they should vote for me over the other prison are why my ideas are better than the other person's ideas or why the future i'm envisioning is better than what the other person is but taken it to the step where they are actually cultivating a spirit of division is one of the things that is going on in this country right now which is really insidious. i think if you have the privilege of serving which i feel like i do we should all be in addition swearing to defend and protect the constitution we should be swearing the american people that we will go out of our way. the country is inherently stronger when reunified. >> watch this weekend on c-span. next testimony on u.s. policy in afghanistan from alex wells assistant secretary of

state for affairs. she discussed the potential for peace from afghan forces and the taliban and told the foreign affairs committee how much longer she thought u.s. forces would be needed in that country in order to achieve the administration's goals. this is one and a half hours. >>this hearing will come to order. afghanistan has been at war since 1979. the human suffering has been horrendous. real threats to u.s. national security have followed, as a result the u.s. has had no choice but to engage in afghanistan. first, we helped counter the brutal soviet invasion, then we helped dislodge the taliban and combat al qaeda after the september 11 attacks.

afghanistan has been called america's longest war. thousands of americans have lost their lives. we have spent hundreds of billions. this investment aims to achieve a stable afghanistan does not harbor international terrorists. should the afghan government fail, the vacuum would be filled. isis and the ayatollah would be among those who would benefit. today we will ask where should we gofrom here. we currently have 14000 u.s. troops in afghanistan, this is dramatically down from a high of 100,000 in 2011. the current focus is training afghan security focus and

counterterrorism and there has been some success. fortunately many allies are still with us,but afghans need the ability and the will to fight for their own country. last week, there is a brief cease-fire. there is renewed outreach to the taliban which the administration endorsed. yet, the taliban continues the fight and has rejected offers to enter into negotiations with the internationally recognized and backed afghan government. this conflict does not need a sustainable political resolution of some sort. that could fall apart. what it needs is a well thought, sustainable situation that will hold for the people of afghanistan and that leads to a credible, confident afghan governments. with the administration moving

in the right direction by scrapping restrictive rules of engagement that had hamstrung u.s. forces. it dropped a politically driven timeline for engagement established by the previous administration. it is putting more pressure on pakistan -- which aids in abets that taliban and other jihadist groups. caliban finances are being targeted. these are good steps but it is unclear if they will change the fundamentals that have frustrated us for so long. after all of these years what do we know about the time a band? -- caliban?how fragmented is it? can it ever be brought into a durable political state. would pakistan, russia, or iran both increasingly engaged with the taliban sabotage any settlement? we should be proud of our accomplishments including dramatically expanding

education and the cause of women despite rampant corruption. i have met with some of these women. the girls canal go to schools. that was prohibited of course under the taliban. i spoke to teachers who had the soles of their feet last when they were caught teaching girls. the stories of these girls are incredibly inspiring. the stories of women who are now part of the government in afghanistan are inspiring. frankly and other ways we have been treading water. while leaving today would do more harm than good our substantial military commitment to afghanistan cannot be open- ended. we need to see more progress. with that, if we have a ranking member is not with us yet.

he will make his statement after your opening statement. this morning i am pleased to welcome alice wells principal deputy assistant secretary of state for south and central agent -- asian affairs. she has been serving as the principal assistant deputy secretary of state since june 2017. she is a career foreign service officer and she has previously served as the united states ambassador to the kingdom of jordan. she has held numerous positions within the department of state and has extensive experience in south and central asia. we very much appreciate her being with us today. without objection the witnesses full prepared statement is going to be madethe record. members are going to have five calendar days to submit any

statements or questions or extraneous material for the record. i will ask ambassador wells of she will summarize her remarks and afterwards we will go to questions. thank you. >> chairman and ranking members thank you for inviting me to appear today to discuss the administration strategy in afghanistan. this is a timely hearing. just last week a cease-fire, the first in 17 years brought peace to the area. like many americans i was struck by the images of afghan soldiers and the taliban praying together side-by-side. if afghan troops and foot soldiers can pray together then we have every reason to believe that their leaders can come together and negotiate an end to the war helping to jumpstart

an afghan peace process is among secretary pompeo's highest priority and has been my focus since assuming responsibility for this account one year ago. the south asian strategy announced last august is making a difference. the approach has signaled to the taliban that they cannot win on the battlefield and has provided the president with renewed consonants to pursue a negotiated settlement. his invitation to pursue a peace process without precinct -- preconditions was unprecedented. equally unprecedented was his announcement of a tease -- cease-fire surrounding the holidays. the national outpouring of relief and joy was unlike anything afghanistan has seen. caliban fire nurse wanted in the streets of the city. they sampled traits with afghan citizens and worshiped alongside those they were exchanging fire with just a few days earlier. for many afghans it was an exhilarating first taste of what peace may look like.

the united states has made clear that we are prepared to support, facilitate, and participate in direct negotiations between the afghan government and the taliban. we will support all afghan stakeholders as they work to reach a mutually agreeable negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and ensures that afghanistan is never again used as a safe haven for terrorists groups. the desired outcome for any peace process is clear and has not changed. the taliban must renounced violence and break ties with al qaeda. those cornerstones remain potent enemies. it is having an impact on the battlefield with tactical level support from u.s. military advisers. the afghan security forces have slowed the taliban's momentum. improve their support and a generational shift in leadership and a doubling of the size of special forces are creating conditions for

political process to achieve the lasting peace. alongside the military campaign we are working with our partners especially in the gulf to help strangle the taliban is illicit revenue from narcotics trafficking. we are supporting the afghan government's outreach to the global community to delegitimize the religious underpinnings of the tele-bands violent campaign. -- taliban's filing campaign. we are also calling on the neighbors to take additional steps for peace despite some positive indicators we have not yet seen pakistan takes this decisive step that we believe needs to be pursued including arresting or excelling elements that will not come to the negotiating table. we are also encouraging the afghan government reforms that will further sapped the insurgency and its course. the upcoming afghan elections for parliament in october and for president in early 2019 must be timely, transparent, and credible.

