them to testify in the order that they are seated. mr. andy andrews is the father of the fallen second lieutenant darryn andrews, who was reportedly killed while on mission to look for sergeant bergdahl. he is joined by his wife, sandra andrews, who is seated directly behind him, and she is wearing the dog tags of her son. mr. andrews, i know your time is limited because you have to catch a plane to go back to houston for chemotherapy. we appreciate you and your wife making the trip all the way to washington and wish you both a quick recovery. specialist cody full is a specialist in sergeant bergdahl's squad at the time he disappeared, and they were previously roommates together. mr. mike waltz is the senior national security fellow at the new america foundation. mr. waltz commanded a special forces company in eastern

afghanistan at the time sergeant bergdahl was captured. he was previously a senior defense department coordinator for afghanistan and vice president cheney's counterterrorism advisor. and then dr. mark davidson is the senior advisor at the truman national security project adjunct professor at george washington university. he previously advised both general stanley mcchrystal and general david petraeus and served on the staff of the senate armed services committee. we will start with mr. andrews. you have five minutes, sir. you will need to turn on the microphone, that little button in front of you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking members and members of the subcommittee. >> if you would, mr. andrews, sorry to interrupt, but get the microphone right in front of you. >> i'm andy andrews, father of second lieutenant darryl andrews who was killed in afghanistan while in the process of searching for bowe bergdahl. his first tour in afghanistan was in 2004 as an enlisted

soldier. he developed a medical condition that required surgery so he was sent to germany and then back to the states. he applied to the program, he was accepted into it and enrolled in 2006 at texas state university to complete his master's degree. while enrolled in rotc. he was commissioned as second lieutenant in the u.s. army, stationed at ft. benning, georgia, then briefly at ft. richardson, alaska, before being sent to afghanistan in april of 2009. we were able to talk to him by telephone whenever he got the chance to call. we conversed with him around july 1st or 3rd, his birthday is on the 3rd. he told us he had been out looking for the last 24 hours for this soldier who had walked away. i asked if the soldier had been captured while on guard duty. darren said he didn't think so because all his gear was found neatly stacked so he thought the soldier had just left. the soldier's name was not mentioned so all we knew was

that a soldier had left. darryn could not tell us where he was or what they were doing. when we would talk to him in the next few months, we would occasionally ask if they had found this soldier and he would say no, they were still looking. no name or specifics were ever mentioned. darryn was killed september 4th, 2009, which coincidentally was our 41st wedding anniversary. second lieutenant darrynd. andrews distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in combat as a platoon leader of the third platoon blackfoot company first battalion, 501st infantry airborne in support of operation enduring freedom. his wife and son, his twin brother, jared, and family were in cameron, texas, to celebrate darryn's son's second birthday on september 7 th. my wife and i had been on the coast to celebrate our anniversary. we had just pulled into our driveway and started to unload the truck. jared came over and told us that

darryn's wife's neighbor had called to tell her the army was looking for her. this was approximately 1530 hours. he told them that we would call her and tell her to be back at the house at 1830 hours. i unhooked the boat and we all went to new braunfels. the army notification team arrived at approximately 1900 hours. the sergeant told us darryn had been killed september 4th and would probably still be alive if he had remained in the truck like most officers would have instead of getting out of the truck to help get it out of the hole the ied had made. we were told he had saved soldiers' lives when he spotted an enemy combatant fire. an rpg. shoved others out of the way and alerted other soldiers. he took a direct hit from the rpg. we attended a memorial service for darryn and other soldiers killed in afghanistan. lieutenant colonel bricker's wife hosted a luncheon for us.

at that lunch, captain sandoval told us how darryn was killed. they were passing through a village. the road had walls on each side and room to maneuver as limited. the lead vehicle hit an ied and was disabled. because the walls on each side around the vehicle was not possible, they got out to assess the damage. darryn had the staff sergeant and pfc with him. he saw the enemy combatant step from behind the wall and fire an rpg. he yelled rpg and pushed them to the ground, then darryn took a direct hit from the rpg. the staff sergeant received some damage to this ears and private martinek survived and air lifted to germany but died a few days later. on february 12th, 2010, second

lieutenant darryn andrews was posthumously awarded the silver star for his heroic actions. at no time was it mentioned that he was searching for bergdahl, only searching for a high interest taliban. when bergdahl was portrayed on television as serving with honor and this distinction by susan rice, the soldiers who were there contacted my wife and made sure they knew they understood what a hero was and was not, and bergdahl's walk ing away was a contributing factor in darryn's death. i saw lieutenant colonel on television state if you want to know what happened, ask the enlisted people, don't ask the officers, because enlisted people can tell you exactly what happened. we received testimony from six different soldiers, the same testimony that bergdahl walked away and was not captured and that darryn was killed while searching for him. thank you. >> thank you, mr. andrews.

