hours. [background noises]

quotes a meeting of foreign affairs will come to order. discuss how the biden administration unconditionally handed over afghanistan to the taliban terrorist organization with his refusal to enforce the doha agreement. today's hearing comes at a crucial moment in this committee's investigation into the biden administration catastrophic withdrawal from afghanistan. four months after president biden announced a withdrawal the senior military advisors and its own intelligence community repeatedly issued dire warnings about the damage this would create. at the same time i a, along with other republican and democrat members of congress virgil president biden shuffled the conditions of the doha agreement. and most importantly we urge to

prepare for the eventual fallout of our withdrawal. he ignored us including his own state department personnel who issued a dissent cable in july warning of the dire situation on the ground. instead the tab on takeover became imminent the white house and state department leadership stuck their heads in the center so bad the state department waited till the day after the tell about captured kabul to request an emergency evacuation also known as a neo. as a result of the biden administration failed plan u.s. military is forced to conduct this emergency evacuation around by tens of thousands of taliban terrorist put simply president biden on secretary blinken but thousands of american lives at risk to their incompetence and willful blindness than the worst possible outcome a terrorist attack at abbey gate in august

of 26, 2021 that killed 13 u.s. service members wounded 45 more, and killed more than 170 afghan civilians. it was a deadliest day the united states in afghanistan and over a decade. today we have some of the family members of the service members killed that advocate in the audience. they are because they want accountability for their children's deaths. i'm going to get them answers, the answers they deserve. and to save my cards on the other side of the elbow time to spend the disaster of being president trump's fault they will claim the doha agreement for president biden's withdrawal. and that he had no choice and this is false. too that end i want to remind everybody of two critical facts. first doha agreement was conditions based conditioned our witnesses here negotiated. and as he can tell you those

conditions are not being met by the calvin and they're still not being met today that tell them s going terrorist like al qaeda to flourish in afghanistan the truth is to present biden wanted to withdrawal from the doha agreement. if you wanted to, he could have. he did it with other of president trump's agreement flickr made in mexico for a for secondpresident biden himset even if the doha agreement had never been signed he still would have withdrawn all u.s. troops from afghanistan exactly the way that he did. when asked by george stephanopoulos quote he said we you have withdrawn troops like this even a president trump had not made that built the taliban president biden replied quote i would've tried to figure how to withdrawal those troops yes. our fitness today ambassador

khalilzad. so i've known for many years. reconciliation of the president trump where he negotiated the doha agreement. was asked to remain on by president biden. november 23 ambassador khalilzad appeared before the committee for nearly 12 hour closed-door transcribed interview. voluntarily i might add and we thank you for that. in that interview one thing was made clear of the core problem is not the doha agreement it was a president who refused to enforce it. i want to thank our witness for being here today. ambassador khalilzad i believe you have valuable information to share with this committee. i know you have chosen to do so voluntarily. when i do's hopes to do in the same candy showed in november. i read my use, you are not forced to appear here. we could have done that.

you are doing this as in a patriot and an american. and who is in the middle of all this from the very beginning with so many facts to share with this committee thank you sir for being here today with that i recognize the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman let me begin by also thank you for hearing my call for transparency. november 2023 afghanistan hearing. yesterday at your staff sent written notice of your personal commitment to publicly release all transcripts of interviews held during this congress and the committee's investigation into the united states withdrawal from afghanistan after they are finalized on february 29. this indeed is the right thing to do. the american people have funded our bipartisan oversight work we owe them full transparency. not just misleading cherry

picked specifics. such transparency is critical for any investigation so i strongly hope that your commitment to make transcripts of public will extend to the over site investigates you have initiated in this congress in which witnesses have been questioned behind closed doors we must not let this committee's activities become another typical move in a partisan game. i am at that let me think ambassador for appearing before our committee ambassador you served under three different presidents in a variety of capacities during america's 20 years of war and effort in afghanistan. your insights on the august 2021 withdrawal the many decision points that led to the events of august 2021 are important to this committee's understanding. red 20 year war deserves comprehensive and bipartisan oversight.

but the title of this hearing how the biden administration failed to enforce the doha agreement is telling it's not titled the biden administration's failed doha agreement with the tell bob that's because it was nacho biden who crafted the february 2020 deal. it was in fact his republican predecessor that made the agreement with the taliban that committed the united states withdraw all of our troops from afghanistan. nor is the hearing titled how the trump administration failed to live up to its commitments. but with root troops anyway. that would require scrutiny of the deal since its inception under the trump administration. i must say this because for some of my republican colleagues who open challenges of a guinness in begin the day after biden's inauguration that is not to say the biden administration is beyond congressional review or there's nothing to learn from those eight months. that is an eight month snapshot

out of 28 years. at best this fixation is oversight malpractice. at worst its historical it's hil revisionism politically committed to -- president biden inherited. let's be clear both president biden and a president trump sought to end our forever war in afghanistan. president biden ultimately achieve that goal. our core interests have not. and in those interests with the killing of al qaeda and 911 mastermind. in 2022 this is not a pointing blame. grappling with reality as well

as the ones we were goat don't. with the sacred constitution responsibility we have to oversee the state department u.s. foreign policy. too that end i want to acknowledge ambassador dan smith statement which is submitted for today's record. ambassador smith served for almost four decades at the state department return secretary blinken's request to leave the after action review and independent review of the departments actions over the course of generally 20 until august of 2021. related to the nancy's withdrawal. the result of his review drawn for more than one or 50 interviews are not just invaluable actionable provide a roadmap we should consult regularly to support the crises in management capacity and its

single greatest asset, its people. now ambassador, i know you have previously set for a transcript interview on today's subject that lasted over 10 hours and we thank you for that that is a testimony of your vast knowledge to share and your deep commitment to america and to our national security. i look forward to your testimony and i hope the american people can hear today but we have already heard behind closed doors. >> other members of the committee are reminding opening statements are to be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have your today the honorable zalmay khalilzad before us today served as a special representative for afghanistan at the state department from september 18 until october 2021. your full statement will be made

part of the record i now recognize ambassador khalilzad for his opening statements. next thank you. mr. chairman, ranking member undistinguished members of the committee, i welcome the opportunity to talk with you today about america's strategy in afghanistan during my service as the special between 2018 and 2021. an september 2018 the trump administration asked me too help negotiate a framework agreement for the safe withdrawal of u.s. forces. the taliban and the afghan government u.s. counterterrorism concerns. and set the stage for afghans to start negotiating an end to the

war in their country. by the end of 2018 the president's decision was to bring the american forces home. several factors have contributed to this decision. the conclusion this war had gone on for too long with no end in sight. the opportunity cost was too high. the united states needed to focus on great power competition that is in china, russia, and the threat from iran. afghanistan no longer it was was central to the war on terror. the goal of transforming afghanistan into a modern and democratic states had been unrealistic despite best efforts the country had huge governance

problems and rampant levels of corruption. that administration recognize the potential risks involved in this policy. the greatest risk was the potential threat to u.s. forces during withdrawal. the british withdrawal in 1842 as soviet withdrawal in 1988 and 1989 had been very bloodied. a second risk was afghanistan once again becoming the terrorist threat they can sue nancy tolman. u.s. interest in our allies. third was the loss of gains in this policy both inside the government and outside. the president determined the withdrawal was in the u.s.

national interest. after more than a year of negotiations unto 20 we reached two agreements. one with a telephone the other with the afghan government. these provide a framework for u.s. withdrawal leading with terrorism into afghan negotiations within the telephone and the afghan republic a permanent cease-fire in future relations between the united states and afghanistan. eat features of the agreement were phased withdrawal of u.s. forces over a 14 month period afghanistan was not to be used by any group or individual to threaten the security of the united states and its allies. enter afghan negotiations, importantly the taliban committed not to attack u.s. forces once the agreement was

signed. this was critical the taliban adhered to it killing no coalition fighter or u.s. soldier during the entire withdrawal. the first phase of withdrawal lasted 135 days in which the u.s. forces were reduced to 8600. by the time it president trump left forces had been reduced to 2500. the u.s. retained the right to come to the defense of the afghan forces if the taliban attacked them we exercise this right as needed. during the negotiations between the afghan republic and the taliban which start on septembet make any significant progress.