we are providing targeted assistance to the electoral institutions to assist with registration and reduce voter fraud. more than 6 million afghans have registered to vote and more than 5000 candidates will be standing for public office. the presidents an economic reformer but afghanistan still ranks near the bottom in transparency. there has been some institutional progress including the establishment of an anticorruption justice center but progress has been slow. there have been bright spots as well so for the last year the afghan government has improved its physical performance and is funding a greater share of its budget. the u.s. share of donor support has dropped from 50% in 2012 to 25% today. the afghan people who face the deadly toll of this war every day understand the need for peace and also do the thousands of personnel working to implement the is strategies.

the key question remains will the taliban join the peace process and make the compromise necessary to join the war. we are prepared to test this proposition. mr. chairman and ranking members thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee. the support of congress is crucial to the strategic progress and i look forward to addressing your questions. >> thank you. we now go to mr. elliott ingle of new york. >> thank you con mr. chairman. thank you for calling the hearing and ambassador thank you for your time and your service. our policy toward afghanistan is critical. 50,000 troops on the ground fighting america's longest war and we provide millions in assistance every year. after september 11 our troops and allies have performed heroically. there has been significant progress on the anti-terrorism

front against al qaeda. it is once estimated as many as 5000 al qaeda fighters afghan it -- it is now thought to be in the low hundreds. unfortunately the gains are not comparable. the trump administration announced this approach to deal with the stalemate nearly a year ago. it is meant to be a so-called conditions based approach designed to win. and includes a stronger mining in pakistan and a larger role for india. it eliminates timetables and suspends targeting authorities and the u.s. forces and commits to standing additional troops. the administration seems to be forcing an end to the war at the negotiating table but what happens if the stalemate is not broken and the u.s. specter --

inspector general -- found that the share between afghanistan and government control influenced was 56% which is unfortunately the lowest level ever recorded. we need to be honest even with the best military in the world it's not possible to kill every member of the taliban . despite the presidents taught even members of the administration acknowledged that the war in afghanistan will not be one on the battlefield. they need us tragedy. i think all of the countries which have committed trips to the fight in afghanistan. but i worry with attacks on nato and our allies coming from the president we are undermining the very alliance which binds the coalition fighting for the future. rather than bring more americans the administration should focus its resources on achieving a political resolution to the conflict.

it is a tough pill to swallow, no doubt about that many americans have perished at the hands of taliban fighters. their continued existence is affect we need to deal with. the old adage is true that you do not make peace with your friends. we need to speak directly to the afghan government and they have obviously made progress and reconciliation. the taliban has maintained interest for the united states. that is a mistake of american interest negotiated directly with the taliban and we should stop kicking the can down the road. the taliban claims they were completely separate themselves from international terrorism and respect the rights of women and minorities it is time to see if they are serious. recent developments make it is an opening.

the reciprocal cease-fire and the convergence of interest and the growing threat of the isis offshoot in afghanistan. so far we have heard nothing about how we plan the cease- fire. that is no real prize -- surprise as i have been fighting for many months now. the administration does not prioritize diplomacy. they lost both staff and expertise as a result of the reckless halloween of the state department. among most cuts were the experts for peace talks with the taliban. now that this is over we will be interested in hearing about how they plan to reconstitute their expertise. we can't miss the next opportunity for diplomacy

because we are not up to the job. there is no military solution in the fighting in afghanistan but that does not foreclose the past to piece desk for the path to peace. now is the time to make peace and security our number one goal and implement the strategy in afghanistan that will help us achieve it. the women and men who serve our country in uniform and those who gave the ultimate sacrifice fighting this war and to those who perished on this -- on september 11, 2001 in my home city of new york i look forward to your testimony. i am very happy to have you here. thank you and i yelled back. >> thank you. the key question here in terms of the willingness of factions in the taliban or the overall organization to reach some kind of settlement goes to their intentions.

there have been cease-fires, but yesterday there were 30 afghans killed by taliban soldiers when on the taliban size they live to the cease- fire. let me ask you and your judgment is the taliban and at the end of the day interested in a political settlement? what do circumstances tell you and how would we get there? we saw the president of afghanistan offer a series of moves the prisoner releases and medical aid for wounded soldiers. this latest cease-fire and fraternization that presumably might bring down the tension. yet here was an attack yesterday. give me your view on this. >> the taliban has long said that they do support political

negotiations but only with the mega -- united states. not what the sovereign government of afghanistan. i think what we have learned from this is just how much the foot soldiers and commanders do desire peace. the celebration was spontaneous and was countrywide. i think where we are right now is the taliban leadership, many of them enjoy sanctuary outside of the country and do not feel the pressure of the war have not yet been convinced come to the negotiating table despite what has been an extremely forward leaning offer of peace put forward by the afghan president in february. that peace offering which was unconditional and included the offer of considering constitutional amendments and including the structure of the

government of afghanistan but that has been endorsed by the international community. our strategy right now has to be focused on increasing the pressure that the taliban feels to take up that offer of negotiation. >> one of the difficulties in all of this is getting an organization -- a terrorist organization like that to the table is the financing for that organization that makes cash ready at hand every time they are moving narcotics. one of the great frustrations is the last 15 years the u.s. government has spent $8 billion focused on trying to shut down that and today it is still the biggest cash crop in afghanistan. what, in theory, could be done to try to diminish the narcotics trade and all of the illegality that that drives as well as support from the taliban

