance , Land Someplace , Setting , Settings , Community , Back , Case Scenario Lead , Us Military Withdrawal , July , Winter , Spring , Two , Ground , Progress , Isu Summer , Chairman , Intelligence Community , Nothing , Security Force , I Saw , Equipment , Advice , Amounts , Dollars , Hundreds , Colleagues , Secretary Blinken , Frustration , Senator Shaheen , Girls , Immigrant Visa Applicants , Challenges , Taliban Treatment Of Women , Mine Oorities , Outrage , Ten , Threat , Senate , Senator Mccain , Women , Questions , Pompeo , Rights , Negotiations , Secretary Pompeo , Lot , Negotiating Table , Peace Treaty , Recriminations , Regret , Minorities , Human Rights , Forward , Accounting , History , Hypocrisy , Stop , Concerns , Share , Concern , Briefing Calls , Department , Priority , Safety , Both , Issues , Security , Program , Agenda , On Women And Girls , Women Peace , Difference , Playing Field , Access , Result , Health Care , Education , Buses , Assistance , Decision , Parliament , Women Leaders , Human Rights Defenders , Lawyer , Ingo S , Woman , Gratitude , Ramstein , Expectations , Member , Expectation , Security Council Resolution , Security Council , Initiative , Security Koups Resolution , Doesnt Matter , Sanctions , Travel Restrictions , Example , Violation , United Nations , Won T , Leverage , Relief , Voice , Topgt , Special Needs , Second , Agencies , Working Through Ngo S , Food , Story , Medicine , Head , Terms , Monitoring Mechanism , Direction , Focal Point , Official , Testimony , Course , News , Senator Johnson , Most , Debacle , Success , Detachment , Reality , Border , Policies , Denial , Wound , Dollar Value , Controls , Problem , 80 Billion , 15 , 0 Billion , Comment , Plans , Predictions , Surrender , The End , Idea , Much , Expert , Discussion , Wouldn T , Response , Let , Talk , Best , Knowledge , Sight Letter , None , Neighbors , Nay , Embassy , Level , Troop , Troop Level , Isn T , Draw , Retrograde , He Firsted , Down , Military Commanders , Language , Joseph Berrel , European Union , International Relations , Chaotic Afghan Withdrawal , Title , Western , Wall Street Journal , Valleys , Views , Prescriptions , Secretary Of Defense , Moving Forwardn Afghanistan , Contingency , Decision Making Process , Speak , Comments , Something , Perimeter Security , Well Oiled Machine , Tens Of Thousands , Afghanis , Kabul Airport , City , Immigrant Visa Controllers , General , Form , Whatsoever , Intake Facility , Kid , Fort Mccoy , Thought , Refugee , Representative , Department Of Homeland Security , Afghanistan Refugees , Plan , Assurances , Northern Command , Biomet Biometrically , 14 , Terrorists , Steps , Isis , Safe , Detail , Step Process , Nation , Vetting , Transit Country , Transit Countries , Couple , Back Ground Checks , Screening , Customs And Border Protection , Transit Points , Checks , Security Law Enforcement Agencies , Biometric , Biographic , Military Bases , Are Settled , Philadelphia , Hearing , Brest , Politics , Opportunities , Service , Engagement , Temptations , Residents , Sure Afghanistan Doesn T , Aid , Afghan Refugees , Population , Dc , Evacuation Repatriation Of Americans , Partners , Diplomats , Folks , Delawareans , Professionals , Volk Asy Groups , Resettlement Efforts , Governor , Help , Keencouragedt Seea Broad Multi Faith Bipartisan National Organizationco , Dozens , Presidents , Faith , Nonprofits , Obama , Clinton , Three , Visa Status , In Mid August Urging , Siv Program , Eligibility , Eligiblibility , Question , Secretary , Family Members , Visa Programs , Answers , Voice Of America , Radio , Department Prioritizing , Liberty , Parters , Andi , University , Four , Flights , Land , Sharif , Tajikstan , Hitler , Documents , Identity Documents , Don T , Fear , Details , Refugees , Session , Green Card Holders , First , Visa , Capacity , Specific , Statements , Seventying , Coalition , Consequences , Charter Flights , Kturkey , Standards , Midst , International Civil Aviation Organization , Crossing , Land Crossings , Documentation , Places , Mechanism , Fashion , Dont Have The Ness Documents , Relationship , Closing Question , Outset , Thousands , Organization , Measures , Americans Citizen Delaware Ties , Families , Le Leverage , Turning Point , Aspects , Actions , Conduct , Messures , Nature , Commitments , In Reprisals , Et Cetera , Freedom Of Travel , Bit , Restrictions , Reserves , Similarly , Resources , Banks , Reserve , Billion , 9 Billion , Institutions , Foyt Community , Operating Budget , 75 , The International Community , Legitimacy , Romney , Conclusions , Security Forces , Table , Coming Into Kabul , Probability , Sympathy , Collaboration , View , Aim , Haqqani Network , Spirit , Kind , Home , Homeland , Attacks , Assistment , Interest , Isis K , Territory , Enemies , Six , Five , Position , Will , 2001 , Significance , Developments , Umf No , Authorities , Recommendation , Aumf , Are Emergence , Emmencence , Conditions , Willingness , Point Of View , Ones , Change , Resecent , Agreement , President , Felt , Disaster , Stain , Citizen , Emergency Evacuation , Return , Green Card , Holders , Authority , Round Number , Siv Holders , Pipeline , Admission , Half , 18000 , Approval , August 31st , 31 , May 1st , Keeping , Drawdown , The End Of August , Early September , Military Drawdown , Running , 600 , Anyone , Notably Sivs , Failures , Cha , Influence , Events , Force , Hubris , Side , Magical Thinking , Respect , Limit , Wasn , American Style , Tie Chief It , Democracy , Remarks , Series , Lens , 30 , 40 , Record , Office , Bases , Offensive , Capitols , Outskirts , Centers , Ton , Siege , 2500 , Military Leaders , Status , Continuation , Fight , Onslaught , Panic , Military Disend Grate , Scenes , Heart , 5000 , Security Nightmare , Personnel , Perimeter , Parts , Functioning Government , Military Expert , Everybody , Profresz , Purpose , Sense , Military Collapses , Reckoning , 130000 , Malady , Worry , Conversation , Facility , Confusion , Message , Another , Thatd Chie Ha , Fights , Infrastructure , Weakness , Isn Ta Sign , Insenator , Reup The War , Competitors , Adversaries , North Korea , Dedication , Energy , Competition , Job , War , Injuries , 2 Trillion , Trillion , 2461 , 20000 , Line , Doubling , Generation , Secretary Of State , Threats , Reemergence , Obligation , Substantive , Grilling , Capitol Hill ,
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.