the committee now will hear from specialist full. >> chairman, ranking members, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to share my firsthand account of my experiences serving in afghanistan. one of the first things i noticed about bergdahl when he arrived to our unit, he was always asking questions, he seemed focused, he was well-read, intelligent, blended in as he needed to be, always at the right place, right time, right uniform. in november, our unit deployed the national training center to train for upcoming deployment to afghanistan. during this time, myself, nor anybody i have spoken with, can remember bergdahl walking off the base and abandoning his team. this story seems to be repeated over and over again. i have no idea why. i would have at least heard about that or known it was happening. it did not happen. in march of 2009, our brigade deployed to afghanistan but bergdahl did not make the deployment with us. he had gotten staph infection and would not make it until may 2009. soon after arriving in

afghanistan, we were tasked with building an o.p. observation post. while there, we were on the front lines digging holes for bunkers, filling sandbags, driving tee posts, hanging wire, all grueling tasks in themselves in 100 degree weather. go ahead and add your equipment, it's very tough. we were told we could take some items of clothing off to keep us from having a heatstroke. security was always set in place nobody was ever in jeopardy. this has been used against us, saying that we were a band of outlaws or misfits. not the case. leaders were reprimanded for that from somebody higher up. we in the platoon felt that it was without merit. after arriving in afghanistan, it didn't take long for bergdahl to start voicing his disagreements with the way our missions were being led. he didn't understand why we were doing more humanitarian missions instead of hunting the taliban. our team leader and squad leader

both told bergdahl that those were our orders and we will follow them. before we went out to o.p. mess the day of june 30th, 2009, about a week before we were told this is the last time we would ever go out to this observation post. during this time bergdahl mailed his items home or to a family friend. he mailed them back to the states. we didn't know this until after we got back, after he deserted and we found that his equipment had been mailed home. on the night of june 30th, or excuse me, the morning of june 30th, 100% accountability was held around 6:00 a.m. everyone was good on the proper number of men and equipment except for third squad alpha team, which was my team and squad that bergdahl was in. platoon members immediately started searching the tiny observation post for missing items, we looked under cots, latrine, under trucks, everywhere we could think.

bergdahl where was where to be found. in the single-man tent he had been sleeping in we found his gun, ammo and plate carrier. patrols were kicked out to surrounding areas to look for bergdahl. according to some small children we spoke to, they had seen a single american matching bergdahl's description crawling low on the ground through the reeds earlier that day on their way to school. the story was also confirm bid clergy and a teacher who saw the same thing. a few days later we heard from our interpreter that the american that was walking around in the afghan village looking for somebody that spoke english and water also wanted to seek out the taliban. that was from the interpreter speaking directly to us. after bergdahl was found that he walked off, dusk one was called up, duty status and whereabouts unknown. every asset in afghanistan was pushed to his effort. after bergdahl shipping his items home, local accounts of seeing him crawling and asking for the taliban, the false

stories he's e-mailed his father and odd questions all helped us connect the dots later but at the time of the unfolding events, it seemed like normal off the wall jargon common when the infantry is deployed. the facts tell me that bergdahl desertion was premeditated. he had a plan and was trying to justify it in his head. how long he had planned this, i do not know. but it is clear to me that he had a plan and executed it. countless people looked for him when he went missing, putting their own lives on the line for his. combat is difficult. the only thing you can count on in combat is commitment of your fellow american. knowing that someone you needed to trust deserted you in war and did so on his own free will is the ultimate betrayal. now that bergdahl is back in the united states, an investigation needs to take place as to why he left us. all the documents including the intelligence known on bergdahl now need to come to the public view. americans need to also see the original investigation on bergdahl's desertion. you should not be able to desert your fellow americans without consequences. bowe bergdahl should not be

characterized as having served with honor and distinction. if bergdahl hadn't deserted us, he would never have been held in captivity. in my opinion, bowe bergdahl needs to be charged with desertion, missing movement, disrespect toward superior commissioned officer, insubordinate conduct, failure to obey order, regulation, misbehavior before the enemy and misconduct as prisoner. thank you. >> thank you, specialist full. mr. waltz, your testimony for five minutes, please. >> mr. chairman, madam chairman, ranking members, thank you for holding this hearing today on a subject of vital national importance. i, too, want to take just a moment to pay tribute to the family members of the nows who have served their country in this conflict, particularly the andrews family that are here with us today. at the end of the day, we volunteered, we volunteered to go, but the families have to

deal with the consequences of our service. on june 30th, 2009, i commanded a u.s. army special forces company with responsibility for operations in eastern afghanistan, particularly paktika province where then-private bergdahl went missing. that evening, two of my special forces teams boarded helicopters in an effort to search an afghan compound where we had indication that bergdahl may be held. this marked the beginning of several weeks worth of missions into some of the most hostile areas of afghanistan, the pakistan border, to find him. within days, we received orders to halt all other ongoing missions and initiatives, notably including preparations for the 2009 afghan national elections. we were ordered to devote all resources and energy to the search for bergdahl. it soon became apparent, however, that the taliban knew we were conducting an all-out search for him and they began feeding false information into our informant network in order to lure our forces into a trap.

