retrograde our equipment and that was accomplished. general miller executed the plan in accordance with the plan. a key part of the plan was to maintain an embassy in kabul and maintaining that embassy would allow the government to continue to provide resources to support the afghan security sources. so it was, the plan was to leave a diplomatic presence there and in conjunction with that plan, we were going to leave a small military force there to help secure the embassy. that was the plan, senator. >> but you didn't address the issue, you made, it was your plan, you acknowledged it was your plan and your plan said you would do all these things before we got our civilians out. when in the history of this

country have we had the military say, have a plan we will take military out first before we take our civilians? i can't imagine that. >> when you say civilians, american citizens? >> american citizens, yeah. >> american citizens would come out once noncombatant evacuation is declared. until that point, we don't evacuate all citizens in the country. >> we didn't hear, there is american citizens still there. >> and we continue to remain engaged and work to get those citizens out, senator. >> but why would you propose a plan that didn't get all american citizens out? i can't imagine ever our u.s.

military would propose to leave a country without our citizens coming out first? have we ever done that before? >> all of the american citizens wouldn't leave, senator, unless there was noncombatant evacuation and the plan was to leave the embassy there to continue to address the needs of our american citizens to engage with the government and so that was a part of the plan, not to again, the plan was never to evacuate the american citizens and leave the embassy there. >> did it bother you when the president went on national television and said he would not leave until all american citizens were taken out? did it bother you when he said that, that clearly is not truthful. >> senator, i -- you heard me say several times that we're going to work as hard as we can for as long as we can to get

every american citizen out that wants to come out. we continue to do that to this day. >> well, i'm running out of time. one thing i want when we have next round, i want to understand what decisions would you make differently today to save those 13 lives of servicemen and women we lost at the kabul airport. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator, if i can comment on your first opening comment, if i may. >> go ahead, sir. officer. >> i am happy to layout every detail in all the intel to you, an individual, any other member or committee or anything you want on the china at your convenience. >> happy to hear that. thank you. >> thank you senator scott. senator duckworth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i assure my colleague's concern about rapid collapse of the afghan national defense and security forces and the afghan government and failure of intelligence, we need some

answers. after investing two decades, nearly 2 trillion dollars and lives of almost 2500 of american troops, our nation must conduct thorough and honest review of the united states government involve ments in afghan since september 11 2001 terrorist attacks. for the sake of current and future war fighters must capture hard lessons from afghanistan to ensure these lessons are not forgotten or repeated on a future battlefield. this is our moral responsibility as a nation. gentlemen, all three of you have been involved in the war in afghanistan multiple times in multiple different capacities throughout your careers. secretary austin, was the situation on the ground in afghanistan influenced by previous decisions made over the course of several years? >> i absolutely believe that, senator. foremost among those decisions is the doha agreement, i think that is severely impacted the

moral of the military. >> thank you. secretary, also, if that is the case, is it possible to have intellectually honest exercise that looksats most recent events in afghanistan last couple months or must any effective review look at the whole 20 years since september 11th? >> i think you have to look at the entire 20 years, there are great lessons learned that we're going to take away once we do that, i believe you got to look at the entire time span. >> thank you. i agree effective review must be comp hencive, shaped by four different administration and 11 difference congresses. no party should be looking to score points off nation-building failure that was bipartisan in the making. congress should authorize effort solely devoted to bring

accountability and transparetchesy to the afghan war and lessons to be learned. on thursday, i will introduce the afghanistan war study commission. my bill would establish bipartisan independent commission to examine every aspect of the war, including the political and strategic decisions that transformed the mission into vast nation-building campaign. this commission must produce actionable recommendations designed to guide development of reform, ask the 9/11 informed law-making efshts in the years after publication. secretary austin, would you agree such an independent long-term study could serve as an effective complimentary effort to more targeted lesson learned that dod conducts? in shedding light on how congress and civilian leaders from multiple government agencies can do a better job defining scope of military missions and actually enforcing

legal limitation on the use of force? >> i would. i did, the point you are making, my view, it needs to be interagency approach to this. >> thank you. i want to note that my family and i were in cambodia until the very end. i'm an american, but my father worked for the united nations. to answer my colleague's question, my father chose to stay as long as possible to help the cam bodian people as long as possible and he left after american troops had left. the american ambassador stayed behind and after the last military transport left, i know this, my father was on the last transport to leave cambodia and the ambassador had to travel over land. we leave americans behind, that is planned, that is why it is so important that we have an independent investigation. maybe the failure here we didn't have neo-plan in place and