financial standpoint. >> the narcotics account for about 60% of their budget but more than that it fuels the criminal network and it will eat away at the institution of state with the corruption that they also cause. what we have done -- part of the problem is security. 85% of the plants grow in areas that are controlled are contested by the taliban and. a key element in combating that is continuing to improve on the battlefield which we are starting to see a decline in their momentum as a result of this strategy and the new authority and the approach that has been adopted underneath the strategy. we are also building the institutional capacity of the government to go after narco criminals and that has been working with the ministry of counter narcotics and building

special investigative units and working with president ghani in support of a national drug action plan. there have been some successes. rather than going after individual farmers we focused on drug labs. we had 84 joint rates and intercepted about $160 million worth of drugs. there is now a counter narcotics justice center which is prosecuting these cases. they have a 99% conviction record. security is the key part. the institutional capacity is important and the fact that over the last years we have built up a cadre so that the responsibility now resides in their institutions. >> one of the other things that has to be a prerequisite here is that in the government -- that government has to credibly combat corruption.

that has been a long-standing problem. we have the special investigator general for afghanistan reconstruction where we spent 55 billion -- 55 million per year. i would suggest the trickling down in terms of the pressure that we apply to have transparency and to end those practices is the only sure way to rally confidence on the part of the afghan population and the international community. >> thank you. thank you ambassador. let me say this. i am glad that you support negotiations with the taliban but as far as i am concerned your support only adds to the mixed signals we are hearing from the administration. and u.n. secretary pompeo and

general miller say that we should negotiate i'm not sure if you are speaking for yourself or the administration because the white house has not been so clear. the way i see it if we can talk to kim jong un certainly we can talk to the taliban. we know that the taliban is interested in direct talks with the u.s. so i want the administration accept the offer if only as a bridge to broader talks that would eventually include the afghan government? >> the south asia strategy is premised on achieving a pathway to a dignified political settlement. that is victory under the south asia strategy. we have worked diplomatically in support of the military campaign to build international consensus behind a proposal that has been put forward by president ghani and have undertaken various lines to put pressure on the taliban to bring them to the table. they had a de facto office for many years and there has been

no lack of talking. other countries talking of the caliban and hearing from the international community and the afghan government. there is a sincere desire to begin a political process. the offer is on the table. i think that we have been very clear about how we see ourselves playing a role in a negotiation both as her disappearance and supporting the process. we are a party to this conflict but the taliban leadership has to understand that the very nature of a peace settlement when you talk about forms of government a prisoner releases and confidence building measures. these are sovereign issues. these are issues that have to be negotiated with afghans and not over the head of afghans. we will play our role but we

recognize them as part of the legitimate political fabric of afghanistan they have to recognize that the many communities of afghanistan are also part of that fabric of afghanistan. >> let me ask you this question. in your testimony you state that we have a condition-based strategy but those conditions have never been spelled out. what conditions are you referring to specifically. if you would list them i would be grateful. >> the conditions that we are seeking to achieve our cessation of violence and rejection of terrorism and respect for the constitution. this is all under the umbrella of not allowing afghanistan to ever again become a safe haven for terrorists. what is significant in those conditions as they are not preconditions. we have not thought to impose any obstacles to the beginning of a negotiation between the taliban and and afghan --

afghan government. what we want to see is what comes out of that process. >> let me ask you this. we have 40 countries contributing to the nato support mission in afghanistan. the operation remains one of the most enduring examples of how we can work with our allies in germany. the president seems to indicate that he does not agree with or understand the partners -- the partnership such as how the nato in afghanistan continues to serve the base.'s i am concerned about the remarks. i just want to ask you a simple question. do you agree that the u.s. is best served by continuing to work with these allies of partners around the world. the answer would be yes it i would like to hear that. if the president continues to

attack the countries fighting on our side, how does that strange cooperation with allies make it harder to implement our strategy. >> having the united international force and diplomatic effort is essential to the campaign to stabilize afghanistan and we are deeply grateful for the support of nato allies and our partners in the resolute support mission. you see it in what we have been able to do is to spread the burden which is a key goal of the administration in order to ensure that we are all playing a part and playing a fair part and contributions to afghanistan's stability. i think it is a telling statistic that since 2012 our contribution to civilian assistance has gone to 25% and we want to continue in that direction to make sure that we and our partners are all

pulling in the same direction with the same intensity. >> thank you. to see him again ambassador wells. when the president first announced this st it would seek a coordinated effort to get the taliban to the table as we have been discussing easy layers of diplomatic efforts. this was with the possibility of russia and iran. but x that would you say russia and iran are supporting the taliban. how does that impact our layer diplomatic approach? i know the administration suspended military aid to pakistan as part of our strategy to get pakistan to change how does business when it comes to

the taliban in providing safe harbors. you said that there on notice that we expect unequivocal cooperation endings sanctio. but, we haven't seen pakistan do the sustained are decisive steps we would expect when the new strategy was announced. to have any evidence they have taken steps to cut off the flow of arms were support for the taliban? have we allowed for any waivers are made exceptions to military systems to pakistan since the suspension of the aid was announced? >> we are concerned when we see reports of countries that typically by viewing the taliban as a legitimate force and fighting isis.