on several occasions, my men were lured into ambushes, including an afghan home rigged with explosives, a car bomb that was primed to explode, and other types of deadly traps. fortunately, the bombs failed to explode in those situations but they were too close for comfort. other soldiers as we know were not so fortunate. all of us commonly understood at the time that bergdahl had walked off his post after a guard shift into a local afghan village. we knew, though, that we had to do whatever it took to find him and that was fine. but i have to tell you, all of my men, me included, were absolutely furious and resentful, frankly, that a fellow american soldier had put us into this position. it violated the most fundamental and basic ethos of being a soldier and a soldier's creed. i will leave further speculation regarding his state of mind or his motives to my fellow witnesses who knew him personally. but i am confident in saying sergeant bergdahl endangered the lives of thousands of men and

women sent to search for him. he diverted scarce and valuable resources such as predator drones, helicopters, ied clearing teams, from other units that desperately needed those assets. wittingly or unwittingly, he handed our enemies a significant propaganda tool they repeatedly used in videos to denounce the united states and recruit for their cause. finally, we all know that he handed the taliban's leadership a strategic bargaining tool that they effectively used to free five of their most senior leaders, what i call the taliban war cabinet. i just want to take a moment, i think it's important to put the release of these men in the broader context of our policy towards afghanistan. as i'm sure you are aware, millions of afghans voted in the runoff election this past saturday. there in the midst of one of the most sensitive and unprecedented political transitions in their history, in my view, there are still significant questions whether they will succeed.

everybody that i've spoken to from civilian society to government officials are stunned that we would release these individuals back into their society. we have to keep in mind, these men were household names, particularly -- household names of the worst kind, particularly to women and minorities that were slaughtered at their hands. it's the timing, though, of this release that has some of these groups so particularly perplexed. we have spent the last year dueling and cajoling president karzai to sign a long-time security agreement with us, the bilateral security agreement. both of the final candidates replaced karzai indicated they would sign it yet weeks before the presidential election the administration announces a full withdrawal of all u.s. forces by the end of '16, essentially a zero option, and then we restocked the taliban war cabinet. so even if the government of qatar is able to prevent these men from returning to their old ways, what will happen a year from now? a year in that part of the world is a blink of an eye to people who have long memories and a

long view toward their objectives. one can understand the confusion and transparency -- and trepidation, excuse me, of even the most ardent supporterses of a strong afghan/u.s. relationship. so where does that leave our policy going forward? in my view, it's one of hope and assumption, we're assuming an afghan army can hold its ground. we're assuming there will be no ethnic violence as a part of the transition. we're assuming reconciliation talks will resume in our favor. and most importantly, we are assuming that al qaeda can't reconstitute like it has in iraq and in syria. i would just leave you with a word of caution. if that scares us and what's going on right now with isis in iraq and syria should, what's going to happen when we're dealing with a nuclear arsenal in pakistan? i have other views that i'm happy to answer in questions on aumf and on future gitmo releases but i am out of time. with that, i will stop, sir. >> thank you, mr. walsh. dr. jacobson for five minutes,

please, sir. >> mr. chairman, madam chairman, ranking members and distinguished members of the joint subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i should first note that i, too, extend my gratitude to the andrews family for the sacrifice they have made. i would like to have known their son. from what i have read and from what i have heard, he's a true hero. i'm also honored to be sitting beside my friend, mike waltz, who is also a true patriot and hero and has served his nation bravely in afghanistan. thank you specialist full for your service as well. as someone who served in the pentagon on september 11th, 2001, the threat posed by terrorism is not lost on me. while i had made the decision years before to devote myself to my nation, that day changed all of our lives forever. as a result, i spent several years in afghanistan as a naval intelligence officer and later, as a civilian advisor. i am acutely aware of the danger that remains today in afghanistan.

for the four of us at the table, this conflict is personal and we all feel the impact of this war in a way most americans do not. one of the greatest commitments an american can make to their nation is put on a uniform and take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. by taking this oath, these men and women make the selfless decision to put their country first. they do so knowing that they may be one day called to give that last full measure of devotion, to give their lives for their comrades, their families, and their nation. in exchange for that, the military makes its own promise, a promise to keep faith with those who have been captured. the commitment is simple. leave no man or woman behind, no exceptions. this commitment is unequivocal regardless of the circumstances of capture. this is something we owe to all those who have served, do serve and will serve. in short, this is why i believe that securing sergeant

bergdahl's release was absolutely the right thing to do and was worth the potential risks. indeed, if bergdahl did act improperly, then it is even more important that he be brought home and held accountable in the military system for his actions. while there is always risk when releasing detainees, those risks must be seen within a broader context. indeed, the potential risks for the administration are no greater today than they were during the previous administration when 532 detainees were released from guantanamo bay. but there are reasons why given the situation today, we should temper our concerns. first, as outlined by secretary of defense hagel, the qatari government has committed to significant risk mitigation measures. second, there is not a consensus these five individuals will inevitably return to the battlefield and if they do, the afghanistan of 2014 is simply not the afghanistan of 2001.

