tv House Armed Services on South Asia Strategy - Part 2 CSPAN October 4, 2017 6:02pm-8:10pm EDT
general dunford thanks on behalf of those military service members and veterans for your dedication and your persistence on behalf of victory with the global war on terrorism. and what we would like each of you to address our rules of engagement during the previous administration to introduce that resolution with those existing rules of engagement in the effort in that complex environment glutted the status of the new rules of engagement?. >>. >> those old rules included rules of engagement and
operating principles including the requirement for proximity of the enemy to be engaged. president trump has told me i have the authority to change that so that opens the enemy were ever found it to the nato air support. so first we have had a reduction in the number of deaths as a result of the coalition and operations. we will take every human possible step but the rules themselves permit being gauged forces to bring air support by extending which units are advised that mean
they had a convoluted way with that rule of engagement problem it was an organizational problem. and with that complex situation. and then to succeed and then to eliminate those safe havens and to support their efforts for more troops but we have decrease appointments few were ready units at home for us and seen contingencies also we had a loss of two destroyers
and those from those devastating hurricanes so what can we in congress do to help you face the multiple threats facing our country?. >>. >> to get but a jet predictability and certainty to get predictability into the budgets to get the best bang for the buck going in the ninth year with a continuing resolution even if us cyberdomain requires read do those things to maintain the competitive bids the most important thing is to make certain of that budget control act to get predictability in our funding.
>> we are trying to address that as the former co-chair i appreciate your visits last week and to keep that in mind how do we balance as they have a situation where pakistan has a level of resentment?. >> that is exactly what i was in new delhi last week and the national minister of defense welcome to me the economy is picking up but most importantly to have a strategic convergence of the two largest democracies in the world and indiana has been dangerous -- generous over many years as a victim
of terrorism and a need to talk about that threat to where we are natural partners in deepening and broadening the relationship with them but it is not exclusive strategy any nation that was to be a part of this with a stability effort can sign up. it is open to any nation that all civilized nations. >>. >> thank you for your service to our country with the august 21st speech to the president said he lifted restrictions placed on war
fighters and expanded the targeting authorities. is critical congress be kept appraised of the zero come as a result so we can continue to conduct oversight with these restrictions lifted and what results have you seen thus far?. >>. >> to have certain objectives in mind to bring the afghan army into a stronger position and in some cases not giving them a high ground. it is an uncomfortable feeling with the enemy is above you.
they had the sense they had the high ground that the nato air support could have given them but today i could bring that to them. we have to reorganize our advisers because so those that we did or did not win to spread those units over the advisers and specifically know longer bound by the need of proximity so wherever we find the enemy to put their support on them used to me we have to be a contact but at the same time we do not want this to be misinterpreted into a laissez-faire where the a high among the innocent is
what we need to do to be humanly possible so they evade those weapons and in children and villages. >> any other restrictions?. >> to bring this to bear with proximity where we were not with those units remember we were only advising in the next level in these are the forces moved -- moving against the enemy. those you consistently win against the taliban and that failure analysis makes it very clear why we have up
problem with the other forces. >> weld the afghan government to have stability it is obvious of the clash of cultures in the region to address those regional challenges and speaking about that where they pledged $3 billion to train those afghan officers so how does this expanded engagement howard you intend to leverage relationships like this to inject day lovell of legitimacy and confidence and regional partners so how do intend to persuade pakistan to take more action and with the
haqqani network?. >> i will take the second question first on pakistan 39 nations in the campaign working together leonel what we need pakistan to you do secretary retreat, secretary of state, the defense department to lay out what it is we need pakistan to do then we use a whole government international effort to space the benefits and penalties have not done. they have lost more troops than any other country out there.
some have been allowed safe havens we are allowed to change that behavior do that firmly. with the chief of army staff we're in that show me stage right now we intend to work through diplomatic and economic partners to make the change in their best interest but as far is gaining confidence with of military air last the chairman to say a few words but the bottom line is if you look at the zero largest political assembly under their culture is overwhelming how much of that population once the
alliance to stick with them so add to that countries like india that tried to provide generous support there is waste to build the confidence of a people everson some of soviet invasion have been prevented by violence. >> the most important thing that would give them for the hope for the future and in recent polling 80 percent of the people reject the taliban, 70 percent have confidence in the afghan security forces and as secretary mattis alluded to and they welcome a coalition presence. so that commitment is not just day strategy about the united meet -- united states
at has a profound effect on the psychology of the afghan people the we always felt was a source of strength in the campaign. >> they give for your solid and extraordinary leadership in it is fortunate you can accept these assignments. so we want to go back to my colleagues have said previously. they are demonstrating rhetorically the right to approach that willingness to help the we have seen this before and we have been disappointed sometimes they do a little bit but also recognizing we are in an open settings what can you
tell us if this is a false start to cooperate? also to have a much more difficult time in afghanistan. >>. >> the reason we did a regional approach in the beginning to put together a great planet now say we have to add these variables starting with india us to write -- i ran down into pakistan to be informed by the others so that discontent in the world for any country that supports terrorism for any reason? looking at what secretary tillers and is putting
together and plus the european union and interpol if he think the number of countries it is clear what isis has done has created its own concern of the spread of terrorism such as we work this problem through pakistan moving against the of border areas losing a lot of troops with those border passes i think we are in a position now to be more compelling but this will be one step at a time to remain focused on this effort starting with the assistant secretaries coming out of washington and the national security staff followed by
the secretary of state. and to have the very clear support they will continue to build this up in the international way to work in their own best interest. >> mr. chairman and thinks both for being here. and to endorse mr. jones' comments that i do feel as a full body of congress should have the opportunity to debate the authorization of use for military force for good has been too many years we have had these hearings over and over and many new members as wall.