didn't activate before troops left. if that is the case, we need to learn that. i would ask for my colleague to consider this independent commission. we put somebody in charge who is not in decision-making capacity during the 20 years, make it nonpartisan and get lessons learned so we don't make the same mistakes over and over again. our troops deserve better and the families of the 2500 american troops who laid dun their lives to defend the constitution, defended lawful order much the presidents, they deserve better than partisan fights. thank you, i yield back. >> thank you, i will recognize senator blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, we thank you all for being here with us today. as you've heard from awful us, the american people, tennessee, want answers, they deserve to hear your testimony and i think it is unacceptable that this is

the first time that i'm hearing from you in any forum, despite attemptss at outreach by both me and my staff, save a few short all senator phone calls that we have had. i want to emphasize, all of us here, every one of us answer to the american people. and they deserve transparency and information regarding this administration's botched and disgraceful withdrawal. tennesseeians are angry and as you know, general milley, tennessee is home to 101st airborne, one of the most deployed divisions in the u.s. military, also home to specialized 160th store who were among the last on the ground extracting u.s. citizens from danger in kabul. tennessee national guard deployed to afghanistan at high operational tempo, as well as providing vital logistical

services such as refueling. we are home to more than 400,000 veterans, many of whom have lasting physical and psychological wounds from the time they have spent in service and tennesseans are heartbroken over the loss of ryan kanass, who represented the best of all of us in the august 26th suicide bombing at hamid karzai international international airport. we made the ultimate sacrifice. how did we get here and to what has been a complete let down to most tennesseans. i have a few questions, these are yes-or-no questions. quick answers are appreciated. general milley, were options given for keeping american

troops in afghanistan rather than the unconditional chaotic withdrawal? >> yes. >> you presented options and those options were declined? >> there were options presented and debated. >> yes or no? >> decision was made. >> yes or no, did you grate options for keeping bagram open beyond july 2? >> yes. >> did you provide options for keeping bagram open directly to the president? >> yes. >> had bagram stayed open, would our support to the afghan air force been more effective in your review? >> if bagram had stayed open, would our support to the afghan air force have been more effective in your view? yes or no? >> frankly, not sure on that one, most afghan air force was different base specifically at haky. >> president biden keeps calling

it extraordinary success, we've discussed this today, is leaving americans behind an extraordinary success in your view, secretary austin? >> we're not leaving americans behind. >> yes or no is fine. is the killing of 13 american servicemen and women while trying to secure chaotic evacuation of the president's own making an extraordinary success? >> the loss of any civilian life is always tragic. >> the fact we failed to evacuate most of our afghan partners an extraordinary success or the fact that we have afghans bringing child brides, people who are hardly vetted, is that an extraordinary success? >> again, these are issues we continue to work to get our american citizens out and afghans -- >> let me move on. per article 2 of the constitution, president may require opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments.

did the president ever require or request written recommendations related to the withdrawal of the afghan forces, yes or no? secretary austin and general milley, then general mckenzie, yes or no? >> we provided, i provided input as part of -- >> in written form? >> process that was very well and deliberately -- >> you didn't completely answer that. general milley, any written form? >> yes. >> would you make those available to us? >> make it available to the committee upon request and accordance with appropriate classifications. >> we doll so. general mckenzie, yes or no? >> yes. >> you will make those available? >> based on guidance from the secretary. >> each of you committed that when you went through processes we will come back to you for those. general milley issue yes or no, did you talk to bob woodard or robert casta for the

book? >> woodard, yes, casta, no? >> did you talk to michael bender for his book, frankly we did win this election, inside story of how trump loss, yes or no? >> yes. >> were you accurately represented in these books? >> i haven't read any of the books, i don't know. i've seen press reporting of it, i haven't read the books. >> let's have you read the books and us know if you are accurately portrayed. >> senator blackburn, five-empty rule. thank you. >> senator rosen, please. >> thank you, chairman, reed for holding this hearing, important hearing, oversight responsibilities, an opportunity for the american people to get answers about our withdrawal from afghanistan and how we planned to counter terrorist