after november 2020 election president elect the biden's team asked me too stay on. the administration three options. one, withdrawal from the doha agreement. to come implement the agreement but with changes such extension of the timeline linking the withdrawal of remaining forces to the conclusion of a political agreement between the taliban and the afghan government are insisting on leaving behind and afghanistan the counterterror force. or withdrawal of the remaining forces without such linkages. the president announced in april of 2021 we would add four months of the timetable for withdrawal. for a total of 18 months. the withdrawal is not conditioned on a political agreement between the two afghan sides because it was believed

such conditionality would risk a return to war without end and entrap the united states into reversing course i'm sending more forces again. it was also decided over the horizon capabilities would allow us to monitor and respond to terror threats in the u.s. from afghan territory. upon projecting social and political gains the approach was to advocate for key values in the course of enter afghan negotiations by pressing the taliban on respecting women's rights and human rights. the withdrawal receded based on the new extended timeline. the assessment was the afghan government would it remain in rr it's forces would defend it and

fight the taliban during the withdrawal for some time after words. this assumption and formed our plans. although reasonable the sanction turned out to be wrong for the situation on the ground began to shift significantly and rapidly in favor of the taliban. in 2021 were at the gates of kabul. we had a last-minute success in persuading the taliban to refrain from entering kabul. and instead to hold talks with government to reach for a shared government a step to which both sides agreed. but this fellow fall apart when

he surprisingly fled the country which caused the now leaders of the afghan military and police to instantly disintegrate. these developments lead entering into kabul this abrupt series of events to react, adapt, and improvised is not of this have been foreseen and our plans withdrawal by the end of august. the final two weeks of chaos at the airport the tragic loss of 13 brave americans in a terrorist attack and what remains hotly debated. the events of those final days should not diminish the achievements made after 911 we sent our forces to afghanistan

to decimate al qaeda there. this was accomplished and presents a major win for the security of the united states. we all are grateful to those who sacrifice made this possible and to their families. the struggle for afghanistan is not over. then afghanistan's final chapter is certainly not written. the seed of the values we planted may well bear fruit over time. it would be a mistake to turn our back on the country. the american approach going forward must take current realities in afghanistan. the region and the world into account while remaining guided elsewhere by our interest and enduring values. thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to echo your comments that are veterans there service was not in vain they protected this nation for 20 years from a major terrorist attack like 911. we thank them for that we also do think the parents of the marine corps corporal hunter lopez and marine corps sgt nicole who are here today. to the lopez family and thus the goldstar famines be honor your sacrifice and it november and you testified before this committee and transcribed interview you presented to the biden administration and to the president basically three options on the doha agreement. one to basically ignore and unconditionally withdraw up to, tear it up in three to enforce its conditions against the

taliban. you also testified you and secretary blinken both recommended to president biden that he enforced doha's condition. but instead the president ignored were advised or disagreed and chose to ignore the doha conditions and unconditionally withdrawal is that correct? rex i think the opportunity for me too brief the president you said correct. and the options he had. and it was clear that it would be desirable the final withdrawal happens after there is an agreement between the government and the taliban. and that was broadly supported

that idea. but upon discussion, deliberation and consultation with allies and others and the allies to favored the withdrawal after there was an agreement between the government and the taliban. but there was a judgment that if we did that and that was not part of the doha agreement. it could result in a protracted delay as we could not be certain when and if the afghans would reach an agreement. if there was a risk of going back to war and perhaps sending more troops the decision was not to pursue that. and there was broad support for that decision. >> quek stewart recommendation to the president was to enforce a doha was conditions, correct? >> that was part of the

agreement, yes. we stated this was a condition based agreement it was a package deal. there were linkages but we did depend on the taliban delivered on their agreement to correct the president disagreed with you and chose not to enforce the conditions? what's i described a discussion that occurred and the judgment that was made. lexi conditions were not enforced and as a result the taliban to control the afghanistan today, correct? >> it is clear that the taliban are in control. but i would put the responsibility for what happened largely on the shoulders of the afghan government leadership for

not standing for their government, for their system and the values provokes i agree. the president's actions were cowardice and fling his country as a coward. not a good example. let me turn to that meeting you had in doha between yourself, jena mckenzie and the taliban leader you said the taliban offered to give the united states control of kabul for the purposes of evacuation but that offer was turned down. when asked by my committee at your interview whether the taliban viewed that as a quote green light to take over kabul you said quote i think that is clear. do you agree with that statement? >> i agree we had made an agreement for the taliban not to

enter kabul. and for a delegation to come from kabul and president god he had agreed to it as well for a power-sharing government. >> that is not my mission because his orders are not to secure kabul for evacuation his were to evacuate july 4 he did not have the troops allocated for that. now he could have raise that to the president. was this meeting, to your knowledge ever reported to the white house? was it was reported clearly to the entire government. but it was reported after general mckenzie said on the spot that was not as you said chairman, his mission to secure kabul. the initial goal was for taliban

not to be in kabul. i presented them with a map of some 20 -- 25 miles away from the center. within the root there should be no present. an increase to widespread concern about law and order. the integration of the security forces. the options we take responsibility. and then the discussion shifted. >> his understated mackenzies understanding the president was not authorized more troops to take over kabul for personal evacuation? >> i cannot comment on that i was not present in any discussion he may have had to pk

up that that had happened with that of been a little different? we took over kabul for the purpose of the evacuation. the child then agrees to stay out this 20-mile radius and they do not take over heard they are not part of the chaos at the very end. in the suicide bomber coming from those -- i'm not asking to speculate but it's very foreseeable that may never have happened. this report does go to the white house yet nothing is done to change the course of events, correct? question your account is correct. but we do not know what else could have happened. at that decision was made. we are entering speculation never. >> you cannot trust the taliban and i see my time is expired.

i don't think we should be speculating were giving out own opinions. or paraphrasing of what you are saying. when i went to goss about my thoughts are. we want to do an investigation to determine what we should learn from it. let me join the chairman first saying to our goldstar families. how much we appreciate you and the heroes that lost their lives. i know there is nothing to do that we can bring them back. but they are heroes for our country. whether it is a democrat or a republican i truly believe that we will always hold here in acknowledge the heroes that they are.

ambassador, you have worked tirelessly over the years to negotiate and implement the doha deal as did many others in the government. they're mostly yes and no. we do not have to get in confirmation. had gone to sign the agreement and a photo up with the taliban leader after nearly two decades that were with them. despite any criticism of it it is fair to say concluding the doha deal was a big deal a significant event. is that correct question. >> yes it was a significant event. >> with the conclusion of the doha deal they stop attacking u.s. forces inside of

afghanistan fulfilling the top condition placed on it in the deal. is that also correct? >> correct. >> the united states committed in the doha deal to quote withdrawal from afghanistan all military forces of the united states, its allies and coalition partners all non- diplomatic civilian personnel. private security contract, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel, is that not correct? >> correct. >> arguably that withdrawal was well underway and january of 2021 after president trump, according to ambassador smith statement for the record quote

steadily with drew u.s. forces notwithstanding concerns about the taliban's behavior. is that correct? >> correct. we were down to 2500. >> so in your expert opinion what did you think the taliban would have done the may deadline this predecessor had set for a full withdrawal. would have just walked away entirely from the doha agreement? >> in your expert opinion? >> if we had walked away from the agreement now i'm offering an opinion. we would have been back to back fighting the taliban you spoke

in your opening statement imposing further conditions on the taliban, at that time as you just stated would risk a return to war. and you hold to that belief today, is that correct? >> i do pray. >> had president biden stopped to revise the deal to maintain a small number of troops in afghanistan and definitely did a risk remain they would resume attacks against them? >> very lightly. i am sure mr. ambassador, you agree the highest priority of the united states president should be to protect american lives, correct? >> correct. and even over other development our national security sectors? or even the welfare of our

allies and partners? >> this gets into a complicated discussion. we do put lives at risk in defense of our interest in our values. we did in afghanistan for many years to break with them he asked might last question i see him out of time. so mr. ambassador, and your own belief do you believe president biden's completion of u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan was necessary to protect american lives in terms of american military forces, yes. mr. wilson for a quick thank you, mr. chairman. about ambassador thank you for your service. it is so inspiring to be with

you. we are grateful for what you have done for our country. it is particularly a time for us to appreciate the success of the american military. for 20 years they stop terrorist attacks in our country. as people look back we should appreciate the success of the military. very personal my former national guard units of the army national guard led by bob livingston serve for a year across afghanistan the developed a great affection for the afghan brothers. i was therefore time seeing firsthand the success of what they were doing. and i am grateful my youngest son first lieutenant hunter wilson was an engineer serving with the army guard for a year in afghanistan. so it's very personal to me. the absolute disgust i have with president joe biden. his shameful appeasement, surrender, and abandonment of the people of afghanistan has

led immediately 13 young americans in the kabul airports. even though the sniper had mass murdering individual bomber and his sites which could have saved the 13 lives and could have saved indeed hundreds of poor afghan citizens that were murdered. the rules of engagement came into play. thirteen young americans died. with that to its given encouragement that is a war, dictators with rule of god invading democracy with rule of law. we saw that on fabric 24, 2022 when war criminal putin invaded ukraine. we sought october 7, when hamas the puppets of iran we see it with the threats being made answer 249 people of taiwan by

the chinese communist party. all of this to make us back to the shameful decision which i think is the most catastrophic in the history of the united states in terms of national defense security and foreign policy and there is no excuse however that rewrite history, god bless their hearts. we should always remember america was in afghanistan and liberated afghanistan from turbine terrorists because the terrorist attacks of 911. history should not be read written. osama bin laden was operating out of a cave in afghanistan. for 20 years indeed it was successful to protect. sadly by abandoning afghanistan the global war on terrorism is not over but it is coming to america. the fbi has identified we are at great risk of attack eminently today in america that could

occur. it is just shameful what occurred. additionally, a question i have is when on august 26, 2021 president biden excused his appeasement right in the middle of his speech he was explaining to his advisors had said abandon, leave now. and then he threw in it was not on the teleprompter, i have letters. that night i asked for copies of the letters of the advice he received to abandon the people of afghanistan. it should not surprise you but every two months i sent a letter to the white house asking for that letters, there are no letters. they have not been revealed. what advice was given by his advisors were abandonment took place. >> i believe our military under

the leadership of the president and the chain of command the very difficult set of circumstances to get as many people out 125,000 people were brought out. i associate myself with your praise of our military they do an outstanding job for the people of the united states. what you mention, sir about the letters and advice i do not have a direct knowledge of what was involved there. the advice was to bring out as many people as possible. to reach out to as many americans and those that work

for us or our organizations work for us to bring them out in the huge number was brought up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> about the. but two choices keep a force there, practically with airpower and be prepared to incur modest casualties. or pull out. the establishment wanted to stay. the cables said stay the politicians promised the american people we would pull out. not because casualties were large but because they were on top of 20 years of war. we defeated militarily in achieving our full goals and afghanistan. not by the taliban that by the phrase forever war.