as mike waltz mentioned, the afghan people have just gone through elections. 14 million ballots cast in two separate elections in open defiance of the taliban. the strength of the insurgency will not regenerate because of the presence of five more individuals on the battlefield, especially since they have been off the battlefield for over a decade. some have questioned whether the recent prisoner exchange created new precedents that will endanger the lives of u.s. personnel. while the exchange of sergeant bergdahl took place before the end of the war in afghanistan, in the past we have conducted prisoner exchanges before the end of hostilities. world war ii and the korean war, for example. likewise, the threat of kidnapping to u.s. members of the armed forces by terrorists and insurgents has long been the case in afghanistan. it was my own number one threat while i served in uniform. there is no reason to think that this calculus will be changed by the recent exchange. finally, the united states has been negotiating with the

taliban for some time now. a recognition that the war in afghanistan cannot end without a political settlement. i understand the disappointment we feel in the stories coming out about sergeant bowe bergdahl and i understand the anger felt by some of his comrades who feel that he deliberately left his post. if i were them, i might feel the same way. but the truth is, we do not yet know the whole truth. in our nation of laws, the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. people are innocent until proven guilty. thus, before passing judgment, there must be a thorough investigation. it must be allowed to take place without politics or partisanship. without that, we are unlikely to ever have accountability. we may not like it but in the end, foreign affairs and national security policy are often about juggling bad options and finding a least worst approach. there are rarely simple solutions. the decision to exchange sergeant bergdahl may be imperfect but it was the right decision. we never leave our soldiers behind. thank you again, mr. chairman, madam chairwoman, for inviting

me to testify. i am pleased to stand ready for your questions. >> i thank you all of you all for your testimony. we will now go to questions by the individual members. i recognize myself for five minutes. there are several issues that have come to light during this hearing. the first one is sergeant bergdahl, who is he, why did he leave his post, and what's going to happen to him in the future. the second would be those that looked for him, what happened to some of them and what did the government, the u.s. army, tell those who lost sons looking for him? there is the issue of do we negotiate with terrorists or do we not negotiate with terrorists, what is the foreign policy of the united states? maybe one of you could come up with that answer to that question. and then there's the taliban five or as mr. waltz has called them, the taliban war cabinet, i believe was what the term was.

who are these folks and why were they at gitmo in the first place and what are they going to do in the future? so those are the four issues that i want to address. start with you, mr. andrews. what did the army tell you about the way your son was killed? turn on the mike, please, sir. >> way too technical. they said that they were searching for high ranking taliban and they had gone to this bazaar to search for him and because this was actually in the silver star commendation, because they had so many problems with ieds on the roads, that instead of coming in from the south, they sent them around to come in from the north -- >> excuse me for interrupting. they told you your son was looking for a taliban commander of some type? >> bergdahl was never mentioned. >> all right. when did you learn that that was not true? >> last saturday. >> were you ever instructed or

asked or told by the u.s. army to sign a confidentiality agreement not to tell anybody about what you were told by the army? >> i was not. but the soldiers who have contacted my wife were asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement, they said. >> all right. sergeant full, you obviously are very passionate about your testimony. were members of the united states military killed looking for bergdahl? >> i don't know. what i do know is we were told we wouldn't be in certain areas before he went and deserted us. so if he wouldn't have deserted us, those people wouldn't have been in those places where they were killed on that date. they would have been somewhere else. they would have been in a different section of afghanistan. >> mr. waltz, do you want to weigh in on that specific question?

>> mr. chairman, i can't draw and i don't know of anyone that can draw a direct line but i can tell you to the best of my knowledge, every unit, particularly in paktika province where specialist full was located but also mine and the surrounding provinces were dedicated to that search. someone was killed during that specific amount of time, unless they tripped and hit their head on the way to the mess hall, they were out looking for sergeant bergdahl. >> the taliban war cabinet, mr. waltz, you indicated a lot of concern about who these guys are. one of them, even the united nations has indicted one of them for war crimes. who are these people? americans really aren't sure -- don't know who these five folks are. >> mr. chairman, we have released now the taliban's deputy minister of defense, a senior operative in their intelligence service, that was

responsible for migrating al qaeda intelligence tactics over to the taliban, we have released the former taliban governor of harat, their westernmost province on the border with iran and was responsible for liaising with the government on behalf of the taliban and we released gentlemen that were wanted for war crimes for literally massacring thousands of the ethnic minority that are shia. if we look at the sectarian violence going on across the middle east, i wouldn't call that necessarily a wise move. these gentlemen, the question i can't get anyone to ask that was involved with this, and i have talked to a number, is why did the taliban pick those five, out of all of the spectrum of folks they could have chosen out of guantanamo, why did we give them essentially their top five draft picks? >> one follow-up question on that.

understanding the agreement, qatar is supposed to supervise them but the supervision of house arrest, if you will, is for one year. is this your understanding of the deal that was made? >> that's my understanding, mr. chairman. frankly, i think some of the details of what they can or can't do in the next year are almost moot. the fact is it's only for a year. >> last question, dr. jacobson. we have heard this through the media, lovelady family in texas was told that the united states doesn't negotiate with terrorists. their son was later killed in the algerian attack. does the united states have a policy that we don't negotiate with terrorists or we don't have a policy? >> what i can tell you is that i don't believe that the bergdahl exchange is an example of negotiating with terrorists. i believe it is an exchange of prisoners, something that we have seen historically toward the end of war. >> thank you very much. the chair will recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from california, mr. sherman.