threats in the future. i want to sincerely thank the brave men and women who serve our country in afghanistan, many who made ultimate sacrifice and of course, their families, as well. secretary austin, general milley and general mckenzie, i appreciate you all being here to address lingering concerns we have about the last two decades of war, generally and past two months in particular. you are all men of honor and integrity, who served our country nobly and your candid responses to my questions, even if they require admitting serious mistakes were made. all senates offices, taliban approached kabul and took over the city and the country, my team and i worked to help vulnerable individuals evacuate. these were people who in many cases had the state department's approval to leave afghanistan for the u.s. or third-party country, due to crowds, taliban checkpoints or fear of being

killed along the way, they could not physically get to a gate to present their paperwork. no matter how many times they tried or no matter how long they waited. my office worked with sitcomand the task force to coordinate opportunities to grab these people from the crowd so they could present paperwork and flee to safety. unfortunately, these efforts were to no avail. these individuals continue to wait for help that may never come. i remain frustrated that the u.s. did not set up perimeter arndz around kabul or create safe corridor for the s-1 visa holders to get to the airport for their families, asylum seekers seeking to escape and near certain death. continued support, general milley, i appreciate the state department taking the lead on evacuations, like our military, the state democrat no longer has

presence on the ground in afghanistan. so i'd like to ask you, sir, does the u.s. military recent experience facilitating the evacuation from kabul give you the confidence that the taliban will be honest broker necessary working with diplomats to help afghan nationals leave the country? >> i think that while we've seen so far and since the 31st, some americans have gotten out to diplomatic means and reached safety through either overland routes or through aircraft. i don't know all details, i can't imagine that didn't happen without taliban facilitation. >> siv holders and others who supported us. secretary austin, administration said they will utilize every tool available to hold taliban accountable, if they fail to meet their committments to provide safe passage for anyone

who wants to leave the country. we know their economic lovers, but can you elaborate on what the military tools are and could there be a shared interest in targeting isis-k? >> in terms of military tools, senator, as you know, we have the ability to offer a range of options depending on what the president's objectives are. so we can do most anything that is required of us because we have substantial resources. but in terms of our cooperation with the taliban against counter isis-k, i won't venture to make any comments on that. i would just say that we have coordinated some things that are very narrow in scope with them

to get our people out, as you know and to continue to further evacuate american citizens, but i don't think it's right to make assumptions to broader and bigger things from that coordination. they are still the taliban. >> thank you, i'd like to in a few seconds i have left and take these second round or off the record, future counter terrorism operation, reorganize counter terrorism capability and assets in the region as we move to over the horizon scenario, secretary austin, general mckenzie and we'll take these second round. like the answer to what is the plan for enduring counter terrorism and influence of violent extremist organizations in afghanistan. thank you. >> senator holey, please.

>> let me sum up where we are based on this extraordinary hearing. president of the united states lied to the american people about the advice that you gave to him about the military judgment that you provided for him. i think you all testified to that effect repeatedly. appeared to have pushed back the evacuation to such a time that became a catastrophe, against your advice, like to learn more about that. third, we don't understand the pentagon failed to plan for potential collapse of security forces or collapse of the afghan government despite being lot of warning, senator mccain referred to this earlier. ill traind and not up to the job, i don't happened that and like to explore this in this round or the next. senator austin, i i've heard out of the mouth and others we are

not leaving americans behind, your quote a minute ago. with all due respect, you have lest, past tense, americans behind, we have no presence any longer in afghanistan. hundreds of americans, not just americans generally, civilians you left behind. against the president's explicit commitment not to leave until all american citizens were out and to safety. that is not what happened and now we have people who are desperately, frantically trying to get out of this country coming to me and members of the committee asking for help, they are stuck behind enemy lines. don't tell me we are not leaving americans behind, you left them behind, joe biden left them behind. let me ask you this. >> thank you for your help continuing to get american citizens and afghans out of the country, we continue to facilitate -- >> i didn't ask a question, you want to address the issue, since

you do, isn't it true you left americans behind on august 31st? >> there are americans that were still in afghanistan and still are, we continue to work to get those americans out. >> that is a yes. let's not repeat, please the falsehood we didn't leave americans behind. let me ask you this, secretary austin, you eluded to the fact the military was ready, you said in prepared remarks, by late april, military planners crafted number of evacuation scenarios and refer to the fact you were waiting for the state department to make a decision about evacuations, nbc news reporting that the military wanted to begin evacuations earlier buts the state department and white house intervened and said no, we are delaying the evacuation of civilians, can you help us get to the truth. was it your judgment and opinion that the evacuations of civilians should have begun before the middle of august?