once that phrase was coined the american people demanded we withdrawal. i know there's pressure on the chairman to politicize and achieve the political objectives of his party. but this hearing is going to get politicalization a bad name. because it is the worst issue for the republicans to bring up. they cuss ambassador, this until hot agreement is the worst agreement i could imagine. i do not blame you. because president trump, you testified in your testimony by the end of 2018 president trump's decision was to bring all american forces home from afghanistan. in 2019 on the anniversary of 911 he invited them to camp david because president trump, you testified in your testimony by the end of 2018 president trump's decision was to bring all american forces home from afghanistan. in 2019 on the anniversary of 911 he invited them to camp david president trump stated we

will have the small remaining number of our brave men and women serving in afghanistan home by christmas. the only leverage you had is maybe we will take the foreign policy approach and keep our air force capacity there. you have got the president saying, president trump singh they are all home by christmas, every single one of them. so this is the worst agreement i could imagine. ambassador is there anything in the agreement where the taliban commit themselves to allowing 13 year old gross to go to school? i did not find anything like that is it in there? >> there is nothing in the agreement. the issues dealing with the future of afghanistan was to be negotiated. >> the purpose of the hearing is to say why didn't we enforce the agreement but when the taliban treats a 12 year old girls like

slaves when they kill members of the lgbtq community. when they kill anyone who converts from islam to christianity they are not in violation of this agreement we are having a hearing to say why are we enforcing? they are not in violation. we entered into an agreement in which they agreed to do nothing more than talk to the afghan government. they talked, they decided they wanted to kill lgbtq community. they wanted to kill with a call basically enslave half the human race, the female half. this agreement was so bad the chairman attacks president biden for not withdrawing from it. this is an agreement entered into by the man who claims is the best negotiator in the world, president trump. i will say we did achieve one objective and that is afghanistan is uniquely situated

to serve as a base for terrorism against america. in fact there is more terrorism coming out of afghanistan killing iranians in iran there is no such thing as an easy withdrawal. brasher, as the ambassador pointed out and very messy withdrawal from afghanistan. and our withdrawal from vietnam was messy as well for those particular issue every english-speaking afghan i had any acquaintance with was trying to leave the average grunt in afghanistan would stay and fight is absurd. give one more question. republicans have said that somehow we should have gone all over afghanistan and collected her $85 billion with the weapons. presumably from people who knew they could keep them for their own self defense or sell them to the taliban. could we have, by force, taken back our weapons everywhere in afghanistan on our way out

without casualties? >> thank you sir. as you know the weapons that were left behind were weapons clicks even if we realize the government was useless? the government we assumed would not fall apart. people have weapons they want to hold onto you cannot take them away i yield back. >> and you mr. chairman, mr. ambassador in september of 2020 you appeared before the house oversight committee and testified u.s. troop withdrawal would be determined i'm going to quote you based on conditions on the ground of delivery by the

taliban on their commitments. did you or secretary blinken advocates on the extension considering the core planning as i said sir, for months were added to the timetable but as i said again the decision was made to withdrawal at the end of august and not link it to any condition that you might have in mind. >> that was your quote conditions. i think the americans have in mind it would be a condition withdrawal which makes sense you provide some kind you are

adversaries so to speak you provide some level of compliance with the agreement that we can see that is not what occurred. i am just wondering by the taliban between april 14 by president biden. what concessions? >> one concession was we acquiesce to the condition of four months that we demanded big bucks for what question. >> four months for a time as thy could have rejected it. they agreed to sit and agreed

with a government that would include members of the republican side. the averment side. >> those agreements as you know were hollow because they took more and more of the government under their control. which was not in the bill hot agreement which was not what was agreed to. >> they did invade kabul. >> they did because they agreed not too. >> so they lied to us. it was not base their withdrawal was not based on conditions on the ground? did you convey these concerns to president biden to the continuing negotiations about the blatant violations the whole world psalms there are current. >> certainly i am not here to defend the behavior of the taliban progress none of us are

additional conditions. >> are not asking for additional conditions you knew that. the world saw that. the president saw that. i am assuming, maybe i should not be but i assume you advised him of that the secretary advised him of that he proceeded anyway. >> he proceeded to withdraw forces because he believed to a fights. and he did not want to do that. of 911 as the final evacuation day? >> i do not know that. >> did you ever question is

pretty significant the adjustments made to the end of august as a final data withdrawal. you know as well as i do. >> you don't who made the decision? >> the president made the decision. i do not know who advise them on choosing that progressive president is the commander-in-chief regardless of who advised him. >> it was said the president wanted to withdrawal and you reminded us it was to protect american lives. the time coming into that during the previous administration once the decision was made to

horrific loss of american lives. we'll never know it didn't whatt occur. we know it did occur the previous administration plan coming into it during that period of time there was no loss of american service members lives. because of the agreement? >> no it was not because of the agreement for the towel that was not following or abiding by. it's at the president didn't let the taliban know if they killed in the american lives it was going to be over for them. quickly yield the balance. quick seals to chair it recognizes mr. keegan dear. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first off, as a goldstar family member my self, was killed in action want to recognize and thank the families that are here.

want to be sure we think first and foremost and give our eternal gratitude to their service and their sacrifice the purpose of undertaking the overall of afghanistan's look at 20 plus years things we could do differently. the goal is i shared and i'm sure the family sears shared is to prevent future lives from being lost. can we learn something over this period of time that will save other families and other brave americans from that sacrifice? that is my goal over 20 years looking at this. i cannot really sit here at this moment in time talk about saving future american lives indicating something else that's happened right here in this house right here it is not acting on aid to ukraine. why is that relevant to this?

when we can fund ukrainians defending themselves against an illegal war from a direct and present danger to the united states and our allies we can confront this threat with funding ukraine. and by doing that, confront russia deter other threats. threats that could be in china and taiwan in the process and keep a young american men and women from being deployed under article five. if ukraine falls putin has made it clear it's going to the baltic states with certain nato states that theme of saving american lives i hope this speaker has the courage to allow democracy so when people thought for a chance to have a vote. when it comes to ukraine mr. ambassador, i did not get to

choose who is here. i did not get to choose the title that says the biden administration failed. again, i prefer to look at this over 20 plus years. but i would quote given the comments us of my colleagues a quote from former u.s. ambassador jon bass who said our main policy efforts use the ambassador as you are aware under president trump. our main policy efforts couldn't reinforce it so they contradicted each other. these contradictory signals are amplified by president trump's statement supporting rapid reduction. the afghans of confidence in the u.s. security commitments and in their own service in government something you alluded to. the lack of confidence spelled itself out with the afghan government and their military. i guess i would just leave it

with this and hope that we can undertake as a committee our emphasis on what went wrong. but we can learn. learn from our diplomats there were plenty that were wrong and it had dire consequences in many instances. the terms of limiting this hearing to have the biden administration failed will end with one quote that quote kurt on june 26, 2021. it was at eight political campaign rally by the former president. in heat quotes, i started this process. all the troops are coming home. they could not stop this process unquote. so let's not have this hearing center on who is the last person holding the ball when the music ended.