our strong views the only way to defeat terrorism and to bring peace is to strengthen the afghan government and the government's ability to fight terrorists. that said, both countries like russia and iran to have an important role to play in the future stabilization of afghanistan. afghanistan's neighbor will have to support any peace process that emerges. that's why we work hard in many ways to ensure that they are formed by the process and the principles that have been put forward. next week i'll go to a meeting with over 30 countries gathering including russia and iran to reinforce our supports for peace in the region. continue those diplomatic

numbers. pakistan has a crucial role to play. as testified, without their active support it will be more challenging to achieve our objectives. we like to see pakistan bring to the negotiation table taliban leadership. today, while we have seen some positive steps, our assessment has been that we have not seen the sustained and decisive actions required to show that they take that peace process seriously. >> one other thing the cobble compacts and what president connie said will take a lot of steps and there's a hundred initiatives and i hope in the q&a you can give us an update. i haven't heard much about the reforms. we have a minute.

maybe you could tell us what benchmarks the president has and how do we tend to use those as commitments to preconditions? >> the afghan government established the afghanistan complex which has to measure the performance and anticorruption in governments, economic performance and reconciliation efforts. we meet quarterly with president connie to review progress under those metrics. this is an afghan government initiative and not something we put forward as part of our a conditionality. >> are you making progress? >> we do. there are areas we make progress faster and when there's less progress we have the kinds of top-level political conversations to keep the momentum behind the reform.

>> we go now to mr. brad of california. >> it is to see you. it raises the question, one is the administration going to appoint a permanent assistant secretary for south and central asia? have they indicated that? >> it when secretary pompeo testify he indicated he would be moving to make appointments. >> did he criticize or apologize for the fact that throughout his tenure was nominated for the position as important as the one you're acting in. >> am very grateful that those undersecretary tillerson and pompeo. >> still, the word acting in front of your title undercuts what you do, the uncertainty of whether you will keep doing it

if the administration had the wisdom to simply give you the position. i would not have be asking this question. the some 30 personnel positions were cut between the south-central asia office and the special representative for afghanistan. is there any chance those cuts will be restored? >> and are they needed? >> some of the cuts were the results of two bureaus been emerged. when you overlap some of the staff we are able to take advantage of the efficiencies. we have decided to expand the staff of focus on reconciliation. that team is being built up here and in the state department as well as our embassy. we benefit from what is the whole of government approach.

there's experts we have all or part of this one team as we look for ways to move the peace process were. >> does the united states, india and pakistan recognize the line between afghanistan and pakistan? >> afghanistan has not recognized. >> what about pakistan in the united states? >> the line serves as the international boundary recognizes sensitivities associated with i >> is that the international boundary? >> that is how we approach the line. >> so says much a international border. >> we believe the border management will be besser when you have countries working together. >> does india recognize that? >> i don't know.

>> i hope you respond to that. india is a poor country. it does provide foreign aid. to a limited degree. there are needs in its own namely myanmar, burma bhutan, sri lanka, but india is providing substantial aid and involvement in afghanistan. is there -- what degree of harm does that cause by making the pakistanis nervous and causing them to support the wrong elements in afghanistan or at least not help us go after the wrong elements. to what extent is the generosity causing a problem with pakistan? >> at first we see the support is very important.

they are responsible aid provider the afghan government welcomes that assistance in the afghan government welcomes and seeks the strategic partner with partnership with india. when it comes to the tensions and concerns. >> afghanistan wants a strategic partnership with india. >> yes. >> afghanistan claim to huge chunk of their territory and were surprised is working against our interest for a strong united afghanistan which asked to be an effective partnership. >> we welcome the discussions to deal with the issues you raise including management of the border. there's been an agreement to establish liaison officers and collaborate more effectively.

>> there's also substantial support for pakistan to bad elements and pakistan. you have a very tough job, the only tougher job would be to come toward districts and explain why we haven't destroyed the poppy fields. afghanistan is a battlefield but so are the towns and cities of our neighborhoods. i yield back. >> thank you. we go to chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you for convening this hearing. thank you for your leadership and your cautiously optimistic take. it's encouraging but of course the way forward is through the obstacles. thank you for giving us that insight exhilarating first taste of what peace could look like.

that offers encouragement that this could happen. i would like to ask concerning the intent of the taliban leadership, as you know within the last few hours they attacked a base in big d's and killed 30 afghan soldiers. perhaps later more were wounded. there is always the concern that a hostile power will use the prospects of peace or the cover of peace it is cover to accelerate their violence. how has that but factored into the thinking. secondly on aid which you have mentioned a moment ago, particularly the afghan local police you're on the front lines of the taliban they've known to recruit children to service combatants for service as sex

slaves. in fact a 10-year-old boy was assassinated in february 2016 after he had been publicly honored by the local police officers against the taliban. did you know that child soldiers prevented act requires subject to the labor they seek military aid where the allowing children to be trafficked as child soldiers. could you convey how seriously we are raising that issue with the afghan government? what steps if any did they take 2017 and 18 using child soldiers in their forces. >> i think when it comes to the taliban resuming violence after the cease-fire this will be a critical time to -underscore the dispute within the muslim world

over the reason why they are fighting the war. we have seen some important developments. they had over a thousand members condemning suicide bombing in the tactics of the taliban. indonesians gathered and reiterated this condemnation call for peace and reconciliation. it affects over 2700 against peace and favor peace negotiation. the lic is gathering in the next few weeks. i think it's a real moment of changing opinions about what is going on in afghanistan and taking greater ownership that this is the time to negotiate with an islamic government of

afghanistan. will continue to encourage these and put pressure on the taliban throughout the efforts that now is the moment to seize the opportunity. at the same time, you are right that the reforms the government take are critical. when it comes for instance children sex slaves. we worked with the government over many years. that practice is now criminalized in the penal cold. we do extensive vetting for military assistance and who we work with to ensure we are not supporting afghan officers engaged in that behavior. we have extensive human rights training. through usaid we've done rehabilitation of 6000 victims of this sex slave practice.

