    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    THE BERGDAHL EXCHANGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR
                      U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE FIGHT
                               AGAINST TERRORISM

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

                                    AND THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 18, 2014

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 113-158

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
                                      or
                           http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

                                     ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    88-387 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California             Samoa
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   BRAD SHERMAN, California
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    TED POE, Texas                       GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MATT SALMON, Arizona                 THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina          KAREN BASS, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    PAUL COOK, California                JUAN VARGAS, California
    GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina       BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            AMI BERA, California
    STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas                ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                GRACE MENG, New York
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director

             Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade

                            TED POE, Texas, Chairman
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 JUAN VARGAS, California
    PAUL COOK, California                BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                     Massachusetts

                                     ------

                Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa

                     ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas            ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                JUAN VARGAS, California
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 GRACE MENG, New York
    SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Andy Andrews, father of deceased Second Lieutenant, USA,
      Darryn Andrews.................................................    12
    Spc. Cody Full, USA, Retired (served with Sgt. Bergdahl in
      Blackfoot Company, Second Platoon).............................    17
    Mr. Mike Waltz, senior national security fellow, New America
      Foundation (commanded a Special Forces' Company in Eastern
      Afghanistan in 2009)...........................................    27
    Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., senior advisor, Truman National Security
      Project........................................................    38

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Mr. Andy Andrews: Prepared statement.............................    14
    Spc. Cody Full, USA, Retired: Prepared statement.................    19
    Mr. Mike Waltz: Prepared statement...............................    29
    Mark Jacobson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement.........................    40

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    78
    Hearing minutes..................................................    79
    Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Ted Poe, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and
      chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and
      Trade..........................................................    80
    The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
      from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement..........    82

                      THE BERGDAHL EXCHANGE: IMPLICATIONS
                       FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
                            FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014

                         House of Representatives,

           Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade and

               Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock p.m.,
    in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Poe. The subcommittee will come to order. Without
    objection all members will have 5 days to submit statements,
    questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to
    the length limitation in the rules.
        The purpose of this hearing is to hear more about Sergeant
    Bowe Bergdahl and his exchange for five terrorist prisoners
    from Guantanamo Bay. Let's hope that the Bergdahl negotiators
    are not the same ones currently negotiating with Iran over
    nuclear weapons.
        Be that as it may, releasing five senior Taliban commanders
    may put the lives of our senior service members and Americans
    around the world at risk. One of the five detainees was a
    Deputy Chief of the Taliban's Intelligence Service. One
    detainee fought alongside al-Qaeda as a Taliban Military
    General. Another was a Senior Commander wanted by the United
    Nations for war crimes and worked closely with al-Qaeda and
    their affiliates. In fact, he led an attack with al-Qaeda the
    day before 9/11. Al-Qaeda called this attack an important part
    of the 9/11 total strategy. And still another was a close
    confidante of Taliban Leader Mullah Omar.
        The terms of the release to Qatar are quite disturbing.
    They may help out the Taliban while they are in Qatar, and it's
    very likely that all of them will end up fighting alongside the
    Taliban in Afghanistan later in the year. That will be about
    the time United States forces will be leaving and the Afghans
    will be on their own.
        It appears that recent law that was signed by the President
    was violated in this secret deal. This law, among other things,
    requires two things; that the administration must notify
    Congress 30 days before releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees.
    And, second, the administration has to specifically tell
    Congress how releasing each terrorist is in the national
    security interest of the United States. The administration did
    neither. Plus, it has been the policy of the United States not
    to negotiate with terrorists, and this seems to also have been
    violated.
        The Haqqani Network are the ones who held Sergeant
    Bergdahl. It's a designated foreign terrorist organization
    according to the United States State Department and has killed
    countless Americans and Afghan soldiers. It maintains close
    ties with al-Qaeda and it's the most dangerous terrorist group
    fighting in Afghanistan.
        It doesn't matter that Qatar acted as a go-between the
    United States because it did involve negotiating with
    terrorists in the Haqqani Network. This raises another concern
    close to home in Texas.
        One of my constituents, Victor Lovelady, was taken hostage
    during the terrorist attack on an Algerian gas facility in
    January 2013, an event that many Americans have forgotten. He
    was captured after he hid some of his coworkers in a space in
    the refinery. The terrorists never found the coworkers and they
    eventually escaped alive.
        It's been reported that the hostage takers wanted to trade
    those three American hostages at the facility, including
    Victor, for two convicted terrorists in the United States
    custody. Victor's brother, Michael, and his daughter, Erin,
    wrote to me recently to say that they were told by our
    Government during the attack that the United States does not
    negotiate with terrorists. Victor was later killed.
        I ask for unanimous consent that the letters be made part
    of the record. So ordered.
        The Bergdahl release troubled them, and rightly so.
    Victor's daughter wrote to me in this letter, ``The question
    that continues to come to mind is what makes one American life
    more important than another? And if we're going to negotiate
    for one, why would we not negotiate for everybody?'' I cannot
    answer that question, and I really do not know what the United
    States' current policy is on negotiating with terrorists. Maybe
    we will find out.
        Negotiating with a designated terrorist organization like
    we did with the Haqqani Network is unprecedented. Department of
    Defense says it will hold Sergeant Bergdahl accountable for his
    actions; however, National Security Advisor Susan Rice has said
    that Sergeant Bergdahl has served with honor and distinction.
    Once again, this hearing will shed more light on that issue.
    One of our witnesses today served with Sergeant Bergdahl and he
    will discuss Bergdahl's disappearance.
        Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is on record stating that
    he was not aware of any United States soldier who lost their
    life in search for Sergeant Bergdahl. The family of one of
    those brave Americans who gave his life, Lieutenant Darryn
    Andrews, is here today to set the record straight. He earned a
    Silver Star for his actions which included protecting his
    brothers in arms and taking the brunt of the Taliban rocket-
    propelled grenade which ultimately took his life. Darryn left
    behind a pregnant wife and a young son at the time of his
    death.
        So, today we have witnesses who can tell us what else
    happened in eastern Afghanistan in 2009, those who have
    suffered as a result, and what this so called deal may mean for
    Afghanistan and the United States going forward.
        I yield back my time, and I will now recognize the ranking
    member from California, Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Mr. Andrews. We know that you are
    the father of Darryn Andrews, Second Lieutenant who gave his
    life for his country. We cannot thank you enough for your
    family's sacrifice. We salute Darryn's courage.
        I would also like to thank you, Specialist Full for your
    service to our country. Mr. Waltz is a Senior National Security
    Fellow at the New America Foundation who commanded Special
    Forces in eastern Afghanistan. Thank you for your service. And
    Dr. Jacobson, thank you for your 20 years of service in the
    military, including your deployment to Afghanistan.
        First, as to a preliminary issue on Iraq, let me point out
    that we do not have forces in Iraq. We do not have a Status of
    Forces Agreement with Iraq. It was President Bush that
    installed al-Maliki as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006, and the
    misgovernance of Prime Minister Maliki is directly responsible
    for the violence taking place in that country today. It should
    not be surprising that Maliki refused to enter a Status of
    Forces Agreement with the United States under President Obama.
    He refused to enter a long-term Status of Forces Agreement with
    President Bush, the man who, in effect, allowed him to take
    power.
        As to releases from Guantanamo, while we're focusing today
    on five Guantanamo prisoners being released, President Bush
    released over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo. Most of them were
    dangerous. Over 100 of them we know are fighting us on the
    battlefield and we know where. Most of the others are fighting
    against us, as well. We just can't pinpoint where they are
    located. And what did we get for the 500 that President Bush
    released? Absolutely nothing except thank you notes from their
    native countries.
        As to Section 1035 D of the National Defense Authorization
    Act, the President has filed a report. Members of this
    committee can go read it. It is in depth. It is arguably late
    as many reports to Congress are.
        Keep in mind that we have to construe Section 1035 D so as
    to avoid constitutional questions; therefore, it has been and
    should be interpreted not to apply in this circumstance,
    particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange.
        Keep in mind that the last Republican Attorney General of
    the United States, Michael Mirkasey, stated that ``This code
    section is unconstitutional to the extent it acts to prevent a
    prisoner exchange.''
        Now, I would have preferred if President Obama had, indeed,
    conferred with leaders of Congress. I'm glad to see he is
    conferring with congressional leaders about what to do in Iraq.
    America is strongest when our President views Members of
    Congress as a source of counsel and input, not persons to be
    notified only when the notification is compelled by a
    constitutionally valid statute.
        And I will point out that Members of Congress, leaders of
    Congress can keep a secret. Some 16 congressional leaders knew
    that we had ascertained the hiding place of Osama bin Laden,
    and that information did not leak.
        As to negotiating with terrorists, it's a nice phrase that
    we don't do it. The fact is, we do it all the time. The Bush
    administration negotiated with every single terrorist regime in
    the world. We identified five state sponsors of terrorism, and
    the Bush administration negotiated with Cuba, Iran, Sudan,
    Syria, and North Korea. The Bush administration paid an al-
    Qaeda affiliate a ransom for the release of Martin and Gracia
    Burnham. Secretary of State Colin Powell designated the Afghan
    Taliban as an organization authorized for legal authorization.
        Now, it is said that because we paid a price for the
    release of Bergdahl that this put terrorists around the world
    on notice of a fact they somehow didn't know before, and that
    is that America cares about those who are detained. A walk
    through the halls of this building shows the POW flags from the
    Vietnam War. Everyone in the world knows that we care about our
    detainees. There are resolutions introduced by Republican
    members available to anyone on the Internet that show that we
    regard the release of Sergeant Bergdahl as an important
    national objective.
        Bringing our prisoners home is important to America. The
    enemy already knows that, and we know it, as well. And I yield
    back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. For the information of
    the committees, we are in a series of votes. The Chair plans to
    hear the opening statements of all the members and then come
    back for the testimony after the vote.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Middle
    East Subcommittee, chairman. You're not the ranking member,
    although----
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It's good enough. Thank you.
        Mr. Poe [continuing]. Mr. Sherman thinks you should be.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Poe. For 5 minutes, thank you.
        Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for
    being with us, especially Mr. Andrews whose son Darryn Deen was
    killed in Afghanistan in 2009, and Mr. Full, and Mr. Waltz,
    thank you for your service. Mr. Andrews, I cannot imagine what
    it would feel like to lose a child in the service of our
    nation, but as a stepmother of a U.S. Marine Aviator who served
    in Iraq, and a mother-in-law to another Marine Aviator who
    served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I know the sleepless
    nights and the constant worry that parents face when their
    child or loved ones are constantly in harm's way.
        Our country owes our brave men and women who have served
    and who have earned our gratitude a debt that can never be
    repaid, but it must start with being completely forthcoming
    with them.
        In late 2011, while I was chair of the House Foreign
    Affairs Committee, the administration gathered the chairmen and
    the ranking members of the pertinent national security
    committees, as well as congressional leaderships to brief us on
    a potential prisoner swap of Taliban terrorists for Sergeant
    Bowe Bergdahl. And although the meeting was classified, news
    reports from just earlier this month indicate that the
    administration had a team of officials from the National
    Security Council, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, Director of
    National Intelligence present the administration's plan to us.
        At the time of the briefing, using all available
    information given to me, I was adamantly opposed to the
    proposed swap, I said so at the meeting as did many of our
    colleagues. My opinion has not changed as more information has
    been revealed.
        I opposed the swap not because I did not want to bring Bowe
    home. It's important to have him home and out of the hands of
    the Taliban. I opposed the swap because the proposal would have
    resulted in a huge coup for the Taliban, would have benefitted
    them, jeopardized the safety and security of our brave men and
    women in uniform, and compromised our national security
    interest.
        With so many of our colleagues expressing our disapproval
    of the swap, the administration seemed to have gotten the
    message and dropped its exchange plan, or so we thought. Then
    earlier this month, I like the rest of my congressional
    colleagues and the American public read the news that the
    administration had swapped five Taliban commanders for the
    Sergeant. Despite his promises to notify Congress, not to
    mention its legal authority to do so, the administration kept
    the deal secret and acted unilaterally. The deal is precisely
    the reason for the legal mandate that Congress be given 30 days
    notice because the administration has a proven track record of
    overstepping and abusing its authority.
        As we've already seen, the Taliban used this to its benefit
    using the video tape of the exchange as propaganda, and as a
    recruitment video. And it has only emboldened them further. Not
    only that, but despite the agreement with the Government of
    Qatar, which by the way is only for 1 year, to supervise these
    five Taliban high-level operatives, there are no assurances
    that they won't be back in the fight in short order and
    orchestrating attacks from their lavish new headquarters in
    Doha.
        The fact that we are placing our hopes in Qatar, a country
    that has been full throated in its support for the Muslim
    Brotherhood, especially in Egypt where Qatar's support for the
    Brotherhood actively worked against our interest in seeing a
    Democratic transition there, will likely further or strain our
    already damaged ties with our traditional partners in the Gulf.
        This may have serious implications for our national
    security objectives, especially as it relates to our efforts in
    Iran. But this swap is more than just Bowe Bergdahl or the
    Taliban, it's about U.S. national security, the safety of our
    men and women in uniform, and it's about the administration's
    disregard for the law and the contempt it holds for its
    obligations to Congress.
        The administration's deal to swap five senior Taliban
    officials for the Sergeant has far-reaching implications.
    Negotiating and ultimately forging a deal with Taliban
    terrorists unnecessarily endangers all of the service men and
    women who are operating in war zones right now that these five
    senior Taliban operatives are likely to rejoin the fight. And
    it also inspires the Taliban and other terrorist groups to
    conduct abductions of our armed forces personnel, as we have
    already seen one Taliban commander admit that the Taliban is
    now encouraged by the results of the Bergdahl trade.
        Then, of course, there are questions of the legality of the
    administration's unilateral decision, and the frustration level
    and lack of trust that Congress has with the administration as
    a result of this swap. There are many, many unanswered
    questions, Mr. Chairman, the administration still needs to
    answer, but for today it's important that we have the
    opportunity to hear from some of the people and how this
    decision has impacted them personally, those who served in
    Afghanistan fighting side by side with a fellow soldier, those
    service men and women who may have been placed even further in
    harm's way as a result of this exchange, and those who lost a
    loved one in Afghanistan, they deserve to be heard, and they
    deserve the truth.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
        Mr. Poe. Thank the gentle lady for yielding back her time.
        The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the Middle East
    Subcommittee, Mr. Deutch, from Florida for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Chairman Poe and Ranking Member
    Sherman.
        To our witnesses, thanks for appearing today. Mr. Andrews,
    I join with my colleagues in telling you that words will never
    be enough to express our gratitude for your son, your family
    for making the ultimate sacrifice for this country. I
    appreciate your being here today, and will forever be grateful
    to Darryn for his courageous service to our nation.
        Mr. Full, we're deeply grateful for your honorable service
    to this country. And Mr. Waltz, Mr. Jacobson, thank you for
    being here and for your years of service.
        We all know that there are substantial questions
    surrounding the disappearance of Sergeant Bergdahl and the
    subsequent decision to exchange the Taliban Five for his
    release. It may take months before we know for sure what
    transpired in the days and weeks leading up to the
    disappearance of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Was he suffering
    from psychological trauma? Was he AWOL? Was he a deserter? The
    Army investigation has begun and rest assured answers to these
    questions will come to light and the Army will take whatever
    action it deems appropriate.
        I'm a bit perplexed when some Members of Congress have
    already decided the facts of this case. We have a solemn
    obligation to leave no American soldier behind. And when the
    opportunity to get an American soldier back from the enemy
    presents itself, we take it. This country has a long history of
    getting American servicemen back through prisoner exchanges
    because we promised the men and women, when they signed up
    bravely to serve their country, that we would do everything
    that we can to protect them and to ensure that they return
    home.
        Some of my colleagues have apparently concluded now how
    Sergeant Bergdahl's status should be treated, how the facts
    should be resolved. And that perhaps one concludes that he be
    left with the Taliban. So, I would ask what kind of military
    court is it, what kind of military court of justice do we have
    where Members of Congress play the role of judge and jury, find
    someone guilty, and leave it to the Taliban to carry out the
    punishment?
        We have every right to question why Congress wasn't
    consulted and notified of this deal. I believe that was a
    mistake, but I would simply caution against prejudging the
    facts of this case. What message are we sending our troops if
    we don't do everything that we can to retrieve an American
    soldier that the Army has officially declared missing and
    captured? You can have a debate over whether the price for
    Sergeant Bergdahl was too high, and it's an appropriate debate
    to have, but we should also be reminded of the 532 Guantanamo
    Bay detainees who were transferred before this President came
    to office. Where was the outrage then?
        There are those who have suggested that the administration
    has politicized this deal. I would simply point out that many
    members of this Congress who are now saying that they oppose
    this deal supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange and
    were urging the administration to do more to secure the release
    of Sergeant Bergdahl.
        Turning back to our witness, Mr. Andrews, there is nothing
    that we can say to take away the pain of losing a child, and
    I'd like again to offer my sincerest gratitude for Darryn's
    honorable service to his country. I thank you, Mr. Full, I
    thank you for your service, and all of the witnesses for your
    commitment to protecting this nation. I appreciate the
    opportunity to hear from all of you today, and I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. I appreciate the gentleman yielding back some of
    his time.
        The Chair will now recognize the individual members for 1
    minute of their opening statements. Mr. Chabot from Ohio is
    recognized for 1 minute.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Like many of my colleagues and most
    constituents I talk with, I'm very troubled with the
    administration's insistence that the deal made to free five
    Taliban leaders in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl was the best
    deal we could get.
        The Washington Post reports that among the Taliban Five are
    the former Taliban Interior Minister who was known to have
    close ties to Osama Bin Laden, a former Taliban Army Chief of
    Staff who along with another of the freed Taliban is thought to
    have been present when CIA Officer Johnny Spam was killed back
    in 2001, and two Taliban operatives who work closely with al-
    Qaeda, notably Mohammad Nabi Omari, whose case file says is
    ``one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained''
    at Guantanamo Bay.
        Now, I don't know how many of my colleagues have had the
    opportunity to visit our facility in Guantanamo Bay and look
    into the eyes of those who were involved in the killing of so
    many. I've been there three times. As much as I'd like to think
    that they've learned the error of their ways and want nothing
    more than to spend a quiet life with their families in Doha,
    I'm afraid you'd have to put me down in the skeptical, very
    skeptical column. I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will hear the
    testimony or the opening statement of one more member, and then
    we'll hear the rest of them after the vote.
        Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island is recognized for 1 minute.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and
    Ranking Members Deutch and Sherman for holding today's hearing.
    I want to thank all of the witnesses, especially Mr. Andrews
    and Specialist Full for their services and for your willingness
    to share your very personal stories with us today. Words can
    never adequately provide comfort to you, Mr. Andrews, and to
    your family, nor can words convey the deep gratitude of our
    entire nation for the service of your son.
        It's important that we take time today and in the weeks and
    months ahead to diligently, and thoroughly, and dispassionately
    examine the details surrounding the exchange of several high-
    value prisoners from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay
    for the return of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.
        We should never lose sight of the long-held American
    tradition that we'll do everything possible to secure the
    release of an American service member. I'm hopeful that today's
    hearing will highlight ways in which the administration and
    Congress can work together to protect the safety of our armed
    forces and insure the security of our country.
        I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and gaining
    greater clarity regarding the circumstances surrounding the
    exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl.
        And, finally, I hope this hearing will serve as a reminder
    to all of us that we must stay focused on ending American
    involvement in Afghanistan, and insuring the safe return of our
    fellow Americans serving there.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman from Rhode Island yields back. The
    Chair will be in recess for 15 minutes, and we'll continue with
    opening statements, then testimony of our witnesses.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Poe. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 1
    minute.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's fun listening
    to I think the strategy session across the aisle was hey, what
    are going to do? Well, let's blame Bush. It seemed to have
    worked for the last 6 years, so it's going to be an interesting
    hearing.
        I just want to say first off, thank you to the witnesses
    for being here. You know, when I went through survival training
    I was told your country will never leave you behind. I think
    it's very important to note that there was kind of a mutual
    understanding that your country will never leave you behind, if
    you never leave your country behind. And then, secondly, there
    was a mutual understanding that there can be a cost that is too
    great to pay. Your country promised to always search for you,
    they promised to move Heaven and Earth to come get you, but I
    was never in survival training promised that my country would
    release some of the five biggest enemies of the United States
    and the people that we've tried to bring freedom to in
    exchange. So, I'm interested to hear what everybody's thoughts
    is on why this happened, and some of the things surrounding
    this. I only have a minute, so I want to thank the chairman and
    yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
    the gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, for 1 minute. I know
    you ran back.
        Ms. Frankel. Catch my breath. Well, thank you, and thank
    you, gentlemen for all being here. Mr. Andrews, my heart breaks
    for you, and to the gentlemen, I thank you for your service.
        I want to give a little different--my own personal
    perspective. My own son has served both in Iraq and Afghanistan
    as a United States Marine. I'm very proud of that. He is home.
    But I will tell you this, when he went off to war I, of course,
    like probably most parents not only feared he would not come
    home alive, or that he would come home very maimed; but for me,
    my biggest worry was that he would be taken as a prisoner of
    war, tortured, put in a cage. It was just unimaginable. And
    that's why I believe so strongly in the U.S. military principle
    that we should leave no man or woman behind. It maintains
    confidence, it maintains order.
        When we send our young men and women off to war, they
    should know we have their backs. We will do everything possible
    to bring them home. Thank you, again, for your service and,
    sir, for your loss.
        Mr. Poe. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton, for 1
    minute.
        Mr. Cotton. Five years ago today I was a captain in the
    United States Army in Laughman Province so I think I will take
    the prerogative to speak on behalf of the soldiers who served
    in Afghanistan. I find it offensive and insulting that this
    administration, up to and including the President, would cite
    the principle of leaving no man behind to justify this action.
        Every day in Ranger School we recited the Ranger Creed,
    that I will never leave a fallen comrade. You know who didn't
    leave a fallen comrade, Cody Full, Darryn Andrews, or all of
    the soldiers who went after him in the weeks and the months
    after his disappearance knowing that he had deserted.
        When we made those promises to each other, we didn't
    promise that we would exchange five stone-cold Taliban killers
    for each other, nor would any soldier want that to happen.
    Would we exchange Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Deputy National
    Security Advisor Tony Blinken said directly to me that we would
    not.
        Finally, I want to say something to the anonymous sources
    in the President's administration for disparaging the service
    of the 2nd Platoon and Blackfoot Company. Show yourself, speak
    your own name, have the courage of your convictions. And if you
    don't, shut up and stand back and thank these men for their
    service.
        Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
    Mr. DeSantis, for 1 minute.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm hearing my colleagues on the other side talking about
    oh, don't politicize this, but then blame Bush or whatever. It
    seems to me that, you know, the President politicized this when
    he had a White House Rose Garden ceremony for Mr. Bergdahl's
    parents.
        I'm going to ask Mr. Andrews, and I'd like to know whether
    any of the people who served honorably and were killed in
    action were given the courtesy of a Rose Garden ceremony at the
    White House? I think the answer to that is probably no.
        The bottom line here is either what the President did
    benefitted the security of the United States, or it did not. I
    believe it did not, and I think that this was something that
    the American people disagree with. And I see that many of my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking to
    essentially run interference for the administration by blaming
    previous Presidents. That doesn't cut it. Let's deal with this
    issue as its own, and I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia,
    Mr. Connolly, for 1 minute.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Andrews, my
    deepest sympathy to you and your family. That may be your wife
    behind you? There aren't any words to express the terrible
    sense of loss you must experience. And I've had friends have
    similar losses and my heart goes out to you. Thank you for
    being here today.
        We're here today to examine the decision to exchange
    Sergeant Bergdahl, a soldier held in captivity for 5 years, for
    five detainees in Guantanamo. Now, it's easy to yield to the
    temptation to decide that Mr. Bergdahl did not serve his
    country. I would caution my colleagues, this isn't a partisan
    affair. This is about somebody's service, and we should
    withhold judgment on the quality and nature of that service
    until the facts are known. The benefit of the doubt belongs to
    Mr. Bergdahl pending that. It is not for Congress in advance to
    decide somebody's status before we justify leaving no one
    behind. So, I'm interested in this hearing. I'm interested in
    the facts, and I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle this one time to let us resist the temptation of
    partisanship. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North
    Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for 1 minute.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recently returned
    from Guantanamo, and got to look in the eyes of many of the
    detainees that are there. Make no mistake, the ones that we
    released, are in no comparison to the 400 or 500 that have been
    released prior. These men were a danger to the ones who guarded
    them, so dangerous that we can't even identify those who do
    guard them for their own protection.
        They are not choir boys, but I will assure you they are
    singing a song. It is a death march for those men and women who
    will come in their way in the future, and the cost in my
    opinion was way too high to release the Taliban Five in
    exchange for this. And with that, I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
    recognizes the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 1 minute.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague is
    correct, this is not a partisan affair. This is the Committee
    of Foreign Affairs, and that it is, it is a foreign affair. And
    the President is charged with negotiating on our behalf,
    unfortunately. I hope that we come to the conclusion to implore
    this President, Mr. President, stop negotiating on our behalf,
    please.
        Some would say that in military terms what the President
    did, we got one conventional weapon, some would say a dud. They
    got five nuclear weapons. Maybe we need to come to the
    conclusion to send a letter to the President, please, Mr.
    President, stop negotiating for us.
        As to the Andrews, as Abraham Lincoln said in a letter to
    Mrs. Bixby, ``There's no words that we can express to you but
    to generally relate our sincere appreciation for your
    sacrifice.''
        Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
    the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for 1 minute.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. President Obama has
    put American military personnel, U.S. diplomatic personnel, and
    yes, even American businessmen and tourists at risk by
    releasing five terrorist leaders in exchange for a captured
    American. We have given terrorists the incentive to capture and
    hold hostages more and more.
        I would say that what we have to realize is that our
    President has just made a decision that will result in our
    country and our people being less safe than had he not made
    that decision. And, yes, President Bush released 500 Taliban
    that had been held in GITMO, but let me note, he did not make a
    deal for them. He did a survey to find out if they were the
    least threatening of those people who were being held. Had he
    done a deal for them, we would be condemning him, as well.
        The fact is, this was an exchange, a specific exchange, a
    quid pro quo that will do nothing but encourage terrorists
    around the world to seek other hostages to make similar deals.
        Our President has done a great disservice to those who
    defend us, as well as to the people of the United States. He's
    put us at risk.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for 1
    minute.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. and Mrs.
    Andrews, thank you so much for your family's service.
    Specialist Full, thank you for your service. It's very personal
    to me. My two older sons served in Iraq, my third son served in
    Egypt, and my fourth son just returned from his service in
    Afghanistan, so I truly have a great appreciation of the
    commitment of military families, service members, or veterans.
    And the President has disrespected all of them by releasing
    five Taliban. The response was mass murder in Pakistan. There
    were two attacks on the airport there in Karachi, dozens of
    people were murdered. Also, Shiite pilgrims were murdered just
    last week. The response is very, very clear.
        And, in fact, we found out that one of the Taliban leaders
    said how much he appreciated the release, the pardon of one of
    the particular Taliban Five who is the equivalent of 10,000
    Taliban fighters. This is serious. The President has put the
    American people at risk. Thank you for being here.
        Mr. Poe. Does any other member wish to be recognized for
    opening statement? Seeing none, the Chair will go into the
    statements of the witnesses. Without objection, all the
    witnesses' prepared statements will be made part of the record.
    I ask that each witness please keep your presentation to no
    more than 5 minutes. When you see the red light come on that
    means stop.
        You're welcome to summarize your prepared statements if you
    need to. Witnesses are also advised that, as usual, testimony
    provided to the subcommittee is subject to the False Statements
    Act under 18 USC Section 1001; and, thus, any deliberate
    misrepresentation or concealment of material information is
    punishable by law.
        I'll introduce each of the witnesses, and then we'll allow
    them to testify in the order that they are seated. Mr. Andy
    Andrews is the father of the fallen Second Lieutenant Darryn
    Andrews who was reportedly killed while on mission to look for
    Sergeant Bergdahl. He is joined by his wife, Sandra Andrews,
    who is seated directly behind him, and she is wearing the dog
    tags of her son.
        Mr. Andrews, I know your time is limited because you have
    to catch a plane to go back to Houston for chemotherapy, and we
    appreciate you and your wife making the trip all the way to
    Washington, and wish you both a quick recovery.
        Specialist Cody Full was a Specialist in Sergeant
    Bergdahl's squad at the time he disappeared, and they were
    previously roommates together.
        Mr. Mike Waltz is the Senior National Security Fellow at
    the New America Foundation. Mr. Waltz commanded a Special
    Forces Company in eastern Afghanistan at the time Sergeant
    Bergdahl was captured. He was previously a Senior Defense
    Department Coordinator for Afghanistan and Vice President
    Cheney's Counterterrorism Advisor.
        And then Dr. Mark Davidson is the Senior Advisor at the
    Truman National Security Project, Adjunct Professor at George
    Washington University. He previously advised both General
    Stanley McChrystal and General David Petraeus, and has served
    on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
        We will start with Mr. Andrews. You have 5 minutes, sir.
    You will need to turn on the microphone. It's that little
    button in front of you.