five minutes. >> let me first put to rest this absurd argument that these five taliban prisoners would have had to have been released under the laws of war when we concluded combat operations in 2014 or when we were down to a couple hundred trainers in 2016. i'm pleased to note for our record that just last week, the general counsel of the department of defense, steve preston, testified there that we would continue to have legal right to hold taliban prisoners, not just with the conclusion of war in afghanistan but until the broader battle defined under the aumf was concluded. we are going to continue to have american trainers in afghanistan for many many years. the taliban soldiers will try to kill those trainers. the laws of war do not require us to augment the forces trying

to wage war against our trainers or against the afghan government. we are at war with the taliban for as long as they and their -- are allied with terrorist organizations waging war against the united states, or as long as the taliban is waging war against the government in afghanistan. dr. jacobson, i've got a number of questions i'm hoping you will be able to answer very succinctly in some cases with a yes or no answer. we are told that some of these five released are, quote, wanted by the u.n. for war crimes. does the u.n. have a process by which anyone can be wanted by the u.n. for war crimes? have they ever indicted anybody? do they have a process to indict anybody? >> i'm unaware of that. i understand that there is some debate over how that came in some of the d.o.d. documents, where that came from. >> there are many urban legends in foreign policy. are any of these five under indictment from the

international criminal court or any other recognized body that focuses on war crimes? >> you would have to ask the department of state or you would have to ask -- >> are you aware -- >> i'm not aware. no. >> i did ask you to research this, didn't i? >> what i think is important, congressman, is understanding again this context. these individuals are dangerous but they are simply not going back to that same battlefield from which they were captured. >> dr. jacobson, i have very limited time. i want to go on to something else. the question arises whether continued patrols should have been made to try to retrieve sergeant bergdahl and i should note for the record here that senators burr and toobey and senate republican leader mitch mcconnell along with eight republican members of the house, at a time when we already knew

the mysterious circumstances of bergdahl's departure and that that was widely published, put forward a resolution stating that abandoning the search efforts for members of the armed forces who are missing or captured is unacceptable. at the time, there was only one member of our armed services missing or captured and these fine members of congress, house and senate, knew full well that those additional patrols that they were demanding would be dangerous for our armed forces. i should also point out that as to whether this deal is a good deal, it was senator mccain who knew exactly the parameters of this deal except for the details. that it was these five for one named bergdahl. because the possible outlines of this deal were published on the front page of the "washington post" on february 17th and in that context on february 18th. senator mccain said he was for the deal if the details were correct. now, maybe the details don't

meet his specifications but it is indeed a close call whether this five for one deal was or was not in the national security interests of the united states. we are told that it's somehow news that we have revealed to the taliban that we care about our prisoners. the only other democracy to have soldiers captured in the middle east to my knowledge is israel. dr. jacobson, what were the israelis willing to do to get back their sergeant major? >> i don't want to mistake the details of that particular case. what i am aware of is at times the israelis have exchanged over 1,000 prisoners for one individual and also, they have exchanged prisoners for the remains of their fallen. >> so anyone observing the practices of democracies doing battle in the middle east would reach the conclusion that if you can capture somebody,

democracies have a particular need to try to get that person back and are willing to make extraordinary concessions, as you point out, sometimes 1,000 to 1? >> i don't think anyone would disagree with the point that our democracy has shown that cares a great deal about our men and women who have been left behind. >> finally, as to these five released taliban, their battlefield experiences from 2001. would they be familiar -- were the tactics that they are familiar with near as good as the tactics used by the taliban today? >> unfortunately, in my opinion, the insurgents in afghanistan have evolved tremendously since that period in 2001. in terms of their tactics. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, thank you all for being here. i just, again, we are going to the idea of let's point out anybody that ever said anything about releasing this one person and therefore, the administration made the right decision because others said it.

i would be remiss if i didn't make a bigger point here on the afghanistan issue which is the president has announced that in january of 2017, all american troops will be out of afghanistan. and you know, that's fine for him to make that decision, but i would just point people to what's happening in iraq today as a precursor of what's going to happen in afghanistan if that occurs. but again, we are here for this specific issue. again, i want to thank all of you for being here. let me ask a question to the specialist. what do you think, when you were in training and you heard this idea of your country will never leave you behind and it's something that as members of the armed forces, we take very seriously, and something that we take a great deal of comfort in. when you heard that, what is your understanding of your country will never leave you behind mean? what does that guarantee in your mind and is that an idea that they will lease 5 or 1,000 terrorists to get you back?