>> we provided input to the state department. it is call to the state department to -- >> i understand that, mr. secretary, asking for what your judgment was, asking specifically about your testimony that in april, you developed evacuation scenarios reported by multiple sources in the news. as of late april, was it your opinion that the evacuation of civilians should begin earlier than they did? >> it -- we provided input to try to get out as many afghans who have helped us along the way as early as possible. but again, the state department has made its decisions based upon the fact that even president ghani engaged them and said, we're concerned about the mass exodus of civilians from the country. >> general milley, let me direct to you, did you ever advise

interagency process that the rapid withdrawal timeline that the white house pentagon signed off on, general miller proposed, middle of july, would negatively impact getting out our civilians. if we dropped to zero by july, had civilian evacuation ordered, we would be in trouble. did you advise to that effect in the interagency process? did you warn about that possibility of drawing down so quickly before a civilian evacuation was underway? >> the -- yeah, but it is more complicated than that. the drawdown of the forces under miller, those guys are advisors, not the neo-guys. the special purpose, second airborne division is what you need to do neo. those are plans i believe that the secretary is referring to

developed early on. there are specific triggers required in the state department calls time of the neo. secretary on the 12th of august, start pushing for forces and orders and on 14th ambassador called neo. should that have been called earlier, that is open question. the april piece and the drawdown of the advisors that is separate and distinct task and retrograde, they weren't bringing out the american citizens issue those are advisors to security sources. there were concerns we raised throughout the interagency that when advisors, if advisors were to stay, then there is a possibility that the afghan security forces would hang in there, we all knew when we pulled advisors out, we pulled the money out, some point in the future, most said in the fall,

afghan security sources were going to fracture and government would collapse. speed that happens is different animal. advisor already gone by mid-july, there is a government and afghan army and assumption was that it would remain in the mission was to keep the mission open, secure the embassy, transition to contractors and then all the military be out and diplomatic mission and money over the horizon, none of that happened, that army and government collapsed rapidly. secretary austin and others throughout the government executed and implemented neoplan, there was contingencies built, there was a plan for rapid collapse and that was the neoplan that general mckenzie come up with and that is what was executed. that is why 6000 troops deployed, that is why the aircraft showed up, that was done with planning and done from

an operational and tactical standpoint, that was a success. strategically, the war is lost, the enemy is in kabul, you have operational tactical success by soldiers on the ground. i think we're conflating things we need to separate in this after action review process so we clearly understand what happened. i am sorry taken that time, it was necessary. >> senator kelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, let me begin by expressing my gratitude to each of the over 800,000 american citizens, many arizonians who served over the past 20 years and to their families. i commend our service member support of one of the largest air lifts in our country's history. we will never forget the achievements of the american and women who worked 24/7 in kabul,

managed impossible conditions on the ground and those who made the ultimate sacrifice protecting innocent civilians. 124,000 people are safe today because of american troops and diplomats. still, after decades of conflict, 2500 american soldiers killed and billions invested in security cooperation, the american people deserve to know why the afghan government and security forces collapsed in a matter of days and how there was a failure to prepare for this scenario and ensure that our people were out of the country before it failed. i think we've established withdrawal and evacuation did not account for real-world conditions and intelligence was flawed. the united states wields incredible power as global

leader and our accountability must match our influence. for own national security, and for each of those who served in afghanistan during our longest war, we must understand what happened, but also look forward to ensure our posture allows us to provide for national security and prevent afghanistan youth as base for terrorist activity. i want to transition and look forward and not ask you questions that you have already answered. general mckenzie, america's armed forces have been on the frontline fighting terrorists for the past 20 years. during this time, al qaeda and other terrorist organizations have been degraded. military presence in afghanistan ended, our commitment to fighting terrorism has not. without withdrawal complete, the afghan government collapsed and taliban seeking to fill the