       STATEMENT OF MR. ANDY ANDREWS, FATHER OF DECEASED SECOND
                    LIEUTENANT, USA, DARRYN ANDREWS

        Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking members and
    members of the subcommittee. I am Andy Andrews, father of
    Second Lieutenant Darryn Deen Andrews who was killed in
    Afghanistan during the process for searching for Bowe Bergdahl.
        Darryn's first tour in Afghanistan was in 2004 as an
    enlisted soldier. He developed a medical condition that
    required surgery so he was sent to Germany, and then back to
    the States. He applied to the Green to Gold program and was
    accepted into it. He enrolled in 2006 at Texas State University
    in San Marcos, Texas to complete his Master's degree while
    enrolled in ROTC.
        He was commissioned to Second Lieutenant of the U.S. Army.
    He was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, then briefly at Fort
    Richardson, Alaska before being sent to Afghanistan in April
    2009.
        We were able to talk to Darryn by telephone whenever he got
    the chance to call. We conversed with him around July 1st or
    3rd. His birthday is on the 3rd. He told us they had been out
    looking for the last 24 hours for this soldier who had walked
    away. I asked if the soldier had been captured while on guard
    duty. Darryn said he didn't think so because all of his gear
    was found neatly stacked, so he thought the soldier had just
    left. The soldier's name was not mentioned, so all we knew was
    that a soldier had left.
        Darryn could not tell us where he was, or what they were
    doing. When we would talk to him in the next few months, we
    would occasionally ask if they had found the soldier, and he
    would say no, they were still looking. No name or specifics
    were ever mentioned.
        Darryn was killed on September 4th, 2009 which
    coincidentally, was our 41st wedding anniversary. Second
    Lieutenant Darryn Deen Andrews distinguished himself by
    extraordinary heroism in combat as the Platoon Leader of the
    3rd Platoon Blackfoot Company, First Battalion, 501st Infantry
    Airborne in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Darryn's
    wife and son, his twin brother Jarrett and his family were in
    Cameron, Texas to celebrate Daylan's, which is Darryn's son,
    second birthday on September 7th. My wife and I had been on the
    coast to celebrate our anniversary. We had just pulled into our
    driveway and started to unload the truck. Jarrett had come over
    and told us that Darryn's wife's neighbor had called to tell
    her that the Army was looking for her. This was approximately
    15:30 hours. We told him that we would call her and tell her to
    be back at the house at 18:30 hours. I unhooked the boat, and
    we all went to New Braunfels.
        The Army notification team arrived at approximately 19:00
    hours. The Sergeant told us that Darryn had been killed on
    September 4th, and he would probably still be alive if he had
    remained in the truck like most officers would have instead of
    getting out of the truck to help get it out of the hole the IED
    had made. We were told he had saved soldiers lives when he
    spotted enemy combatant fire, an RPG, shoved others out of the
    way and alerted other soldiers. Darryn took a direct hit from
    the RPG.
        When we attended a memorial service for Darryn and other
    soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Lieutenant Colonel Baker's wife
    hosted a luncheon for us. At that luncheon, Captain Silvino
    Silvino Sandoval told us exactly how Darryn was killed. He
    stated they were on a mission to locate high interest Taliban
    and were passing through a village. The road had walls on each
    side and room to maneuver was limited. The lead vehicle hit an
    IED and was disabled, because of the walls were on each side
    around the vehicle was not possible. They got out to assess the
    damage. Darryn had Staff Sergeant Zavodny and PFC Martinec with
    him. Darryn saw the enemy combatant step from behind the wall
    and fire an RPG. Darryn yelled RPG and pushed Zavodny and
    Martinec to the ground, and then Darryn took a direct hit from
    the RPG. Staff Sergeant Zavodny received some damage to his
    ears, and Private Martinec survived the airlift to Germany, but
    died a few days later.
        On February 12th, 2010, Second Lieutenant Darryn Deen
    Andrews was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his heroic
    actions. At no time during this was it mentioned that he was
    searching for Bergdahl, only searching for a high interest
    Taliban.
        When Bergdahl was portrayed on television as serving with
    honor and distinction by State by Susan Rice. The soldiers who
    were there contacted my wife to make sure we knew, we
    understood what a hero was, and was not, and Bergdahl's walking
    away was a contributing factor in Darryn's death.
        I saw the Lieutenant Colonel on the television state, ``If
    you want to know what happened ask the enlisted people, don't
    ask the officers because the enlisted people can tell you
    exactly what happened.'' We received testimony from six
    different soldiers, the same testimony that Bergdahl walked
    away and was not captured, and that Darryn was killed while
    searching for him. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. The committee now will
    hear from Specialist Full.