i went to one of our members serving in a war zone and i asked him what he thought about the war and he said my job is to serve, that question is yours to answer respectively, that is why we are here in trying to learn and trying to save more american lives in the future and i yield back. thank you. >> the gentleman yields the chair recognizes mrs. wagoner. >> i think the chairman and the ambassador for being here and for his service. today on more than two years after the budget administration

shameful, tragic and misguided life from afghanistan has become clear that the president was determined to abandon the country at any cost and with no condition. the cost in military assets in our credibility as a friend and ally and a global leader and most of all precious american lives. it was incalculable. i get it again the administration proved that it was willing to simply cede afghanistan to the taliban, in respect of of the taliban clear intent to ignore all commitments and agreements, the responsibility of the absolute debacle in afghanistan rest on this diminished ration shoulders. and there must be accountability, there has been no accountability for the

administration of u.s. troops and citizens. ambassador did country did nato argue against the full u.s. troop withdrawal? >> they did as subject of political agreement that i mentioned to the chairman. >> how did russia and china respond to the taliban takeover? >> i don't know for sure but it seems to me that they would've preferred a political settlement, they stated they would've preferred a political settlement, i was always suspicious of the motivation. sometimes they would want a political settlement but they knew there was no easy path to a

political settlement, they also would've like to keep us in afghanistan it a difficult situation doing what they wanted us to do in part to get terrorists that were focused on them eliminated bias and paying a price without winning. we had to be careful of direction. >> i could talk more in a different setting about their policies but this is what i say. >> thank you, i appreciate that. more concerned that nato was against grateful troop withdrawal. afghanistan we just touched on is ranked worst 177 countries in terms of the status of women according to the piece research institute. did you believe the taliban

would respect women's rights and allow girls to go to school? should. >> i did not trust them, they did make statements on record, video statements that they would allow girls to go to school all the way not only through college but a phd, this is on the record that they made but they have not lived up to it. >> they did not do it and you did not trust them and why didn't u.s. negotiators pressed the taliban to extend the withdrawal beyond august 31 to facilitate the evacuation? >> that was the president's decision yet ask for four months but that was not to ask for an additional extension. >> president biden. >> the taliban and issue threats to attack u.s. troops if they stay longer than august 31 deadline. ambassador did you consider this

to be the actions of a responsible partner a piece? >> that consideration and additional extension was asked for it was not asked but if additional extension was asked for perhaps it would lead to the restart of the fight and that is perhaps the decision not to ask for more time. >> they threatened our u.s. troops if they stayed one day longer than august 31. throughout 2021 whether the taliban was meeting the conditions of the agreement and how about an april 2021? then. >> always on my personal judgment to give the taliban to do what they agreed to do we have to respond with our commitments in a way that incentivizes them to do what they committed to do meaning

that we wouldn't do what we committed to unless they committed to doing what they are doing that was my point of view and that was my advice. jack: my time has ended and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. castro. >> thank you chairman and abbasid therefore your testimony. in your prepared testimony you said by the end of 2018 as is well known the president's decision was to bring home american forces from afghanistan. we also heard testimony and multiple closed-door transcribed interviews with senior state department officials to this effect. in other words the withdrawal of all u.s. troops from afghanistan beginning february 2020 as part of the agreement you negotiated between the united states and the taliban. can you provide examples of how president trump decision to

withdraw troops was apparent and well-known beginning in 2018? >> the president tweeted to that effect multiple times. i would give a reference to secretary pompeo's book and which he documents the president of debtor nation and when i met with the president he made that clear that that was the objective. >> it's fair to say the u.s. withdraw from afghanistan began as a result of february 2020 doha agreement under president trump? >> indeed. >> do you believe the sentiment withdrawal all troops was known, suspected by the taliban when you were negotiating with them? and what informs this belief? >> the public statements sometimes the taliban would say

i was not following my negotiations and of the spirit of what was being said publicly by saying we would only withdraw if certain conditions were met and why sometimes statements would be made that provided and created the impression that we would withdraw way godless. >> you feel like that was undermining your negotiating? >> that is for others to judge but the challenges that i described, the challenges that i described. it. >> out of the conflicting statements and so forth, the fact that the taliban had a sense or suspected that there would be a total withdraw, how did that affect the negotiation of the doha. >> it was not helpful but also

however, i tried to educate them not to take public statements made for a variety of reasons as a final word because circumstances could change and we needed agreement as soon as possible given the statements that were being made because without having such an agreement they might hear a statement different. >> from the president or the secretary of state or a high-ranking official. >> indeed. >> you negotiated this deal, was there ever any doubt that what it committed the united states to draw down the military folding from the country? basically to go to ?

>> that was clearly an agreement but the idea of leaving some forces behind was there and in agreement that we have raised it became an understanding and i have to be careful how to articulate this that if there is an agreement between the government of afghanistan and the taliban in a new unity government the issue of a residual u.s. president would be decided by the government but we could never agree to themselves. >> in light of the facts of which you testify, would be reasonable to say that the withdrawal began in 2020? and it was not the sole decision of one u.s. president in 2021?

>> i agree. >> the trump administration initiated the withdraw from afghanistan by negotiated and ultimately concluded the doha deal in february 2020 with an explicit aim to withdraw all american troops in the country in 13 months, the trump administration apple mentation of this deal set in motion a formal u.s. withdraw from afghanistan. >> agreed i was advised if we could think about the withdrawal in the way the final phase of the withdraw happened, that is the distinction that we should keep in mind. >> thank you, i yield back. >> the time is expired the chair recognizes mr. mast. >> they determined i would start by touching on the last statement that you just said, the withdraw and then essentially the way that it is conducted, you could say that about any sporting event any

athletic event anything that you're planning on doing in the future. you might plan to have a super bowl but there is a way that the game is played. that's what ultimately counts, what do you do when you get onto the ground. i want to ask a few questions about that. and i want to ask a few questions about the conditions for the biden administration. the divided administration execute or operate on a plan that there are no conditions, there is no line, no threshold, no redline that was going to prevent them from being out of afghanistan on the day that they wanted. >> let me understand what you are asking that certainly the desire to complete a withdraw by the end of august was that any

state beyond that the risks beyond the war was a driving factor as i understood it. >> to say it again i'm not quoted try to put words in your mouth was there anything that was going to stop them from leaving on the day that they wanted to leave. >> that would be speculating of course but i would restate that avoiding the restart of the war was the most important factor shaping decisions. >> i wonder if it would be speculated would not be speculating because as you spoke about and as you requested about and offered up in interviews previously, you made your recommendation to the administration and you said there is continuation of expecting a full adherence with the provisions in the conditions of the doha agreement.

that is a recommendation did i believe that was your recommendation to make the taliban uphold to those provisions. scrap the doha agreement as though it never existed and create your own conditions president biden and tapped the table band this is what you want or forget about the conditions of the doha agreement in one way or another you are leaving when you want to leave. he chose my understanding is forget the conditions of the agreement we are leaving when we want to leave we are leaving on the date we demand to leave were not leaving on any other day, is that correct. >> the additional four months was the only factor that changed from the timetable otherwise you are right. >> we know september 11 to begin with, i'm going to ask one more

question. do you know who pays the price ultimately forbade foreign policy? >> all of us. >> the armed forces of course. >> that's exactly right. >> comedy people paid the price for his bad foreign policy? >> of course isis attacked, we knew they were out to attack us and we demanded steps by the taliban to prevent the attack in general mckenzie on the record has said that despite the fact that is hostile to the taliban that they did everything that we asked for, it was an isis attack

that killed 13 great americans and the taliban and u.s. cooperation to prevent that did not succeed. >> thank you for your time today. >> the gentleman yields the chair recognizes mr. titus. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ambassador. on june 26, 2021, a person at a rally said this, as started the process, all the troops are coming back home, they cannot stop the process. 21 years is enough don't you think, 21 years, they cannot stop the process. >> i suspect that is president trump. >> that is correct doesn't that suggest that he was acknowledging that the process he started cannot be stopped without some consequences. >> i cannot speculate and

whether others could stop although it's my judgment that president biden if he wanted to he could have. >> let me ask this, you said a few minutes ago to ms. wagner when she was asking about the taliban's commitment to education of women virtually that we have to live up to our obligation in order to make them live up to theirs, what if we had not withdrawn those troops, what if we had not lived up to our obligation, wouldn't that have consequences that were not desirable, hadn't they already stopped attacking u.s. troops before this and if we left troops there that not better obligation, who knows what they would've done. >> you're absolutely right. >> when you speculate whatever they would've done probably would not of been good because the chairman says i can't trust the taliban or we can trust the taliban and you said i did not trust the taliban, why did we

enter into an agreement with the taliban with no accountability measures in no way to hold them to their commitment if we can't trust them. >> we enter agreements with international politics with people that we don't trust we did it during arms-control with the soviet, president reagan said trust but verify in the way to incentivize the other side when you have an agreement to adhere that you won't do what they want from you unless they agreed to do what they're doing. that's the way it works and when you have your information system to monitor and living up to the agreement or not and then you bring the information into the negotiation and the formation of the agreement. >> did you have any way to monitor what they were doing. >> absolutely maybe not perfectly we did have

information and we in fact it did reports, my office did with the department of defense and what were they doing in terms of terrorism and they agreed what to do or not to do and then what they were doing and we were sending those reports. >> let me ask about this as you mentioned terrorism we made a deal that they were no longer going to be a base or support for terrorism and then we found the al-qaeda leader there and took them out with the drone. obviously they were not living up to that obligation. >> that was a three-year violation. and then we took action and we did. >> how did you miss taffy were monitoring. >> we obviously have the withdraw the kanban completed the monitoring system works, we

found them and then we took action and the intelligence said that we should not have but we made it clear that we would do what's necessary to protect the american people and we took the action that the president did and i applauded that action. >> what else have they done that we caught any monitoring. >> we are watching the counterterrorism commitments, the implementation and the government now, i'm sure you can see reports that they do and from what i see on the outside this is my opinion it appears that we believe they are largely adhering to those commitments. >> not to the education of women apparently. >> if we had left troops there like people suggested that we should have done do you not think that would've had consequences for what they would've done?

aside from the doha agreement if we violated our part and left troops there, do you think they would've said okay. >> the judgment was and you rely on a lot of people, intelligence on coming to a judgment that we would be back to fighting if we did that. if we unilaterally said we are not withdrawing all of our forces although we agreed that we would and we may be back in fighting and as i said president biden decided to withdraw forces. >> do you agree with that. >> i supported the idea of not going back to war but we could reopen negotiations and something different.