with a new administration a new effort we need the chance to debate this. but even to address that a regional approach we have had some conversation about pakistan but also that russia is supporting the taliban and how was that complicating your efforts?. >> any support of violent terrorist group that supports this non in russia is best interest. it added it is contrary to the nato campaign in the international agreements. so i think that this is very
difficult to you discern. i am not ready to say precisely what it is. the one to see more evidence but it is hard to believe of those diplomats killed by taliban certainly they have had enough problems coming out with terrorism so it does not make sense and we will figure it out and eliminate where necessary or to get a change of behavior. >> and so without fully having a sense?. >> we have seen some. i need more definition of what is coming out of russia . we are looking at it very carefully it has been
low-level intermittent support this iran doing what it does to create chaos. >> general dunford?. >> what we have seen just to be clearer with regard to the iranians there is no question that degree of support and help think we have specificity on. >> that was mailed the question. i yield back. >> secretary mattis good to see you again and i want to thank you for your work for you have been diligent that this committee is informed working directly with us but you have had briefings for the whole house to make sure
other members hear your message because'' we learn we take out to others but you take it directly for repealing sequestration and i appreciate you done that because it is making a difference. so considering the drug train according to a 2016 survey concerning 0:00 p.m. cultivation and production in 2016 it increased by 10% all regions except the southern region had to increase of 0:00 p.m. or poppy cultivation between 2014 and 2016 data shows a steady growth before word 94 through 2016. looking at historical levels it has roughly doubled.
we have seen it with less than half before 2001. i know it is unacceptable and you believe that with a direct impact on counterterrorism because it includes funding and efforts that our available to terrorists and breeds corruption in the afghan military and government. readdress labs and infrastructure for the narcotics trade. so look at your new additional strategy. >> is a great question with the counter finance aspects in those are linked directly to the counter narcotics campaign.
if you watch them as we drew down too fast poorly watching the taliban surge there is no surprise and a warrant that about this. and if we look at this. and those bazaars and the reason is that is where the talent period -- taliban cruise taxation and cash so where does it help of a taliban from that direction?
pretty much give-and-take a big way. so there is no way to cut this san reduce it by targeting the of right location to those in the drug trade. >> we dealt with this issue will lot and we have had some success we are aware there are impediments is fair interdepartmental funding issues we need to address? what is your impediment?. >> starting off more broadly >> you get the assignment but don't of the authorities?. >> what about the deal of the structure? how can we help you?. >> having the right numbers
of agents to advise the of forces of the major crimes task force in to help build the capacity to protect evidence to show good value in the past and the justice system continues to mature as wall. >>. >> stood to the of that interagency structure to achieve these goals. >> because it touches of taliban it is what we are invested and integrated idle since we have any missing authorities and i will tell you what i mean.
so far i have not heard that but we have not asked a specific question. >> secretary mattis, you said a couple of times during the hearing that bore is a matter of will and the taliban have to understand there is the implacable will on our side to continue this fight and see it through to achieve until we hit our goals. hall hour are goals unbreakable going forward compared to theirs?. >> i have just come out to see our troops in the field with those of other countries no doubt they will endure danger and discomfort in defense of this country
you also said the taliban has to understand they cannot kill their way to power. think you would agree we cannot kill our way towards these goals and conditions so therefore what is going to have to happen for the taliban to accept our conditions shored up is killing all of them? >> i think they recognize they are not going to gain power and the afghan security forces are capable of defeating them. >> congressmen if i could just say when we talk about will i think that there -- secretary
touched on something that's important but it's not the taliban will. against the u.s. and coalition will. is it taliban against the sunni afghan forces in particular been last year the afghan forces had 16,000 soldiers killed. they they have proven incredibly resilient to sure they have had that will fill shortfalls and we know what they are and their failure analysis identified those that plan we imposed. down at the small unit level and particularly the ability to deliver but at the end of the day this is a question of wills but it's a clash of wills between the afghan people and some small portion of the aft and people that actually want to resort to political objectives and they would support the afghan forces and the afghan people. i'm confident that there will will endure longer than taliban. see that with all due respect general is not just the afghan government in the small minority
to the afghan government is a trillion dollar u.s. taxpayer support tens of thousands of u.s. servicemembers, nato allies allies, support monetarily and militarily from those countries as well and we are in our 16th year with no end in sight to them having a very hard time understanding and being able to could explain to my constituents with the game-changer is that i'm hearing today that will make this different going forward. and i mean no disrespect but i'm just not hearing it. >> i'm asking you this question. >> i think it's a fair question and it's a fair question to debate why this is different why we should stay up to 16 years but i certainly think from a military perspective why were recommended we stay we look carefully at the 20 groups that are national terrorist groups. 20 of its 90 we recognize around the world and the consequences of not keeping pressure on them so that was number one. in terms of what is different people talk about 16 years.
for 14 years of those 16 years we were in the lead and we were in a fight. over the past two years the afghan forces were in the lead. they didn't have adequate force capabilities to be able to deal with the taliban. this doesn't address 16 years of us being in a fight. this address is two years of the taliban fighting legitimate afghan security forces. this plan is designed to fill the capability gaps that have been identified as result of two years of casualties and set backs that they have suffered. i think that's really important. this is designed to be fiscally militarily and politically sustainable over time. it will require a u.s. presence increase in the short term but in the long term this is about leveraging the 300,000 afghan forces we have grown over the course of 16 years but just inadequately supported over the last few.