      STATEMENT OF SPC. CODY FULL, USA, RETIRED (SERVED WITH SGT.
             BERGDAHL IN BLACKFOOT COMPANY, SECOND PLATOON)

        Mr. Full. Chairman, ranking members and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to share my firsthand
    account of my experiences serving in Afghanistan.
        One of the first things I noticed about Bergdahl when he
    arrived in our unit, he was always asking questions. He seemed
    focused, he was well read, intelligent, blended in as he needed
    to be, always at the right place, right time, right uniform.
        In November I got deployed to the National Training Center
    to train for an upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. During this
    time, myself, or anybody I've spoken with can't remember
    Bergdahl walking off the base and abandoning his team. This
    story seems to be repeated over and over again. I have no idea
    why. We would have at least heard about that or known it was
    happening. It did not happen.
        In March 2009, our brigade deployed to Afghanistan but
    Bergdahl did not make the deployment with us. He had gotten a
    staph infection and would not make it until May 2009.
        Soon after arriving in Afghanistan, we were tasked with
    building an overview called Observation Post MEST. While there
    we were on the front lines digging holes for bunkers, filling
    sandbags, driving T posts, hanging wire, all grilling tasks in
    themselves in 100 degree weather, go ahead and add your
    equipment, it's very tough. We were told we could take some
    items of clothing off to keep us from having a heat stroke.
    Security was always set in place. Nobody was ever in jeopardy.
    This has been used against us saying that we were a band of
    outlaws or misfits, not the case. Leaders were reprimanded for
    that by somebody higher up. We in the platoon felt that it was
    without merit.
        After arriving in Afghanistan, it didn't take long for
    Bergdahl to start voicing his disagreements with the way our
    missions were being led. He didn't understand why we were doing
    more humanitarian missions instead of hunting the Taliban. Our
    Team Leader and Squad Leader both told Bergdahl that those were
    our orders and we will follow them.
        Before we went out to OP MEST the day of June 30, 2009,
    about a week before we were told this is the last time we would
    ever go out to this observation post. During this time,
    Bergdahl mailed his items home or to a family friend. He mailed
    them back to the States. We didn't know this until after we got
    back, after he deserted, and we found that his equipment had
    been mailed home.
        On the night of June 30th, excuse me, the morning of June
    30th, 100 percent accountability was held around 6 a.m.
    Everyone was given the proper number of men and equipment
    except for 3rd Squad Alpha Team, which was my team, the squad
    that Bergdahl was in. Platoon members immediately started
    searching the tiny observation post for missing items. We
    looked under cots, the latrine, under trucks, everywhere we
    could think. Bergdahl was nowhere to be found. In a single man
    tent Bergdahl been sleeping in we found his gun, ammo and plate
    carrier.
        Patrols were immediately kicked out to the surrounding area
    to look for Bergdahl. According to some small children we spoke
    to they had seen a single American matching Bergdahl's
    description crawling low on the ground through the reeds
    earlier that day on their way to school. The story was also
    confirmed by a cleric and a teacher that saw the same thing.
        A few days later we heard from our interpreter that the
    American that was walking around in the Afghan village looking
    for somebody that spoke English and water also wanted to seek
    out the Taliban. That was from the interpreter speaking it
    directly to us.
        After Bergdahl was found that he walked off, DUSTWAN was
    called up that his duty status and whereabouts unknown. Every
    asset in Afghanistan was pushed to this effort. After Bergdahl
    shipping his items home, local accounts of seeing him crawling
    and asking for the Taliban, the false stories he emailed his
    father and odd questions all helped us connect the dots later,
    but at the time of the unfolding of the events it seemed like
    normal off-the-wall jargon common when the infantry is
    deployed.
        The facts tell me that Bergdahl's desertion was
    premeditated. He had a plan and was trying to justify it in his
    head. How long he had planned this I do not know, but it is
    clear to me that he had a plan and executed it. Countless
    people looked for him when he went missing putting their own
    lives on the line for his.
        Combat is difficult. The only thing you can count on in
    combat is the commitment of your fellow Americans. Knowing that
    someone you needed to trust deserted you in war and did so of
    his own free will is the ultimate betrayal.
        Now that Bergdahl is back in the United States an
    investigation needs to take place as to why he left us. All the
    documents, including the intelligence known on Bergdahl now
    need to come to the public view. Americans need to also see the
    original investigation on Bergdahl's desertion. You should not
    be able to desert your fellow Americans without consequences.
    Bowe Bergdahl should not be characterized as having served with
    honor and distinction. Any armed service member who violates
    UCMJ is punished. Bergdahl should not be an exception. If
    Bergdahl hadn't deserted us, he would never been held in
    captivity.
        In my opinion, Bowe Bergdahl needs to be charged with
    desertion, missing movement, disrespect for a superior
    commissioned officer, insubordinate conduct toward non-
    commissioned officer, failure to obey order or regulation,
    misbehavior before the enemy, and misconduct as prisoner. Thank
    you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Full follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                            ________

        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Full. Mr. Waltz, your testimony for
    5 minutes, please.

     STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE WALTZ, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY FELLOW,
    NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION (COMMANDED A SPECIAL FORCES' COMPANY IN
                      EASTERN AFGHANISTAN IN 2009)

        Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, ranking members,
    thank you for holding this hearing today on a subject of vital
    national importance.
        I, too, want to take just a moment to pay tribute to the
    family members of the thousands who served their country in
    this conflict, particularly the Andrews family that are here
    with us today. At the end of the day, we volunteered, we
    volunteered to go but the families have to deal with the
    consequences of our service.
        On June 30th, 2009, I commanded a U.S. Army Special Forces
    Company with responsibility for operations in Afghanistan,
    particularly Paktika Province where then Private Bergdahl went
    missing. That evening two of my special forces teams boarded
    helicopters on a mission to search an Afghan compound where we
    had indication that Bergdahl may be held. This marked the
    beginning of several weeks worth of missions into some of the
    most hostile areas of Afghanistan and the Pakistan border to
    find him.
        Within days we received orders to halt all other ongoing
    missions and initiatives; notably, including preparations for
    the 2009 Afghan National Elections. We were ordered to devote
    all resources and energy to the search for Bergdahl. It soon
    became apparent, however, that the Taliban knew we were
    conducting an all-out search for him and they began feeding
    false information to our informant network in order to lure our
    forces into a trap.
        On several occasions, my men were lured into ambushes,
    including an Afghan home rigged with explosives, a car bomb
    that was primed to explode, and other types of deadly traps.
    Fortunately, the bombs failed to explode in those situations,
    but they were too close for comfort. Other soldiers, as we
    know, were not so fortunate.
        All of us commonly understood at the time that Bergdahl had
    walked off his post after a guard shift into a local Afghan
    village. We knew, though, that we had to do whatever it took to
    find him, and that was fine. But I have to tell you, all of my
    men, me included, were absolutely furious and resentful,
    frankly, that a fellow American soldier had put us into this
    position. It violated the most fundamental and basic ethos of
    being a soldier and a soldier's creed.
        I'll leave further speculation regarding his state of mind
    of his motives to my fellow witnesses who knew him personally,
    but I am confident in saying Sergeant Bergdahl endangered the
    lives of thousands of men and women sent to search for him. He
    diverted scarce and valuable resources such as predator drones,
    helicopters, IED clearing teams from other units that
    desperately needed those assets.
        Wittingly or unwittingly, he handed our enemies a
    significant propaganda tool that they repeatedly used in videos
    to denounce the United States and recruit for their cause.
        And, finally, we all know that he handed the Taliban's
    leadership a strategic bargaining tool that they effectively
    used to free five of their most senior leaders, what I call the
    Taliban war cabinet.
        I just want to take a moment, I think it's important to put
    the release of these men in the broader context of our policy
    toward Afghanistan. As I'm sure you are aware, millions of
    Afghans voted in the runoff election this past Saturday. They
    are in the midst of one of the most sensitive and unprecedented
    political transitions in their history. In my view, there are
    still significant questions whether they will succeed.
        Every Afghan that I've spoken to from civilian society, to
    government officials are stunned that we would release these
    individuals back into their society. We have to keep in mind,
    these men were household names, particularly they're household
    names of the worst kind, particularly the women and minorities
    that were slaughtered at their hands.
        It's the timing, though, of this release that has some of
    these groups particularly perplexed. We spent the last year
    dueling and cajoling President Karzai to sign a long-term
    security agreement with us, the Bilateral Security Agreement.
    Both of the final candidates to replace Karzai have indicated
    they would sign it, yet weeks before the Presidential election,
    the administration announces a full withdrawal of all U.S.
    forces by the end of '16, essentially a zero option, and then
    we have restocked the Taliban war cabinet. So, even if the
    Government of Qatar is able to prevent these men from returning
    to their own ways, what's going to happen a year from now? You
    know, a year in that part of the world is a blink of an eye to
    people who have long memories and a long view toward their
    objectives.
        You know, one can understand the confusion and
    transparency, and trepidation, excuse me, of even the most
    ardent supporters of a strong Afghan-U.S. relationship, so
    where does that leave our policy going forward? In my view,
    it's one of hope and assumption. We're assuming the Afghan army
    can hold its ground, we're assuming there will be no ethnic
    violence as part of the transition. We're assuming
    reconciliation talks will resume in our favor. And, most
    importantly, we're assuming that al-Qaeda can't reconstitute
    like it has in Iraq and as in Syria.
        And I would just leave you with a word of caution. If that
    scares us, and what's going on right now with ISIS, and Iraq,
    and Syria should, what's going to happen when we're dealing
    with a nuclear arsenal in Pakistan? I have other views, but I'm
    happy to answer a question on AUMF and on future GITMO release,
    but I am out of time, and with that I will stop, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. Dr. Jacobson, 5 minutes,
    please.

       STATEMENT OF MARK JACOBSON, PH.D., SENIOR ADVISOR, TRUMAN
                       NATIONAL SECURITY PROJECT

        Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, Ranking Members
    Sherman and Deutch, and distinguished members of the joint
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today.
        I should first note that I, too, extend my gratitude to the
    Andrews family for the sacrifice they have made. I would like
    to have known their son. From what I have read and from what I
    have heard, he's a true hero.
        I'm also honored to be sitting beside my friend, Mike
    Waltz, who is also a true patriot and a hero, and has served
    his nation bravely in Afghanistan. And thank you, Specialist
    Full, for your service, as well.
        As someone who served in the Pentagon on September 11th,
    2001, the threat posed by terrorism is not lost on me. While I
    had made the decision years before to devote myself to my
    nation, that day changed all of our lives forever. As a result,
    I spent several years in Afghanistan as a Naval Intelligence
    Officer, and later as a civilian advisor.
        I am acutely aware of the danger that remains today in
    Afghanistan. For the four of us at the table, this conflict is
    personal and we all feel the impact of this war in a way most
    Americans do not.
        One of the greatest commitments an American can make to
    their nation is to put on a uniform and take an oath to support
    and defend the Constitution of the United States. By taking
    this oath, these men and women make the selfless decision to
    put their country first. They do so knowing that they may be
    one day called to give that last full measure of devotion, to
    give their lives for their comrades, their families, and their
    nation. In exchange for that, the military makes its own
    promise, a promise to keep faith with those who have been
    captured. The commitment is simple, leave no man or woman
    behind, no exceptions. This commitment is unequivocal
    regardless of the circumstances of capture. This is something
    we owe to all those who have served, do serve, and will serve.
        In short, this is why I believe that securing Sergeant
    Bergdahl's release was absolutely the right thing to do, and
    was worth the potential risks. Indeed, if Bergdahl did act
    improperly, then it is even more important that he brought home
    and held accountable in the military system for his actions.
        While there is always risk when releasing detainees, those
    risks must be seen within a broader context. Indeed, the
    potential risks for the administration are no greater today
    than they were during the previous administration when 532
    detainees were released from Guantanamo Bay. But there are
    reasons why given the situation today we should temper our
    concerns.
        First, as outlined by Secretary of Defense Hagel, the
    Qatari government has committed to specific risk mitigation
    measures, including travel restrictions, monitoring, and other
    limitations. Second, there is not a consensus that these five
    individuals will inevitably return to the battlefield. And, if
    they do, the Afghanistan of 2014 is simply not the Afghanistan
    of 2001.
        As Mike Waltz mentioned, the Afghan people have just gone
    through elections, 14 million ballots cast in two separate
    elections in open defiance of the Taliban. The strength of the
    insurgency will not regenerate because of the presence of five
    more individuals on the battlefield, especially since they've
    been off the battlefield for over a decade.
        Some have questioned whether the recent prisoner exchange
    created new precedents that will endanger the lives of U.S.
    personnel. While the exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl took place
    before the end of the war in Afghanistan, in the past we have
    conducted prisoner exchanges before the end of hostilities,
    World War II and the Korean War, for example.
        Likewise, the threat of kidnaping U.S. members of the armed
    forces by terrorists and insurgents has long been the case in
    Afghanistan. It was my own number one threat while I served in
    uniform. There is no reason to think that this calculus will be
    changed by the recent exchange.
        Finally, the United States has been negotiating with the
    Taliban for some time now, a recognition that the war in
    Afghanistan cannot end without a political settlement. I
    understand the disappointment we feel in the stories coming out
    about Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, and I understand the anger felt
    by some of his comrades who feel that he deliberately left his
    post. If I were them, I might feel the same way, but the truth
    is we do not yet know the whole truth.
        In our nation of laws, the presumption of innocence is
    sacrosanct. People are innocent until proven guilty; thus,
    before passing judgment there must a thorough investigation. It
    must be allowed to take place without politics or partisanship.
    Without that we are unlikely to ever have accountability.
        We may not like it, but in the end foreign affairs and
    national security policy are often about juggling bad options
    and finding the least worst approach. There are rarely simple
    solutions. The decision to exchange Sergeant Bergdahl may be
    imperfect, but it was the right decision. We never leave our
    soldiers behind.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, for
    inviting me to testify. I am pleased to stand ready for your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  ----------