but child soldiers, the same commitment by the afghan government has been criminalized. there are active measures to ensure that children are not recruited including 22 centers across the country that interdict when they see. this is very much on our agenda. >> thank you very much. >> investor wells, thank you for coming. we appreciate you being here. i have an observation. i'm very hopeful that we have a prospect for peace in afghanistan. i look at the columbia peace pact and i see what it has done to the drug growth in that country. i just want to make sure that when we talk about peace we take into consideration this is a very lucrative business in afghanistan.

i don't know if we want to continue basically saying it's okay for them to keep growing in the opm growth. we see the growth and i hope we do have a piece of afghanistan i would focus on that. you need to have such a growth. my question is that we have a growing concern that afghan politics and society has been increasingly frightening. alongside ethnic and ideological line. what impact is that going to have for political stability in that country? >> thank you. on the issue of narcotics, i agree that this is not just an issue that involves the taliban.

it's an issue that's a perversion throughout all of afghan society. the criminal networks and their ability to corrupt the institutions of the state and society. it is something we take seriously. we are limited right now because of the security situation. to go to an earlier point, rather than undertake eradication which is not supported by the afghan government, we want to go a step up to the drug less and truck networks to get to that level of individuals who are benefiting more and a greater part of the drug trade. so it continues to respond to the narcotics in the criminal networks behind them. is very much an investment that we have made and will continue to make.

we learn from the example of the columbia peace process and how difficult it is. >> on the shiv afghan society being fragmented, you can look at it to ace. last weekend that showed the unity that still exist in afghanistan. the fact that combatants and pro-government supporters gather together tens of thousands of people praying together in places that was the heartland of the taliban in the conflict. that gives hope to those that are there. but we have seen greater ethnic polarization over the last couple of years. the government of national unity is had to deal with issues of inclusivity and to ensure that all facets are represented in

government. there's going to be a great deal of the porton's attached to the credibility in the conduct of the elections coming up. they have are ready been a sensitive event in afghanistan. it is one that we are supporting very carefully in supporting the independent election commission to ensure that is much can be done to reduce corruption and increase the chances that voters across afghanistan and voters, both female and male will be able to participate. >> i read an article were -- with the taliban. >> the russians have been very unhelpful in both accusing the united states and undertaking propaganda campaign to suggest that somehow we have introduced isis to afghanistan and seek to artificially keep the terrace battles going.

we believe that russia has an important role to play in being a supporter of peace. they benefit from it. >> are they funneling arms to the taliban? >> russia denies that that we see them adopt a posture that the taliban could be legitimate against isis. >> i'm sorry don't training your optimism and washing people pray together, the next step would be sitting around the campfire singing together, as if that had anything with creating peace in this war-torn country.

there are a society based on tribalism and ethnicity. our greatest in what has been reconfirmed today is that we continue down the road of trying to remake afghanistan into a democratic system. that is why we are failing. it's totally inconsistent with their national character. we did this from the very beginning over my objection many times. we created the most centralized constitution of almost any country in the world and of people of who are the most decentralized people in the world. then were surprised when it doesn't work and people are upset enjoy military units. are the -- still the major element if not the dominant

element of the taliban? >> yes. >> now we have these and they understand that half of them are in afghanistan and have her in pakistan. let me just say, we have to understand that and deal with that or we will never have peace. we made a mistake in the beginning trying to re-create the centralized government in kabul, and the way permitted critics and criminals to take over the government and lose the country of billions of dollars and we expect the afghans to say now will have a democratic process. let me note also that the major opium production areas in that country is in the push to an areas, is it not?

>> it is dominated in those areas. >> and we have done nothing. we have gone through a lot of pr things that make it look like were doing something. if you want to eliminate the poppy production in afghanistan we could do it within a week. we have technological capabilities and we have not done that. and thus we've allowed the taliban to have a major source of billions of dollars of input, which permits them to have the bullets, and the guns necessary for the terrace organization and the radical islamic type of regime they're trying to build. do you know what the status for those of you watching or reading this, we realize that what really worked in afghanistan

after 9/11 was when we allied ourselves with the anti- taliban forces that were also made up of others. the leader of that group was a general, if you seen 12 strong he organized our efforts to drive the taliban out of power in the first place. where is that general today? >> turkey. >> and he is a turkey because? there is major assassination attempts against a. are the assassination attempts motivated by taliban or by people in the afghan government we are supporting? >> my understanding is he's in turkey for health reasons. when he does return to afghanistan their legal processes brought against him and some of his security officials for the sodomy of a

political figure. >> you can bet that the people hate us and hate the man who helped us drive the tele- been out are willing to state anything about him. he is outside for health reasons because they tried to murder him and 50 of his bodyguards were killed by the time he and ten others escape from an ambush that was not a taliban ambush. we are in a murky situation here. the pakistanis who we have been treated with kid gloves clearly are pro- terrorist element in this whole flight. until we start realizing this, all these things about praying together and reforms in the democratic centralized process in afghanistan will mean nothing

more americans will die. we have to get real or we will lose for good. thank you very much. >> tom of new york. >> think ambassador for being here today. a frustrated in the process of trying to discover what the civilian strategy of the united states of america in afghanistan is. only been here for a short time but i've asked secretary to listen pompeo about it. vest usaid, what is our civilian strategy? we hear about the government approach but i can't get the details of what it is we are actually doing. you referenced about the 25% contribution of the civilian efforts by the u.s. government. i want to determine first, are you referring to the $3.7 billion per year that was agreed to at the brussels conference at which america's putting up a million dollars of?

