told by the people who lived there by the sound of the boxes this year on al jazeera. ah, i don't see a correlation against the president. a group of political parties band together in tune is here. ah, this is out sir. live from coming up. grilled about the chaotic withdrawal from afghanistan. right now. us defense officials facing questions from senator later sedans, top military leader addresses divisions in its transitional government. he says the council needs to take a more active role. spain declared the de la palmer and emergencies. own volcano

continues to skew, lover smoke. ah, so a group of political parties, and she has announced the coalition to oppose the president group says he has lost his legitimacy accusing him of a qu. last week the president announced he would rule by decree and ignore parts of the constitution. lexia bryan has this latina and presenting a united front against a president. they say is illegitimate for political parties. a warning chi said that he must backtrack on his decision to seize executive power. all they'll call widespread protests against him. or if the president has taken everything he has canceled everything. even the institution for sorting out these problems like fighting career sion,

all these entities have been closed by the president. there's no parliament. there's no committee for overseeing laws. there's no government. yeah, demonstrations have already been held against president said last week announced his rule by decree. and ignore parts of the constitution. that's after he sacked the prime minister and suspended parliament in july. on monday, june as he is foreign minister told the un general assembly at the president's actions unnecessary for the country's security. that he was acting with the will of the people. i mean, when i was unhappy, too dangerous situation, threatening our country and community is attribute to a deeply rooted political polarization and a social comic and health crisis. this is why the president of the republic had to interfere and take a series of exceptional resolutions and measures based on our constitution to put the contract back on the right path towards democracy. and all the largest political party enact said the president should call elections to prove he has

a mandate in after, isn't in the newly formed coalition, but has spoken out strongly against his measures, describing them as a qu. why should one person says that he can embody the will of the people? so if he is with, with the will of the people and if he is expressing their will have people, he has no authority or for elections and then people decide local and international human rights groups has condemned sites, actions warning of a slide towards authoritarianism. while the developments in july were broadly popular to months, own people are growing frustrated and what they see is a lack of progress were planned for reform. and let's say that could work and the new coalition favor we did the pick a crisis, but we are going to see the ethics of it's in the upcoming which and non they would seize maybe the opportunity to show that unfortunately even by

a power grab even by the gathering or the powers prison fight is unable to find the really crisis of the conditions that are social problems, economy, etc, with an economy on the verge of collapse, many say without political action, the situation can only get worse. alexia bryan al jazeera. well, it's been, it's been a smith correspondent who's in tunis and joined us now. but what more do we know about this maker with 4 main political parties behind the press conference today, you can put them on the progressive democratic side of the political spectrum. one of the parties had, in fact, been supported all the steps present case. so i have to take him a couple of months ago, but he seems now they have turn that criticism on him for failing to offer any solutions in the last 2 months to the crisis. economic crises that change the faces

across is made worse by the com demick that he did the presence yet to point to government to articulate any sort of competent economic policy or say how the government is going to. 4 his debt, it seems that he's being the president, i've been given a couple of months. grace by that unit is political parties in social and civil society groups to come up with something i think hasn't. and so this is why now that starting to criticize and we also had a statement also today from the civil society organizations warning the president of the danger of going to fall in taking over power without saying how long it's all going to take the civil society organizations with particularly critical, but nobody senior crews of corruption had yet been held to account. and this is one of the major complain to many to read to news in the ramp and corruption. and but what can we expect to happen next? do you think?

well, it seems that the person have been given this 2 month period of understanding which people were expecting him to come up with some sort of solution for the problems that the main complain from everybody is that we haven't talked to anyone. we haven't been engaged, any political policies have been gauge the unions all the civil society groups and nobody knows what he's doing and then now criticizing in for not speaking to anybody. at the same time. they're still saying that they are open to dialogue. it's a very sort of peaceful approach they've taken, they would, they say they still want to talk to the presidents. that might be some protest late on the weekend if they get permission. but at the moment these organizations are not calling for that. they still say we want to talk with the president or about it . thanks so much. very much for that to ben smith reporting that for to this engine is yeah, you said it is a grilling senior defense officials about the withdrawal of military forces from

afghanistan and the collapse of the afghan government. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mike mili, is facing the panel right now. that's him right there. let's listen a military and only 11 days in august. however, one lesson must never be forgotten. every soldier sailor amen. a marine who served there in afghanistan, 20 consecutive years, protected our country from attacked by terrorists, and for that they should be forever proud and we should be forever grateful. thank you chairman, and if i could, i know that there's some issues in the media that are deep concern to many members on the committee and with your permission, i'd like to address those remitted to again, i've submitted memoranda for the committee to take a look at you may see miss chairman, i've, i've served this nation for 42 years. i spent years in combat, and i buried a lot of my troops who died while defending this country. my loyalty to this nation