        Mr. Poe. Thank all of you all for your testimony. We'll now
    go to questions by the individual members. I recognize myself
    for 5 minutes.
        There are several issues that have come to light during
    this hearing, the first one is Sergeant Bergdahl, why did he
    leave his post, and what's going to happen to him in the
    future? The second would be those that looked for him, what
    happened to some of them, and what did the government, the U.S.
    Army tell those who lost sons looking for him?
        There is the issue of do we negotiate with terrorists or do
    we not negotiate with terrorists? What is the foreign policy of
    the United States? Maybe one of you could come up with the
    answer to that question.
        And then there's the Taliban Five, or as Mr. Waltz has
    called them, the Taliban war cabinet, I believe is what the
    term was. Who are the folks, and why were they in GITMO in the
    first place, and what are they going to do in the future? So,
    those are the four issues that I want to address.
        Let's start with you, Mr. Andrews. What did the Army tell
    you about the way your son was killed?
        Mr. Andrews. They said that they were searching for a high-
    ranking Taliban, and had gone to this bazaar to search for him.
    And because of--this was actually in the Silver Star
    commendation, but because they had so many problems with IEDs
    on the road, that instead of coming in from the south, they
    sent them around to come in from the north.
        Mr. Poe. Excuse me for interrupting, but they told you they
    were--your son was looking for a Taliban commander of some
    type?
        Mr. Andrews. Bergdahl was never mentioned.
        Mr. Poe. All right. When did you learn that that was not
    true?
        Mr. Andrews. Last Saturday.
        Mr. Poe. Were you ever instructed, or asked, or told by the
    U.S. Army to sign a confidentiality agreement not to tell
    anybody about what you were told by the Army?
        Mr. Andrews. I was not, but the soldiers who contacted my
    wife were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, they said.
        Mr. Poe. All right. Sergeant Full, you obviously are very
    passionate about your testimony. Were members of the United
    States military killed looking for Bergdahl?
        Mr. Full. I don't know. What I do know is we were told that
    we wouldn't be in certain areas before he went and deserted us.
    So, if he wouldn't have deserted us we, probably--those people
    wouldn't have been in those places where they were killed on
    that day. They would have been somewhere else, they would have
    been in a different section of Afghanistan.
        Mr. Poe. Mr. Waltz, do you want to weigh in on that
    specific question?
        Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I can't draw, and I don't know of
    anyone that can draw a direct line, but I can tell you to the
    best of my knowledge every unit, particularly in Paktika
    Province where Specialist Full was located, but also mine, and
    Khost, and the Zorani Provinces in Ghazni were dedicated to
    that search. If someone was killed during that specific amount
    of time, unless they tripped and hit their head on the way to
    the mess hall, they were out looking for Sergeant Bergdahl.
        Mr. Poe. The Taliban war cabinet, Mr. Waltz, you indicated
    a lot of concern about who these guys are. One of them, even
    the United Nations has indicted one of them for war crimes. Who
    are these people? Americans are really not sure, they don't
    know who these type folks are.
        Mr. Waltz. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have--we've released now
    the Taliban's Deputy Minister of Defense, a senior operative in
    their intelligence service that was responsible for migrating
    al-Qaeda intelligence tactics over the Taliban. We have
    released the former Taliban governor of Herat, which is the
    westernmost province on the border with Iran and was
    responsible for liaising with the Iranian Government on behalf
    of the Taliban. And we released gentlemen that were wanted for
    war crimes for literally massacring thousands of the ethnic
    minority that are Shia. We look at the sectarian violence going
    on across the Middle East, I wouldn't call that necessarily a
    wise move.
        These gentlemen--the question I can't get anyone to ask
    that was involved with this, and I've talked to a number, is
    why did the Taliban pick those five? Out of all of the spectrum
    of folks they could have chosen out of Guantanamo, why did we
    give them essentially their top five draft picks?
        Mr. Poe. And one follow-up question on that. Understanding
    the agreement, Qatar is supposed to supervise them, but the
    supervision or house arrest, if you will, is for just 1 year.
    Is that your understanding of the deal that was made?
        Mr. Waltz. That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman. And,
    frankly, I think some of the details of what they can or can't
    do in the next year are almost moot. The fact is it's only for
    a year.
        Mr. Poe. Last question. Dr. Jacobson, we've heard this
    through the media. The Lovelady family in Texas was told that
    the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Their son
    was later killed in the Algerian attack. Does the United States
    have a policy that we don't negotiate with terrorists, or we
    don't have a policy?
        Mr. Jacobson. What I can tell you is that I don't believe
    that the Bergdahl exchange is an example of negotiating with
    terrorists. I believe it is an exchange of prisoners, something
    that we've seen historically toward the end of war.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you very much. The Chair will now recognize
    the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sherman. Let me first put to rest this absurd argument
    that these five Taliban prisoners would have to have been
    released under the laws of war when we concluded combat
    operations in 2014, or when we were down to a couple of hundred
    trainers in 2016. I'm pleased to note for our record that just
    last week the General Counsel of the Department of Defense,
    Steve Preston, testified there that we would continue to have a
    legal right to hold Taliban prisoners, not just with the
    conclusion of war in Afghanistan, but until the broader battle
    defined under the AUMF was concluded.
        We're going to continue to have American trainers in
    Afghanistan for many, many years. The Taliban soldiers will try
    to kill those trainers. The laws of war do not require us to
    augment the forces trying to wage war against our trainers or
    against the Afghan Government. We are at war with the Taliban
    for as long as they are allied with terrorist organizations
    waging war against the United States, or as long as the Taliban
    is waging war against the government in Afghanistan.
        Mr. Jacobson, I've got a number of questions. I'm hoping
    you'll be able to answer them very succinctly in some cases
    with a yes or no. We're told that some of these five released
    are ``wanted by the U.N. for war crimes.'' Does the U.N. have a
    process by which anyone can be wanted by the U.N. for war
    crimes? Have they ever indicted anybody? Do they have a process
    to indict anybody?
        Mr. Jacobson. I'm unaware of that, and I understand that
    there is some debate over how that came in some of the DoD
    documents, and where that came from.
        Mr. Sherman. There are many urban legends in foreign
    policy. Are any of these five under indictment from the
    International Criminal Court or any other recognized body that
    focuses on war crimes?
        Mr. Jacobson. You would have to ask the Department of
    State, or you'd have to ask the International----
        Mr. Sherman. Are you aware----
        Mr. Jacobson. I'm not aware, no.
        Mr. Sherman. And I did ask you to research this, didn't I?
        Mr. Jacobson. What I think is important, Congressman, is
    understanding, again, this context. These individuals are
    dangerous but they are simply not going back to that same
    battlefield from which they were captured.
        Mr. Sherman. I've got very limited time. I want to go on to
    something else. The question arises whether continued patrols
    should have been made to try to retrieve Sergeant Bergdahl. I
    should note for the record here that Senators Toomey, Burr, and
    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, along with eight
    Republican members of the House, at a time when we already knew
    the mysterious circumstances of Bergdahl's departure, and that
    this was widely published put forward a resolution stating that
    ``abandoning the search efforts for members of the armed forces
    who are missing or captured is unacceptable.'' At the time,
    there was only one member of our armed services missing or
    captured, and these fine Members of Congress, House, and Senate
    knew full well that those additional patrols that they were
    demanding would be dangerous for our armed forces.
        I should also point out that as to whether this deal was a
    good deal, it was Senator McCain who knew exactly the
    parameters of this deal, except for the details, that it was
    these five for one named Bergdahl because the possible outlines
    of this deal were published on the front page of the Washington
    Post on February 17th, and in that context on February 18th
    Senator McCain said he was for the deal if the details were
    correct. Now, maybe the details don't meet his specifications,
    but it is, indeed, a close call whether this five for one deal
    was or was not in the national security interest of the United
    States.
        We are told that it is somehow news that we've revealed to
    the Taliban that we care about our prisoners. The only other
    democracy to have soldiers captured in the Middle East to my
    knowledge is Israel. Dr. Jacobson, what were the Israelis
    willing to do to get back Sergeant Major Gilad Shalit?
        Mr. Jacobson. I don't want to mistake the details of that
    particular case, but what I am aware of is at times the
    Israelis have exchanged over 1,000 prisoners for one
    individual, and also they've exchanged prisoners for the
    remains of their fallen.
        Mr. Sherman. So, anyone observing the practices of
    democracies doing battle in the Middle East would reach the
    conclusion that if you could capture somebody, democracies have
    a particular need to try to get that person back and are
    willing to make extraordinary concessions, as you pointed out,
    sometimes 1,000 to 1.
        Mr. Jacobson. I don't think anyone would disagree with the
    point that our democracy has shown that it cares a great deal
    about our men and women who have been left behind and captured.
        Mr. Sherman. And, finally, as to these five released
    Taliban, their battlefield experience is from 2001. Were the
    tactics that they're familiar with near as good as the tactics
    used by the Taliban today?
        Mr. Jacobson. Unfortunately, in my opinion the insurgents
    in Afghanistan have evolved tremendously since that period in
    2001 in terms of their tactics.
        Mr. Poe. Mr. Sherman's time has expired. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank
    you all for being here. I just, you know, again we're going to
    the idea of let's point out everybody that ever said anything
    about releasing this one person and, therefore, the
    administration made the right decision because others said it.
        I'd be remiss if I didn't make a bigger point here on the
    Afghanistan issue, which is the President has announced that in
    January 2017, all American troops will be out of Afghanistan.
    And, you know, that's fine for him to make that decision, but I
    would just point people to what's happening in Iraq today as a
    precursor of what's going to happen in Afghanistan if that
    occurs. But, again, we're here for the specific issues. And,
    again, I want to thank all of you for being here.
        Let me ask a question to the Specialist. What do you
    think--when you were in training and you heard this idea of
    your country will never leave you behind, and it's something
    that as members of the armed forces we take very seriously, and
    something that we take a great deal of comfort in. When you
    heard that, what is your understanding of your country will
    never leave you behind mean? What does that guarantee in your
    mind, and is that an idea that they will release five or 1,000
    terrorists to get you back? What is it that that meant to you,
    Specialist?
        Mr.Full. Well, what it means to me is, you know, I put my
    nation first when I volunteered to serve the United States Army
    in the time of war. So, by putting them first, they would put
    me first to a certain extent. But I keep hearing, you know, we
    shall leave no man behind because we can trade with another
    nation, and it's done in all these previous wars, but Taliban
    is not a nation. They're a terrorist organization, so is the
    Haqqani Network who helped Bowe Bergdahl. From what I gathered
    from it, it was always leave no honorable man behind, not leave
    no man behind.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And do you believe--so, you may be in touch
    with folks that are still in Afghanistan or, obviously, people
    you served with. And I'll ask the four of you, and you can
    expand on this, Specialist, because we want--the other three
    I'll ask to keep fairly short.
        Do you believe that the release of Bergdahl from the
    Taliban and the subsequent video they put out, obviously, has
    to have some meaning showing, i.e., the American helicopter
    leaving and, in essence, withdrawing from the area. Do you
    believe that was a propaganda victory or a propaganda defeat
    for the Taliban, this exchange? And what do you think that does
    to the heart of the soldier that saw this happen, Specialist?
        Mr. Full. I think it's a propaganda victory for the Taliban
    on account of now we're kind of a direct--only traded one for
    five. It's simple math.
        Mr. Kinzinger. And do you sense that this will help or hurt
    the Taliban's recruiting effort to recruit people to kill
    Americans, and to kill Afghans who have put their lives on the
    line to build a strong and stable country?
        Mr. Full. I would assume it would help them, and not hurt
    them.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Andrews, what's your thought on that
    question?
        Mr. Andrews. From what I can see, it is a victory
    propaganda-wise for the Taliban. They won, you know, it is the
    way it looks like when you see the footage, so I think it
    benefitted the Taliban greatly. I think it also put soldiers
    more in danger of being captured because the rewards are more
    for getting one and trading them rather than----
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Mr. Waltz, and Mr. Jacobson,
    please, very quickly if you guys could just respond either yes
    or no, basically.
        Mr. Waltz. Just very quickly, Mullah Omar, the leader of
    the Taliban, considered it a victory and stated so as soon as
    he received his five top commanders back.
        Mr. Jacobson. I don't trust Mullah Omar, so I would say it
    pales by comparison to the video that could have taken place
    with one of our soldiers being beheaded like we saw with Nick
    Berg or with Daniel Pearl.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Well, that's an interesting twist. So, your
    twist is you don't trust this guy; therefore, him saying that
    it was a victory for his organization is probably a lie. And, I
    mean, that's kind of surprising to me, because I think if it
    was not a victory for them, they probably wouldn't have said
    anything. They released a video and they probably would have
    sat back and been very quiet about it, so that's an interesting
    spin. You have a right to your opinion, but I think that was an
    interesting take that the other three do not share.
        And do you believe, Specialist, do you believe he
    intentionally left his post? And do you have a sense as to why
    he might have intentionally left?
        Mr. Full. Yes, I do believe he left without a doubt. We
    knew within 1 hour, 2 hours that he had deserted. I don't know
    why he did it. He, obviously, had a plan. It was premeditated.
    Why would you ship all your items home in the middle of a
    deployment? So, with the emails and other questions he asked
    us, connecting the dots later, yes, he deserted without a
    doubt.
        Mr. Kinzinger. So, I get--and thank you. And while I get,
    you know, some folks saying well, we need to wait to have this
    adjudicated in courts, and I understand the idea of that. The
    reality is, we know that Sergeant Bergdahl left his post. We
    know it.
        Now, was he in full mental state? I guess that can be
    determined, but there are a lot of people that have had mental
    challenges with dealing with what happened in Afghanistan and
    Iraq that still do not leave their brothers and sisters behind
    in combat. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the witnesses,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
    the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Waltz, Sergeant Bergdahl was designated missing and
    captured, right, at the time?
        Mr. Waltz. My understanding, sir, is he was designated
    missing and a prisoner of war, and that's why he was since
    promoted in absentia. That confers a number of benefits.
        Mr. Deutch. And, Dr. Jacobson, how is that determination
    made?
        Mr. Jacobson. Well, that determination was made by the
    Department of Defense. I don't know the specific details, what
    they would have to go through, but I would agree with--my
    understanding is the same as Mike's.
        Mr. Deutch. For both of you, what process--I understand, as
    I said in my opening comments, and now it has been confirmed by
    some of the comments by my colleagues, some of them know what
    happened. They have reached a conclusion. It was obvious, we're
    told. But what does the military actually do to reach the same
    conclusion? What steps does the military take in determining
    whether someone who is determined to be missing is actually--
    has actually deserted? Mr. Waltz?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, if I--I think the key point here is
    that what the military has done to date has been initial and,
    therefore, incomplete. They have not done a full investigation
    and, therefore, I'm not sure how one would draw a full
    conclusion as to what they think--what we think happened.
        Mr. Deutch. But how do they--do you have any further
    insight? It seems very easy from what a lot of elected
    officials said, it's not that hard to figure out. He's a
    deserter and, apparently, we shouldn't have made this deal.
    Well, what's the military done to reach that same conclusion?
        Mr. Waltz. Sir, my understanding of the deal at the time
    was that a 15-6 or some type of investigation under UCMJ was
    conducted. A number of the folks that were on site were
    interviewed, and the reason that investigation was not closed
    was they needed to interview the subject at hand, who was
    obviously missing.
        Mr. Deutch. And if that investigation continues, what might
    they learn, Dr. Jacobson? What could they learn during that
    investigation?
        Mr. Jacobson. From what I have seen in the press so far, a
    great deal has come out. For example, we have seen information
    come out that perhaps Sergeant Bergdahl tried to escape several
    times, which forced his captors to put him into isolation.
    We've now seen reports about Sergeant Bergdahl's prior
    enlistment in the Coast Guard.
        I walk away with more questions from what I've seen come