>> yes. >> that was done under previous negotiations. >> some are lower than that 1 billion-dollar figure. but in general, guiding the approach. >> but is the number 3.7 billion or is it lower? >> i would have to get a breakdown of what has come through question. >> that i would like that breakdown. what is the international commitment for civilian effort is, specifically with the numbers. i had to get this from outside of u.s. government to determine the summer. i'd also like to know what are we spending our money on and what is the international community's bending it's not money on.

what are the specific programs it's been spent on? we've heard about poppy ratification i want to know specifically how much money is being spent on each of the efforts by the department of state, usaid, the doj, the dea, specifically. i've been asking about this for quite some time. what are we spending our money on it what effort. i don't feel like we have a comprehensive strategy. i feel like we have a list but i don't see it being a strategy. i think the military strategy is clear and we are clearing and holding property in our efforts to transition and redevelop the area. i don't know what the effort is. a very frustrated because i've asked this many times. i would like specifics about how

much money we're spending and what programs are spending the money on. could you come off the top of your head give me a rough idea of the billion dollars. , what percentages are being spent on things like infrastructure and how much is being spent on the poppy ratification and on schools are schools were in teaching prosecutors to be prosecutors. how is that money being spent. >> i'm happy to provide and talk to my colleagues to provide a more detailed letter to with a breakdown of assistance. i'm sure you've heard from usaid the overall principles that drive the strategy and to increase the private sector lead and export led growth and consolidate gains.

outside of usaid we have equal funds which is providing the training for the counter not contacts. we have the bureau of counterterrorism providing assistance programs including to enhance the security of kabul and other urban areas. it's a complicated topic. the numbers are confusing. we can provide a detailed letter for you. >> be helpful. even what you told me now how much is being spent on the poppy eradication? >> it is not $1 billion. when we talk about this for 2017 the monies were about $160 million. >> if it's not a billion dollars can give me a rough number.

>> the 2019 request was $632 million. >> the afghanistan numbers are $632.8 million request for 2019. >> and what about 2018? >> it was 782.8 alien. >> we made a billion-dollar commitment in 2016. you and happen to have the 2016 number? >> 847.6. >> were spending $45 billion year of military aid to reduce our commitment from 1 billion to 632 million per year on civilian aid. >> yes. >> we go to mr. ted of texas. >> thank you mr. chairman.

lieutenant general said yesterday the biggest problem in afghanistan are the sanctuaries in pakistan that shelter terrorist. would you agree with that assessment? >> i agree with the assessment that without pakistan support it be very challenging to achieve our goals and they continue to exist in pakistan. >> so, over the years we've had our troops in pakistan, i've been on the border as other members of congress have. they're doing the best job they can, but during the day the taliban's come across the border commit mischief and hide. pakistan government has hidden terrorist leaders in the past. they are sanctuary towards terrorist leaders. somehow we still give them

money. with the promise that they will do better. they sweettalk us and say give us more american a, we will go after the terrorists. we do it every year, we continue to do it and have done it for many years. yet, nothing changes. they harbor terrorist, they fight terrorists in their country but they pay for terrorist to go across the border that kills americans and afghan. i think it is nonsense that we continue to send money to pakistan with the promise that we will do better. that's my opinion. how much money have we spent, taxpayer money over the last 17 years in afghanistan? >> on the civilian side we've had about 29 trillion. >> do you have any estimate will

now be a military side so this will be in afghanistan indefinitely. no end inig, we have been there 17 years with no end in sight. history says the war of the the hundred year war lasted hundred 16 years between france and england, indefinitely, i find that very alarming that there is no end in sight that were prepared to stay there

continuing the united states to send money someone said where empires go to die nobody would ever be there in afghanistan. in our image. >> president trump has been very clear that we are not in this business. rather than they thought to counter was on the departure to

give the the luxury to know when they plan to leave when we are sure afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists plotting against them as the situation changed we have pakistan still supporting terrorists we say that we will be there indefinitely of may be to make sure that we obtain victory. >> the situation changed because the security third sources are there and they change because we put unprecedented pressure with

1.6 billion is being much more proactive in trying to put pressure. >> there should cut off all aid until there's proof that they're not harboring terrorists in their own country and sending them across the border. >> thank you. >> it has been more than a decade and a half since we were in afghanistan and -- is becoming more more likely. we haven't heard enough about the administration's long-term plans outside of the additional more troops. many push for more dialogue the

taliban entering this is absolutely an appealing image. dialogue with them is also incredibly dangerous endeavor. after 17 years with casualties and destruction the taliban continues to engage in terror tactics of our civilians, the afghan government and forces in the introduction of isis line groups that further complicates this. these that are not committed with evil ideology and putting them in a responsible a safeway is an important step if we can do it. the recent truce ads to the problem. now they have resumed attack. further ethnic and tribal religious groups have ves themselves couples government

with the promise of a better future. the afghan government hasn't been hardened to a point where its institutions, its reach and stability are firm enough to support positions of power. given for example that taliban's efforts decades past when they went house to house their thousands being killed, what reaction do we expect from religious, ethnic, or tribal groups in the government who have suffered so much at the hands of the taliban if negotiations are entered into? >> again, we are letting the afghan government take the lead in setting and putting forward a peace proposal which by everyone's account is both visionary and forward leaning. president connie has said the afghan people continue to seek peace.