>> i think the american people did not want us to go back to work. >> the china recognizes mrs. david. >> i appreciate you being here, thank you for your service to our country. and i appreciate your testimony today hopefully it helps us learn what we can from afghanistan and apply it not just to provide accountability and truth and for the record but further action in the future. i spent my life from 18 - 30 in the army i was fortunate to serve in the 75th and one of the core missions that we trained on was noncombatant evacuation operations. in none of those training scenarios, i never did live, we trained for but in afghanistan, as that was the mission and noncombatant evacuation operation and no training

scenario that i am aware of did we have a plan to ever take the military out first and hope that the civilians would get out, have you ever heard of such a doctrine anywhere? >> of course i applaud you for your service i had the great honor of serving with the brave men and women in iraq and afghanistan that they inspired me and i very much associate myself with what you said, i think the problem in my judgment and i've said it before we plan for a single scenario and that scenario was that the government and its troops would survive our withdraw or sometime thereafter and that's what informed the sequence as is my judgment. >> you believe the state department actually believed

that they would trust the lives of the american citizens to the taliban, they were not there themselves, they were ready to get out of town and they thought we could get ourselves out, we can get the military out and will trust the taliban and to finish the job, that was the plan? >> also work with the government of afghanistan with the troops of the afghan government that we had trained and equipped a deal with the withdraw. and four. after the withdraw the plan was to maintain forces after the withdraw was completed at the airport and to protect the embassy and i believe that assumption i keep repeating that because several of your colleagues are mentioning lessons learned, we don't plan

as one lesson that i have learned from outside is for single scenario we have to plan for alternatives on how we would digest from one to another regardless of how many alternatives that seemed like a bad plan and now with the benefit of hindsight, everyone can agree it was in fact a bad >> it was problematic but i explained the assumption. >> in 2004 you wrote an op-ed of afghanistan milestone i would like to submit for the record this op-ed covered the country's approval of a new constitution. i want to read aloud some sentences that you room afghanistan has sent a compelling message that by investing in the country's development the united states is investing in success. americans can take pride in the

role that we played in leading the multi-lateral effort to support afghan democratization president bush decision to increase aid to afghanistan which will likely total more than 2 billion in 2004 will accelerate reconstruction, the country's national army police force, schools and medical system. you finish this by writing our work in afghanistan it is not yet done it will take several years in the same commitment of significant resources by the united states and the national community where the country can stand on its own feet given the stakes involved we must remain committed for as long as it takes, i've heard that phrase before to succeed. you think we were successful. >> is entered into the record. >> what can we learn about nation building, it seems foolish it seemed foolish at the time.

>> i supported president bush vision of transforming not only afghanistan but his vision was and problems of the region. >> the goals are always nice we judge things by what people say they aspire to and it sounds so good and execution is problematic, i will say the same phrase as long as it takes as much as it takes is only public plan the divided administration has laid out for ukraine. other than that i don't see any tie to ukraine. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador thank you so much for your testimony today. before i begin my question i would've remembered the 13 u.s. service members who lost their lives on august 26 of 2021 while conducting the evacuation i know every member of this committee

joins me in paying tribute to their families as well to the families of all service members who put their lives on the line over the course of our country's longest war. we will continue to honor them and we will never forget their sacrifices on august 26 of 2021 i spent much of the day on the phone with the constituent a mother whose son had very abruptly be sent to afghanistan to assist in the evacuation he was stationed at the airport and she did not hear from them the entire day and you can imagine the stress and anxiety that she had as we got the news that service members had been lost. i will never forget that. is our obligation when we send men and women into uniform in harm's way that we continually ensure that they have the support that they need in the

mission there being asked to conduct its international interest and is achievable. and the partners on the ground are willing to make the same sacrifices that our troops are making today my question i think is simple but it's probably a complicated answer it deals with the underlying reality why over the course of 20 years in afghanistan to the administration of both parties fail to correctly assess the level of dedication and cohesion of afghan forces in its political leadership. >> that is a question and lessons to be learned and we have to focus sharply on that. we spent a lot of resources, a lot of effort and the forces were of varying quality and they

sacrifice a lot 70000 prop 60 to 70000 afghan soldiers and policemen died and we were there, what happened to them in our assessment that they would do a lot better after our withdraw. >> my real question, how did we feel so badly at that over the 20 years. >> we know there was a division of the intelligence community with the cia on one side and the pentagon on the other side and the effectiveness of training afghan forces. i'm not asking you to go into classified information in a public setting but can you speak broadly to the divergent perspective and what interest they may have been driven by. >> one is the way that we built the armed forces needs to be in question many people would argue that the afghans was a difficult

task in the way that we organized in the recruitment and sustainment and organization may be was not appropriate for the circumstances and perhaps that would be one and second to what extent politics in the division of the country affected the force, i was very concerned they spent a lot of time in 2020 because two candidates announced themselves, to presidents in here was a possible scenario in which the armed forces were to go with one candidate and we invested so much in some would've gone with the other and

we were already at war in another war in the republic side and there are lessons to be learned. >> i'm going to stop you there because i only have 30 seconds but i'm very deeply concerned from vietnam trafficking is into iraq and who knows in the current situation in the world we keep seeing politicization of intelligence to fit a predesigned agenda in what seems to be the intelligence of the administration may used to tell the story that they wanted tell not necessarily a reality and that's what i want to see us get away from. with that i thank you very much i'm sorry we don't have more time i yield back. the chair recognizes mr. kim. >> thank you for today's hearing and i want to thank you ambassador for making yourself

available and coming before community today. since the disastrous withdraw from afghanistan to the divided administration all heartfelt products for afghan women have vanished. one incredible gains in the classroom played an active role in the afghan government pressed and participated in the workforce side-by-side with their miracle workers. when the taliban seized power one of the first actions was to ban girls from attending secondary school. they eliminated against women and ban women from working ngos and started access to public areas. decades of work on women and girls went down the drain in a matter of weeks. as a woman, this is deeply personal to me. it is been raised several times

today that you presented in administration with several power-sharing proposals that would give the taliban partial or majority control of afghan government. what did the piece plans say about women's rights and participation in the afghan government? >> we gave one plan to accelerate and negotiation since we wanted to see the optimal outcome are the better option limited agreement before the withdrawal was completed and those draft proposals afghanistan's adherence to international standards on human rights and respect for the rights of all afghan citizens commit a minority and children were all specified in the draft that we share with them to

assist with accelerating the negotiation. >> ambassador did you think the taliban would be willing to share the power of the afghan government with the women back we had them say to us and say publicly and on video that a woman could be ministers and acts of all parts of life and what happened sense has been a violation of the statements that are on the record for the whole world. >> the words and actions did not match, the taliban was cited as stating to the united states you might have the watches but we have the time. >> was the taliban waiting the united states government out so

we could overthrow the afghan government after our departure? >> i would be speculating but certainly they waited us out in the sense that based on what's happening changes in the world and successes that we had on counterterrorism as i described we decided it's time to come home and there are things that we could've done differently in retrospective studies will be done and perhaps a different outcome. >> ambassador did you consider that as a possibility of the power-sharing agreement was implement it? >> i did i consider the possibility because both sides were saying that they want that and the question was the terms the president did not want to leave office he wanted them to

join him and they said he won't join to be a new government and that's acceptable to both sides, the negotiation was difficult and we knew it was going to take time. >> president biden's withdrawal legitimized the plan of action. >> our withdraw of course change the balance in favor of the taliban but i believe the bigger mistake the bigger factor that shaped the outcome was a poor performance of the government. the afghan government. and running away by saying they will never do that in the disintegration of the armed forces, those were the bigger factors in my judgment into what

ultimately happened. >> the chair recognizes ms. manning. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you to our witness for being here today. mr. ambassador i have to be honest with you, like many americans, i was shocked when i read the february 2020 try joe hall agreement, by how few conditions there were for the taliban to meet, there were no protections for women and girls in afghanistan were for the afghan people who had helped us and worked side-by-side with her forces, basically the former president agreed to a precipitous withdrawal of all troops all coalition partners in all civilian personnel by may 1 to release 5000 prisoners to work with the un to lift sanctions against the taliban to

seek economic cooperation for the reconstruction of afghanistan and to refrain from the threat or use of force against afghanistan or intervene in its domestic affairs. in exchange the taliban agreed to release up to 1000 prisoners per the 5000 they agreed to release 1000. they vaguely committed to enter afghan negotiations and agreed not to allow its members to attack our personnel on the way out. i did not see any agreement to stop attacks against afghan, i did not see any agreement to prevent them from taking afghan territory and i certainly did not see any protection of afghan women and girls, i did not see any guarantees that afghanistan would prosecute anyone who