. its people and the constitution hasn't changed and will never change. as long as i have a breath to give my loyalty is absolute. and i will not turn my back on the fallen with respect to the chinese cause i routinely communicated with my counterpart generally. with the knowledge and coordination of civilian oversight, i am specifically directed to communicate with the chinese by department defense guidance. the policy dialogue system. these military to military communications of the highest level are critical to the security of the united states in order to de conflict military actions, manage crisis, and present prevent war between great powers that are armed with the world's most deadliest weapons. the calls on thursday, october and 8, january were coordinated before and after which secretary asked for an acting

secretary, miller stamps, and the injury agency. the specific purpose of the october and january calls were to generate a were generated by concerning intelligence which caused us to believe the chinese worried about an attack on them by the united states. i know i am certain the president trump did not intend to attack the chinese and it is my directed responsibility. and it was my direct responsibility by the secretary to convey that intent to the chinese. my task at that time was to de escalate my message again. was consistent, stay calm, steady and deescalate. we are not going to attach you at secretary defense as far as direction. i made a call generally on thursday, october 8. people sat in the call with me and i read out the call within 30 minutes

of the call ending on 31 december, the chinese requested another call with me deputy assistant secretary defense for asia pacific policy up coordinate my call, which was then scheduled for 8 january and he made a preliminary call on 6 january 11. people attended that call with me and read out to this call were distributed to the inner agency that same day, shortly after my call ended with general lee. i personally informed both secretary of state, palm pale and white. i was chief of staff meadows about the call among other topics . soon after that, i attended the meeting with acting secretary miller. i brief him on the call. later that same day on a january speak of the house below. she called me to inquire about the president's ability launch nuclear weapons. i sought to assure her that nuclear launch is governed by a very specific and deliberate process. she was concerned and made very or made

various personal references characterizing the president. i explained to her that the president is the sole nuclear launch authority, and he doesn't launch them alone. and that i am not qualified to determine the mental health of the president of the united states. there are processes, protocols, and procedures in place. and i repeatedly assured her that there is no chance of an illegal unauthorized or accident the launch by presidential directive and secretary defense directors. the chairman is part of the process to ensure the president is fully informed when determining the use of the world's deadliest weapons by the law . i am not in the chain of command and i know that. however, by presidential directive and dirty instruction, i am in the chain of communication to fulfill my legal statutory role as the

president's primary military adviser. after the speaker plus he call, i convened a short meeting in my office with key members of my staff to refresh all of us on the procedures which we practiced daily at the action officer level. additionally, i immediately informed acting secretary defense miller of sec or speaker, blows his phone call at no time was i attempting to change or influence the process . you serve authority or insert myself in the chain of command. but i am expected. i am required to give my advice and ensure that the president is fully informed on military matters. i am submitting for the record a more detailed and unclassified memoranda. i believe you all now have a late and i welcome a thorough walk through and every single one of these events. and i'd be happy and classified session to talk in detail about the intelligence that drove these calls . i'm also happy to make available any email, phone, logs,

memoranda witnesses or anything else you need. understand these events. my oath is to support the constitution, the united states of america, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and i will never turn my back on that oath. i firmly believe in civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle, essential to the health of this republic. and i'm committed to ensuring the military stays clear of domestic politics. i look forward to your questions and thank you chairman, for the extra time. thank you, general general mckenzie. i understand you do not have the statement awkward through the way my, my stipend order gets back on schedule. thank you very much. general secretary larson the, the dell har agreement represents direct negotiations with terrorist and not just negotiations, but an agreement with them. that excluded the afghan government and the

allies. we've been finding with us now since 911. it said a 6 departure day with conditions has been indicated. we're not really can follow consistently by the taliban, as you can sit in in april. what to do? did the intelligence suggest to you that reneging on the departure of the troops would lead to significant attacks against american and allied military forces? chairman, to my recollection the, the intelligence it was clear that if we did not leave in accordance with that agreement, the taliban would would recommend a tax on our forces. and they would include the blind green attacks. and any other means they could use to attack american forces?