that is supported by the polling data we see. you have only mentioned one horrible chapter of violence, but regardless there's horrible but that afghans have seen, they remain committed to peace. the celebrations that took place are manifestation of what our broad nationwide desire for peace. the higher peace council is a multiethnic body. peace cannot be made, it has to include all of the ethnic and social groups of afghanistan. i would argue it has to include the women of afghanistan. any peace process that process will have to be broad-based. >> i understand what we have seen or need. are you confident, is our government confident that the

government in afghanistan is strong enough to be able to do this? strong enough specifically with respect but the taliban to include them with negotiations? >> because were not trying to put up hurdles to peace negotiations, where the united states interest law is what comes out of the negotiation process. we can live with negotiations that produce the end to violence the respect for constitution, the constitution that can be amended. so rather than prejudge whether it can happen or not, were ready to support and facilitate the process. we want there to be negotiated in dignified solution. at the taliban are unprepared to make peace we've made it clear that we would deny them a

military victory. >> as it relates to providing that support, what are the range of diplomatic set we have and are we utilizing all of them? >> utilizing many different levers to support these diplomatic process. of course the military pressure is one part of it. the pressure were bringing to bear against taliban financing, overseeing the government of afghanistan do to mobilize messaging against the justification of the taliban actions, the international consistence we've built in that has multilateral engagements in a course willing to see if there's other groups who will be prepared to create separate peace. these are all designed to take

up but we think is both a fair offer to produce the taliban that plays a part in the political life. >> i appreciate you being here i'm sincerely grateful. >> and wagner missouri. >> thank you mr. truman for organizing the hearing. think ambassador wells for your service. i appreciate the opportunity to evaluate the new direction this administration has taken in the resolving america's longest war. pakistan has a clear interest in preventing the cessation of hostilities in afghanistan, but has made itself central to american operation. in the past, pakistan has wagered correctly that the united states would rather

accept pakistan incomplete support then lose it entirely. ambassador wells, i believe this president was correct to demand full cooperation from pakistan last august. how well his administration communicating its resolve to hold pakistan accountable for its support of terrorism? >> there have been very direct talks with the senior leadership and action under president trumps administration. we have taken the precedent it steps of -- support funds as a result that pakistan had not been undertaking the decisive steps necessary. i think we agree that pakistan has a lot to gain by peace in afghanistan.

the challenge is, how do you secure pakistan support for the political process rather than the proxies. we for positive statements from the chief of army staff from pakistan he says there can be no room for nonstate actors that pakistan cannot be a normal state as long as there's extremist groups on the soil but we need to see action. we do not to live that pakistan has fought its own heroic bottles against terrorism. large part it defeated the pakistani taliban and reintegrated the tribal areas into the governing system of pakistan. we treat all terrorists as our terrorists. we expect that pakistan should do the same.

>> i hope they continue to withhold that funding until we see measurable action. how is the administration building relationships with central asia countries to reduce our dependence on pakistan? >> we've had excellent relations. a long-standing efforts to create a network that helps support our military efforts. we had a visit of the kazakhstan president last year. both leaders are important not only in providing the kind of support for the northern distribution network but i'm putting afghanistan back into the region. when president connie went there was in december. he said afghanistan is a central asian network. says we engage we very much are supporting their efforts to

proactively increase trade and give afghanistan options as it builds up the economy. >> how to u.s. and russia relations affect the feasibility of the northern supply line? >> the northern distribution network has operated successfully continues to operate successfully. i argue more generally that russia has important interesting concerns in afghanistan and said important role to play to help stabilize afghanistan. we would like to see russia do more to provide the assistance to the government so those militarily and diplomatically it can bring the taliban to the negotiating table. >> although india declined to put boots on the ground, it has shown a keen interest in strengthening the afghan

government's capacity. how is the administration encouraging deeper indian involvement? >> we did joint training programs. some of the training programs are conducted in india. we have a trilateral with indian officials to court nader efforts to make sure we are good in the development and diplomatic approach. india has played an important role in hosting business conferences so private sector companies interested in investing can use india as a launching pad. >> thank you. i yield back. >> we are expecting votes momentarily. members do not need to use all of their time. we will go to robin of illinois. >> thank you mr. chair. i will not use all of my time. >> how will the october elections influence possible peace talks? if they don't take place will the u.s. position negotiating

directly with the afghan government and not with u.s. change? >> we think it's important the election take place in a timely incredible way. there's a strong signal about the inclusivity about democratic institutions. our efforts are focused on helping to empower the independent election commission and make sure they have the resources and capacity to undertake a critical reform this electoral season by having voting be based on phone centers so that you can stop the industrial level stuffing the ballot boxes. i think the afghan people we have seen and registered are vested in this democratic process. >> i'll stop; can get his question. >> we go now to florida.

>> thank you for being here. this is one of those things where everybody wants it to come to an end. i don't see a clear strategy of how we'll do that. answering the question about the cost of u.s. military since 2001, we spent 750 about -- were well over a trillion dollars trying to bring peace to afghanistan. it's a very tribal and separated culture. these things that happen at major open areas. if i understand my notes correctly there's no more opium being grown in afghanistan today than there was before we started our war on drugs, as there is more cocaine in columbia after we started the war on drugs. now mexico has 72000 acres of

opium. it seems like were going backwards with the time, resources and tragic loss of life on both our side in the afghan, we need a new game plan to do this. is any peace process you brought up must include the women and things like that. i agree. i think those would all be good. does the system in afghanistan allow for that with the amount of corruption in the government? what are your thoughts? >> i think the government has been organizing itself in preparation for possibility of peace. you have the establishment and reenter reentered tracy -- it

has brought together youth and religious leaders and part of a national conversation about what peace might look like. you have seen gathering of religious leaders. >> i think that's great that they all came together. let me ask you, do the people in afghanistan, do they believe in a governments with a democratic process? or are they so ingrained in a tribal government, even see the possibility? are we talking generations to change that situation. >> afghanistan has had success. we are not trying to deny the importance of the tribal structure. but they have demonstrated by stepping forward and saying they have embraced these democratic experience. >> to the understand, believe and support the constitution in their country? do they understand that because one of french philosopher came through the americas in the