    out so far. We've even seen today in testimony, what type of
    person, was Sergeant Bergdahl? So, again, more questions, which
    is exactly why there needs to be a full investigation of the
    circumstances surrounding his capture.
        Mr. Deutch. Dr. Jacobson, Mr. Waltz, what happens if my
    colleagues are wrong? What happens if the military completes
    its investigation and determines any one of a thousand
    different things happened, and that Sergeant Bergdahl was, in
    fact, missing and a prisoner of war, not a deserter? Can you
    speak to that?
        Mr. Jacobson. Let me speak to it. Mike might have some
    other comments, but my concern is if we look back at what
    happened to many of our prisoners of war during the Korean War
    and during the Vietnam War, many were accused of collaboration,
    not acting properly. In fact, Senator McCain was at the
    forefront of insuring that many of those records were sealed
    until proper investigations could be done, because our enemies
    want us to think that certain things happened. And I'm not
    suggesting one way or another that this happened during the
    Bergdahl case, but that's why we have to be careful so we don't
    impugn those who didn't do wrong.
        Mr. Deutch. I have a minute left, let me just cut to the
    chase. If the military conducts its full investigation and
    determines that Sergeant Bergdahl is a deserter, what's the
    penalty for that?
        Mr. Waltz. Sir, in wartime, and there's some debate whether
    this has been officially declared as a war. In wartime, that
    could be punishable up to death. There are various forms of
    UCMJ punishment obviously less than that. But to your point,
    sir, there's been a lot of discussion of rush to judgment, and
    I would postulate at least I would have reacted very
    differently. I know Specialist Full would have reacted very
    differently if this had been handled appropriately in the first
    few days after his release with the accusations of hero and
    served with distinction and what have you.
        Mr. Deutch. Mr. Waltz, I'm grateful for the distinction in
    your approach. In all sincerity, I'm glad you made that
    comment. I would just finish with this last question. As you
    pointed out, there are a whole range of punishments from--under
    the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Is one of those
    punishments subcontracted out to the Taliban to decide how to
    punish someone? I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Poe. You may answer the question yes or no, if you can.
        Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understand the
    question.
        Mr. Poe. Okay. The gentleman does yield back his time. The
    Chair will recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cotton. Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, I am deeply sorry for
    your loss. Nothing will bring back your son, Darryn, but
    hopefully the truth, which I'd like to get at in the next 5
    minutes, will help salve the wounds that no doubt are still
    with you.
        For the record, I'd like to corroborate what Specialist
    Full and Mr. Waltz have said that impact our missions across
    Afghanistan. I was in Laughman Province which is part of a
    thing called N2KL, Nuristan and Kunar, through Laughman
    Province. We saw the diversion of air assets to search for
    Private Bergdahl.
        Second, I'd also like to stipulate for the record that if
    there were no doubt that Private Bergdahl had been captured
    heroically on the field of battle trying to save his fellow
    Americans, I would still think trading five senior Taliban
    commanders was a bad idea.
        Likewise, even though all evidence points toward his
    desertion, it would still be the right thing to do to try to
    rescue him as Specialist Full and Lieutenant Andrews did. And,
    of course, he deserves his day in court according to this chain
    of command, or now unlawful command influence of this
    President, or any civilian leaders or general officers in the
    Pentagon.
        Now, Mr. Jacobson, would you trade Khalid Sheik Mohammed
    for Private Bergdahl?
        Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I mean, that was----
        Mr. Cotton. Reclaiming my time, it's a simple yes or no
    question.
        Mr. Jacobson. I don't think that there are simple yes or no
    questions like that in war.
        Mr. Cotton. Reclaiming my time, I gather by your
    unwillingness to answer the question you realize that you
    cannot answer it. Tony Blinken, the present Senior Deputy
    Security Advisor said that he would not. So, I guess that means
    under those circumstances the President would have been leaving
    Private Bergdahl behind.
        Now, moving to Specialist Full, you say in your statement
    that you are part of Alpha Team. Were you on the same team as
    Private Bergdahl?
        Mr. Full. Same platoon, same squad, same team.
        Mr. Cotton. Okay. So, down to the lowest level, those of
    you don't know, that's a four-man fire team.
        Mr. Full. We were one man short, so it was just----
        Mr. Cotton. Were you his team leader at the time?
        Mr. Full. No, I was not.
        Mr. Cotton. Okay. So, you are among the one or two people
    on the team who had been working most closely with him and seen
    him in action day, after day, after day.
        Mr. Full. Yes.
        Mr. Cotton. Okay. I've heard numerous reports that Private
    Bergdahl sought out and had civilian Afghanistan friends,
    something I saw commonly in Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers
    engaging in conversation, oftentimes innocent with children,
    maybe dining on base with Afghan security officers. Is that an
    accurate report, that he had these civilian friends in and
    around OP MEST?
        Mr. Full. Yes.
        Mr. Cotton. Okay. You testified, or you stated in your
    testimony a cleric and teacher saw him looking, roaming as to
    the children, and you heard over the radio the interpreter that
    an American was looking for someone in the village who spoke
    English, and wanted to talk to the Taliban. If he had numerous
    civilian Afghan friends, is it curious to you that he would ask
    them where the Taliban is rather than simply hide out with him?
        Mr. Full. I'm not sure I understand the question.
        Mr. Cotton. So, if Private Bergdahl left his post and
    attempted, as you say, to wander across the mountains perhaps
    to India, do you think it's curious that he wouldn't be asking
    his friends in Afghanistan where the Taliban is rather than
    just hanging out in a hideout with his friends?
        Mr. Full. Yes.
        Mr. Cotton. Tactics, techniques and procedures, TTPs, that
    describes how we conduct operations, what is the established
    order for conducting any particular task or operation in the
    Army. Is that correct?
        Mr. Full. Yes.
        Mr. Cotton. In the missions after Private Bergdahl's
    disappearance did it appear that the Afghan enemy had greater
    knowledge of your unit's TTPs, such as where you park after an
    IED, or how you react in ambush?
        Mr. Full. I don't know if they had greater knowledge after
    he did disappear. I don't know if another player moved into the
    area or whatnot, but after he did disappear, yes, the ambushes
    picked up, cover and concealment was used. They hit us hard
    after he left. IEDs were moved in different directions, and
    they were, instead of taking a tire or a front end off a
    vehicle, they were hitting direct hits on the vehicles.
        Mr. Cotton. And that would be consistent with Private
    Bergdahl being held in captivity by the Taliban, Haqqani
    Network and breaking under interrogation and sharing those
    TTPs. Correct?
        Mr. Full. I don't know. I wasn't there while he was held
    under captivity. I don't know what he told them. I wasn't
    there.
        Mr. Cotton. It could also be consistent with the fact that
    he willingly shared those TTPs with the Taliban and Haqqani
    Network. Correct?
        Mr. Full. Like I said, I don't know what he told them, what
    he didn't tell them. I wasn't there.
        Mr. Cotton. When you were conducting missions in the days
    and weeks after his disappearance did any of your NCOs or your
    team leader or company commander raise the possibility that
    Private Bergdahl might be a security risk himself if you were
    to find him on the battlefield?
        Mr. Full. Our main focus at that point was just trying to
    find him and get him back. It didn't matter how, who, or when,
    but that was our main focus from the time he left until about
    2\1/2\ months later, every day trying to find this guy.
        Mr. Cotton. Were you asked to sign a non-disclosure
    agreement as part of your Article 15-6 investigation?
        Mr. Full. I was asked to sign a media gag order. There was
    other people in my platoon that were asked to sign an official
    NDA with, you know, a field grade officer present to witness
    them signing.
        Mr. Cotton. Mr. Waltz----
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair will
    recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jacobson, obviously we've heard testimony today and
    there have been some reports of some unusual behavior
    attributed to Sergeant Bergdahl. And, obviously, our great
    American soldiers overwhelmingly are able to sustain the
    stresses and difficulties of combat without exhibiting unusual
    behavior that had been described both during this hearing and
    in the media. And is there a system or process in place to
    evaluate the behavior of a soldier to make a determination as
    to whether or not it's related to the combat operations, or
    related to his or her service?
        Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, speaking from my own experience
    there were--the first line of defense when you have a soldier
    who's a problem or not doing things right is his chain of
    command. That would include their NCOs and the officers above
    them. There are also--during my time in Afghanistan there were
    a great--there was a great deal of effort expended to make sure
    that there were preventive mental health clinics and places
    where soldiers could go. I cannot speak to the specifics of any
    of this with regards to Bergdahl, though.
        Mr. Cicilline. But there's a system in place to monitor
    members of the armed forces to insure that we're understanding
    the impact of being in combat and the stresses of their
    service.
        Mr. Jacobson. That's my understanding, especially over the
    last decade.
        Mr. Cicilline. And in addition to that, one of the reasons
    we--there's a process to conduct a hearing and an
    investigation, and a review of those facts to make a
    determination as to whether or not someone has deserted, or
    something else is going on. Is that right?
        Mr. Jacobson. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cicilline. And there is a process that will happen, in
    fact, in this case as it relates to this individual?
        Mr. Jacobson. In fact, the Department of Defense earlier
    this week announced that it will be a Two Star General who will
    be leading the overall investigation. We've heard Army Chief of
    Staff Odierno say that there will a full investigation, and
    that was echoed by the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff,
    General Martin Dempsey.
        Mr. Cicilline. So, in addition to that we have this other
    principle about insuring that we leave no soldier behind as
    part of kind of the warrior ethos, as part of the soldier's
    creed. It's a deeply held American belief and practice that we
    leave no soldier behind, and we do everything we can to secure
    the release of any American who's caught in time of war.
    Correct?
        Mr. Jacobson. That is something that I believe in. That is
    something that I think that even if you don't like the
    circumstances of someone being captured you believe it's
    necessary to go and get them, leave no one behind.
        Mr. Cicilline. So, why wouldn't we do this hearing,
    investigation, and all the kinds of things that are going to
    happen now before we secure the release of an American? Isn't
    that what--couldn't we do it that way?
        Mr. Jacobson. I'm not sure I understand your question.
        Mr. Cicilline. My point is, we can't conduct an
    investigation, the kind of investigation that is required and
    that is underway prior to securing the release of the prisoner
    of war in most instances.
        Mr. Jacobson. I think that would be very difficult because
    you want to interview the individual captured. That's why, as I
    said before, there was an initial investigation that was by
    definition incomplete.
        Mr. Cicilline. So, it makes sense then that we do
    everything we can to secure the release of every American
    prisoner of war. And then if, in fact, an investigation proves
    that they have done something improper or engaged in some
    misconduct they will, of course, be required--be punished in
    the appropriate way. And in this case if, in fact, this
    individual turns out to be having deserted under the Military
    Code of Justice he could up to, you said, a death sentence.
        Mr. Jacobson. Yes, I think--now, I understand that death is
    a possible punishment, too. I would note that the last American
    deserter prosecuted, Charles Jenkins, he had left his post on a
    DMZ in Korea, the demilitarized zone in Korea in the '60s. When
    he came back to the United States 2006-2008 time frame he was
    court-martialed, sentenced to 26 days confinement, and then
    given a dishonorable discharge. That's a range, or that comes
    after the investigation and after charges are referred and
    there is a trial.
        Mr. Cicilline. And, Dr. Jacobson, my final question is what
    do you think the impact would be on our American military if
    our men and women did not know that this country was committed
    to securing their release and to undertaking every imaginable
    effort to bring them home?
        Mr. Jacobson. I think, first, that that would shatter the
    bonds of trust between the soldiers and the American people,
    and the chain of command. Secondly, I think that it would be an
    enormous propaganda coup for our enemies when they have these
    people in captivity that we don't care about. It would signal
    in many ways that we no longer are committed to our men and
    women in uniform.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Dr. Jacobson. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back the time. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cook, Colonel
    Cook, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Andrews, I know it's tough to be here. As someone who's
    been in combat, the second hardest duty, I know probably the
    hardest duty is to actually go up to the parents or the spouses
    and then to tell them their son or daughter is no longer with
    them. It is very tough what you're going through. You have my
    heartfelt condolences.
        Specialist, if you could bear with me some of the
    questions. I understand that his weapon was left behind?
        Mr. Full. That is correct.
        Mr. Cook. All his ammunition?
        Mr. Full. Ammunition, night vision, his plate carrier.
        Mr. Cook. Night vision device was left behind?
        Mr. Full. Yes, all sensitive items were left behind. A
    couple of days before that he had asked another platoon member
    what would happen if one of his sensitive items went missing,
    would that certain soldier be in trouble? That certain soldier
    responded with yes, so Bergdahl left all his sensitive items.
        Mr. Cook. Did he have access to radio freqs?
        Mr. Full. He would, but he didn't have a radio with him.
        Mr. Cook. No, but just the frequencies themselves, they
    were all pre-programmed into the radio?
        Mr. Full. Yes. Standard procedure when DUSTWAN happens you
    change your radio frequency.
        Mr. Cook. Okay. Any maps or GPS systems at all that went
    with him, or was that all left behind?
        Mr. Full. I don't know if he had a map on him, but GPS
    would be sensitive equipment. He didn't have that.
        Mr. Cook. Okay. I think there's been a lot of talk about
    desertion and everything else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
    usually in a situation like that desertion is pretty much an
    admin term because one of the elements that you have to prove
    is permanent desertion. So, an individual that would disappear
    from the unit, I don't know, all the instances that I had, and
    I was a legal officer when I came back from--it's normally just
    unauthorized absence. That's one of the charges because you
    have to prove permanent desertion from the unit. Am I correct
    or incorrect on that?
        Mr. Full. That is correct. AWOL also turns into desertion
    after 30 days.
        Mr. Cook. Administratively, normally, so that they're
    carried on that. But once they turn themselves in or what have
    you, that turns into--okay.
        A couple of things in terms of just trust in the unit. I
    get the impression that the unit itself, and I really believe
    in the Code of Conduct. I believe in taking care of everybody
    in the unit, and to give your life for somebody like that. But
    I get the feeling that you lost full trust and confidence in
    that individual that he would be on your right flank or your
    left flank. In other words----
        Mr. Full. As far as the rest of the platoon?
        Mr. Cook. No, you, and if you could--if you had any
    opinions what the feeling of the rest of the platoon is?
        Mr. Full. Well, the rest of the platoon, we're brothers.
    None of the rest of us walked off on our own free will.
        Mr. Cook. No, but I--the attitude of this individual that
    was missing in action.
        Mr. Full. Well, he walked off on his own accord. If he
    never would have walked off, he never would have been held in
    captivity. The rest of us fought for the guy to our left and
    our right, and in front and back. And I don't know he felt
    about us but we all felt strongly that we would give our lives
    for him.
        Mr. Cook. Okay. In terms of the Taliban, I'm not going to
    go into the surprise, you know, that you weren't notified, but
    just an impact on a combat unit that is fighting that
    organization and then suddenly for whatever reason that five of
    their top leaders, five of the ones that call the strategy,
    five of the ones that kill Americans, five of the ones that are
    involved in terrorism, are released. What kind of psychological
    impact do you think that would have for the unit aside from
    Bergdahl?
        Mr. Full. Well, if my high-ranking members in my
    organization were released back to me, I'd feel pretty good
    about getting my top level guys back, personally.
        Mr. Cook. I understand that, but from the standpoint of the
    fact that the Taliban, basically the enemy that you're trying
    to track down, find, and everything else, that the impact that
    hey, they're back there calling the shots. Would that have a
    demoralizing impact on the unit if you were still with that
    unit, of course?
        Mr. Full. Oh, no. The American forces are going to do
    whatever they can every single day, do what they're supposed to
    do. I don't think they're really worried about anybody else.
        Mr. Cook. Okay. Mr. Waltz, in terms of permanent impact on
    policy in regards, have we set a precedent by doing this in
    regards to all the other terrorist groups?
        Mr. Waltz. I believe we have, Congressman. I believe we've
    set a dangerous precedent, and I'd encourage this body to look
    closely at future efforts toward release and calls to close
    Guantanamo. We had these gentlemen detained. Men and women gave
