soothing comments from the ministration. this is almost like a well oiled machine. here we've got new flights just leaving and 124000 people being evacuated. we heard something completely different. so tell me what is wrong about what i had heard for. first of all, prior to the taliban providing perimeter security, there was no security and basically tens of thousands of the f. danny's flight into the cobble airport, correct? there was for security around the airport establish. but we literally had tens of thousands legal we, we did, we did not know who these people were. it wasn't like people we and i was wondering on the order act, i control the city. we control the airport, sorry. but again, so we had tens of thousands of people in campbell airport. the reports were getting on the ground is many didn't have had no form of id whatsoever. when i went to fort mccoy, i asked granting general again all the every contingency plan for asked randy general

. when you 1st find out that your mission would be as an intake facility for dentistry and refugees, he said 10 days ago, i asked the commanding general, i asked the representative food pharma state as well as from foreign homeland security. do we know that every refugee they receive so far is only a 1000 that point time that do we know that they at least have some form of id and we didn't were hearing all these assurances that were getting biometric re screen. you know, a 14 step plan i asked the, the head of northern command is use it for mccoy. describe those steps to me and what we screen them against. i mean our ice terrace, our, our kind of chairs did we buy mess biometric, rescreen them in the past that we can compare them to a database? what is that 14 step process in detail? not, not just 14 steps. tell me. describe to us in detail, how are we keeping this nation safe from such a chaotic situation?

so, senator, the 14 step process refers to specifically to the special image visa applicants and there is a lengthy process. so how about for the other 124000 people. so to come to your point center, a couple of a couple of things we arranged as you know, transit countries so that any afghan coming out of afghanistan would initially go to a transit country where we could initiate the screenings, the vetting background check. we search customs and border protection officials to those transit points as well. of course as other security law enforcement agencies to do these checks with biometric biographic, other information that we have. then as people are clear in these transit points, they don't come in the united states, but they're not being resettle immediately. they are going once they land dulles or and so what else here, they are then being sent to military bases where the checks continue and are

completed. but, but again what checks we need specifically what kind of sugar tighter has expired. i'm sure you can follow up for the rest of your question, senator. thank you, chairman and his rank. remember risha for this hearing, and thank you secretary, blinking for your service in your testimony today we have, i'm sure lots of opportunities to look backwards at the 20 years of our engagement afghan, a standard of decisions. but i had hoped this committee would rise above the temptations of partisan politics and use this hearing to consider the urgent questions still before us. and i hope we'll get a few minutes to focus on this. mister secretary, how do we get the remaining american citizens legal, permanent residence and those afghans who served alongside us or worked with and for us and who are most at risk out of afghanistan. and how do we make sure afghan is 10? doesn't become a safe haven for terrorists again and, and deal with the taliban. what leverage do we have in doing so?

and to also make sure humanitarian it gets into afghanistan and most urgently. how do we support and resettle those african refugees whom we've evacuated to 3rd countries and much smaller population that has reached the united states? so let me just stop with my thanks to the state department to the employees in cobble and cutter and the dc base task force that's worked with the evacuation of repatriation of americans and afghans and to the many, delaware and, and americans whom i've heard from a former military folks who served in afghanistan, former diplomat development professionals, eager to help, and i look forward to continuing to coordinate with you and with agencies of our government advocacy groups and other partners on resettlement efforts. i'm glad that the former governor, delaware, a jack markel has been asked to step forward and help coordinate this resettlement effort. and i was encouraged today to see welcome us launch

a broad multi faith bipartisan national organization, a co chaired by 3 former presidents, bush and obama. and clinton and dozens and dozens of faith groups and nonprofits to welcome afghans to the united states. so let me just start with a question about visa status sen sullivan. and i wrote a bipartisan letter in mid august the urging expanded eligibility for the s i. v. program, i'm interested in how you're working to expand eligibility under the existing visa programs to include family members and to support those. the u. s. government supported and worked alongside but who were not direct employees. i want to start if i quit mister secretary by asking you just yes or no questions about 3 groups that other senators have mentioned for. there's about $550.00 employees and family members from voice of america radio for europe. radio liberty who were not evacuated, is the department prioritizing their vacuum?