1800s he was astounded by the level of understanding people had on our constitution. that was from the bottom up to they have that same comprehension? >> i'm probably not capable of answerin that question. tried within the afghan constitution is the ability to change it. and the ability to have a gathering of leaders. i think the constitution does not deny their traditional forms. >> it doesn't tonight but it doesn't empower the people, i will cut it off here but i appreciate your time i would love to talk to more. >> joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you for your service. it's very personal to me the

significance of afghanistan. that is the attacks of 9/11 at kurt from a cave. osama bin laden operating out of a cave to attack the people of the united states. to me, the success of what you're trying to do is important. i am grateful my former national guard unit led by a -- serve there for a year. and developed extraordinary appreciation of the people in the talents of the people of afghanistan. am grateful my youngest son the second lieutenant hunter wilson served as an engineer. i have seen it from the ground up to see the potential that we had. it is so important. it does relate to the global war on terror's. the focus on the isis campaign has been in syria and iraq but isis has a foothold in afghanistan continues to launch

attacks. to what extent is the islamic state province a threat to stability and security of afghanistan? >> estimates are broad but perhaps 2000 up to 5000 exist. they have some other terrorist groups whether it's the tele- banner others. but i think we have to be concerned we have targeted this heavily where there has been an outpost. it is a reminder to us there's something worse. then an insurgency that is nationalist in nature. it is a threat we take seriously and have devoted significant aspects to eradicating. >> indeed, a safe haven for isis

for islamic terrorists there has direct consequence here. has the changes in the isis relationships in the area or activity in operational abilities, to what extent is the group a target of u.s. operations are strategic planning? >> isis is a reminder of why we are still in afghanistan and need to have this commitment to afghanistan. they pay us in the insecurities they have created has allowed this petri dish for other groups to take advantage. we are in afghanistan because they pose a threat to our homeland and to our allies. we take it very seriously. i would refer to my military colleagues that are underway. but we have intensifies those operations and taken out the leader of isis pay i think we

have conducted over 1400 operations directed against is isis. >> your comments are refreshing to the real world. the ultimate result of protecting american families. last august we announced a new initiatives. what are the conditional base objectives are we using and utilizing to measure success? >> that will be the cessation of ties to terrorism, the cessation of violence and. >> finally, afghanistan is a critical point of democracy. what democratic institutions are most reliable and effective promoting their rights and are they capable of producing credible elections this fall?

>> this will be the first afghan led conducted in the election. that's the reflection of increased -- they have an important role to play in encouraging them to play. it is a work in progress. there's various countries who are younger than modern afghanistan. we have to look at how the improvement will occur over time. >> mr. tom garrett. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleague. i heard something that was insightful. there are threats greater than the islamic -- we recognize that while the taliban is bad that

isis with a global orientation is probably worse which doesn't eradicate our responsibility sort of like if you break it you buy it. good on that role. think we fail when we overlap in american paradigm on the foreign affairs arena. americas presumed that when we do with other nations there's a strong, preeminent federal government. in afghanistan, there is not that. they aspire to have a strong government but the fact that you can try from the airfield to the compound without enhanced security measures would indicate that the control is not what they would like it to be. we need understand the reality on the ground and it doesn't near that which we are familiar with at home. we talk about the taliban. i would look at and argue that there is no taliban. there are taliban. there is no centralized control

of these elements as there was under -- but there's no overlap and to act autonomously thus creating harder circumstance for folks like yourself and any nato coalition force to deal with. we see things like atrocities committed against civilian contractors driving supplies that are documented on the internet. obviously be useful to that to intimidate and to perpetrate the taliban. they said you cannot make peace with your friends. i thought that was insightful. yet, there are taliban elements that express differing degrees of willingness to sit down and talk. there there those who for lack

of a better term, dead anders. . . . >> this administered to afghanistan, its allies, the coalition does flow through the government, correct? >> it flows through a -- a portion of it flows through a trust fund that's administered by the world bank. >> right. >> and then the remaining money with just a little bit of an exception is administered separately on off budget programs administered by usaid. >> so what i'm driving at is perhaps have we considered a paradigm where in we tied aid and development to afghanistan to ee rad indication efforts. >> reporter: in other words, the government benefits and

hopefully strengthens itself as creating sustainable afghanistan where there is as broad a spectrum of hope moving forward more directly from the revenues from the international community than the narcotics developing community, correct? >> the vote is produced and taliban controlled or contested areas. and so, you know, again, this is a security issue. i think as a first cut. >> but you said earlier today that the government of afghanistan as indicated an interest in not undergoing ee rad indication programs at this juncture, is that an accurate assessment? >> yes, the government would assess it would decrease the appeal. >> so it's something to talk about. i'm not dictating that this is what i think the policy should be. but if you look at what the actual functioning federal government to the extent that it sticks afghanistan derives benefit from, i would submit if they were given an either or or, they would fall on the side we wanted them on. going really quickly, there is a

man cap tax on contractors in afghanistan that we've become aware of that stems from the regime which is arbitrary and probably not consistent with existing agreements. has anything been done to address that? what it does is attack the american citizens as we develop infrastructure security. has anybody done anything with this man cap tax? >> i'm not but we can follow up. >> thank you so much. i've ran out of time. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, mr. garrett. thank you very much. and i thank you also, master wells. we've heard creating the circumstances for a peaceful and stable afghanistan is a very complex but very critical mission. the administration has taken several good steps towards that end. but we need to see more

progress. and at this point, we have one minute left to a vote on the floor. so this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [ inaudible conversations ] [ inaudible conversations ] npr

morning edition. this 50-minute discussion was part of