    their lives to detain them. Now, unfortunately, I believe men
    and women will give their lives to capture or kill them once
    again.
        Mr. Cook. Thank you. And I want to thank the panel. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Vargas, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Vargas. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And, again,
    thank you for holding this hearing. I want to add my
    condolences, too, to the Andrews family and, sir, to yourself
    and to your wife. And I hope that the chemotherapy that we've
    heard about just a little while ago is successful, sir. And
    your son, obviously, clearly was a hero, and thank God for him.
    And Specialist Full, too, we want to thank you. I want to thank
    you for your service to our nation. Mr. Waltz, you also,
    obviously, for the great service you've got. Mr. Jacobson, I
    want to ask you a little bit because earlier on everyone was
    thanked for their service except for you. Do you remember that?
    You were kind of cut off? You weren't thanked for your service.
    Do you remember that?
        Mr. Jacobson. I heard a lot of thanks for service.
        Mr. Vargas. Okay. What was your service, because at one
    point everyone was thanked except for you. I thought you were
    in uniform for a while, too.
        Mr. Jacobson. I did. I enlisted in the United States Army
    Reserve from 1993 through 2001 with service in Bosnia. I then
    took a U.S. Navy commission as an intelligence officer and
    continue to serve in the Navy Reserve today.
        Mr. Vargas. Okay, thank you. I thought so. I wasn't sure
    about it, so I just wanted to make sure. So, I want to thank
    you also for your service, thank you.
        Mr. Jacobson. You're welcome, Congressman.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you. Obviously, the issue here is the
    principle, I think, of do we exchange, do we negotiate, do we
    leave people behind? And, obviously, I mean, we've read a lot
    about what us politicians say, and I won't take the time to
    read it. I was going to read from the Congressional Record
    because it's interesting what politicians say when it's
    beneficial to them. There's lots of interesting things being
    said both sides.
        I'd like to know what the military thinks about this, Mr.
    Waltz. You seem to have a good ear to what the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff and others are saying. What do they say about this deal?
    Are they criticizing it? Are they in favor of it, have they
    been critical of it? Do you know what the Joint Chiefs have
    said, or what they believe?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, you know, obviously many of our--we
    have civilian oversight of the military and our most senior
    leaders are supportive of this policy. I can tell you from the
    rank and file, anecdotally, that are reaching out to me,
    they're just as furious and resentful as we were at the time.
    And I think if things had been handled a little bit
    differently, if there had been a quiet reunion with the family
    and Sergeant Bergdahl had----immediately there hadn't been a
    rush to judgment to call him a hero, and tell the world he
    served with distinction you would have seen a very--a much more
    muted reaction.
        Mr. Vargas. So, it's not necessarily the principle of
    getting them back. You know, I was very curious when I listened
    to you and you said that, I believe, and I don't want to put
    words in your mouth, but I believe you said something we were
    out there looking for him and we were trying--and we should
    have, although we resented it, we were doing it. I mean, it
    sounded like you were doing what you thought you should have
    done.
        Mr. Waltz. That's right. I don't know of many folks who
    debate the principle that we should get every American back. I
    think what's debated and what's controversial is, one, his
    treatment when it was announced. But then, two, the price we
    paid. And I personally believe the price was too high. Some
    people draw the line at Khalid Sheik Mohammad. I draw the line
    in the top five senior Taliban members that were requested by
    the Taliban.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you, sir. Dr. Jacobson, I'm going to ask
    you the same question, again. Thank you, sir, for your
    testimony. What about that notion, do you know where the Joints
    Chiefs of Staff, where are they on this? Are they against it,
    are the military in favor of it? If they are, why? Would you
    comment on that?
        Mr. Jacobson. I can only refer back in terms of the serving
    military leadership to the public statements made by Chairman
    of the Joint Staff Dempsey, General Odierno, and others. But
    two of my personal heroes who have retired from the military,
    General Jim Mattis and General Stanley McChrystal have been
    unequivocal in their support for that concept, and I'd be proud
    to stand where they are in this.
        I do understand that some feel that it's the right thing to
    do, but they don't have to like it. There are a lot of missions
    in the military that soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines are
    very happy to do, that's why they're professionals, and they
    don't like it.
        At the same time, I think what makes our nation so great is
    that I've spoken to many individuals who actually are very
    content with this, and didn't have a problem doing it. But I
    would find it strange if there was any less disagreement over
    the--how much one enjoyed having to do this, or whether or not
    we should have done it. I'd be very surprised if there was that
    disagreement in the military.
        Mr. Vargas. Well, you know, I have to say one of the things
    that I find odd right here is it seems like no one is
    disagreeing with the principle that we should get this guy, it
    was just how it was handled, how it was handled, you know,
    saying that he was a hero, you know, giving the Rose Garden
    deal and all that. It doesn't seem like the principle is one
    that Mr. Waltz or--correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like the
    principle is one you agree with. And I apologize----
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, it's the principle and the price
    that we paid, and I would argue that we'll have to pay again to
    deal with these gentlemen in the future.
        Mr. Jacobson. And, Congressman, I think that it was a good
    price. I think this was worth the risk to get Sergeant Bergdahl
    back home.
        Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
    the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, 5 minutes.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jacobson, you had taken issue with Mr. Waltz when he
    had mentioned, I think correctly, that Mullah Omar thought this
    was a great thing for the liban. You said well, yes, maybe
    thought beheading Bergdahl would have been better for them. We
    can't say that. Do you honestly think if they thought beheading
    Bergdahl would have helped them that they would not have done
    it in a second? They did this, they got those men back because
    they want those guys back in command. Of course it was better
    for them, so I thought--that comment I thought was just--struck
    me as totally off base.
        Let me ask you this, do we have troops in Afghanistan right
    now?
        Mr. Jacobson. Yes, Congressman.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay. So, you have referenced troops who have
    been left behind. And we can argue whether Bergdahl left his
    unit behind. And I agree with Specialist Full, I think he did
    that, everyone that served with him said that. If we still have
    troops there, who have we left behind? We're still fighting the
    conflict. It's not over yet, so the notion that somehow had we
    not done this trade that means we ``left him behind'' is utter
    nonsense. So, what we've done is we've replenished the enemy in
    wartime when we still have fighters in there, and those
    individuals will be back on the battlefield, even if you
    believe this Qatar year. They're going to be back while we
    still under the President's timetable still have troops there.
    So, we have not left anybody behind.
        And I think Mr. Waltz hits it right on the head about the
    price that you pay. Does this help or harm the security
    interest of the United States? I would refer to people, like to
    my colleague, Sam Johnson, who was a Medal of Honor winner, one
    of the most respected men in this body, prisoner of war. He
    said, ``Absolutely not, this should not have been done.'' And
    when he was a prisoner of war, he would not have wanted to go
    back if it meant harming the security interest of his country.
    And when I talk to veterans in my district, and I have people
    who were POWs, they say the same thing. Yes, of course, we want
    to get everyone behind. We don't harm the country and put
    everyone else at risk to do that.
        Mr. Andrews, did your son, Darryn, get honored at the White
    House for his service?
        Mr. Andrews. No, sir.
        Mr. DeSantis. And you were never invited to any type of
    Rose Garden ceremony?
        Mr. Andrews. No, sir.
        Mr. DeSantis. And I think a lot of veterans had a visceral
    reaction when they saw Bergdahl's parents given the lack of
    honorable service----
        Mr. Andrews. That's when the people are calling me.
        Mr. DeSantis [continuing]. It was done to try to say we got
    a hero back. Susan Rice, honor and distinction, in order to
    divert the public's attention from the price that we paid. They
    didn't want the public focusing on the Taliban Five. They
    wanted the public focusing on we brought a soldier home, and so
    they had to inflate his service in order to try do that. So, it
    was an attempt at a deception of the public, and I think it
    struck a lot--I mean, me as a veteran and a lot of my folks in
    my district were very, very upset about that.
        Let me ask you this. The Army lied to you, basically, about
    how your son died. Correct?
        Mr. Andrews. They at least, at the very best didn't tell
    the whole story.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay. So, knowing that, knowing that you
    didn't get the whole story, do you have confidence with this
    Bergdahl matter, we heard oh, we've got to let the military
    decide, but do you have confidence that they're going to do an
    investigation that's impartial and adequate?
        Mr. Andrews. My personal feeling is if they will let the
    military do it and leave the politics out of it, I think they
    will do it.
        Mr. DeSantis. Do you think that if there is a high-ranking
    flag or general officer who's career could be impacted by how
    that case goes----
        Mr. Andrews. See, that's putting politics back in.
        Mr. DeSantis. Well, I think, unfortunately, once you get up
    to that level, if that's where it is, and I'm a former JAG
    Prosecutor, so I'm worried about how it's working out.
        Specialist Full, do you think that Mr. Bergdahl deserves an
    honorable discharge from the Army?
        Mr. Full. No, I do not. It's a slap in the face to all
    those that did serve honorably, upheld their oath, and didn't
    desert, that he gets the same benefits that they do.
        Mr. DeSantis. And if he goes--if this case gets diverted
    for whatever way and he's not actually found guilty at a court-
    martial and given a punitive discharge, is it your
    understanding that he would then be entitled to back pay for
    all the years that he was gone?
        Mr. Full. Yes, he would be entitled to back pay, which I
    think is around $300,000, college benefits, VA health care
    benefits, everything a veteran gets with an honorable
    discharge.
        Mr. DeSantis. So, you think that given what happened, you
    know, if you were advising a prosecutor as to what to ask for
    the penalty, would a dishonorable discharge be one of the
    things that they should ask the military judge or the members
    for?
        Mr. Full. Yes, reduced in rank, forfeiture of all pay, and
    a dishonorable discharge is what I'd recommend.
        Mr. DeSantis. Well, I appreciate that. I am concerned--I
    mean, I have been involved in the Military Justice System.
    There is an inherent amount of lot of politics involved when
    you get at that level, and I think it's important that this is
    transparent. And I think Congress needs to conduct oversight.
    You know, how Nidal Hasan was handled, to me, was a travesty
    that it took that long, and he got over $300,000 just sitting
    in the brig. So, I appreciate the witnesses, and I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will
    recognize the gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Again, I want to just, to
    Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, I just--my heart breaks for you. I'm so
    sorry, I'm sorry that you have to be here. And I'll try not to
    politicize this really for your benefit. To the other gentlemen
    really thank you, again, for your service. I cannot tell you
    how much as a mother of--and I don't want to keep hoisting my
    son up, but I understand your bravery, your selflessness, just
    thank you, thank you, thank you.
        My first question is to Dr. Jacobson, and if the others
    want to answer, fine. What can we learn from Sergeant Bergdahl?
    I know we're bringing him back, we've been talking in all types
    of disparaging ways about him. We don't know that much about
    him, at least I don't. But what can we learn from his capture?
    Can he give us valuable information?
        Mr. Jacobson. Absolutely, Congresswoman Frankel. I know
    Representative Kinzinger knows from his time going through SERE
    training, a lot of what we understand now about captivity, a
    lot of what can do to help innoculate our personnel against
    those stresses comes from, unfortunately, the experience of
    individuals who were held captive not just during our wars, but
    during peacetime detention. So, as we have heard from the
    military, there is going to be a debriefing process, and in
    that one can hope that there is information that one day might
    save the life or make it less problematic for future U.S.
    personnel who are held in captivity in the inevitable conflicts
    in the future.
        Ms. Frankel. I believe for--without debating the merits of
    how long we stayed in Afghanistan, I do believe that we were
    there because our own freedoms were jeopardized by al-Qaeda,
    and they were being protected by the Taliban. I want to talk
    about those freedoms.
        What sets us apart from the Taliban? Specifically, I know
    you probably all agree, you go to fight for our freedom,
    freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and there's something
    else I would respectfully like to suggest, which is our due
    process of law that we have in this country, and what a high
    standard it is. So, my question to all of you is should
    soldiers who misbehave be subject to due process of law?
        Mr. Full. Well, he's a member of the armed forces. He's not
    subject to a civilian or Federal court, he's subject to UCMJ
    action.
        Ms. Frankel. Should he have due process even though it's a
    military court?
        Mr. Full. Yes, that's the whole point that I'm coming
    forward and telling my side of the story. He deserted, he's
    back, great he's back, but he needs to face and be held
    accountable for his actions.
        Ms. Frankel. Yes, Mr. Waltz?
        Mr. Waltz. Congresswoman, there was a real fear, me
    included in those first 24 hours that there would be, you know,
    ``ticker tape parades,'' and Rose Garden ceremonies, and that
    this whole effort would get politicized, and that the truth,
    frankly, would be buried. And that's why both myself,
    Specialist Full, and others have come forward.
        Ms. Frankel. Okay. So, I think we agree, though, the due
    process of law, that he's entitled to that.
        Mr. Full. Absolutely.
        Ms. Frankel. And, lastly, I mean, I want to--anyone who
    wants to answer this question. This I'm coming at as a mother,
    all right? Which is, do you believe all our soldiers, all these
    men and women who go into battle, go into war are perfect? Do
    we bring in perfect people?
        Mr. Jacobson. I hope my friend Mike will agree. When you've
    been in charge of junior troops, hardly a day probably goes by,
    it's almost like being a parent, where a parent--kids are
    imperfect. I'm sure my mother would say the same thing, but
    that's why it's so important to have well trained NCOs, to have
    good leaders in those positions to guide these troops through
    something that's unbelievably stressful, and to ensure that
    they all get home alive.
        Ms. Frankel. Well, I do know this. I don't know very much
    about Mr. Bergdahl or his family, or what he was going through,
    what his mom was going through. I hope that will be determined
    as you have suggested. I think that's fair. But I do know this,
    that so many of our young men and women are coming home and
    they have been stressed out, and are mentally unstable. And I
    would not like to think that they would not be subject to due
    process if they committed a crime.
        So, with that, I want to thank you, thank you all of you
    for your service. Again, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, really I'm so
    sorry for your loss. And, Mr. Chair, I yield the rest of my
    time.
        Mr. Poe. The gentle lady yields back. And just so the
    record is clear, Mr. Andrews served in the United States Air
    Force, so all four of you all, thank you for your service.
        Ms. Frankel. Thank you for your service, sir.
        Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
    Mr. Yoho, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, panelists. I appreciate
    your being here, and thank you for your service to our great
    country.
        Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, thank you for the sacrifice of what
    you went through. I, as a grateful citizen of this great nation
    and a Member of Congress am appreciative every day of the
    liberties and freedoms that we get to experience because of the
    willingness of people to serve, commit, and dedicate to this
    country. I thank you.
        I think we should keep the narrative on the policy. The
    description of whether or not he was a deserter or not, as you
    brought up, Specialist Full, that will come out and it will go
    through its due process.
        Mr. Waltz, you said in your bio, you state that you deal or
    provide strategic analysis and policy development for other
    countries. Was the transfer of one American soldier for five
    Taliban a wise decision in your opinion?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, I think we should look at this
    policy as a whole and learn from it. Right now, a gentleman by
    the name of Mullah Abdul Zakir is the head of the Taliban
    Military Committee that we released previously from Guantanamo,
    and we're paying that price now. And further, Abu Bakr al-
    Baghdadi, head of ISIS that's terrorizing Syria and Iraq right
    now, was also detained in Camp Bucca. We need to learn lessons
    from these releases that we're paying for later.
        Mr. Yoho. So, in your opinion it's probably not a wise
    policy to implement.
        Mr. Jacobson, you and Mr. Sherman were referring to our
    democracy, and you brought in Israel, as democracies trade for
    prisoners all the time. And I know I don't need to remind you,
    but this is not Israel, we're not Israel. We don't do that as a
    policy. And you're talking about a democracy, and again I know
    I don't have to remind you, a true democracy is majority rule,
    it's mob rule. And what I hear the public want to do with Mr.
    Bergdahl is mob rule. And I had to remind people we're a