power vacuum left behind, how is central command postured to prevent terrorist organizations from gaining strength in the region? >> senator, probably details would be best left to the classified session later this afternoon. i will tell you that i have today headquarters that has ability to look into afghanistan, albeit limitd and with ability to fuse intelligence to look at isis-k and al qaeda, we are refining that, best practices on that, we have a way forward. i've told the committee before, it is very hard to do this, it is not impossible to do this. >> looking forward to seeing those details in the closed hearing. are you confident, confident that we can defy organizations like al qaeda and isis ability to use afghanistan as launch pad for terrorist activity? >> i think that is yet to be seen. i think we're still seeing how

al qaeda and isis are configuring themselves against the taliban, seeing what the taliban is going to do. i would not say i'm confident that is on the ground yet. we could get to that point, i don't have that level of confidence. >> you might have to share in closed hearing, do you have resources necessary to accomplish this even as our national security pivots towards great power or near peer threats like china and russia seeking to explain influence and compete with the military? >> i'm in constant dialogue and i'll give more details in the closed session. >> well, thank you. i know you can't go into much detail about the analysis that led to the august 28th drone strike in kabul in this open setting, i would like to note my serious concerns and give you the opportunity to make any comment on how the american people can know the military will be able to adequately

assess targets before conducting future strikes and operations, even as we have even fewer local intelligence and surveillance resources to leverage? >> senator, the matter is under investigation, what i can tell you broadly to restate what i said earlier, i'm responsible for that, it is my area of responsibility. i'm responsible for that strike, i was under no pressure and no one below me was under pressure to take that strike. we acted on the intelligence read we saw on the ground and acted several times on intelligence we saw and successful other occasions preventing attacking, this time traj cally we were wrong. as we go forward and our ability to create what we call the ecoshssystem that allows you to see what is going on the ground, it will get harder to do that, particularly in afghanistan, ki share more with you later sglchlts thank you, general. >> thank you, senator kelly.

senator tuberville, please. >> you are part of the most powerful military in the world. i will ask all three and i know how you are going to answer this, any enemy that could defeat the strongest force in the world issue the united states military? i know all of you are going to say no. secretary austin, since your confirmation, have you been denied resources with regard to afghanistan, i think i heard you say earlier you got everything you needed. >> that is correct, senator. >> thank you. august 18th, you were asked why the u.s. wouldn't rescue americans who wouldn't reach the airport. i don't have the capability to extend operations in kabul. we saw germans, french, british rescue citizens in kabul frchlt this administration, which commands world's most lethal fighting force, we saw nothing but blame, weakness and american citizens left to fend for themselves. there is discipline to defeat

the enemy any time anywhere, people wonder why in the heck we let their allies get their people and we didn't get ours. thanks to the veterans and families who sacrificed over the past 20 years and i believe our soldiers didn't fail us, a lot of leadership did. secretary austin, before president biden took office, you thought we needed to leave afghanistan, on january 19th, you told my colleague, senator sheehan, i think this conflict needs to come to an end and we need to see agreement reached in accordance with what the president-elect wants to see. you testified there were adequate resources to secure afghanistan at troop level 2500. you told senator josh hawley, you wanted to assess the situation and make recommendations to the president. i know how you are going to answer, did you give advice to the approximate the on withdrawal from afghanistan without conditions or is that the direction you got from him?

>> again, my recommendations were a part of a very deliberate process where we presented a range of options for the president and if i could, senator, go back to the first comment about the question that i answered for a reporter who asked. why don't you go out and establish court on and create safe passageways for our people just to move into the airport? at that points, early in the deployment, we had less than 4000 or about 4000 troops to secure and defend the airport and our true presence continued to grow as we flowed people in. we used a number of innovative approaches to go out and pick up and facilitate entry of american

citizens into the airport as the situation continued to develop. just want to give you context for that answer. >> thank you. you know, we're all talking about did president biden know all this, my question about withdrawal, basically there are two options, i can answer that for us, either the president was given bad military advice or he gave the military terrible decision to surrender afghanistan without condition. i'll have more in a few minutes. i want to make a couple statements. the american people, especially people i represent, disgusted by how this u.s. surrender happened in afghanistan and i know you heard this, all three of you. american veterans are pissed off that their service was squandered. american allies are in disbelief, american's enemies are delighted and euphoric at the job that happened with the