yes. and the department committed to evacuating our partners from the national endowment of democracy in d, i are right. are those also being prioritize? yes, they are. and are partners from the american university of afghanistan as well? yes. and so if you would take 4 minutes, we've left explore with me. how do we ensure safe passage across land borders? whether energy is to enter pakistan safe and regular flights out of afghanistan, whether from missouri, sharif or cobble. and how do we get documents into the hands of those who don't have identity documents either because they were destroyed in our embassy or they destroyed them themselves out of fear of the taliban. and how do we make sure that we're providing the financial support needed for the whole group of refugees who after thorough vetting ultimately reached united states? you know, thank you very much centered, knows all very important questions and let me try to respond briefly to them. and we can take on the details after this session. if,

if need be 1st we need it and we have established a clear expectation from the taliban. about allowing people to continue to leave the country to include american citizens green cardholders, afghans who have, who are, who are properly documented with a visa. including specifically those who worked in some capacity for the united states. and not only do we have that understanding in public statements by the taliban, of course it's built in to everything we've done with a large coalition of countries in terms of setting an expectation and making very clear that the failure is to fill. that expectation will have significant consequences, which we can get into 2nd, very important to actually make sure that there are ways to travel freely from the country. we made an intensive effort before we left to understand and share

with cutter and turkey countries that stepped up to, to do this. what was necessary to make sure that the airport in capital could continue to function and ultimately not to have charter flights. and then commercial lights going in under international civil aviation organization standards. we did intensive work. we brought the american contact conference back in the midst of the evacuation. we've been running the airport to work that we handed off a very detailed plan which is now being implemented. 3rd, the, the land crossings we've worked with pakistan is pakistan to take a stand on this to make sure that as we moved people out of afghanistan, they would facilitate their crossing into their countries. we would have consular officials surged in the necessary places to handle people coming out in that fashion. and now to your very important point about documentation. and this is something that maybe we can take offline. we are working on a mechanism,

it means by which and there multiple ways of doing this to make sure that people who don't have the necessary document, for example, a visa from us, a physical visa to to get that to them. and i prefer to go into more detail on that in a, in another setting. understood if i might just as a, as a closing question. you're asked at the outset, sort of what are the factors we ways we decide the future of our relationship with the taliban. and we're in this difficult situation. many of us recognize the taliban as a terrorist organization. it's done horrific things within afghanistan in the past . yet we need to have some working relationship with them to secure the safe passage out of thousands of people who we still care deeply about. a number of american citizens with delaware ties who i've been in contact with didn't leave because their families were still in afghanistan. and there are clear measures that

they should be expected to meet. you laid out your opening statement. what do you think will be the most important aspects of our leverage to ensure the taliban perform in ways that we would accept? and what do you think will be the turning point at which will make decisions with our allies to take sharper and harsher measures against the taliban? so simply put the, the nature of the relationship that the taliban would have with us or most other countries around the world will depend entirely on its conduct and actions. specifically, with regard to freedom of travel as well as to making good on its counterterrorism commitments, upholding basic right to the afghan people, not engaging and reprisals, etc. these are the things that not only we, but countries around the world are looking at and there is, i think, significant leverage that we and other countries hold when it comes to things that the taliban says it wants but won't get if it does not act in way that

meets these, these expectations. for example, we talked a little bit before about the existing un sanctions on the taliban. these are significant, as well as travel restrictions. there's now new, a new security council resolution that we initiated setting out the expectations for what the taliban has to do. if it's not, it's a violation of that resolution. it's hard to see any of these un sanction being lifted, travel restrictions being lifted, and indeed additional sanctions could well be imposed. similarly, the foreign reserves of afghanistan are almost exclusively in, in banks. here in the united states, including the federal reserve, other banks, about $9000000000.00, all of that has been frozen. there are significant resources as well that are in the international financial institutions that, that can stand normally would have access to those to have been frozen over the last 20 years or so. the international community is provided about 75 percent of the african government annual operating budget. that too has been frozen. so among