    constitutional republic where the minority is protected by rule
    of law. And as Ben Franklin always talked about, a democracy is
    two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. That
    sheep always loses, and so I'm thankful that we're in a
    republic. And we need to remind people that we are different
    because we do follow that.
        And as far as Mr. Bergdahl, he will come home. And I think
    any time we get an American soldier back to our country we all
    should celebrate. But I think before we hang judgment on him,
    was he wrong or right, we need to look at and let the military
    go through what they're going to go through to decide the fate
    of that young man.
        The issues that I want to ask you about, do we negotiate
    with terrorists or not? And, again, I think Specialist Full,
    you brought up they're terrorist. It's not even a nation, it's
    a terrorist group. And, again, this goes against our
    precedents, it goes against our historical policy. Do you think
    this is a wise thing that we do, or implement?
        Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I certainly think that it's a
    wise thing that we retrieved Sergeant Bergdahl.
        Mr. Yoho. There's no doubt about that, but negotiate with
    terrorists.
        Mr. Jacobson. I want to run through just a list of a couple
    of situations where we have negotiated not only with
    terrorists, but with insurgent groups, and state-sponsors of
    terrorism. As I mentioned, part of bringing the war in
    Afghanistan to conclusion will be continuing discussions with
    the Taliban, but taking a look back at our own history, not
    just discussions that we've had with the North Koreans. We
    also----
        Mr. Yoho. Okay, North Korea, that's a country, it's not a
    terror----
        Mr. Jacobson. They sponsor terrorism.
        Mr. Yoho. They're a country.
        Mr. Jacobson. Was a state-sponsor of terrorism.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay.
        Mr. Jacobson. I also look back, as I said, if you
    understand that there are differences between insurgents,
    between terrorists, between state-sponsors of terrorism, the
    concern I think people have is this idea of ransom for a
    hostage. And I look back even at what--and I'm going to give
    you allied and U.S. examples: Ronald Reagan in terms of what
    happened with the Arms for Hostages deal. Margaret Thatcher and
    her secret talks with the IRA. No one would discount that the
    IRA was terrorist group.
        Sometimes you end up sitting across the table from those
    who have the blood of your friends on their hands to bring
    peace. And if that is the case that we are seeing, if that's
    what sitting down with the Taliban means, then I fully support
    that.
        Mr. Yoho. Okay. Let me ask you both, Mr. Waltz and Dr.
    Jacobson, did the President by not consulting with Congress 30
    days before in your opinion break the law? Mr. Waltz?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, that's my understanding of the law.
    I'm not a legal expert, but my understanding of the law was
    that Congress was to be consulted.
        Mr. Yoho. Dr. Jacobson?
        Mr. Jacobson. I'm not a lawyer, and you're all going to
    argue about that statute, but I think what the President did,
    acting on short notice was absolutely the right thing to do.
        Mr. Yoho. I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to Mr. and Mrs.
    Andrews, my condolences and safe travels on your way back to
    Texas. I represent San Antonio. Thank you for being here, and
    thank you all, all your gentlemen for your service.
        And I agree with part of Mr. Yoho's statement that I want
    to focus on the policy, the agreement that was made for
    Sergeant Bergdahl and that transfer has been made. There's
    still a debate going on about whether that was good or bad, but
    I think the most constructive thing that we can get out of this
    hearing is what we do in the future.
        And in that vein, I think there's two issues here. First,
    if someone deserts their unit, should we go retrieve that
    person? And then second, what is the appropriate deal that we
    should make for a soldier? So, it sounds like, at least, the
    prevailing idea is that even if somebody deserts, we should
    still try to retrieve that person. Does anybody on the panel
    differ or disagree with that principle?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, I think it comes down to a matter
    of intent. Dr. Jacobson raised the issue in the case of Mr.
    Jenkins who deserted into North Korea. To my knowledge, there
    were no attempts to bring him home until he appeared 40 years
    later in Japan.
        Mr. Castro. But would you, and I know that it has not been
    adjudicated whether he deserted or not. I know that there is
    some evidence within--among the other soldiers that suggests
    that perhaps he did, but that has not been adjudicated. But
    assuming for the sake of argument that he did, does that mean
    that if somebody deserts that we shouldn't go get him? Should
    we change policy next time?
        Mr. Full. Well, I think the problem as has been stated is
    they brought him to a hero's welcome, and we're not the only
    people that knew that he walked off on his own accord. There
    was an original investigation done.
        Mr. Castro. Sure.
        Mr. Full. It's still open because they have to get his side
    of the story, but everybody knew that he walked off on his own.
        Mr. Castro. So, assuming that he did this, right, and that
    there's no argument, then you're saying still bring him home,
    just don't celebrate it. That would be your point.
        Mr. Full. Why would you call him a hero when there's people
    like his son who pushed somebody down and took an RPG round.
        Mr. Castro. Right.
        Mr. Full. And gave his life for another one who is a hero,
    that didn't get a hero's welcome.
        Mr. Castro. But in terms of the policy, you would still say
    go get that person.
        Mr. Full. I don't know. I'm not--I'm truthful.
        Mr. Castro. And then to my second question, what is the
    appropriated deal that we should make to have a soldier return.
    Right? There is a big issue here over whether you negotiate
    with terrorists, or only nation states, but I think that the
    difficulty we're running into here is that our enemies in this
    common era are no longer just nation states. They are groups
    like al-Qaeda, Haqqani Network, and others.
        So, let me ask you, Mr. Waltz, because you were both a
    soldier and you're a policy expert. What deal would you have
    made for Sergeant Bergdahl?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, my own view is in any negotiation
    both sides should walk away unhappy. That means it's about
    right. And in this case the enemy walked away happy. The enemy
    walked away declaring victory, and received exactly what they
    asked for. I don't think that was good negotiation on our part.
        Mr. Castro. But how does that translate--what would you
    have given--if you were writing policy, what would you have
    exchanged for Sergeant Bergdahl?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, there's a number of lower-level
    detainees held in Afghanistan and other places. I think it was
    the--a lot has been mentioned about trading numbers. The issue
    for me here is the quality.
        Mr. Castro. So, you might have given 100 people for one
    person if they were lower level folks.
        Mr. Waltz. I don't like it. I think that's a policy issue
    that had to be debated, but the decision that was made, these
    five, was a bad decision.
        Mr. Castro. Did we get anything in exchange, Mr. Jacobson,
    did we get anything in exchange for the prisoners that were
    released from GITMO by President Bush?
        Mr. Jacobson. Not that I'm aware of, but I have to say the
    news reports I can remember from that time period, there was
    talk about political deals and that, but I--nothing like the
    Bergdahl situation.
        Mr. Castro. So, that was just a straight release,
    essentially, of those folks?
        Mr. Jacobson. Yes.
        Mr. Castro. Okay. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Poe. Thank the gentleman from Texas. The Chair
    recognizes another gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you. Specialist Full, what would you say
    is the--was the morale in your unit following this illegal
    prisoner exchange?
        Mr. Full. I'm not in the Army any more, sir.
        Mr. Weber. Would you hazard a guess?
        Mr. Full. Oh, as far as us when we're talking?
        Mr. Weber. Absolutely.
        Mr. Full. Well, we were very upset with it. Like I said
    numerous times, with the hero's welcome.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. In your opinion, would this have set up
    this agreement between an enlisted officer and those rank and
    file soldiers, or were they pretty much in agreement this was a
    bad deal?
        Mr. Full. This is a bad deal all around.
        Mr. Weber. All the way around.
        Mr. Full. Nobody in the Blackfoot Company that would----
        Mr. Weber. If you could say anything to President Obama
    regarding this trade, what would you say?
        Mr. Full. I'm not going to say that.
        Mr. Weber. Fair enough. Mr. Waltz, you're forewarned, same
    questions. What would you say would be the morale of those
    units following this prisoner exchange?
        Mr. Waltz. Fairly low, Congressman. And in terms of your
    second question, I would point the President to the heroes at
    the end of this table.
        Mr. Weber. Okay.
        Mr. Waltz. They deserve the same level of treatment.
        Mr. Weber. Would you advise him to make the same trade
    twice?
        Mr. Waltz. No, Congressman, I wouldn't. And just a follow-
    on to the previous Congressman's question. I think there are a
    lot of other policy options open that weren't fully explored,
    more pressure on Pakistan, for one. He was held by the Haqqani
    Network which has been described as a veritable arm of the
    Pakistani Intelligence Service. There are a number of other
    options that were on the table besides a trade.
        Mr. Weber. Okay. Dr. Jacobson, what would you say to the
    President?
        Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I would say good job, absolutely
    go do this again, bring our soldier home.
        Mr. Weber. Mr. Andrews, after having sat here, and thank
    you very much, and you, Mrs. Andrews for being here, after
    sitting through this hearing, what now would you say to this
    committee?
        Mr. Andrews. For one thing, 5 minutes isn't as long as it
    used to be, but what I would say to the committee is my son was
    a soldier's soldier, and it didn't matter what the assignment
    was, he was going to do it. And I don't believe that you have
    to be a perfect person to follow the Military Code of Justice.
    You have a book right there. Read the book and do what it says.
    It's not that complicated. But do not let my son--to me, this
    situation with us not being told the whole truth, and then
    trading a private for five high-ranking Taliban, exactly why
    did my son die? Tell me one more time, because I don't know
    what we've accomplished.
        Mr. Weber. If you could say that to the President, is that
    what you would say to him?
        Mr. Andrews. Yes.
        Mr. Weber. And now the hard questions, and forgive me. If
    you could get your son back by trading five more of those
    senior Taliban?
        Mr. Andrews. If my son had been a deserter, then no,
    absolutely not. But my son was a man of honor, and I would do
    almost anything.
        Mr. Weber. Thank you, folks. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank each of
    you gentlemen for your service. Certainly, Mr. Andrews, I want
    to let you know as someone who's worn the uniform that many
    Americans feel like the actions by the administration and the
    President have diminished your son's service, and your and his
    sacrifice. And I let you know that I'm of that opinion, but I
    also want to let you know that he has done a great thing for
    the men that he served with, and the ones that are particularly
    alive because of his actions, and a very grateful nation. So, I
    just want to thank you for your sacrifice, as well.
        Turn to questions. I'll start with Mr. Jacobson. You keep
    saying, or at least I've heard you say a couple of times the
    end of the war regarding the reference of prisoner swaps. And
    I'm just wondering has the Taliban, as far as you know, stated
    that they consider the war to be coming to a close?
        Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I was referring to the end of
    conflict in the Second World War and Korean, specifically.
        Mr. Perry. So, the paradigm is not the same, is my point.
    We might be drawing down, but the Taliban, as far as you know,
    are they going to continue to fight?
        Mr. Jacobson. Well, the Taliban have been in talks with the
    United States for several years.
        Mr. Perry. As far as you know, do we have any reason to
    believe right now they're not going to continue to fight when
    we stop?
        Mr. Jacobson. I don't believe we are stopping the fight,
    Congressman.
        Mr. Perry. We're just in disengagement. Right? So, the war
    is still going to continue as far as you know.
        Mr. Jacobson. We're still working with the Afghans not only
    to try----
        Mr. Perry. All right. I got it. I got it. So, are you--when
    you say that these folks that we released have been so long
    gone from the battlefield that they can't be relevant, are you
    aware that Mr. Baghdadi, who's currently running ISIS, was
    released in 2005? This is now 2014. Is he still relevant on the
    battlefield today?
        Mr. Jacobson. I can't comment to a specific situation. I'm
    not----
        Mr. Perry. I can comment. He's damn relevant, sir. Let me
    move on.
        Mr. Full, there was an investigation regarding Mr.
    Bergdahl's absence conducted at some point. Right? And I
    imagine you gave sworn statements in that regard?
        Mr. Full. Yes, 15-6.
        Mr. Perry. Right. So, do you think that the Army is aware
    of the circumstances, his circumstances of departure?
        Mr. Full. Yes.
        Mr. Perry. You do. And I do, as well. I would like to turn
    to Mr. Waltz at this point.
        Understanding your circumstances if captured, what is your
    understanding if you were captured on the battlefield of what
    we would do, and what we wouldn't do, what you could expect
    from your country?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, we deploy knowing the high
    likelihood of being captured, and it comes with that
    understanding that ransoms will not be paid, and there will not
    be swaps for us. The United States will do everything it can to
    get us back, but there's limits to what the country is going to
    do. And I personally would not want anything done that's going
    to harm our ongoing national security or endanger my fellow
    soldiers.
        Mr. Perry. Were you ever given the impression when you took
    the oath, or any time after that, that the United States would
    jeopardize our national security on your behalf to get you out
    of----
        Mr. Full. Absolutely not, Congressman, nor would I want
    that to happen.
        Mr. Perry. So, let me ask you, you're a Special Operator.
    On June 3rd, the AP reported that the United States Government
    knew the whereabouts of Mr. Bergdahl from three sources, UAS,
    satellite, and human intelligence. You're a special operator
    and you know the capability--you got out in 2009. Right? It's
    now 2014, things have changed a little bit, but I know you stay
    involved and in touch with your community.
        My point is the options. Right? So, we had some options on
    the table and we chose to trade five high-value targets for one
    service member, right, that we wanted to free and have come
    back home, which is laudable to have him come back home. It is
    the right thing to do.
        Do you have any lack of confidence in your ability, of your
    unit, the United States Army with the capabilities we have, if
    we knew where he was, your ability if tasked with the mission
    and given the resources to go and retrieve that soldier?
        Mr. Waltz. I don't know the details of----
        Mr. Perry. I know you don't.
        Mr. Waltz. But if we knew where he was and we were
    confident, and the risks were evaluated, absolutely we have the
    capability to get him.
        Mr. Perry. So, you already spoke about the different
    options that we had or didn't have, and you don't think this
    was the best one. If we knew where he was, can you think--can
    you come up with some scenario where we have people on the
    ground that do what you did for a living, that we wouldn't
    exercise that option?
        Mr. Waltz. The only scenario that comes to mind, sir, is
    that this was part of a broader policy initiative to open up
    talks with the Taliban; that this was a confidence-building
    measure, and this has been discussed for some time now, that
    potentially this trade would be a confidence-building measure
    as a first step toward future talks. That's the only plausible
    scenario that I can come up with.
        Mr. Perry. My time is expired, I yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Duffy, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, to respond to my colleague across the aisle
    about due process, all of us agree on due process. The
    conversation happening today is not about due process, the
    conversation today is about the decision the administration
    made for the five Taliban members in exchange for Sergeant
    Bergdahl. That's the conversation. We all believe in due
    process. We're Americans.
        Mr. Waltz, I think it was you who indicated that you had
    conversation about your country will never leave you behind.
    And I don't know if it was you or Specialist Full who had
    mentioned you thought it was that your country won't leave any
    honorable man behind. Specialist Full, was that your comment?
        Mr. Full. Yes, it was.
        Mr. Duffy. Was Sergeant Bergdahl left behind?
        Mr. Full. No.
        Mr. Duffy. No.
        Mr. Full. He walked off on his own.
        Mr. Duffy. He left. Correct?
        Mr. Full. Yes, he left.
        Mr. Duffy. So, he wasn't left behind. He walked off.
        Mr. Full. He left us behind.
        Mr. Duffy. Right. And, Dr. Jacobson, you've indicated that
    the fight is not over. Right? They're going to continue this
    fight. It's not over, peace has not been declared with the
    Taliban.
        Mr. Jacobson. That's correct, Congressman.
        Mr. Duffy. So, with the war or the fight that's going to
    continue, it seems to me the argument that well, we're all
    putting our arms down, and the conflict is going to end. This
    exchange makes sense. That's what we do. World War II when the
    war is over, we put down our arms, we exchange our prisoners
    and everyone is happy. But that's not this case, right?
        Mr. Jacobson. Well, that's not----
        Mr. Duffy. This case you've said the fight will continue,
    and with the fight still going on, we took someone who
    allegedly walked away from his post in exchange for five high-
    level Taliban members, and the fight continues. Am I wrong on
    this?
        Mr. Jacobson. The fight continued in Korea after the
    prisoner exchanges, the fight continued in World War II after
    the exchanges in 1944, the fight will continue in Afghanistan.
    My argument is that the risk of putting these five individuals
    on the battlefield is mitigated by a number of factors to
    include all the accomplishments that we've seen in Afghanistan
    over the past several years.