military given the orders to retreat. president biden abandoned allies who fought alongside us for 20 years. this administration left american citizens behind enemy lines, we left 85 billion dollars worth of equipment that the american taxpayers paid for and this administration created sanctuary for terrorists to plot against the united states for years and years to come, it is absolutely ark mazing that we did this. i will end it there, these guys need to take a break. we'll see you after the break. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield my time. >> thank you very much. senator tush tushes, we completed -- senator tuberville, we completed first round. we will break at 1:00 for lunch. we will begin the second round. secretary off theip i said in response to senator warren, if we stayed past august 31st, we would be at war with afghanistan

and have to reinforce yourself. i interpret your testimony staying 2500 past the 31st was not sustainable at acceptable level of risk to american personnel and that we would be seeing today casualties, which objection be ark accumulating at unacceptable rate? >> the point left out of a lot of the conversation is that had we stayed pasts that date that was agreed upon early on, the taliban would begin to attack us, attack our forces there and we'd have to make some decisions on how to reinforce our forces so that we could continue to operate and that would include quite possible increasing the force there. >> now in the doha agreement, president trump agreed to leave with certain conditions on may 1, the conditions have been testified by the panel that were

really never achieved and never challenged by the trump administration. would you consider that advocation or surrender, that agreement? >> i certainly believe that the conditions were pre-set that and again, we lived up to all things we were obliged to do, we didn't attack them and drew down or forces, the taliban, only thing they lived up to, they didn't attack us. >> and we saw great deal of difficulty in meeting the deadline which was august 31st. would it appear to you that may 1 deadline as president trump imagined would of course more complications in terms of

getting our equipment out, getting our personnel out, identifying americans eligible to leave and get out since you would be doing much shorter timeframe? >> i don't think that would have been feasible to do in an orderly fashion, chairman. >> thank you for that. general milley, regardless whether the taliban met conditions required in doha, when you are raiding trajectory to go to zero forces, when the president took over so that you actually would have accelerated the process of withdrawal and complicated it more similar to my question to the secretary? >> yes, actually giving an order to go by 15 of january, changed to 2500 by 15 of january and take down to zero by -- new administration. >> thank you. general milley, your prepared testimony indicates biden administration through national

security council conducted rigorous interagency review of the situation in afghanistan, february, march and april, in which news of leadership given serious consideration by the administration, you also testified that you received order november 2020, all forces from afghanistan by january 15th, 2021. was that november order similarly informed by -- review? >> no. >> so that was basically -- >> esper submitted recommendation in written format on 9th, day he was relieved and 48 hours later received written order to go to zero by 15 january. >> i think in general mckenzie, again, your advice maintaining 2500 troops has been reiterated

repeatedly. you also recommended in the fall of 2020 4000 troops, is that correct? >> that is correct. i recommended in fall of 2020, hold at that level. >> that was rejected by trump administration? >> it was. >> there was no -- against you or anyone else, that was the president of the united states making decision based on his view of the world? >> insofar as i know, that is correct, sir. >> thank you very much. referring to the five minute rule, i will feed back eight seconds to chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the -- one good way to judge any president's decision is whether

it's made american people safer. generals, ask all three of you, you have noted the taliban has not severed its relationship with al qaeda. president biden stated on july 8th, that al qaeda is gone from afghanistan. i ask you, is al qaeda gone from afghanistan? generals? >> senator, i think there are remnants of al qaeda still in afghanistan. >> does anyone believe that al qaeda is gone from afghanistan? president biden stated at united nations this nation is no longer at war, is it your personal view that al qaeda is no longer at war with us? start with to the right, general. >> i believe al qaeda is in afghanistan, i believe they have

aspirations to reconstitute and if they develop the capability, i believe they have aspirations to strike. too early in the process, senator to determine the capability, but i believe -- >> do you believe the personal view stated al qaeda is no longer at war with us right now? okay. >> i think al qaeda is at war with the united states still and never has not been. >> thank you. does withdrawal from afghanistan increase or decrease likelihood of al qaeda or isis attack on the u.s. homeland? >> you asking me, senator? >> sure. >> my view is that it makes it much more difficult for us to conduct intelligence surveillance, functions and we can strike from anywhere in the world, define fix function, it is more difficult. we can still do it, not impossible, it will make it more