what is it that meant to you, specialist? >> well, what it meant to me is, you know, i put my nation first when i volunteered to serve the united states army in time of war. so by putting them first, they would put me first to a certain extent. but you keep hearing we shouldn't leave no man behind because we can trade with another nation and it's done in all these previous wars. taliban is not a nation. they are a terrorist organization. so is the how khan haqqani network who held bowe bergdahl. i got from it leave no honorable man behind, not leave no man behind. >> do you believe so you may be in touch with folks that are still in afghanistan or obviously people you served with. i will ask the four of you. you can expand on this, specialist, if you want. the other three, i will ask to keep fairly short. do you believe that the release of bergdahl for the taliban and the subsequent video they put out, obviously has to have some

meaning. showing, i.e., the american helicopter leaving in an essence withdrawing from the area. do you believe that was a propaganda victory or propaganda def fefeat for the taliban, andt do you think that does to the heart of a soldier that saw this happen, specialist? >> i think it's a propaganda victory for the taliban and haqqani network. it's kind of a direct, they traded one for five. it's simple math. >> do you sense that this will help or hurt the taliban's recruiting effort to recruit people to kill americans and to kill afghans who have put their lives on the line to build a strong and stable country? >> i would assume it would help them, not hurt them. >> mr. andrews, what's your thought on that question? >> from what i can see, it was a victory, propaganda wise, for the taliban. they won is the way it looks like when you see the footage. so i think it would benefit the taliban greatly. i think it also puts soldiers

more in danger of being captured because the rewards are more for getting one and trading him. rather than -- >> thank you. mr. waltz and mr. jacobson, very quickly, if you guys could just respond with yes or no, basically. >> very quickly, mullah omar, the leader of the taliban, considered it a victory and stated so as soon as he received his five top commanders back. >> i don't trust mullah omar so i would say it pales by comparison to the video that could have taken place with one of our soldiers being beheaded like we saw with nick berg or daniel pearl. >> that's an interesting twist. your twist is, you don't trust this guy, therefore, him saying that it was a victory for his organization is probably a lie. i mean, that's kind of surprising to me, because i think if it was not a victory for them, they probably wouldn't have said anything or released a video and they probably would have sat back and been very

quiet about it. that's an interesting spin. you have a right to your opinion but i think that was an interesting take that the other three do not share. do you believe, specialist, do you believe he intentionally left his post and do you have a sense as to why he might have intentionally left? >> yes. i do believe he left without a doubt. we knew within an hour, two hours, that he had deserted. i don't know why he did it. he obviously had a plan. it was premeditated. why would you ship all your items home and then, you know, in the middle of a deployment. so with the e-mails and other questions he asked us connecting the dots later, yeah, he deserted without a doubt. >> i get -- thank you. while i get some folks saying we need to wait to have this adjudicated in court, the i understand the wrd of that,

the reality is sergeant bergdahl left his post. we know it. now, was he a full mental state, i guess that can be determined. but there are a lot of people that have had mental challenges with dealing with what happened in afghanistan and iraq that still do not leave their brothers and sisters behind in combat. so with that, mr. chairman, i thank the witnesses and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. deutsche, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. waltz, sergeant bergdahl was designated missing and captured, right? at the time? >> my understanding, sir, is he was designated missing and prisoner of war and that's why he was since promoted in absentia. that confers a number of benefits. >> dr. jacobson, how is that determination made? >> well, that determination is made by the department of defense. i don't know the specific details what they would have to go through. but i would agree with my understanding is the same as mike's.

>> for both of you, what process -- i understand as i said in my opening statements and as we now have been confirmed by some of the comments by my colleagues. some of them know what happened. they've reached a conclusion. it was obvious, we're told. but what does the military actually do to reach the same conclusion? what steps does the military take in determining whether someone who is determined to be missing is actually -- has actually deserted? mr. waltz? >> congressman, i think the key point here is what the military has done to date has been initial and therefore incomplete. they have not done a full investigation and therefore, i'm not sure how one could draw a full conclusion as to what they think -- what we think happened. >> well, but how do they -- do you have any further insight? it seems very easy from what a

lot of elected officials say. it's not that hard to figure out. he's a deserter and apparently we shouldn't have made this deal. but what has -- what's the military done to reach that same conclusion? >> sir, my understanding out in the field at the time was that a 15-6 which is a type of investigation under ucmj was conducted. a number of the folks that were there on site were interviewed and that the reason that investigation was not closed was they needed to interview the subject at hand who was obviously missing. >> and if that investigation continues, what might they learn? dr. jacobson? what could they learn during that investigation? >> from what i have seen in the press so far, a great deal has come out. for example, we have seen information come out that perhaps sergeant bergdahl tried to escape several times, which forced his captors to put him into isolation. we have now seen reports about sergeant bergdahl's prior enlistment in the coast guard. i walk away with more questions from what i've seen come out so far.

we have even seen today in testimony, what type of person is or was sergeant bergdahl? so, again, more questions which is exactly why there needs to be a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his capture. >> dr. jacobson, mr. waltz, what happens if my colleagues are wrong? what happens if the military completes its investigation and determines any one of a thousand different things happened and that sergeant bergdahl was in fact missing and a prisoner of war, not a deserter? can you speak to that? >> let me speak to it, mike may have some other comments, but my concern is if we look back at what happened to many of our prisoners of war during the korean war and during the vietnam war, many were accused of collaboration and not acting properly. in fact, senator mccain was at