commits atrocities against women or girls. i did not see any requirements that the taliban take steps to keep women and girls in schools. i did not see any requirements of the taliban take steps to uphold any right of the afghan people. apparently the protection of women and girls was not important to president trump. given the terrible reality that we see today in afghanistan including for afghan women and girls in retrospect, what should've been done differently to secure protections for vulnerable minority populations in particular women and girls in afghanistan? >> the issue for you and other leaders is whether achieving the goals that you outlined on women should have been a precondition

for withdrawal which means that the u.s. forces would have given the responsibility to achieve those rights and we should have stayed in afghanistan until the taliban agrees to those. >> to protect women and girls and with that, were you ever instructed on behalf of president trump secure those agreements. >> the judgment was to pursue those objectives with other means other than the use of armed forces because of the violations of human rights around the world and it's not the responsibility of the u.s. forces. >> human rights, were talking about half of the population of the country, was ever articulated that one of the goals of withdraw was to make sure that afghan women and girls were going to be protected, was

articulated? >> it was articulated that that would be pursued in the negotiation during in which we have a written agreement in which it states that we would work with the government which supported the human rights legitimate to afghanistan to pursue the objectives and afghan negotiation using diplomacy, using future relations. >> you were not going to negotiate with the taliban, you we're going to help behind-the-scenes the afghan government that collapsed and you we're going to encourage them to work to support. >> the assumption turned out to be wrong that the government will not collapse forces in the weapons and more international standing more money. >> did you ever believe that the taliban and was truly interested in negotiating with the afghan government? >> i saw them negotiate with afghan government and is started

in september. >> was that before you gave up all the leverage signing the agreement and by donald trump tweeting in advance what he was going to do with withdrawing the troops. >> as i said before, there was an agreement inside of the administration and the way the president decided to go the right way but the decision was made in our system and others expressed opinions and advisors in the decision would not make a withdrawal. >> the protection of afghan people and afghan women and girls, my time is expired i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. barry. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. ambassador for being here today, we appreciate all the work that you've done, the question that i have deals with the many reports of sidebar

agreements between the u.s. and taliban during joe hall for instance after signing the deal the secretary of state mike pompeo claimed that the taliban would destroy al-qaeda, other reports indicated that the taliban would enter negotiations with afghan government, neither of these things really happen, did you believe the taliban would destroy al-qaeda. >> the agreement says specifically and we talked about the side agreement, they were classified in one dealing with terrorism, i cannot go into the setting and hopefully you read it was to not go will out al-qaeda specifically in any terrorist that would threaten the security of the united states and our allies that was

the agreement and now a grave violation of that agreement but as i said before you should also intelligence community what a judgment is on the adherence to that. i believe based on what i believed in what we believe largely in compliance on counterterrorism. in regard to the government negotiation did start in the agreement necessitated the start of afghan negotiation and we assume it will take time and if it can be concluded before we left but we did not want to make a conditional on the withdrawal of an agreement because one side

or the other in the negotiations wanted to conclude something and keep us there, the government could have been interested in keeping us there because the government did not want us to withdrawal, the afghan government, they like the situation with the big american president in support. as to the assessment of who was more serious about negotiations, i speculate or give you my opinion but the key point we did not want to withdraw in the decision to believe by afghans toward each other because it was not known of what the calculations would be and whether those calculations would assist with the timetable or withdrawal that the president

had in mind. >> thank you. no more questions. sense you were involved in the so deeply, was divided diminished ration made aware of the side agreements. >> absolutely. >> my last question deals with giving you the opportunity to refresh us about your involvement in communications and someone in the final days before the withdrawal of couple. >> i was the center of the storm if you like i was in doha and i would participate with the president and others and meeting. i essentially was a channel to get the taliban to do what we wanted during those two weeks we saw isis was going to use that

and nearby they might issue the rocket at the airport and there might be a terrorist to direct them to go up the hill to go to the mosque, then i would deal with the people's movement i would get calls, one thing i learned, our society next to the afghan society, i would get calls all over the united states saying this person used to drive my car and he wants to get to the airport and please arrange for him to get to the airport. and then multiple with the military at the airport also

with the military. in the military would call me and they're not reacting can you talk to the leader and my brother to allow this to happen. there was a lot going on and not to mention mention members of congress asking. >> thank you, i ran out of time. >> i gave you too much information. >> mr. chairman if you would indulge me for just a second or so. i cannot help but share my experience about soldiers that put the uniform on many women. we had one of those young 13 right for my district. i cannot help but recognize the contributions as our people in uniform make around this world. >> thank you.

>> we appreciate your contribution as well in vietnam. >> the chair recognizes mr. stanton. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and congressman bear for the women and men serving our country, thank you ranking member for holding the steering today. i would like to focus on our allies, those who risk everything, the safety, their family safety to support the united states mission in afghanistan, for two and half years are afghan allies had been trapped in a frightening legal limbo, trapped because congress has again and again, failed to pass afghan adjustment act and make good on our promises, we even had an opportunity to pass parts of it in the senate border deal just last week, deal with extreme republicans killed. i've been fortunate to get the members especially foldable group, the female tactical platoon the afghan national army special operations command, the

brave women went through rigorous screening and training by the united states military, they participated in hundreds of direct action missions against the taliban alongside u.s. special forces including green berets, navy seals and army rangers. 42 ftps, many who are part of the persecution minority evacuated after couple fell, but the television knows who they are and they know who the families are and they were forced to leave behind. in a constituent of mine who just served in afghanistan from 2016 to 2020 spent part of her deployment serving alongside the ftps, she told me that threatening letters from the taliban were sent to these women, warning that they will be dealt with so they will serve as an example. she also said there is no doubt

that these women would've been raped and tortured before death if they had been evacuated by u.s. counterparts. another active duty service member wrote to me the female platoon holds some of the bravest women i have ever met. i am an american soldier in these women fought by my side for nearly ten years targeting the enemies of the united states in afghanistan, i trusted them with my life daily and they entrusted me with theirs. when afghanistan fell in august of 21 they did not want to lay down their arms and flee that they were forced to. as the taliban encircled a target that members of the female tactical platoon and their families and their loved ones are in danger the mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers were forced to stay behind since they are not considered immediate family and to this day i receive messages from family members seeking help, many have been beaten, tortured and killed they need our help. that is from the active-duty

service member. in the words of an stp herself, regarding my home state of arizona who was kind enough to share her story with my office. i cannot give you my name for fear of reprisal against my family and afghanistan. i serve an afghan national army special forces female tactical platoon for five years and i speak five languages and a year end a half training with the u.s. and british forces before being assigned to the platoon. i would love to serve in the u.s. army and i left behind my father, mother, three sisters, three brothers in there now subject to harassment and kidnapping in the hands of the taliban because of my service with u.s. forces. my sisters are in hiding for fear that the taliban will disappear them as this happens other family members even though there only my sisters of the taliban will enact revenge by blood. i fear for my families lives every day unquote.

i share their words to underscore the deadly consequences if this congress continues to stall on the afghan adjustment act. every day that this congress fails to act as a betrayal of her allies and of our american values. ambassador your thoughts on the afghan adjustment act? >> i appreciate what you said congressman and i'm not familiar with this act. therefore i am not in a position to offer an opinion. >> i appreciate your diplomatic answer to that. for your information as you would expect this would allow the female of the u.s. military who are temporarily have immigration status of the united states to get permanent status in the united states. >> i know that many afghans served with the distinction alongside the forces that they

sacrifice a great deal but regard to the specifics i have not looked at the legislation. >> ambassador your standing diplomat. thank you. >> the gentleman yields the chair recognizes -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is one of the more concerning hearings i have ever been in. for those of the background i do not have your experience in the region but over a 20 year. i had five assignments when i dove directly with the region started in 1984. dealing with iran most of my assignments as a military planner. i was then fog room early in 2002, station at the headquarters in bagram i was an iud later for the iraq he freedom operation and with our background are enduring values

are not shared in this region. i heard nothing and read nothing in the preparation of the hearing. you are given the position of having done much of this under both president trump and president biden. i am not questioning your motive but we have to focus on the fact that the withdrawal from afghanistan was a strategic blunder of monumental proportions, monumental proportions proving side moving troops within two months after that strategic blunder. as a 20 year forever wars, our nation, our military, the nation's military is not meant for nation building, it is meant to go and break things and impose our national will, our national interest on our

adversaries. that is the use of the united states military. i want to focus on the one strategic blunder but i also want to read for people we talked about the doha agreement, the actual title of the doha agreement is instructed. agreement for bringing peace afghanistan between the islamic emirate of afghanistan which is not recognized by the united states as a state and is known as a taliban and the united states of america. that is the foremost doha agreement. the taliban is naïve to think that the taliban was ever going to live up to anything. my 20 years dealing with the region, the entire process that we heard today is extremely naïve. i find you at the middle of it. i will tell you i firmly disagree with your statement that the restart of the world being the most important factor in the withdrawal i absolutely

disagree with your characterization of that. my question to you, you said earlier that the taliban was largely in compliance with her counterterrorism agreement, can you justify that statement for us? >> first on the last statement i said i am not in the government i don't read intelligence but based on what i read of what the intelligence community puts out of the classified product, it appears to me that there largely and compliant based on what i read of the report. but you should not take my word for and you should call experts that are monitoring the situation closely inner government we have a significant body of expertise that monitors