many things that the taliban says, it sees both basic legitimacy and basic support. the nighted states. the international community has a hand on a lot of that, much of that, most of that. and so we'll have to see going forward. what conclusions for taliban draws from that and what its conduct will be matching these basic expectations that we've set. thank you. centered around. thank you mister chairman. thank you mister secretary for taking time to answer our questions today. i'd like to associate myself with the comments that sen rubio made about planning for a potential immediate collapse of the afghan government and, and security forces. it seemed that as the taliban was running the table throughout afghanistan, that the prospect of them continued or on the table by coming in at the capital was,

was a significant probability that should have been a plan for in your view. mister secretary has, has the taliban abandoned their sympathy and collect collaboration with groups like al qaeda and the cartoon network? do they continue to have the same aim and are they, are they of like spirit or, or has that as, as that relationship been, been severed. the relationship is, has not been severed and it's a very open question as to whether their views and the relationship has changed in any kind of definitive way. i think it's fair to say 2 things. one, whatever the taliban views on. ok to. they do know that the last time they harboured ok to and it engaged in and outwardly directed attack an attack on our homeland certain things followed which i believe it would have an interest in not

seeing repeated so whatever their views on the cater there is a strong disincentive built in to allow it to engage in outwardly directed attacks which the session, the intelligence community as they're not currently capable doing. isis, kate, the other main group. that's a different thing is you know, because the taliban and isis gay are sworn enemies. and in fact, over the last 5 or 6 years since the emergence of isis, the fight is actually been between the taliban and isis k with the taliban taking most of the territory that isis case sought to hold onto. you know, ghana stand the question there. i think is less whether they have the will to deal with isis k and more whether they have the capacity given that, that response. i know that previously the position of administration and the state department was the 2001 a u m f. a no longer played a, a role of significance. but given the developments in afghan, a stand and the taliban ongoing collaboration with and sympathy with al qaeda and

the kotik academy network. and like my groups, is it not appropriate for the state department to revisit your recommendation? that we abandon the 2001 u m f. i think senator, we need to look to make sure that we have all the authorities that we would need for any potential const contingency including the re emergence as a threat of al qaeda or the further emergence of isis k as an outwardly directed threat. if, if we don't have those authorities, we should get them whether that means we're looking at those authorizations or writing new ones, which i think would be the most appropriate thing to do if necessary. we need to look at that i, i appreciate your willingness to, to change your point of view and in part because the conditions that are developed and the most recent weeks, nothing wrong with conditions leading to a change in perspective. i for one thought some years ago that we should with withdraw from, from afghanistan,

the conditions i saw and showing years convinced me that i was wrong. and i liked sen. shane was one of those that felt that the president trump was wrong to enter into an agreement to withdraw. i thought president biden was wrong to enter into an agreement or to continue with that agreement to withdraw. and of course, i was appalled by the disastrous withdrawal process itself for us today. however, i guess i'd like to focus more on the, the moral stay leaving people behind and, and understand what we can do to make sure that we are not leaving people behind. i understand we're down to a small number of americans. it's hard to know exactly how many you're left behind . but in terms of legal permanent residence, or is your priority just as high to get them out as it is to get out citizens? or is there a different level of commitment for a legal, permanent residence, return to united states relative to a citizen centered our number one priority is american citizens. and that has, i think, long long been the case in this situation in afghanistan and this emergency evacuation

again, as we did everything, we could as well to make sure the legal from a residence green cardholders, but also identify themselves to us. we don't like with american citizens. we don't know at any given time how many there are in any given country around the world can and to make available resources to help them. but our number one priority is any remaining american citizens who actually, i didn't realize as a secondary level priority then for a legal, permanent resident. if that's the case, how many of them approximately? so we don't know the exact number, but, but how many legal permanent residence are we convinced are still and understand? we don't, we don't have an exact number, but it around number thousands in the 1000, in the thousands. likewise in terms of s i v holders or s i v applicants, or people who've worked with us that have been our, our partners for the years. how many of them approximately are still an afghan, a stand that want to come to united states. so this is what we're doing,