difficult. >> we entrusted security to the taliban, they failed to prevent the isis-k suicide bomber on august 26th. we don't really even know if they wanted to prevent it. we're in the same situation, trusting the taliban to prevent our ark -- attacks. the senator from missouri brought up what is the -- what is the situation right now and i think we don't really, after this several hours, have an answer to that. i do want to bring something in the record i don't think has been put in the record already. that is the conditions under which the previous president, after making the statement about the taliban. not only did the previous president have conditions and the conditions included having a

presence, military presence, they had four other things that were stated that those conditions going to prevent al qaeda and terrorists to threatening united states from afghanistan, secondly to make statements and commandments to members against the threatening united states and this is stated several times and testified at the hearing that there were no conditions. i believe that is the case. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary austin, i'm going to go back to my question earlier about the records that special immigrant visa applicants really need in order to qualify for those visas that and there has not been a real good process through dod to ensure they get records, is that something the department is looking at and would you be willing to work with this committee or others to see if we could set up a process to ensure that those folks who worked with our men and women actually have the documentation they needs to show that? one challenge is many records have been destroyed, but i would hope there is some way we can ensure those people are able to get the documentation they need to come to this country. >> senator, let me first say

that i absolutely agree that the process is onerous and that we need to do something to make it easier for those people who have helped us to prove that they have in fact worked with us before. one of my departments in defense is working to try to find ways to propose ways to truncate the process or come up with alternative means to they have worked with us in the past. we would absolutely welcome working with the committee on this. >> thank you, i assume we should contact your office to find who the appropriate contact person would be? >> we'll contact your office and let you know who he is, senator. >> okay. general milley and general mckenzie, it's long been publicly reported that the

pakistani intelligence services maintained close relationship with the taliban. do we expect that relationship to become more complicated now that the taliban is in power? are we concerned about pakistan's nuclear weapon and the potential that terrorist groups might be able to get access to the weapons? how can you talk a little bit about how you see the relationship with pakistan and the taliban playing out and the challenges that presents for the united states? i'll start, which one would like to answer that? >> go ahead, frank. i'll follow you. >> senator, some we can talk in more detail in closed session. i believe pakistan's relationship with the taliban is going to become significantly more complicated as result of the u.s. withdrawal from afghanistan and they'll see

pressure moving in to pakistan from afghanistan in ways they have been able to deflect before because of the pressure we and our allies had them, that is significant problem pakistan is going to face, like to talk about special weapons in the closed session. as noted by several people, to get to afghanistan, you have to fly over pakistan and that is subject of continuing deliberation of pakistan and i can shed more light going forward. over the last 20 years we have been able to use the air boulevard and go in over western boulevard. we'll be working with pakistanis in the days and weeks ahead to look at what that relationship will look like in the future. i can talk more in the closed session. >> general milley? >> i have had conversations over the years and with wack stan, the relationship between pakistan and the taliban will become increasingly complex.

whole set of issues that have national security best handled in a different session. >> thank you. can you and secretary austin, can you talk about what we're doing to work with our european counterparts who based on conversations i've had with civilians from our nato allies, this was some frustration about the communication that led to the withdrawal and the evacuation, are we working to rebuild those relationships? do you see that frustration reflected in the military relationships that you have? >> i don't, senator. i understand that there will be concerns, but as i engage my counterparts, they're all willing to work with us and i don't want to sound polyanish,

on this, they are thankful for the fact we helped them get their people out and we helped them get thousands of eva cueeshges out. there is still a strong sense and willingness to work with us and relationships, things we have to continue to work at. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sheehan. before i recognize here, at conclusion of senator wicker's questioning, we will adjourn, 1:00 adjournment a little early, couple minutes and promptly return at 1:30, senator wicker, please. >> general mckenzie, let me ask you, as i understand it, primary missions in afghanistan was training the afghan armed

forces. we also equipped them with approximately 83 billion dollars in military equipment, but we always provided them extensive support in the form of intelligence and surveillance, air support, logistics, including contract aircraft maintenance and special advisors. general mckenzie were afghans ever trying to fight taliban without u.s. support of any kind? >> senator, some elements of the afghan military can fight very well with our support, some elite commands. other elements were unable to do that and as we began to withdraw support during the withdrawal operation, we began to see the effects of that. we shifted to over the horizon model for aviation maintenance, that difficult to do. >> really is difficult to do.