        Mr. Duffy. I'll get to the risk in a second, but in regard
    to the prior swaps that have been made, those swaps have been
    made with nation states. Correct? Do you have an example where
    we've had swaps with a non-nation state before this one?
        Mr. Jacobson. The examples I have, and you term this a
    swap. The examples I have of negotiation with non-nation----
        Mr. Duffy. I didn't ask--I'm talking a swap, we exchange
    prisoners with a non-nation state, or better yet for a
    deserter, if that's what he--the military finds him to be.
        Mr. Jacobson. The closest thing I can think of is after the
    Battle of Mogadishu and the negotiations to get back Chief
    Warrant Officer Michael Durant.
        Mr. Duffy. But not with--you don't have a prior example of
    a swap with a non-nation state. This is----
        Mr. Jacobson. Well, that was with Mohammed Farrah Aidid who
    was not a nation state.
        Mr. Duffy. In regard to the threat that this now poses, Mr.
    and Mrs. Andrews talk about a son, and how he may--that he
    would be able to make that exchange to bring his own son back.
    I think every heart breaks in here thinking about what his
    family has gone through and the sacrifice that his son made for
    his country.
        Do you feel pretty comfortable that with these five Taliban
    members released that we won't have another hearing like this
    of another American family who lost a son or daughter who's
    over fighting on behalf of the country because of these five
    that were released, or do you feel pretty comfortable that
    America is a safer place, and our men and women are safer in
    those foreign lands?
        Mr. Jacobson. Our men and women who put on the uniform are
    always at risk regardless of what happened or will happen.
        Mr. Duffy. That's not my question. I'm talking about the
    five that were released.
        Mr. Jacobson. I'm comfortable with the judgment that was
    made by our military leaders that all the risks involved, the
    risk of potentially these individuals ending back up on the
    battlefield, the risks of not getting Bergdahl. I'm comfortable
    that the assessment they made and the recommendations they made
    are the right one.
        Mr. Duffy. Mr. Waltz, I think you said the Taliban got
    their top five draft picks in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl.
        Mr. Waltz. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Duffy. Good trade?
        Mr. Waltz. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman from Wisconsin yields back his time.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've
    been running in and out of meetings like everybody else here.
    We're overwhelmed, so I'm sorry if I cover any territory that's
    already been covered here.
        Let me just note that I disagree with the statement that
    our policy has been to do everything we can to get back a
    prisoner. That is not the case, that is not policy for our
    Government. Everything we can? No, even the people who are in
    the field totally understand that we're not going to do things
    that will further put other Americans at severe risk in order
    to get them back. They understand that. And that's part of why
    they're heroes, and that's part of the reason Mr. Andrews' son
    is a hero. He knew he was taking a chance, and that even if he
    was captured that we would not be doing things that would put
    the American people at risk to get him back home. So, I want to
    make sure that is a very significant point for people to
    understand in the discussion of this.
        Second of all, I'd like to point out that there are other
    alternatives to try to get these guys back, or man back, Mr.
    Bergdahl, than just giving up these five leaders of the
    Taliban. We could have, for example--I have seen no evidence.
    Mr. Jacobson, have you see any evidence that there was pressure
    put on Pakistan in order to get the Taliban to return this
    prisoner?
        Mr. Jacobson. Congressman Rohrabacher, I'm not aware of the
    specifics of those negotiations. I've only seen----
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. So, you're unaware of the--
    you're unaware, I'm unaware. I've been looking, there is no
    indication here that this administration didn't even put
    pressure on the major supporter, the ISI in Pakistan to do what
    they could do to get back this prisoner. Instead, they gave up
    five murderous leaders. Let's take a look at who they are. We
    know that one of them was perhaps engaged in the strategizing
    for 9/11, which resulted in 3,000 Americans being slaughtered
    in front of our face. He's being let go. Then there is Mullah
    Mohammad Fazl, I guess that's how you pronounce his name. I
    know about this man. I know that a long time ago he was, in
    fact, captured. This is, you might say, a second time he was
    released, you might say, because he was captured early on in
    2001 after 9/11, and he was put into a French Fort with
    hundreds of other Taliban leaders and Taliban fighters, and
    there is a tradition in Afghanistan. The tradition is it's
    almost the law that the people live by, it is their core
    principles as Afghans, and that is once you are captured you do
    not try to overpower the person who has captured you. And the
    reason that they have that as part of their law is because over
    the centuries they would have had to kill all of their
    prisoners if they didn't uphold that. So, as part of their
    honor as a person to not--once you're captured, you do not try
    to overcome your captors.
        Well, what happened in this case with Mr. Fazl? Yes, I'm
    sure that he's already promised us that he wouldn't go back to
    doing something and causing--putting our people at risk, or
    attacking Americans, but at that time he led an uprising
    against his captors. They murdered about 50 Afghans where
    General Dostum's Afghani wife introduced Chairman Poe to
    General Dostum before. And they murdered his--the guys who were
    holding them captive, but they also murdered a CIA officer
    named Mike Spann.
        I visited that spot, I visited the spot where Mike Spann
    had been murdered shortly after he was murdered, and this is
    the guy that are one of the five guys we are releasing. We're
    releasing a man who's already murdered the first real American
    to lose his life in the Afghan War, we're releasing him now.
        You think that's going to maybe indicate that we're strong?
    Does this release indicate that we are strong, and that we are
    people--that they're going to have to deal with the United
    States of America in terms of our military strength? No,
    they're going to deal with people who they think are weak, and
    are cowards, and they will be willing then to kill more
    Americans, and to capture more Americans in order to cut more
    deals.
        This is a travesty. The President of the United States has
    maybe got himself into a position here that I don't know if
    maybe he thinks of himself as a peacemaker. I think this will,
    in the end, have just the opposite impact, and I think a
    rational discussion will do that.
        Mr. Chairman, I've got 6 seconds, and I actually would like
    to give our witness the chance to retort to that.
        Mr. Poe. Quickly.
        Mr. Jacobson. Respectfully, I disagree, Congressman.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. Fine, yes. That's it? Okay. Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Jacobson. If the chairman--at the chairman's pleasure
    I'm happy to continue. I was being succint.
        Mr. Poe. No, time has expired.
        Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, though. The Chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. This is
    one of the days when everything goes long. Again, I'm Air Force
    Reserve, I am the chaplain, I served in Iraq. Having been on
    the unfortunate end of the door that you opened, and understand
    this all too well.
        The issues that come up for me, and some of this may be a
    little bit of follow-up on my colleague who just mentioned--
    but, Mr. Jacobson, I have a question. You keep bringing up, or
    you brought up before the fact that they're not going back to
    the same Afghanistan that they left, and that they would not
    have the probable impact that they could have had. What leads
    you--what intelligence, what information, what would have you
    to believe that they couldn't get spun up pretty quickly in a
    country that's not changed a whole lot in 4-, 5-, 6-, 700
    years? I mean, what would cause you to believe that?
        Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, in my experience in Afghanistan,
    again both as an intelligence officer, and then later on as a
    civilian advisor where I worked with senior Afghan officials
    every day, I do believe there have been a great number of
    changes if just in the last decade alone.
        For example, I believe that most of the networks that these
    individuals had when they were a force fighting against the
    Northern Alliance no longer exist. Many of their friends are
    dead, many of the Taliban leadership are dead. And I also
    believe that the Afghan people have changed.
        You have seen just in the recent elections, this open
    defiance of threats to kill people who would go vote, 40
    percent of the voters, I believe, were women who were told do
    not do this.
        Mr. Collins. Let me stop you right there for a second. We
    saw a great deal of turnout in the Iraqi elections, too, and
    now we're looking at almost a breakdown to civil war. I mean,
    pointing to an election is a great thing, but also pointing to
    a change of hearts, minds, and attitudes, I'm not sure you're
    actually getting there. So, I mean, we just might probably,
    respectfully, just have a difference of opinion here.
        I believe that they may not walk back into the same
    structure that they had before, but I do not believe it's going
    to take them very long to build from scratch or to bring in
    others that--there's a reason they were wanted them. There's a
    reason they wanted these five. I don't believe that they just
    picked out, said give us five, we'll give you him. And I think
    there's a reason for that.
        The other situation that I would like maybe some general
    discussion about is something that keeps coming up here. Well,
    we're drawing down our action, we're drawing down this war. And
    it was--I don't know, Mr. Waltz, if it was you or someone else
    that basically talked about the fact that we're dealing with
    the Taliban. We're dealing with terrorist organizations in this
    global war on terrorism, not the global war on Afghanistan, not
    the global war on a country. And, granted, when we ended World
    War II there was country state versus country state. We had a--
    we're not in that situation any more, and I'm just curious to
    know is, when does the fact that we're fighting--and I don't
    believe the Taliban, or al-Qaeda, or any of these other
    terrorist networks have changed their opinion of the West. Do
    you believe they changed their opinion of the West, or they
    still have the desire to wreak havoc on the West?
        Mr. Jacobson. I actually believe our actions in Afghanistan
    have split views amongst the Taliban. I don't think there's a
    single unified view any more.
        Mr. Collins. Interesting, but I think among the larger
    terrorist network as a whole, and we can go look at that, I
    think there is still a vast determination there, is we go
    forward. So, I'm not sure what--when we draw the line now with
    dealing with, negotiating with, however we want to do this. It
    just--Specialist, talk about this for a second.
        Given the fact that we traded, and there's some who will
    give an argument that this was the end of the war. We had to do
    it, a political outcome at some point. But is this a price that
    you would ever have envisioned paying if--for someone who
    walked off or didn't walk off? Is this what we are sort of
    looking at? Not that we give up, but the price that we give up?
        Mr. Full. We're still at war with the Taliban whether
    people want to admit it or not. And just because we stop
    fighting them, doesn't mean that they're going to stop wanting
    to kill us, and fight us. No, when I signed an oath it was an
    understanding, as Mr. Waltz has said, that I knew there would
    be a certain price up to a point that the United States would
    pay to get me back. And if that was me over there, no, you
    could have left me over there. I would not have wanted you to
    trade five high-level Taliban operatives for myself.
        Mr. Collins. Well, the curious for me at this point is, if
    five was the price this time, what's the price next time, the
    President stepping down, cabinet members stepping down,
    Congress giving them more money? What's the price, because
    we're not dealing with a nation state here. We're dealing with
    thugs, we're dealing with rogues, we're dealing with now the
    same ideological bent that is going through many of the Middle
    Eastern countries, and Iraq is simply a forum, what I'm fearful
    is going to Afghanistan.
        I appreciate you being here. This is just very much of a
    concern for many folks because they do not understand why this
    happened the way it did, given the fact that most believe that
    this war is not over, and that we will see these guys again one
    way or the other.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will
    recognize the ranking member for one additional question, and
    recognize itself for an additional question.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I'll note that in 1944 when we did
    a prisoner exchange it was with the Nazis. And, of course, that
    war continued for another year.
        Mr. Poe. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, I'll yield.
        Mr. Collins. Would the gentleman also recognize that the
    Nazi Government at that time represented Germany as a nation
    state?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes, but if you think----
        Mr. Collins. Okay. But al-Qaeda never represented anyone as
    a nation state.
        Mr. Sherman. Al-Qaeda did control and govern, with the
    acquiescence of the United States, the vast majority of
    Afghanistan until 9/11. But, more importantly, if you want to
    create groups that are anathema to the United States, I put the
    Nazis right at the top.
        Mr. Collins. Well, I think they also----
        Mr. Sherman. In any case, I have not yielded any further.
        Mr. Jacobson, only an investigation is going to disclose
    the real facts behind Sergeant Bergdahl's disappearance and his
    capture, but we've heard substantial evidence that Sergeant
    Bergdahl acted in an inappropriate and inexplicable manner.
        Can you describe the kinds of stresses that somebody, and
    Sergeant Bergdahl would have faced in Afghanistan, and whether
    that would cause someone, not everyone, but some to act in an
    inexplicable manner? I realize that the vast majority of our
    soldiers, Marines, et cetera, are subjected to those pressures
    and do not act inexplicably.
        Mr. Full. Can I have permission to speak?
        Mr. Sherman. Yes.
        Mr. Full. Well, you're asking Dr. Jacobson what situation
    Bergdahl was in over there. I was with Bergdahl at the same
    location. I could give you a firsthand account of exactly what
    Bergdahl was going through because I went through the exact
    same conditions.
        Mr. Sherman. Well, then I'll ask you then to respond to the
    question first, and then Dr. Jacobson to respond second. I was
    asking more in a general sphere as to what you face in
    Afghanistan but, obviously, you know the specifics.
        Mr. Full. We were at an observation post. It was very
    primitive, we had to eat Meals Ready to Eat which are heated up
    with water. It was very hot, very dirty, went without showers
    for certain days, didn't get phone calls or any comforts of
    home, but it didn't affect anybody else there. We all continued
    the mission and upheld our oath.
        Everybody deals with mental issues in some form or another
    if they deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq. Everybody else still
    came back from that same platoon. Nobody else deserted on their
    own, so there's nothing in my opinion that was so bad that
    forced him to walk off on his own accord caused by anything
    going on over there. He walked off on his own accord.
        Mr. Sherman. Dr. Jacobson, obviously, the vast majority of
    those in his unit were not affected to the point where they
    engaged in inappropriate behavior, and, obviously, anyone in
    Afghanistan is subject to being shelled, or subject to an IED
    at just about any time. Can you describe the pressures that
    people are under, and whether that could explain the
    inexplicable?
        Mr. Jacobson. Well, Congressman, I won't make a claim to be
    able to explain the unexplicable or inexplicable, but what I
    will say is that the stresses of combat are tremendous. From my
    own experience, which was not nearly as far forward in either
    deployment as either of my colleagues to the right, you still
    have fear, fear of being kidnapped, fear of being shot at, fear
    of being shelled, mortared, what have you. There is tremendous
    sleep deprivation for being on long combat patrols or being
    woken in the night to enemy action.
        I do agree that you've raised perhaps one of the most
    important points, and that is that just because there is combat
    stress doesn't excuse actions such as walking away from one's
    post, but this is exactly why you have to have the full
    investigation to determine what happened, and why it happened
    in the hopes that we can prevent that from happening again, and
    hold those individuals who need to be held accountable,
    accountable in the Military Justice System.
        Mr. Sherman. Thank you. And just to correct the record, I
    once said al-Qaeda when I meant to say the Taliban. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Poe. The Chair has one additional question for all four
    of you. The way I understand the law is that before people are
    released from Guantanamo Bay, prisoners there, that the
    Secretary of Defense must explain why it is in the national
    security interest of the United States to release that specific
    prisoner.
        Assume that is the law, and from your point of view, what
    was the national security interest, or do you believe there was
    a national security interest of the United States in releasing
    those five individuals? Dr. Jacobson, do you believe there was
    a national security interest of the United States?
        Mr. Jacobson. Yes, I do, Congressman.
        Mr. Poe. Mr. Waltz?
        Mr. Waltz. Congressman, I believe America is less safe and
    the world is more dangerous with the release of those
    individuals.
        Mr. Poe. Sergeant Full?
        Mr. Full. I believe America is less safe, and the world is
    also in more danger.
        Mr. Poe. And, Mr. Andrews, I'll give you the last word.
        Mr. Andrews. Thank you. I believe America is less safe. I
    believe these five guys are going to come after us. I believe
    that it was a mistake to release them, and that that did not
    serve our national interest in any way.
        Mr. Poe. I want to thank you all for being here. Ms.
    Andrews, I want to thank you for being here, as well.
        The committee is adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittees were
    adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                       Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Ted Poe, a
       Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman,
             Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]