the forefront of ensuring that many of those records were sealed until proper investigations could be done, because our enemies want us to think that certain things happened. and i'm not suggesting one way or another that this happened during the bergdahl case. that's why we have to be careful, so we don't impugn those who didn't do wrong. >> i only have a minute left. let me just cut to the chase. if the military conducts its full investigation and determines that sergeant bergdahl -- determines sergeant bergdahl is a deserter, what's the penalty for that? >> sir, in war time, and there is some debate whether this has been officially declared as a war, in war time, that can be punishable up to death. there are various forms of ucmj punishment, obviously less than that, but to your point, sir, there has been a lot of discussion of rush to judgment and i would postulate that at

least i would have reacted very differently. i know specialist full would have reacted very differently if this had been handled appropriately in the first few days after his release with the accusations of hero and served with distinction. and what have you. >> mr. waltz, i'm grateful for the distinction in your approach. in all sincerity, i'm glad you made that comment. i would just finish with this last question. as you point out, there are a whole range of punishments under the uniform code of military justice. is one of those punishments subcontracting out to the taliban to decide how to punish someone? i yield back. >> you may answer the question yes or no. if you can. >> mr. chairman, i'm not sure i understand the question. >> okay. the gentleman does yield back his time. the chair will recognize the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton, for five minutes. >> mr. and mrs. andrews, i am

deeply sorry for your loss. nothing will bring back your son darryn but hopefully the truth, which i would like to get at in the next five minutes, will help salve the wounds that no doubt are still with you. for the record, i would like to corroborate what specialist full and mr. waltz have said about the impact on missions across afghanistan. i was in longman province where we saw the diversion of air assets to search for sergeant bergdahl. second, i would also like to stipulate for the record that if there were no doubt private bergdahl had been captured heroically on the field of battle trying to save his fellow americans, i would still think trading five senior taliban commanders was a bad idea. likewise, even though all evidence points toward his desertion, it would still be the right thing to do to try to rescue him, as specialist full and lieutenant andrews did. and of course, he deserves his day in court according to his chain of command without unlawful command influence from

this president or any civilian leaders or general officers in the pentagon. now, mr. jacobson, would you trade khalid shaikh mohammed for private bergdahl? >> congressman, that -- >> reclaiming my time, it's a simple yes or no question. >> i don't think that there are simple yes or no questions like that. >> reclaiming my time, i gather by your unwillingness to answer the question, you realize that you cannot answer it. tony blinken, the president's senior deputy security adviser, said that he would not. so i guess that means under those circumstances, the president would have been leaving private bergdahl behind. moving to specialist full, you say in your statement that you were part of alpha team. were you on the same team as private bergdahl? >> same platoon, same squad, same team. >> so down to the lowest level for those of you that don't know, that's a four man fire team. >> we were one man short. it was just me, him -- >> three man. were you his team leader at the

time? >> no, i was not. >> okay. so you were among the one or two people in the platoon who had been working most closely with him and seen him in action day after day after day. >> yes. >> okay. i have heard numerous reports that private bergdahl sought out and had civilian afghanistan friends, something i saw commonly in afghanistan and iraq, soldiers engaging in conversation, oftentimes innocent, with children, maybe dining on base with afghan security officers. is that an accurate report, that he had these civilian friends in and around? >> yes. >> okay. you testify, or you state in your testimony that a cleric and teacher saw him crawling as well as children and you heard over the radio via an interpreter an american was looking for someone in afghan village who spoke english and wanted to talk to the taliban. if he had numerous civilian afghan friends, is it curious to you that he would ask them where the taliban is, rather than simply hide out with them? >> i'm not sure i understand the

question. >> if private bergdahl left his post and intended as you say to wander across the mountains, perhaps to india, do you think it's curious that he would be asking his friends in afghanistan where the taliban is, rather than just hanging out and hiding with his friends? >> yes. >> tactics, techniques and procedures, ttps, that describes how we conduct operations, what is the established order for conducting any particular task or operation in the army, is that correct? >> yes. >> in the missions after private bergdahl's disappearance, did it appear that the afghan enemy had greater knowledge of your unit's ttp such as where you park after an ied or how you react to an ambush? >> i don't know if they had greater knowledge after he did disappear. i don't know if another player moved into the area or whatnot but after he did disappear, yeah, the ambushes picked up, cover and concealment was used. they hit us hard after he left. ieds were moved in different

directions and they were, instead of taking a tire or front end off a vehicle, they were hitting direct hits. on the vehicles. >> that would be consistent with >> and that would be consistent with the private being held in captivity and breaking under interrogation and sharing those ttps; correct? >> i don't know. i wasn't there while he was, you know, held under captivity. i don't know what he told them. i wasn't there. >> could also be consistent with the fact that he willingly shared those ttps with the taliban; correct? >> like i said, i wasn't there. >> when you were conducting missions in the days and weeks after his disappearance, did any of your ncos or your platoon company commander leader, did he risk himself if you were to find him on the battlefield? >> our main focus, at that point, was just trying to find him and get him back. it didn't matter how, who or

when. that was our main focus from the time he left until about 2 1/2 months later. >> were you asked to sign an article 59? >> i was asked to sign an immediate gag order. there were other people in my platoon who were asked to sign an mda with a field-grade officer witness them sign it. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. jacobson, obviously, we've heard testimony today and there have been some reports of some unusual behavior atributed to sergeant bergdahl. obviously, our soldiers are able to sustain the stresses of combat without experiencing unusual behaviors. is there a system or process in