>> in a literal population, harder to do in afghanistan. we were having some small success and afghan air force continued to fly strikess until well into august, on the negative attrition. >> what percentage would you term as elite? >> oh, less than 5%. >> okay. >> really for 95%, it is really unrealistic for us to expect them to be able to fight at that point in july and august of this year? >> the combination of the obvious withdrawal of the u.s., which had profound psyche loblg cal effect, in the mind of the soldier, the taliban and afghan military, they have the same d.n.a., comes down to fighting heart of the man on the ground. the taliban were heartened by doha and what followed and decision to get out by certain date. afghan were weakened morally and spiritually, if you will. >> thank you.

let me rush to get another question in. secretary austin, the report necessary "new york times" are that you warn the president all the way back in march there could be dire outcomes which the afghan military flooded, folded in aggressive advance by the taliban and you drew comparisons between that and our experience in iraq, where disaster unfolded and we were required to go back in. according to the same article, we've seen this movie before. i know you don't want to tell us what advice you give to the president, what was -- was that your feeling and did you make known the comparison with iraq and did you feel we had seen this movie before? >> thanks, senator. again, you're right, i won't, i'll keep my conversations, my recommendations to the president

confidential, but i would say that as we worked our way through the process here, we laid out all potential consequences that could result from any course of action that we took and we were clear right about that. so there were inputs coming -- >> with regard to iraq, that is my question, mr. secretary. >> well, certainly then we get back to specific conversation that i would have had. but clear that i have a history with iraq. it is clear i've learned lessons to be learned from iraq. >> was it your feeling we had seen this movie before? >> well, there are certainly some of the same kinds of things could transpire as we looked to transition. >> speaking of things transpiring, one, we had to go back into iraq. secretary austin, does the department of defense have plans in place to redeploy u.s. combat

troops to afghanistan in the event that our intelligence estimates proved true in our homeland security is in fact threatened? >> currently issue the president's decision, senator, as you know, we've left iraq -- excuse me, afghanistan, and so we've not been tasked to construct any plans to go back into afghanistan. >> no such plans in place? >> no. >> general milley, of the conditions that were required of the taliban in the agreement, only one was met, is that correct? >> that is correct, the condition was the one that was met, most important one, don't attack us or coalition forces and they didn't. >> so the -- president trump made a recommendation, gave order that we leave 15 january. >> correct.

>> and the vice came back from the military strongly that was not a good idea based on that advice, the president rescinded that order, is that correct? >> correct. >> and none of those conditions that president trump based his decision on had been met in 2021 when president biden made the same decision, is that correct? >> those conditions were never met, correct. >> thank you very much, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. at this point, the committee will stand in recess until 1:30, thank you very much. >> all right, with a break in the panel of generals and senate committee, we will fill that in with "outnumbered." in with bret baier, kayleigh mcenany and emily compagno and i'm harris faulkner. i will go to you first, with your overall thought on whether or not we're learning as much as

we thought we could. >> bret: there have been moments, good afternoon. moment general mckenzie said he did recommend 2500 troops stay in afghanistan. general milley said the same thing, went round and round whether the president heard from those gentlemen. austin said that the input received by the president. the president told george stephanopoulos no one said that, that i can recall. and general milley saying this was logistical success, the withdrawal issue but strategic failure. >> harris: morgan, you heard president trump's name come up at the end there. >> morgan: what was really striking to me, the secretary of defense said we have 4000 americans left behind. how the state department and defense department could be off,

state department has been saying about 100 americans and that figure doesn't change. we need a real accounting for how many people, big difference between 100 and 4000. my biggest takeaway, we have no counter terrorism strategy and milley and mckenzie testifyod this, mckenzie said he is not confident we can prevent al qaeda or isis. >> harris: i am rushing, it is top of the hour, kayleigh and emily, everybody on "outnumbered," quick one for us as we ark wait the panel to reconvene. thanks for watching fox news. our coverage continues on "america reports." >> sandra: the senate armed services adjourning for a break, set to resume 30 minutes from now. the nation's top military leaders facing tough questioning on capitol hill for the first time since the chaotic exit from afghanistan. hello and welcome, everyone, i'm sa