and shed the light on them. >> let me help you there. the un sanctions monitoring team released up report last month in january that says about the relationship between the taliban and an al-qaeda remains close in the latter maintains a holding pattern in the afghan under taliban patriotism. we need to understand, let me ask you a yes or no question on the taliban. what is the status of the taliban today we don't recognize them as a government . . . we have concerns that we raised

with them on particular issues we interacted with them. we don't have a presence, as you know in afghanistan for we do not recognize a telephone government. we have implemented part of the agreement because of our unhappiness with what they are doing and not doing. but those are questions and issues of what we are doing i am telling you what i read it. >> if i may quickly german, germinate just became the third largest economy in the world. the eve together is 20 trillion. russia's 2.5 trillion. we need to push europe as a whole to be funding the ukraine war. thank you sir i yield back for good judgment yields return

recognizes ms. dean brooks thank you, mr. chairman thank you ranking member. thank you ambassador for being here. for years of service and expertise. very valuable to us are doing to recognize families in the room some i have had the opportunities to meet. both start families. i want to recognize the service of military members of the the sacrifice in the service. the brave gains that were made and horrific losses that were suffered. so with heartbreak i recognize you with humility i recognize you and your service. and they also member service members killed at abbey gate. the tragic tragic set of events. scores of others that were injured that day. i wanted to try to examine three

areas as quickly as i can. the impact of the president's actions when you are asked earlier you were -- you said you put the responsibility of what happened in afghan withdrawal on the afghan government. i would like you to tell us more about that. so for example conduct the final days of the withdrawal, you said in your testimony that negative train taliban fell apart when the president surprisingly fled the country. which caused the now leaderless afghan military and police to instantly disintegrate. what impacted that have on the situation outside the gates at the kabul airport? in the noncombatant evacuation? let's thank you for what you said it.

the impact was instantaneous. the rush to the airport and the airport crisis was a great because of what happens. these security leaders rather than standing in place carry out their duties, and defending their city, defending the government they rushed to the airport to be evacuated. then challengers were created about securing the airport. >> it was surprising apparently across the board with it to you, to the administration. >> various communities that watch these things. if you are afraid for his life

there was an agreement on immediate subordinates with the announcement they would not come into kabul. a sense of calm in the palace and did not reach out to us to say look, if you do one, two, three to secure the palace? i do not know what you would have done. we have no indication from him that he was going to leave the field and go to the uae provoked a stunning abandonment. the second area is troop drawdown. with all the trump administration drew down 8600 in the first wondered 35 days then down to 4500 by september of 2020. he explained to me what happened that grade the final drawdown in the last minutes of the trump

administration adopted 2500? >> the discussion we troops will be home by christmas. and so total withdrawal what happened. >> what did you think president trump in his final days in office, setting it up at the new administration having 2500 members of the ground? >> ultimately the back-and-forth that took place resulted in a decision to not completely withdraw by christmas. but to leave the final decision to the new administration. >> going to end on something you ended on in your testimony. you saw perhaps the seeds and values being planted. can you give us some possibility of all of the work of so many folks on the ground, afghan afghanistanas well as our milit. what are some of the seeds you think could possibly bring a

better future for afghanistan? >> most afghans in their 20s, 30s experience america. the with schools, universities or mom being educated. cell phones with internet. i think they are struggling for the rights and their own ways. others are standing for the values. these trouble codes on the values and the objectives president bush and others had for a democratic modern afghanistan, i think those objectives remain valid.

but with american engagement and interaction and perhaps her own way much longer period of time. thank you for like that answer and thank you ambassador brickwork suture recognizes mr. kaine. >> think it mr. chairman and thank you to our witness for being here today. ambassador khalilzad you have a very long distinguished career with the united states government and it often appeared before this committee. i don't want to thank you for your extraordinary service to the people of this country and around the world. >> thank you sir. >> unfortunately the taliban is once again the ruling power in afghanistan. is that vines go to zero order in april 2021 meant to coincide with the 20th anniversary of september 11, 2021 despite leaders of the u.s. military

urging the tensions to support afghans. but what conversations did they have with contractors in afghanistan? >> if i understood the question what impacted have in the contract they became uncertain and mostly decided to leave. they were concerned about the security environment, the insurance and related issues are. the plan was based on the assumption the government would survive. the military system would continue to be serviced with the contract we had to rush around and try to find outside the country potential places where the system to be serviced.

>> clearly much of the afghan security forces relied on the contract to maintain equipment and aircraft. without the support the afghan security forces would not be able to successfully combat the television. ambassador can you also speak to the government plan advance with the biden state department in early 2021? whose idea? >> was a discussion when the new administration came to accelerate negotiations. because as i said even in the previous administration the desire was to get a political agreement as soon as possible. although realistically it was assumed it would be complicated or take time. the two features of the proposals the biden team was one

to internationalize the efforts and that you and to appoint someone to help with the negotiations. and second was to advance or sharing plan with afghanistan. to get a discussion going. the government of afghanistan dismissed it more or less. there are many ideas and plans. there was a proposal put the ball forward. what's how the russian government respond? one of the other hand they

wanted us to stay under the dirty work in groups would grout them. undo see us pay a price without succeeding. there are public statements as i recall, that was a long time ago they preferred an agreement first. a political agreement first. i'm sure they're happy to see a deeper regard please? >> for the longer term they did not want u.s. forces on the border of the former soviet territory.

in regard to central asia with the opportunity they wanted to make it as difficult for us to tie us down not to win. before one to us to ultimately do not have a permanent basis there and also why we were there to make us suffer. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes mr. waltzer. >> thank you mr. chair it's good to see ambassador. many years of this painful episode in our history.

but i would say to our goldstar families that are here and every veteran would sacrifice, we kept american say for over two decades and we cannot lose sight about. we did not have another 911. we did not have additional attacks on our home and despitee many issues in this war that we absolute should learn from. so we have heard continuously both in that media and collects colleagues on the other side of the aisle and from the president biden that he was stuck with the doha agreement. as hands were tied the trump administration tied his hands he had no choice. i just sorta put out one thing for the record here. the short list of the policies the biden administration walked away from on day one. everything from the construction of the border wall, our

membership in the world health organization. the biden administration completely walked away trumps maximum pressure campaign. tried to get us back into disastrous or run nuclear deal. rejoin the paris climate accord, and it remained in mexico, canceled a pipeline that i could go on. all of these things were reversed in the first month. but yet, we are supposed to believe that somehow he was handcuffed to this deal. mr. ambassador let's go back to january of 2021. president trump is still in office. his advisers go in, tell him mre not lived up to half dozen conditions that were in the deal at minus one partially not attacking troops but in terms of

entering negotiations the afghan government and other conditions detailed i did not live up to the deal. what did president trump do? as a result of that advice? >> stated goal of getting all u.s. troops out. but now he's told he did not live up to the deal what did president trump do? >> will be speculation of course. >> it is not speculation. bite in january 19, 2021 we sell at bagram airbase. we did didn't we? >> yes we did progress at the only airbase in the world that sandwiched between china, russia, iran, it is a key platform for counterterrorism? do we still have the airbase? works we did big rex did resolve 2500 u.s. special operators and intelligence professionals? >> we did. >> did we still have five -- 7000 nato troops? >> we did. >> did we still have over 10,000 contractors that are keeping the afghan air force flying?

and all of our intelligence assets. in the most important thing to the afghan people in the people in the government we stand with you. so let's fast-forward just a few months later, did president biden reject your advice for conditionality moving forward? >> he decided not to make a withdrawal of the final 2500 on the political agreement or relieving a counterterrorism force behind it. >> who were pulling out their the conditions they sit said unconditionally we are out. not regardless of the consequences, correct? because he thought he might have to go to war -- not likely to go back to war.

>> this is the misnomer this is the false choice. we could take an approach like we did in say columbia for 40 years. we had trainers, we had assets, we had support but we do not put troops in harm's way. between unconditional full withdrawal and going back to any true? i will just ask you this. the senior leader of al qaeda as a guest of the taliban. we now have reports of eight al qaeda training camps. the reports from the un tens of thousands of fighters foreign fighters flowing into afghanistan. plus, the ongoing threat of isis. isn't the american homeland today safer then it was three years ago? >> i would respectfully ask you

to at the intelligence community, hours, to look at the data the un reports. i would not rely, and other words, on the un report. >> out sq chairman if i could indulge you. does al qaeda and isis still have the intent to attack the united states given the west given the opportunity to do so? >> no doubt should. that's a yes for the record that's a yes? >> they have the intent too. that the intelligence community from what i read and i am classified versions we can discuss classified material here. believed that in the next year or two does not have the ability

to attack the united states. i am paraphrasing. >> the commander of central command a year ago testified isis will reconstituted their capability to attack the west within six months dozier go from afghanistan? >> i noticed again the intelligence community since then and the last few months has highlighted successes by the taliban against isis-k. i would respectfully suggest coming to a judgment on those. [inaudible] big rex i'm on the intelligence committee of state for the record mr. chairman thank you for your indulgence but relied on the terrace like to take out terrorists, is a fools errand and very dangerous. >> a chart recognizes mr. barber grace thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador khalilzad thank you

for coming back for our committee. right before this committee and before the withdrawal i asked you if the chairman and president had any predictions of the outcome for planned u.s. withdrawal in afghanistan. having met both judgment when he visited afghanistan in 2015. your response was quote they have no choice but to prepare to defend themselves. and we have made a commitment to help them defend themselves if they go the route of a military solution. ambassador khalilzad did the united states stick to our commitment to help the afghan government when the taliban took a military solution in afghanistan? >> we did it. i believe in the following way, if i understand you sir, which is that we continue to provide them with military support.

including attacks against the taliban when they attack them. once the government had disintegrated with the departure of the president's then of course we could not help them. >> just reclaiming my time. i think demonstrated so ably we did not stick to our commitments. there is not fulfillment of the doe hawk conditions based withdrawal. it was an unconditional withdrawal but from that standpoint i don't think it's stuck to help the afghan government and the taliban was making progress throughout the country. do i interpret your testimony that president biden did not adhere with the conditions based withdrawal as contemplated by the doha agreement?