place to evaluate the behavior of a soldier? to make a determination as to whether or not it's related to the combat operations related to his or her service. ? congressman, speaking from my own experience, the first line of defense, when you have a soldier who's a problem or is not doing things right and the officers above them, there were also a great deal of effort expended to make sure that there were preventive mental health clinics and places where soldiers k go. i cannot speak with specifics here. >> but there's a system in place to monitor members of the armed forces to ensure that we're understanding the impact of being in combat and the stresses of their service. >> that's my understanding. especially over the last decade. >> and, in addition to that, one of the reasons -- there's a

process to conduct a hearing and an investigation and a review of those facts. to mike a determination as to whether or not someone has deserted or something else is going on. is that right? >> absolutely. >> and there's a process that will happen, in fact, in this case, as it relates to this individual. >> in fact, the department of defense, earlier this week, announced that there will be a two-star general who will be leading the overall investigation. we've heard army chief of staff say that there will be a full investigation and that was echoed by chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >> so in addition to that, we have this other principle about ensuring that we leave no soldier behind. it's part of the soldier's creed. it's a deeply held american belief and practice that we leave no soldier behind and we do everything we can to secure the release of any american who's caught in time of war;

correct? >> that is something that i believe in. that is something that i think even if you don't like the circumstances of someone being captured, you believe it's necessary to go and get then. >> so why would we do this hairballing and investigation and all the things that are going to happen now before we secure the release of an american? couldn't we do it that way. >> i'm not sure i understand your question. >> we can't conduct the kind of investigation that's required prior to securing the release of the prisoner of war, in most instances? >> i think that would be difficult. you want to interview the individual captured. >> right. >> and so it makes sense, then, that we do everything we can to secure the release of every american prisoner of war.

and if, in fact, an investigation proves that they've engaged in some misconduct, they will, of course, be punished in an appropriate way. and if this person turns out to leaving, there could be a death sentence. >> i understand that death is a possible punishment, too. i would note that the last american deserter prosecuted, charles jenkins in the '60s, when he came back to the united states, 2006, 2008 time frame, he was court marshalled, sentenced to 26 days confinement and then given a dishonorable discharge that. 's after the investigation and after charges are referred and there's a trial and all. >> and my final question is what do you think the impact would be on our american military if our men and women did not know that this country was committed to

securing their release and to undertaking every r every imaginable effort to bring them home? >> i think first that that would shatter the bonds of trust between the soldiers and the american people, the chain of command. secondly, i think it could be an enormous propaganda for our enemies when they have these people in captivity that we don't care about. it would signal, in many ways, that we no longer are committed to our men and women in uniform. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman is recognized from california, mr. colonel cook, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. andrews, i know it's tough to be here. probably the hardest duty is to actually go up to the parents or the spouses and to tell them

that their son or daughter is no longer with them. that is very tough and everything. we've gone through, again, my heartfelt condolences. specialists. if you could bear with me, some of the questions. i understand that his weapon was left behind? >> that is correct. >> all of his ammunition? >> ammunition, night vision -- >> night vision device was left behind? >> yes. a couple days before that, he had asked another platoon member what would happen if one of his sensitive items went missing, would that certain soldier get in trouble. that certain soldier responded yes. >> did he have access to radio freqs? >> he would, but he didn't have a radio with him. >> no, but just the frequencies themselves? they were all pre-programmed into the radio? >> yeah, state procedure is you change your radio frequencies.

>> any maps or any gps systems at all that went with him? or was that all left behind? >> i don't know if he had a map on him. gps would be sensitive equipment. he didn't have that. >> i think there's been a plot of talk about desertion and everything else. correct me if i'm wrong, but usually, in a situation like that, desertion is pretty much an admin term. one of the elements that you have to prove is permanent desertion. so an individual that would disappear from the unit, i don't know, all the instances that i had, and i was a legal officer when i came back from normally, just unauthorized absence. that's one of the charges. you have to prove permanent desertion from the unit. am i correct or incorrect? >> that's correct. awol also turns into desertion after 30 days. >> administratively. okay. a couple of things in terms

of just trusting in the unit. i get the impression that the unit itself, and i really believe in the code of conduct. i believe in taking care of the unit and giving your life and things like that. but i believe you lost trust in the individual that he would be on your right blank or left blank? >> me or the rest of the platoon? >> you, and if you had any opinions as to the feeling of the rest of the platoon. >> the rest of the platoon, we're brothers. >> no, but i meant the attitude of this individual that was missing in action. >> no, he walked off on his own accord. if he never would have walked off, he never would have been held in captivity. the rest of us fought for the guy on our left and right and front and the back. i don't know how he felt about us.

but we all felt strongly that we would give our lives for him. in terms of the taliban, five of their top leaders, five of the ones called a strategy, five of the ones that are involved in terrorism are released. >> i'd feel pretty good about getting my top level guys back, personally. >> i understand that. but i understand that from the standpoint of the taliban, that