>> mr. lamborn. >> mr. chairman and thank you both for what you do to protect our country and our allies. i believe the president is to be commended when he and his recent speech talked about pakistan and how pakistan needs to be more consistent in its promoting stability in the region. secretary matisyahu addressed that very strongly in your comments earlier and i would just like to follow up on that a little bit. what can we do if pakistan does not follow through and the abettor promoter of promoting stability? >> sir we have an enormous leap our full number of options there there. right now i would like to think we will be successful but you ask a very good question because we don't want a transient or temporary change and things go back and in a bad way. i think right now with the
growing consensus against terrorism they will find themselves diplomatically isolated. they will find themselves economically in increasing trouble as countries that are damaged by this terrorism coming out of their say enough is enough and take steps. there's an awful lot of the damage to pakistan's coming on line with the international community and i think that we have to stay focused their but the penalties are just as significant as the advantages if they choose to go a different direction. for right now we need to try one more time to make this strategy work, lift up by with and through the pakistanis and give our best efforts. president trump is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary. >> and for either one of you, how will her how should our
defense relationship with india changed? >> sir i was in india last week and it was very well received by prime minister modi and the minister of defense and the national security adviser. we have a strategic convergence right now between the two biggest democracies and this is probably a once in a generation opportunity with shared interests to deepen and to broaden our defense relationship but also our economic relationship. i think our political relationship can be tightened together. they are a force for stability. in south asia they are a force for stability in that specific region. they are nation coming into their own economic he is a great nation as they have steady growth rates going on right now and i think there's an opportunity here that we have not experienced in decades to
tie us together in terms of a broadened level of corporation and the natural alignment with each other's interests. >> as a follow-on to that do you have anything you are ready today to announce or designate specifically that we will be doing that we haven't done in the past? >> there are a number of things in motion right now sir and decisions i think will be coming very soon. we are both working to turn these big words into pragmatic realities and because i see both sides working together on it, i am optimistic. it's not like we have to go over there and convince them that terrorism is a threat. they have felt what has happened there. not had to convince them of you don't have the various designs on the indo pacific area or to democracies that we'll can work together on this. there are some things we are
doing in terms of their support in afghanistan development funding. they have been very generous for many years and they have achieved a degree of affection from the afghan -- afghan people as a result. they intend to continue this effort and broaden it. furthermore they are providing training for afghan military officers and ceos at their schools. they are willing to do rehabilitation of soviet era equipment until we are able to replace it with american. i that will take years and ordered to do it properly and they need to maintain what they have in the helicopters were example. furthermore they have been providing and will continue to provide training for afghan army doctors and medics in the field so that the army is able to take casualties and better sustain themselves and that sort of thing. it's really a very holistic approach that india is taking. you'll notice i left off was on
the ground because of complexity complexity. that would bring to pakistan. we are trying to make this an inclusive strategy and we don't want them to get a sense that they are vulnerable to any indian army people from their western flank. it's not necessary. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and secretary mattis i wanted to specifically ask you about the state department of the usaid programs and anna stands now and how deep funding cuts to the department as proposed by the administration affect the overall mission there? i know in the past you have been very outspoken about diplomacy and the programs to support the mission. right now what we are trying to do is get a lot more development aid from the international community. this is separate and distinct from what we are doing to lower
the come -- demand on the american taxpayer. we are paying a awful lot of the military piece of this and we are trying to raise money by the way from our allies to carry more of a commitment on the military side. i can get back to you. i will go to the state department usaid and determined that and come back to you with informed answers. >> thank you very much. i also wanted to ask you about special inspector general john sacco. said it in march with a administration in congress that is the opportune time to reevaluate our efforts in that in the sand to find out what's working and what is not. one smart first step would be to do what sigar recommended years ago for each of the three major agencies in the reconstruction effort states in dod to wax
nstac their worst-performing projects so they know where to cut those losses. that was his quote and i didn't know if you agree with that proposal and if so have you been implementing it in any way in crafting a south asia strategy? >> i do agree with what he said about what is working and what is not. we have done a failure analysis and we have delved into this issue. right now the chairman talks with his background as a nato commander in afghanistan and i will just tell you that when i heard that the budget was being reduced from a.i.d. secretary tillerson and i sat down together the next day and we spoke about how we would align dod and beos at a high level to determine what work priorities without any violation of our funding lines to make certain we are talking to each other and we
bind our foreign policy efforts dod state department with a strong partnership to make sure we are getting and we probably should have been doing this anyway but make certain we are collaborative with one another and any part of the world we are both operating. let me pass this over to the chairman for information on afghanistan. >> congressmen you brought a question that informs our strategy moving forward. sigar partnered with us. secretary mattis directed us to do a failure analysis to go back and look at what has worked and what hasn't worked in that and the stanford were the key partners were brought in in mr. sacco in my office idiot representatives on their team so we did a failure analysis and it was very much informed by the work is sigar has done over the past two years not only with
regard to projects as you talk about but they have done some good work on resource transparency and accountability and did some good work on what worked and what did didn't work in our phase three effort into some good work on what worked and didn't work in terms of collaboration between the state department and the department of defense so i think i feel confident saying that sigar's work in the literature that talks about what has worked and what hasn't worked in that and stand as a part of the recommendations. >> general or chairman also the last sigar report indicated 21% increase of security incidents from last quarter of march is 2017 and a 2% increase from the same period last year. what is the uptick in the security incidents and tell us about the security situation overall and how it's shaping our strategy going forward in light of these per tick figures. you can answer that quickly.
>> i would just tell you i don't think -- security has been in 2016 and 2017 although so far 2017 is better than 16. the reason why believe those incidents have occurred if the afghan forces haven't had the wherewithal to accomplish the mission so we focus on those areas where they have fallen short of the mark specifically the ability to deliver aviation support improved ride advisers at the right level. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. clinton. >> thank you chairman and thank you secretary mattis and secretary dunford. secretary mattis i once referred to the u.s. event strategy the worn at and stand the present notice in his august 21 address that india continues to be a very important strategic economic partner and i certainly agree with that. i had the opportunity to visit with the foreign secretary in india and the chief of naval operations for the know you just returned from the region there
speaking with president modi and others in your effort in her direction in dealing with india is going to be studying gauge points which i think is spot on. i'm in favor of making sure we do joint naval exercise and we expand the defense trade but in relation to what's happening in the region i'm more concerned about a stable afghanistan and securing the hard-fought gains in the cab there. i know that you noted that in reference to terrorist safe havens there in the region that its globals leaders and even has its resolve to work together to eradicate the scourge of mime info@ the met without that but i want to get your perspective to what he ain't that india can do specifically to help root out or to help reduce terrorist safe havens in the region but to talk about the engagement and putting dollars into afghanistan but what can they do in a broader sense and helping with the terrorist safe havens happening throughout the region?