an accounting of right now based on 2 things based on the, the, the pipeline of applicants as it existed before the evacuation. and then looking at those who we were able to evacuate. we don't have those numbers yet because as we move to evacuated, people, a number of them are still at transit points around the world. others would be tens of thousands. so realistically, 2 things. one, we talked about this a little bit earlier, but of the, of the applicants in the program. the, as i said, we inherited about 800000, about half of those. and this remains more or less the case now are at a point where it's before the chief admission has given his or her approval. that they are in fact eligible for the program. focused on the i was looking for a number and i guess the question i was leading to is this, which is given the fact that the s i b process was so slow and not undertaken during the trump years in a significant way. you sped up. that's great,

although no, you knew that there was no way you were going to get all these people out in time. i to find out a rapp given, given the rapid collapse. so the afghan security forces and, and you said yesterday that you inherited a date, but in fact, you didn't inherit the date. the date was may 1st and you push it to august 31st. why didn't you push it much later so that we would have been able to process the s ivy applicants as well as those who had worked with us that had not yet applied? i don't understand why why a date was actually not inherited. and a date was not selected that would be sufficient to actually remove people from the nation in a way that would be in keeping with our moral commitment to honor our citizens are green cardholders as well as those who worked with us over the years to things if i may 1st the we took some risk in terms of what the taliban would do or not do after

may 1st in pushing beyond may 1st and we of course work this very hard, but it's a, well, it's a risk with other people. we took it, it's a risk, the risk was on people we care for just to be clarified. i mean, i could, the military told us that in order to do it retrograde it straw down from that can stand in a, in a safe and orderly way. it needed 3 to 4 months. that's why we pushed to move beyond may 1st and to get to the end of august early september. second to your point, which is an important one and a good one. our expectation was that the on august 31st beyond the military drop down the government, the security forces were going to remain in control of couple of the major cities. our embassy was fully planned to remain up and running. we were leaving about 600 military behind to make sure that we could secure the embassy. so to continue

operate, we had robust programming plan to include continuing to bring out anyone who wish to leave. notably, notably aside ease. so that was very much the plan and the expectation was not what we did not anticipate. was that 11 day collapse of the government security forces. that's what changed everything. thank you, senator murphy. thank you miss sherman. thank you mr. secretary for spending so much time with us. i think what links are failures in iraq and afghanistan is that they're both fundamentally failures of hubris. believing that we can control things and influence events on the other side of the world that are beyond our control or influence you. america can be a force for good in the world, but there is a limit to what we can achieve. and so there's been decades long, magical thinking, with respect to what's in our control and what's outside of our control. as it

turns out, wasn't within our control to be able to stand up in american style. democracy in american looking military in afghanistan. that was going to be able to protect the country from the taliban, but we spent 20 years trying to achieve it. and so mister secretary, you covered some of this in your opening remarks, but i wanted to ask you a series of questions to try to level set for the committee. the situation you inherited, right? what was in your control, what was outside of your control. and then to look at the events of the last $30.00 to $40.00 days with that same lens. what was in your control? what was outside of your control? i think these are yes or no answers. some of that you've covered in your testimony, but i think it's important to get it on the record. so mister secretary, if president biden had chosen to breach the agreement, that president trumpet signed with the taliban. would the taliban have restarted attacks against us troops and basis? yes. as you said in your opening testimony,

by the time you ministration took office, the taliban was on the outskirts of several provincial capitals. the president by nature breached the agreement between president trump and the child with the taliban have begun offensives on these urban centers. yes. so taliban had begun if see jenny cities and resumed attacks on us, troops were 2500 troops have been enough to keep the country from falling to the taliban. nope. would double that number. have been enough? do we know how big our force would have had to have gotten? i think it was the assessment of our military leaders that not to put a number on it, but a significant additional us forces would have been required both to protect ourselves and to prevent the onslaught from the taliban against the provincial capitals and ultimately against couple wasn't a decision between leaving and the status quo. this is a decision between a significant commitment of new us resources to fight or the continuation of what

crawl plan is correct. okay, but talk about the last month. so once the government, the military are disintegrate, all at once. it seems to me it was pretty predictable and understandable that there would be panic on the ground amongst the afghan people. so could it be expected that a few 1000 u. s. trips and diplomats on the ground at the time would have been able to prevent this panic. no much has been made about these dramatic and heartbreaking scenes of the airport were 250-5000 troops. enough to stop the african people from rushing to the airport to create this security nightmare for you. but was there any way for the limited number of personnel that were there to prevent individuals from rushing to the airport? no, they could control the airport as we did. they could establish a basic immediate perimeter around the airport as we did, but they couldn't control what happened beyond that printer. and so let's talk