that's correct. or so the joyce was in many respects as were we going to incur additional casualties and definitely in afghanistan. is that not one would look at us? is that fair? that's correct. german. you certainly would have to do take additional measures to be able to defend yourself against the taliban recommend or offensive operations against now general miller did in general, mackenzie did the don't or agreement effect and morale of the afghan forces. i was there a sense now that even though was months away that the united states was leaving since we had agreed to leave all at frank talk the details, but my assessment is yes, sender. it did affect the morale of the african security forces. jerome can source my judgement that the doha agreement did negatively affect the performance of the

afghan forces. but in particular, by some of the actions that the governor of afghan stan was required to undertake as part of that agreement. and one of the critical issues was the agreement to withdraw contractors which are basically the the engine that maintains the air force of afghan of stan, and many other logistical operations. and that was just as critical as a true departure. i would assume german it was we had plans in place to try to conduct goes operations from over the rise and they were not as effective as having contractors on the ground on site with the aircraft it. the momentum appeared to be shifting to the taliban. indications were there penetration or parts of the country in the northern such as

particularly which traditionally opposed to tell of and the northern alliance. and but that started to be fair to be fair that started long before dolah. there are some commentators who suggested since 2014 the taliban have been surrounding provincial capitals, insinuating themselves into the politics of the local communities. striking bargains is that your impression to general mackenzie so i think is a good assessment for 2014 and the taliban did pursue that strategy and they had some success. and the government of afghanistan also has success. holding on to a centralized, urban areas and population centers at the taliban pursued a distinct strategy and had some success with it. i know general secretary austin, you've did provide your best military vice president regarding the situation of

ghana, stan, and has been recounted several times or multiple meetings and he received advice and many different quarters. you feel that you, you have the opportunity to make your advice very clear. i do chairman, as i've said before, i always keep my, my advice to the president confidential, but i am very much satisfied that we had a thorough policy review. and i believe that all of the parties had an opportunity to provide input and that input was received . thank you very much. centered and off. thank you mister chairman. it was 2 weeks ago that we had a close classified hearing. we had general miller's recommendation at that time.

well, let me 1st of all, just mention that during your confirmation process, you committed. i'm speaking now to journal mackenzie in general. milly to give me your honest and personal views to this committee, even if those views were differ from those of the administration. and i'm confident that you will be doing that during this hearing that we had we. it was emphasized to us from general miller that we, that we, he was recommending that 2500 troops in africa in afghanistan. no, we didn't receive the documentation from your office as i say to the witnesses today in till 1035 last night. so it really wasn't time to get into the lot of the details, but i'd asked general mackenzie, did you agree to the recommendation that general miller had

2 weeks ago center. again, i won't, i won't share my personal recommendation the present, but i will give you my honest opinion and my honest opinion of you shaped my recommendation, i recommended that we maintain 2500 troops in afghanistan. and i also recommended earlier in the fall of 2020, that we were maintained 4500 of that time. as my personal views. i also have a view that the withdrawal of those forces would lead inevitably to the collapse of the african military forces and eventually the african government. yes. understand that in general, really i assume you agree with that in terms of the recommendation of 25, i did what i said in my opening statement and the memoranda that i wrote back in the fall of 2020 remained consistent. and i do agree with that this committee is unsure as to whether not general miller's recommendation ever got to the president . you know, obviously there are conversations with the president,

but i would like to ask even though general mckenzie, i think you've made this statement. did you talk to the president about general miller's recommendation? so i was present when that discussion occurred and i'm confident in the present heard all the recommendations and listen to them very thoughtfully. so one of the recommendations that was made by the 3 of you would be the recommendation that originally it was made by general miller's to 2 weeks ago during the august 18th to interview on a b c, george shipping office as president, whether us troops would stay beyond august 31st, if there is still americans to evacuate, president biden responded, and this is a quote if there's american citizens left. we're going to stay to get them all out . this didn't happen. the president biden's decision resulted

in the troops leaving, but the american citizens are still trying to get out how many, how many american citizens is your opinion are still there, just the go down the line. each one of you, anyone section or i would defer to the state department for that for that assessment. that's that's dynamic process. they've, they've been contacting the civilians that are in an afghan. stan and, and again, i would defer to them for definitive numbers. go ahead. others just same as 2nd just said there were numbers at the beginning of this whole process with the 77 report or the out of the embassy. and we know that we took

out almost 6000, i guess it is american citizens. but how many remain and do all of you agree that secretary state lincoln when he made his analysis as to how many people would be here, but would still be there. and you talked about that 10 to 15000 citizens left behind and the and then evacuated some 6000. that would mean a minimum of $4000.00 would be would still be there or no. would anyone disagree with that? by your silence. i assume if you agree, i have no, i don't. i personally don't believe that there are 4000 american citizens. so let them get stand. but i cannot confirm or deny that senator susie secretary said it was probably wrong. it is analysis. they miss german. thank you and just that a racket day chair and the and the vice here slash ranking member have each abided