>> congressmen india has an outsized role to play because of its size and because it's new rock is a democracy as we are. frankly gives people hope that their voices can be heard. the economic opportunity can be passed not to a corrupt few and i think the example alone is important. it's why we are looking at this strategic convergence as an opportunity for studying gauge meant so we have pragmatic things together. i think in this regard if there's any way for pakistan and india to open their border to trade at a great economic advantage to both of those countries it would be a big help across the region. stability can follow economics as much as stability enables economics. i would hope we will eventually
see that happen. i think it's hard to do that if your concern is that you open the border to one thing and you get something else. there has got to be some trust building between those two nations. i think i would probably be in south asia one of the key enablers to getting trade going back and forth across all those borders afghanistan-pakistan and india. >> thank you. chairman dunford i wanted to follow up along the same lines of terrorist safe havens and he talked about the new afghanistan strategy calls for expanded authority for u.s. forces as a target terrorists and the criminal networks operating in afghanistan. the president said he agreed and said we have to have a policy to make sure there's nowhere to hide and no place that's beyond reach of american might and american arms. i wanted to get you to elaborate a little more.
whatwhat do you seem expanded authority specifically needing to be and what it means in a combat sense and give us some examples about what's not happening now but what could happen under expanded authority and how to train and advise-and-assist role happens now versus what it would be in the future and have you seen any positive changes that are resulting from this transition through this change and will there be any more changes that you think will be implemented that will be necessary like. >> congressmen let me start with dha because this is one of the more significant ones. we were provided advisers only with conventional forces only at the core level. that's the general officer level largest formation. those are not the organization's in the fight every day so two levels down below is where the decisive action is taking place. we didn't have any advisers so even though we have some aviation capabilities and some intelligence creag recognizance
capability wasn't being delivered to those that in units that were actually the most relevant to the fight. we didn't have the authority to put advisers doubt that level for one of the more significant changes in authorities is the level at which we advice and assist in that will make us -- also broadly speaking without going into rules of engagement in an unclassified venue there are no individuals, there are no groups that threaten the afghan government, threaten u.s. forces, threaten our mission or threaten the coalition. general nicholson does not have the authority to prosecute. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i have a question for secretary mattis. in your opinion is iran compiling the jp coa? >> i believe fundamentally they are. they are been certainly some areas where they were not temporarily in that regard but
overall our intelligence community believes that they have been in the iaea also says so. >> a follow-up question will you be recommended to president trump that we continue working through the jcpoa to contain our insular capability? >> we are working that right now. we have two different issues. one is the jcpoa and one is what congress has passed and those two are distinct but integral with each other. as you look at what congress has laid out in the somewhat different definition of what is in our best interest and therein lies a think the need for us to look at these distinct but integral issues the way the president has directed. >> thank you to -- thank you
secretary mattis. there's going to be any change in the jcpoa especially if it involves interpretation of what we in congress pass in terms of sanctions against iraq outside of jcpoa will you come back and inform and talk to us because i believe many of us voted for iran sanctions opposite jcpoa with the understanding they were not going to be linked. >> i think that this would probably be the most appropriate by the secretary of state and i would follow him up here. i think that our diplomacy and the president and secretary of state have the lead on that but once the decision is made i will be in on the decision. i will give input and i'm always willing to come up and talk in hearing or in private. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. coffman. >> thank you chairman.
when we look back on the vietnam war in august of 1969 president nixon orders the program as sort of a phased withdrawal as the army of south vietnam gains capability and then in 1972 he can bring the north vietnamese to the negotiating table. so i think it was operation linebacker to which was a massive bombing campaign late 1972. he brought them to the table negotiated peace agreement that extricated the united states from the war in vietnam. if i look at in afghanistan today i think that there actually is a better in-state because i think the taliban's
new group in their areas in afghanistan where particularly rural pashtun areas where they prefer the taliban to the government of kabul but like the north vietnamese the taliban feel like they are making gains so there's no need to come to the negotiating table. i understand this new strategy is designed to increase pressure to bring them to the negotiating table. at least that would be a bipartisan government for what they see as a change in the rules when you talk about air support which is vital and we are posting up with 3000 troops. is that going to bring the taliban to the negotiating table? >> sir in the past we have not had over three and a thousand troops who were all of their
challenges have stood in the field and the taliban from doing what they can do. even today which is to take the provincial and district centers so we now have the advantage of that experience, more experienced force but we have got to get the advisers down to a level where they bring nato air support and nato intel support and nato artillery and broader artillery support to them. so time will tell congressmen but i think too again the strategy of regional lights at first make sure we are dealing doing with the safe havens in the broader issues to get more support to realign our forces along these lines that we get down to the tactical level. it is to rayfor some with enough that they can get down to that level and make a difference and that its reconciliation.