about that perimeter. other say, well, we should have control the bigger perimeter. we should have taken back over parts of cobble to secure the passage of americans and africans to the airport. i mean, let's say you would quadruple the number of troops you had there. let's see, you had 10000 troops there without the african military or a function and government would that have been enough to retake, cobble, to be able to secure the passage of every one to the airport. i don't want to profess to be a military expert, so i'd really prefer to, to my colleagues at the pentagon on that. but i can say that, i think safely say that it would have taken a substantial number of forces to try to retake the city or establish a much broader perimeter. and of course, if that was ultimately opposed by the taliban in a sense it would have defeated the purpose because anyone outside that firm it or would not have been allowed to get through it to come to the airport among other things. right. so once the african military collapse is it disintegrates,

we don't have enough troops to retake, cobble, and we are in the position of having to rely on the taliban, or at least communicate with the taliban to make sure that we get individuals to the airport. that's correct. okay, i just think this is important to put on the record in a clear and concise way because we have to have a reckoning in this country about what we can accomplish and what we can't accomplish. jordan ary that this administration got 130000 people out of afghanistan, given those circumstances, given the situation that they inherited that you inherited in january of this year . and my worry mister chairman is that the malady that we suffered for the last 20 years. this idea that it was just a bad plan, but it was the failure of execution as to why we couldn't succeed in iraq or afghanistan is plaguing us again today. that right now we're having

a conversation as if, if we just had a better plan, if we just executed better, we could have avoided the scenes at the airport. we couldn't guarantee the easy and safe passage of everyone into that facility. it is heartbreaking. what happened? it was impossible for americans to watch. but if we just simply leave today believing that if we had planned better, if we had better execution, we could have avoided this panic and confusion. i think we're just inviting another or hack, another afghanistan in the future. finally, mister secretary, just quickly expand on your point about the messages and to china. this idea that the chinese would love it if we stayed another 10 or 20 years. and why this isn't a sign of weakness. and in fact, this is an ability for you and the national security infrastructure to be able to reorient, reorient resources towards bites that we actually can. well, i think,

i think center you put it very well in my assessment and the assessment of many others. as i said, there is nothing that strategic competitors like, like china, like russia or adversaries, like around in north korea, would like better than for us to re up the war, doubled down on it and remained bogged down. and that can stand for another year, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, with all of that dedication of resources, all of that energy and focus on that as opposed to the challenges that we, we have to face today. and i might add, the committee has done it, i think a very good job on trying to re focus on notably the competition from, from china. so i think that would have been doubling down on this on this war after 20 years, after nearly 2 trillion dollars after $2461.00 american lives lost

$20000.00 injuries and not to preserve the status quo that existed before may 1st. that would have been one thing but to be in a situation where the war with us was restarted the taliban attacking our forces, attacking our partners and allies, going on an offensive across the country to retake the cities that would have required a doubling down on a war and the bottom line is this. we were right to end the war. we were right not to send a 3rd generation of americans to afghanistan to fight and die there. and i believe we were right in the extraordinary efforts that were made to make sure we could bring out as many people as possible. and now we have an obligation to make sure that we continue to do that. and of course, to guard against the re emergence of any threats coming from afghanistan. so to be sure. thank you the chairman.

and i appreciate the fact you're having this critical hearing today. i must say, i'm going to change. i was going to talk about based on the last interaction. thank you for being here. i wish general austin were here because secretary austin could answer many to questions that have just propose a butter step for my colleague. center murphy is who knows? but this was not a choice between either a dangerous escalation of the war, which is just 1600 hours g m t mid day in washington dc where you are a secretary of state house. the blinking is facing a 2nd. they have tough questions on capitol hill, about the by the ministrations, much criticized rule from afghanistan. we're bringing you live coverage here and i was 0. let's continue listening. you're talking to our allies in nato. they will say it was a sign of weakness.