by the 5 minute rule. so there's fair. thank you mister chairman. and thank you, secretary austin, general miller in general mckenzie for being here this morning. and secretary austin and general milly, thank you for your effort to put into some historical perspective what happened in afghanistan, and for recognizing the incredible service and sacrifice of the troops who served their general milly and a hearing before the senate appropriations subcommittee on defense in june i explicitly raised concerns about the plight of at risk afghans due to our withdraw . and i asked about the departments plans to evacuate them. now you indicated today that you, you thought we might be facing the kind of desperate situation that we saw in cobble. but your response at that time was that quote,

lots of planning was ongoing and this is end quote. and the state department was leading efforts pertaining to evacuating our afghan partners. and you explicitly told the committee that in your professional opinion, you did not see saigon, 975 in afghan, a stan. so i'm just trying to figure out why we missed or it from a public perception. it appears that we didn't anticipate the rapid fall of cop afghanistan and cobble and the rise of the taliban. and the way we sought play out on television. and what did we miss? i think center, we absolutely missed the rapid 11 day collapse of the afghan military and the

collapse or their government. i think there was a lot of intelligence that clearly indicated that after we withdrew that it was a likely outcome of a collapse with the military and collapse of the government. most of those intelligence assessments indicated that that would occur late fall, perhaps early winter cobble might hold till next spring. it depends on when the, until the assessment was written. so after we leave, the assessments were pretty consistent that you didn't see a general collapse of the government any military while we were there though. up through 31 august. i don't, there's no intel assessment that says the government's going to collapse in the military. going to collapse and eliminate that i'm aware of and i've read, i think pretty much all of them. so and even as late as the 3rd of august and there's another one on the 8th of august, etc. they're still talking weeks, perhaps months, etc. general mackenzie illuminated on his own views on the same topic. he gave his

assessments at the same time. and although general miller did in many, many assessments say rapid fast, hard for collapse. he also centered into the october november timeframe as opposed to august. so how do we avoid that happening again? i think the key senator that we missed. frankly, we had some indicators, but we didn't have the full wholesome assessment of leadership morale and will, there were some units and i don't want to say negative things about these guys are 6070000 of the african service that were killed in action over the last 20 years in many units did fight at the very end, but the vast majority put their weapons down and melted away in a very, very short period of time. i think that has to do with will leadership. and i think we still need to try to figure out exactly why that was and i, i have some suggestions, but i'm not settled on them yet. but we clearly missed that. i think one of the key

factors we missed it for was we pulled our advisors off 3 years ago. and when you pull the advisors out of the units, you can never, you no longer can assess things like leadership and well, we can count all the planes, trucks and automobiles, and cars and machine guns and everything else. we can count those from space and all the other kind of intel acids, but you can't measure the human heart with a machine. you've got to be there. thank you. i'm secretary austin, i'm about to run out of time. so i make, you may want to respond to this on the next round, but one of the challenges with getting special immigrant visa applicants out of afghanistan has and this slavery of the proceedings, the senate services committee on the us withdrawal from afghanistan, hearing from gentlemen military chairman, joint chiefs of staff saying that no intelligence assessment gave us any indication that the african government would collapse sauce as it did. he was also justify us involvement enough. going to start and just find himself in the face of republican

criticism about his actions in the last weeks and months serving donald trump also had for general frank mckenzie. ahead of central command and the defense secretary, lloyd austin. i let's be taught correspondent, public. oh haines. in washington dc, listening in to all of this. what do you make it all putting? thank you very much. well, really, this is the 1st chance of congress. how's an open study been able to grill these top military leaders about the chaos in many call humiliating withdraw of us forces? i think what we're starting to see from the senators in their opening statements, really, they're going to start to play the blame game. you're gonna say, well it was donald trump, president, he made the deal with the taliban that he started this. i'm really just in general, merely just confirm that he, in fact, was given an order to withdraw all troops by january 15th just a week or so before joe biden inaugurated it as president. so that i thought was interesting, but you're starting to see republican say ok. so your truck made the deal,

but by me told the truth. and one of the more interesting things that secretary off he said is that we wanted to be ready. and we were talking about the evacuation plan. i think in the coming hours the senators are going to say, if that's what ready looks like, what would the healthier look like? considering they were able to leave with it. we got off at the airport and they still left americans behind. the administration's been very careful not to say exactly how many americans are left behind and the numbers have really been all over the place that we're starting to see that again, back and forth, is during the hearing about how many people were left behind, asked for general milly, he is defending himself like most terms of the joint you have not had to because of this book that bob woodward wrote, it basically made it seem like.