therefore r's plus s him sustain this ever because if we are willing to sustain this effort are still remember being up here on capitol hill with dr. perry when he testified. the international community stuck without effort. how many times who read the newspaper about the murder of innocent people in bosnia. do we still have troops there in our international efforts? he as we do but the internet sticks with this and sustains this i'm confident the enemy will give the afghan people a chance to pull it together. >> general son -- general dunford and secretary mattis of i understand of i understand with a significant change in the rules of engagement in the prior frustration that i guess unless in terms of the taliban you said
i think secretary mattis you referenced contact, being in contact with the taliban but unless the taliban is intent to u.s. forces we engage them and i think that was modified towards the old last administration. for provincial capital where falling then it could be engage. if i understand a fundamental change to the rules of engagement it is that clearly the taliban as an existential threat to the afghan government so we are there to support and if in fact afghan security forces in and of themselves are in contact with the taliban and we will provide close air support. is that a correct interpretation interpretation? >> not completely. at one time we did not help the afghan forces unless they were in extremis and i was not here
then. i don't know why it happened and then eventually that was rescinded but they still had to be in proximity and they had to be in contact. today wherever we find them come the terrorists anyone who is trying to throw the nato plan off trying to attack the afghan people and the afghan government government, we can go after them with the caveat that we want to make every effort to not kill women and children and innocent people. >> chairman do you want to comment on that? >> congressman to reinforce a point there to things that change. we in the past are only providing advice at the senior level and afghan special operations forces so the only aviation support that we can provide was when we had actually advisers that could control that air support.
the large number of afghan conventional forces preponderance of those during the thousand or so is we have spoken about they could not receive close air support because we didn't have advisers. that's a big difference in the other thing that has changed as now any individual or any group that threatened the afghan government coalition forces or u.s. forces obviously can be engaged. the conditions are specific to a secretary mattis alluded to a specific engagement at a specific time so if they are in an assembly area or a training camp and we know they are an enemy and they will threaten afghan government our mission or people of general nicholson has the looks ability to make that decision. his level is where the authority is and that's the fundamental difference.
>> mr. moulton. >> thank you very much and thank you for your continued service. confidence is really my key question here and it comes back to a question we have heard a few times and we heard from senator mccain on the other side of the hill which is how really will this be different? talk about some of the details but as we discussed on the committee before at the end of the day there has to be a political solution to the afghan army three and a thousand however many doesn't mean much of afghan politics fall apart. afghan politics has fallen apart several times. how was the political effort different this time around? >> congressman having just returned i noticed sitting across the table from me and at my meetings were new commanders, new ministers of the interior and defense, proven people,
people that the nato officer said we have fought with these guys and it's great to have them in place. many go down to the core level commanders these are all proven young officers who have grown up in this fight and are not holdovers and not from past wars wars. there is also an effort underway right now to remove many of the officers who are over the hill and replace them and give the young officers an opportunity to come up to levels they have demonstrated they can handle in this fight. bachan only reflect the political reality because of the nature of that society right now now. as you know it's a society that has been shaken apart since the time of the soviet invasion. it's also a group that now recognizes they basically have one last shot at this.
>> mr. secretary you detailed in the chairman as well how bringing our visors down to a lower level will help the military fipug it sounds like the same thing as they did on the political front. how confident and they see a lot of nodding heads, how confident are you that our state department can do that? >> congressman is not only our state department. the nato special civilian representative scr and his deputy other diplomats are framework nato framework nations but also for example india, they are all working along these lines. >> i understand mr. secretary but how confident are you that our state department can provide that support? >> i am confident. ambassador bass is coming out of turkey. >> a lot of missions are -- and
just eliminated the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan. is that helping? >> that has no effect on the intent that you are trying to highlight here. that is where the ambassador and his staff does a yeoman's heavy lifting of that kind of job. we also have others in their ministries to build riches across the various ministries to try to get political help. .. .> >> between the chief
executive than what i have seen in the past. >> i appreciate that. >> congressmen i think it is a fair question and as part of that strategy the state department is tasked to come up with the robust approach but when we knew moving forward be needed strong leadership ambassador glass was carefully selected coming out of turkey of over three years incredible background of many of us spoke to him and encouraged him to this service which is what he has done the last three years so to make sure we have the right diplomat but with regard to your other question has that
been pushed down to where it needs to be? not yet. a mattis what secretary to larson is doing. >> and added as we're glad you have knowledge this time in this history i am so encouraged of the changes your instigated the make so much sense to have them commission based not time or number based. i have been encouraged that every dollar is invested wisely the oversight investigation subcommittee held a hearing recently dealing with the allocation of afghanistan perhaps we did $28 million with that camouflages they chose for their uniform or after words
bring to light those wasteful practices that everything is looked at. so another area of the assessment of the afghan security forces dunford talked about 300,000 troops there and a lot of changes taking place. i was struck of the differences of perceptions and expectation of our military. when we first went level -- first went over the reality was we had to go back here because of the literacy rate to teach basic literacy before we could get them to
this point and with close air support to give a general assessment where you think they are in their capabilities and where is the of literacy may -- rate now? with their support we feel they need?. >> when you were there it in 2011 with those residual at my 17 and maybe to get one in the air but with that aircraft on the order of the small attack helicopters we're in the process touche transition from vmi 17. the first to attack versions
were delivered in january and then complete the transition to the helicopter combined with a fixed wing whole crack -- aircraft and then there is one other aircraft that conducts a reconnaissance. the most promising area and by a personal experience that is as sophisticated as that profile. and that is the results of the cream of the crop but there is room for promising afghan air force. to have an accurate assessment and one of the
things the secretary has directed to be the most mature and confident and experienced individuals that we have those that have been over there before going after on a repeated basis. so those two have experienced in afghanistan with their appreciations of cultures and one area that i think is significantly different is leadership and in 2011 and still dealing with residual and that type of leadership the average age of the corps command was reduced 10 years between last spring and now. replacing five tavis six corps commanders so now we're dealing with a group of individuals trained and
equipped and individuals for over a decade. of those brigade commanders and that takes a long time. it takes 25 years to growing commander but the investment be made bringing the afghans to our schools start to resulted leaders being in the right place. >>. >> thanks for being here secretary mattis and general dunford you talk about the new strategy of r4+s is -- is that a strategy you can buy into? is that something you support?. >> yes. absolutely.