>> no. the doha agreement, the conditions were oh one they would beat no attacks on the loss withdrawing forces. that we could come to the assistance of the afghan government. if there would be negotiations there would be no allowing of terrorists. the cease-fire the two afghans and there be a political when those were not explicit conditions or practices clearly in the abandonment of the conditions based. >> leavitt was condition -based but which condition? >> i hear you. it was unconditional retreat the way i see it. in 2021 before they withdrawal i

see whether it will be a strategic mistake to abandon it and i'm paraphrasing but you basically referred to the defense department. the withdrawal from afghanistan gave up control of the only u.s. airbase that shares a border with china. can you give us a readout but the status is of a bog room. who is in control of it have you seen any chinese interest in that base? >> you are right we gave up obviously that was part of the agreement to withdraw forces. as far as what is happening there now, i am not in a good position you should ask the intel committee to to brief you i would not be surprised if they're interested in it but i have no data or fax to give you.

>> if you see in the increase in chinese investment in afghanistan since the united states left? >> there are indications clearly from what i read in that media of chinese interest. and activities, yes because it might remaining time it's ambassador it's portrayed it was a security decision from the long-term safety of american soldiers. while you do not believe the united states should have for ever presence in afghanistan except maybe bagram with the weight we would with your was an unmitigated disaster purdue think the u.s. is more or less safe with the taliban in charge? >> i believe that withdrawal was because of the cost of the perception we would not have proceeded. it cost too much the world the change. but certainly in terms of terrorism being there gave us

advantages being in afghanistan rather than not being in afghanistan. >> my time is expired both isis-k fighters, al qaeda allowed to thrive in afghanistan, the taliban in charge clearly the united states is not in a safer posture. without my time has expired mr. chairman thank you for the hearing i yield back workers. >> thanks so much mr. chairman and ambassador is a pleasure to see you. i wanted to understand a portion of your opening testimony. you said the first phase of the withdrawal busted one or 35 days u.s. forces reduced to 8600. by the time president trump left office u.s. forces in afghanistan have been reduced to 2500. let's fill the gaps a little about what happened between the lives of 862500? that reduction to 8600 what you

said occurred initially those ordered by president trump is that the case? >> owes explicit condition of the doha deal united states was on the hook to do that level of withdrawal after the. >> the only one specified with phase one. it did not get into subsequent phases except the final withdrawal the remaining forces would be my may 1 or so 14 months and others there is no other to go to 4500 or 2500 that was not specified in the agreement. >> it had occurred per terms of the deal within a wonder to 35 days? >> yes big rex lee felt the military advice we could do the mission with 8600 so the risk

was not going to be higher in any significant degree in terms of our ability to carry out the mission of 8600. >> understood. hence so, you said that was phase one. so there were no stipulations for their truth. >> note subsequent phases. >> okay and do you recall any troop reduction directed by president trump in september? >> i believe i need to check but my recollection is that went to another phase of 4500 and then to 2500. >> was that at the discretion of president trump? >> the military offering options in the president deciding. >> did you understand the

drawdown in 2020 will be tied to an eight taliban progress on meeting its own commitments? in that regard yes. there are commitment especially on the counterterrorism withdrawal was very tight. the commitment was not as tight. but not on success. do you recall a tweet by president trump in 2020 pledging to have the small number of our brave men and women by christmas? and remember that?

>> or with the idea do not member the specific tweet to get everyone bound by christmas i remember speeches. >> that would not surprise me. >> according to the terms of the doha agreement the united states would not would not fully withdraw all troops until may 2021. realistic with the action of the taliban? the agreement had until may the conditionality that our commitment delivering on them dependent on them delivering on their commitments. would have for moving all this

troops impacted your leverage to secure afghan peace talks? >> guess it's the biggest leverage. therefore if we did not have the troops and the leverage during that period in which we would have the troops would not have been there. >> do you recall it of the discretionary troop reduction by president trump down to 2500 and generate 2021 just before the ministration took office? >> i'm not aware of that that there is another decision in january to get the 25 troops out. before the change in administration i'm not aware of that. i could see my time is expired so i yield to rex the chair recognizes for orcs and gives her chairman. >> feeding the troops home for christmas makes this particularly appropriate. in the back there, there are two

gold starred families. christie and alisa and herman lopez. their loved ones did not know for christmas. they did not get home for christmas because of a hasty withdrawal because of a decision to withdraw from the military base and keep as it turned out completely non- defendable at least not defended embassy. so i want to go through a little bit of a timeline. you have two administrations into a great extent were there for all of them. when mika pompeo left office one of the agreements was a 50/50 sharing coming out of that negotiation between the taliban and the lawfully elected government, isn't that true? >> the percentages were not mentioned it was to beat negotiation for a new government. okay so the shared authority is

fair to say started off at least 10 gently as 50/50. as a taliban continued to aggressively take a bigger parts of the country because we had withdrawn and to be honest the afghan government was not able to hold them back in that summer offensive. as i understand it with the 60 -- 40 in favor of the talbot 70 -- 30 ultimately 100 -- zero as they headed towards kabul is that correct? >> i do not know about the percentages progress the tell been demanding more authority as they took more land? >> the balance shifted the requirement and what one heard was the increase but i have to say again on the 15th of august they made a proposal for

a shared government. >> you previously testified to the 50 -- 50, these were your own prior statements. >> will give it to you from the transcribed interview. >> yes please. i don't recall if it. >> let's try to be fair with the facts as they occur. >> absolutely. >> there is a negotiation for an end to hostilities and a shared government power and in many ways similar to other ends of that. we agreed to leave because they agreed not to fight. perhaps a trump administration the talbot was aggressively fighting they were taking territory they were violated the spirit of the cease-fire the spirit of the agreement.

and yet we continued our withdrawal as if they were not in fact taking by force controlled the country is not correct? >> the agreement was congressman was for them not to attack withdrawing forces. the agreement was for us if they attacked the afghans to come to the defense of the afghan forces but. >> let's be clear. what you are saying as we would not be killed as we withdrew but we left the caviar we would not allow the taliban to defeat the afghan military we have the right to come to their defense. we did not do it sufficient to stop them did we? at the end you are right. what surprised us was poor performance of afghans

particularly post and in the summer the april announcement in the summer the balance began to shift. >> i want to ask a simple question and it is a final question i believe. when conditions change in our ability to stop the telegram may take in the country by force on putting children, potential girls, back into slavery. when that began to change president biden did not react by sending troops back in or anything else. it is your testimony he did so because setting troops back and, in other words enforcing keeping their agreement would have potentially cost american lives and he was not willing to do so. thirteen americans died and countless americans and people who helped americans became trapped in afghanistan because he would not send troops back in when in fact the taliban was violated not just the spirit but

the fact of what they agreed to which was not taken the country by force, isn't that true? both government disintegrated. >> the government disintegrated when all they had encircled kabul. the president? >> the further in time. what's it like to go back to rome january 202021. on generate 20, 2021 what was in fact they government our day disintegrated? or over the next eight months as they were finding themselves unable to hold the territories and negotiate they began to disintegrating finally when they were entrapped in all there was was an airport to leave by. >> during the eight months of the disintegration of increased and finally and kabul what

happened, happened. but i think the balance shifted surprisingly. the assessment was different than what happened. >> i appreciate the surprise but mr. chairman i think the testimony speaks for itself. three in the eight months in which the tell about aggressively they began to deteriorate a government because we did not reengage with troops sufficient and maybe that was a good decision. but i don't think it was. i think it was the decision that made inevitable the people of afghanistan living in slavery and 13 americans losing their lives without a yield backer .gentleman yields. were still waiting for mr. mills, is that correct? okay let me say thank you sir for being here today. again it voluntarily. i appreciate your honesty and

transparency you are in a very difficult assignment as i always told her even back in the day. it is very helpful to this committee to get all the facts before us. i want to thank you for your service to the nation. there may be additional questions would ask you to submit in writing and committee rules they have five days to submit questions. extraneous which are for the record without objection this committee stance adjourned. [background noises] [background noises] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]