>> i know of the july aging belle what does reconciliation mean?. >> it means to stop killing fellow countrymen and women and sit down to start working with the afghan government. and then to resolve grievances. those are on to support the transnational terrorist. >> do we have to go through each individual r?. >> that is a good question. the coz they have lost some key leadership there is
internal fighting in the taliban that distracts them against the nato forces and afghan forces. this will not happen in a sequential with neil way. some will fight to the end but the bottom line is they will talking fight at the same time. you were not talking about your troops but the other terrorist organizations?. >> no. a the are realigning of forces to the main effort to those afghan forces that have not had advisers before to insure the afghan forces are made more people to provide for their own defense. >> so is the united states
reenforced by having more troops?. >> we will extend the advisers to the other units but they're not right now getting advisers but right now going to other partner nations in europe like georgia and afghanistan to pick up that adviser read duty. >> so we do anticipate having more nato advisers in the future?. >> yes. there will be more boots on the ground. we are reinforcing. it is not choose substitute but to make sure they never
had immediate access to support will now have that to make them more effective believe are enabling them. >> so with your testimony you spoke about the taliban with lack of a better description but how they were the evil entity but yet in the testimony talk about defeating prices and al qaeda to launch attacks and then he ends with reconciliation. and that entire effort to have them they will understand they do not have the battlefield victory with the half p.m. led peace
process. is that the ultimate goal? but the taliban is of you for the up partner in peas -- peace?. >> so they refuse to break with them even after they attacked on washington d.c.. so we go after the taliban to that structure that the other transnational groups have used to conduct international attacks. but the bottom line is we will go after al qaeda and isis and if the taliban wants to stop killing people to rejoin the process then
we see reconciliation. >> i yield back. >> mentioning this mission. >> and in my district in georgia we hope you will continue to expand that. and to be utilized from other countries as well. and on page three of your testimony with as a decisive point and then to have those leaders of rising at that decisive point can you give any specific examples?.
>> going through that analysis those afghan units with coalition of u.s. advisers so we called that persistent that day live and eat with the afghan forces that is what the case was is has worked very well. sova talk about that decisive point continuing to make sure that this battalion like organization we have persistent advisers. and it has worked with special operations before we drew down the of force in 2014 with a robust advisory
effort if i was in afghanistan during that period of time. and to facilitate the delivery of aviation support to continue to help them of those tactics then to be more improved in 2014 per probe them with a pretty good body of evidence. >> before i yield a remainder of my time. then those indicators. up and tell a few weeks ago with that capitalization of that program. and then they have concerns over the air force
commitment at this stage. i look forward to working with both of you to maintain the cater abilities i hope the of the two of you can support that recap of the program. i have a tremendous amount of respect for both of you. >> more than 24,000 u.s. troops have them lost and 20,000 wounded with a pricetag of $800 billion. after 16 years you are asking the american people to into were more and without the expiration date
and for what? i believe bin the capability of our military the most powerful military in the world today however read donald we have the will to fight this war because i don't think there'll ever be an end to this fight against terror of war that could only be fought with troops we're fighting against not one but the number of worldwide networks the american people are tired and their troops are tired and our allies are tired i believe the american people deserve to know why troops are being sent back to afghanistan. secretary mattis i have to go back and explain to my a constituents why we're since sending their sons and
daughters to afghanistan began. breeding over those lessons learned does this seem that we knew our cells or the enemy. wasting taxpayer money to the illiterate population without proper training expected them to be prepared to fight. but the u.s. under appreciated the key strategic level threats with the taliban to continue the fight with popular support and that insurgent sanctuary and eroding the afghan government and corruption of
security forces. and with that strategic global threat. >> then the ones that we experienced most on an 11 -- 9/11 with a globalized world. and to walk into the president's office. and where they could be killed. as it contributes officially to the well-being of the american people. and it has to pass the standard.
an enemy that doesn't wear uniforms it to take that country further into the war. as of 16 years ago i recognize and what this fight is all about. end to protect those freedoms that they have. i don't believe to leave this at our peril even with all of the confusion over the last several years 39 nations out of 50 still
stuck with us. hoping against hope what we were encouraged by this is one of the first messages i would bring to your constituents so they need to know they are not alone. and to be torn apart on the soviet invasion. but those that aptly described?. >> we cannot wish that a way. >>. >>. >> serving in this theater at walter reed i thought i would share with you the complete confidence in your
leadership of the department of defense. and they were attempting and with those afghan forces and to speak to any new strategy to ensure that those that render assistance to put themselves in the un necessarily vulnerable situations. >> we all recognize treachery is part of warfare since the beginning of time. this aspect is especially difficult. en so let's get down to whether we doing about it.
relatively successful so with the very high incidence i think it is fair to say it threat end the campaign for pro and from the counterintelligence efforts of the behavior of those. in with at afghan leadership but the ability to provide the support that they need is based to make sure our people are secure. and to rely on the afghan forces but then my judgment
change going forward in the strategy?. >> batted day memory more than day relationship it is wary to be in a combat zone to keep up your guard all the time. and somehow we have to sustain this that has a wide portfolio right now in terms of threats around the world to maintain a veteran approach and inherently end in some cases to give back to the same area so how do
we train our forces sort that counterintelligence peas. >> i yield back. >> and recusals' available to the house on service committee and in a very sketchy format a three-pronged strategy and our like to ask you about two of those one this time based approach and the other is down at the brigade level so does that condition based approach and not asking for a time to contemplate a
state to withdraw all forces? to bring the number of people that we have to have more capability may be a handful compared to today. >> follow lot. while a the military goal as i understand it is to have that time and space for the afghan government and army to provide for its own security, what are the non-military efforts to redress the corruption and poured leadership and the economic stagnation and the minimal foreign investment and soaring unemployment?
that contributes to a climate that the taliban and other extremist groups can recruit and conduct activities?. >> it is a strategic former ability that president ghani has signed the compact with us the past to do with control of money and accountability. they put a three-star general in jail to show this is going to the very top not just the little guys. there is accountability there that will shift the opportunity for the penalty box.
in with those offensive actions later with the high-profile ied but they have been unable to sustain these offensives to move in large groups and to understand the roles of change to disaggregate more that the press was full of stories for cleaning what they would do but they have been unfulfilled. but we will but as far as investment goes with that
development investments to do more in so far we have had some success. but to address each of these efforts with those benchmarks to quantify the progress so that it is subjective to quantify what we're doing we do not have been the assumption that these will turn out well we have to make it turn out well. >> but touche visit with the ambassador with the largest of the sea in the world they are camped out. they go to the brigade level
you're already stretched too thin, two levels down, he would like at the force protection he needs for pointers than the president is concerned about nation-building nobody can hold reestablished in it is our state department with diplomacy and hope we did see more u.s. involvement in nonmilitary ever. >> thanks for being here. kottich your thinking involved -- how has your thinking devolved?. >> when we did the
evaluation in 2013 and to identify that advisory effort to be successful with the aviation gap and the logistic sustainability. and made the decision to lift off at the institutional level. and with that conversation in 2013 to be successful to have advisers at the right place with sufficient aviation capability. i am not sure my thinking has changed but now we have
if we pull out of afghanistan? what would happen. >> if we pulled out completely to benefit the taliban completely to permit the transnational terrorist and basically what we saw on 9/11. >> absolutely. are they still allied with al qaeda?. >>. >> absolutely they still have those close ties we encourage them to break those ties and encourage them they were not a transnational terrorist group but would be refused
to do so with the counter insurgency with the afghan forces. >> with the percentage of investment is on nation-building with those aspects?. >> certainly to have security forces and police forces to find the of flooding to raise funding to go to farms or jobs so in that regard we set those conditions and in that regard the donations and they have met several times over the years raising money for afghanistan and so many
more to bring the money and for those targeted efforts. into set the conditions with the military campaign. >> if we pull out to be two or three years? so i applaud the of strategy to keep taliban and al qaeda out of power. thank you. >> mr. secretary think before being here for garner appreciate the opportunity to address you and appreciate your candor on these issues.
general dunford, mentioning counter terrorism in the region, how much of this is responded to with special operations forces? in what i hear over and over the of forces are stretched too thin. does that affect the ability to deal with it counterterrorism and are we still using and to finish and exploiting. >> that methodology is used to go after the enemy from the perspective. with those special operations forces and in
some cases and for five months ago and asked us to make sure looking at those requirements of the combat commanders to make sure to require special operations with those hours filled by special operations forces going in as a result from conventional forces. we have those special operations forces are critical not only to counter terrorism but
russia, china, north fire -- north korea and iran not only days to day engagement but that they can train against a full range of missions that is very sensitive. and the travel area is in the town from south waziristan. error be sure they could control those areas? coming from breeding grounds from a terrorist. >> and the northwest frontier with the discontent that is a way to describe that and also the partition
is called the federally administered tribal areas for a reason. is not a state. and this is in the settled areas. but they have lost many of their own troops in this fight and they just completed one set of operations and those had some of that effect. the chief of army staff flew into cobble and this is the first time that they had some degree so there is reason for us to say there is a new day but it is too
early to come in front of this committee to renounce that with confidence i will fly into his rhomboid soon -- islamabad soon and we will continue to work with them across the border operations that is only describe as a common enemy. >> i yield back. >> secretary mattis and general dunford as a war veteran myself i represent tens of thousands of americans who observed or sacrificed. and secretary mattis i applied your work and your change of strategy brought me hope and optimism to turn the tide rather than what we
have seen today but first want to focus on the $70,000,000,000.3 have spent i know we talked about wasted money on uniforms but even bugling wasteland afghanistan headlines, 40 percent of weapons and accounted for, afghan forces lost $700 million of ammunition and they work despite half a million dollars of aid, a 29 --- wasting money on payroll, uniforms, the construction, the list goes on. these are stories from the last couple of years. i know you talk about lessons learned but what type of process are we
creating to raise that accountability level?. >> bad is a great question. but to have afghan capacity we started to move money on budget giving it to the afghans to my at --- manage 70 percent was on budget we have walked that back now less than 25 percent is administered by the afghan government 75 percent is by us and with that 25 percent we have put rigorous conditions to make sure we have transparency and president ghani unlike his predecessor has allowed us to get into the ministry, i checked the books, do the
audits like we would for our own and i am confident the $4 billion we provide the afghan security forces every year our commander will have visibility. i expect he will come back and talk to you about that we have learned some lessons. and to the they were not quite ready to execute that budget. >> as a follow-up after supplying 14 years of the ammunition and vehicles and uniforms.
>> that is a constant refinement. we have striker vehicles. and then over the counter parts. i know if you have been back recently but if you see the air force in particular. simple to learn and simple to fly. and then to sustain data for. so those lessons learned what the equipment works or does not work. and with those made in procedures with that advisory effort. >> when we talk about rule of law and whether we doing
reinforce that positive side and for right now we read that loud and clear to get the country on the right track. >> i yield back. >> mr. secretary think you've all your service traveling in april of this year. and to increase the troops but 3,000 publicly supported that with the understanding for the force protection and reduce private contractors.
what has that the strategy?. >> both. some are in force protection we will make sure that was forced i am not condemning anyone that is not the way we want to go. >> so those problem and those john doe burned areas to take offensive action? into efforts and those of and get burned areas. does that mean they're moving beyond a the
checkpoints for?. >> to be specific in core areas have offensives every way but not everyone in some cases there were holding their own in each core area. >> but at this arab -- at the same time to have those actions. >> those other major initiative was to get the air force to coordinate better with their army and air force?. >> to talk about the
advisers with the equally robust effort from the best and brightest. but the key is with the ability is the key link. they have not matured as fast as they want one of those primary outcomes the afghan is more effective with the artillery and air support to be successful. >> they don't appreciate the difference with the taliban
club med is a completely different type of organization. has rules of engagement changed? for the multinational terrorist organization. >> that what has been passed down to the commander with any group that threatens the afghani government threatens our mission or the coalition can be engaged. it is based on the behavior. >> we will seek out groups of individuals. >> i yield back. >> we have now gone through all of the of numbers that
are here and have held them longer than jihadist intended. so what i want to do is to see if the remaining members had a 15 seconds question we have not addressed yet? and give them a chance to wind it up. >> i would like to thank both of you to be here with our oversight obligations are reminding us recover own constitutional obligations to maintain the armed forces. but this notion but we're in the position to the extent there is the agreement that
people walk away not to do anything about it. that will be crucial to take this on is something we take seriously and thank you for raising it. >> that was more than 15 seconds but good. >> quickly how do we avoid empowering those factions better off than created to take cold? and are we at a point that we don't use quantity as the metric as much as quality thinking of the work that has been done
for those that our trained for those afghan police because they seem to have more capability so where are we going with that?. >>. >> so much of what has been discussed today with that open-ended presence centers around preventing that to be a safe haven. the issue is there is a long list of countries around the world the fall as a cynical safe haven and so what about the internet makes it physical not even to be required for a terrorist to launch an attack on us or our interests. so how do you justify that
open-ended presence both physically and electronically?. >> just very quickly with president trump speech he said one of the pillars of the strategy is to take a more aggressive approach to manage our relationship with pakistan. so at the same time the way they are housed but that will change immediately. is fair to say the relationship it is complicated. and with that relationship and that is why will introduce legislation to get the intel community to account for that it was proposed in the 2009 policy review.
what tools does dod have at its disposal to cal a baby -- calibrate their relationship in pakistan for that it is helpful rather than harmful to the united states?. >> very briefly to see the saudi embassador of bed this morning the definition of propaganda and fake news. if we're going to be involved did yemen is hawkeye -- and al qaeda but the saudi arabia with its war and the gross human-rights violations. >> let me take a first dab
if he believes i miss something. as far as the buildup of factions in afghanistan just as long as they become part of the political process, we will not get choosy about which ideas can come forward. that is for the afghan people to sort out but we have seen enough progress and the younger people are different based on the education and we will see the afghan people choosing which political factions they can support with quality versus quantity we
also carry that forward in that regard a unit cannot fight will we find there's too many soldiers there is no requirement to be maintained those with the effective leader or units to go with quality not quantity and benin continue to go to the training. obviously there is a cultural aspect to their service. >> by, with and through the
local approach and it's exactly what you bring up. we pour our troops into so many ungoverned spaces, so many havens that we wouldn't have enough troops to go around so the way we invest our troops is, and i can show this to you in private for obvious reasons, i can show you what it is we do for every troupe invested, how many coalition troops we have in north africa, how many african troops we have. if you go to somalia i can show you what's going on there. if we go to the korean peninsula, i can show you what 28,000 or what ever it is us troops bring in in terms of the 3 million man south korean army but what we are looking at as broadly across the world, how do we do it in a way that we do
things by, with and through others? you make a good point about the virtual havens, about the internet and this sort of thing. everett problems that lead to a different response and then that one i think education is one of the most important bulwarks against this taking over young people's coats and dreams and turning them into what we've seen in various places. i would tell you that exchange programs, us id efforts to keep libraries open, virtual libraries open as we promote ourselves and take our own side in this fight but i think it's got to be addressed differently and perhaps that's not where the military should have the lead. on the tech span release, what schools do we have? we have diplomatic tools, diplomatic installation by more and more nations, excuse me, they're joining together
with secretary corcoran in the crisis campaign. that spans 69 different nations joined together to fight isis through the world plus the arab league, nato, european union and interpol so we can trace the foreign fighters as they tried to go home or move across boundaries, this sort of thing. all this shows an increasing alliance against terrorism and any nation that would then support it or be seen to provide havens would be running afoul of basically the most powerful economically and diplomatically militarily powerful nation in the world. we also have economic tools from loan guarantees and working with other countries on what access people have with certain banking tools and this sort of thing.as far as yemen goes, we are
engaged in anti-terrorism campaigns only right now, where we work with the others, it is to reduce million casualties and it's to try to drive this or draw this into the un brokered peace negotiation and the civil war there between the hutis and saudi supported hadi government. >> you gave a comprehensive answer to each of those questions. we are all tired. >> let me add one final thing back to miss cheney's part and it's how we started, talking about stability. the ability of commitment and stability of funding. in addition to stability, adequacy is also necessary for funding. many of us were pleased to see the president at the un
endorsed the level of funding that has already passed the house appropriation and senate authorization bill. working together i think it's essential that we get that across the finish line, so that whether you are the taliban or the russians or the chinese or whoever, you know we are going to end up and defend ourselves with adequate resources to do so. that would be part of our mission as well as working with you so i appreciate that, thank you for being here. i think this was very helpful and the hearing stands adjourned. >>. [inaudible conversation]
>> coming up tonight on c-span2, the chairs of the senate intelligence committee on the russia investigation. then secretary of state rex tillerson talks to reporters. later, senator bob corker on the recent illnesses plaguing us employees at the havana cuba embassy. senate intelligence committee chair richard burr and vice chair mark warner gave an update on the committee's investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 election. senator burr said several parts of their investigation including the question of collusion between the trump campaign and russia remain open. this briefing is 40 minutes. >> they did say this was going to be a progressor