[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 65 (Thursday, April 15, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1962-S1965]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Afghanistan
Mr. REED. Mr. President, President Biden has decided to withdraw all
forces from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021. I believe this decision
was one of the hardest President Biden will ever make.
As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius pointed out, ``Biden's
military and intelligence advisers had presented him with three
unpleasant alternatives: leave May 1 as previously agreed, even though
this would probably mean the fall of the Kabul government and a return
to civil war; stay for a limited period, perhaps negotiated with the
Taliban, which would delay its eventual takeover; or stay for an
undefined period, which could mean a long continuation of what is
already the United States longest war.''
In effect, there were no good choices. The President exercised his
best judgment to endorse a path that is most likely to protect the
national security interests of the United States.
I believe there were several factors over 20 years of conflict in
Afghanistan that shaped the President's decision. The most critical
miscalculation over the past 20 years was the Bush administration's
decision to invade Iraq.
We took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan at a crucial time and
instead pursued a war of choice in Iraq. The attacks by al-Qaida on
September 11 galvanized the world. The authorization for use of
military force passed the Senate 98 to nothing, while the French
newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, ``We are all Americans.'' Most notably,
for the first time, NATO invoked article 5 of its charter, which calls
upon its members to take action on behalf of any member nation which is
attacked. The world was with us.
But before we could really gain momentum in Afghanistan, the United
States diverted to an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq. As journalist
Steve Coll wrote in his definitive history of the war in Afghanistan,
months after
9/11, ``On November 21, 2001, then Central Commander Tommy Franks, who
was planning our operations against Tora Bora, took a call from Donald
Rumsfeld, who ordered him to start working on the plan for the invasion
of Iraq. Rumsfeld told him to have something ready within a week.''
As a consequence, General Franks' attention was being forced
elsewhere. As journalist Susan Glasser wrote in the Washington Post, in
the Battle of Tora Bora, ``corrupt warlords allowed bin Laden to
escape, while special forces pleaded with the Pentagon to let them get
in the fight.'' As we now know, Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaida
and the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was not captured for another
decade. This decision wasted a period when the Taliban was routed and
the Afghan population was welcoming.
More recently, President Biden inherited a flawed agreement from the
Trump administration. Known as the Doha agreement, it required the
United States, its allies, and coalition partners to withdraw all
military forces by May 1, 2021. Nondiplomatic civilian personnel,
private security contractors, trainers, and advisers were also required
to leave. In effect, the entire international presence that has been
the foundation for almost two decades of the Afghanistan effort was to
disappear on May 1. In exchange, the Taliban agreed not to attack the
United States or its allies and promised not to allow ``other
individuals or groups, including al-Qaida, to use the soil of
Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its
allies.''
[[Page S1963]]
The only really verifiable condition on the Taliban of the Trump
agreement was that the Taliban would not attack the United States or
its allies. The remaining conditions were unenforceable and very, very
difficult to certify. As General McKenzie, the commander of Central
Command, testified to the Armed Services Committee just a few weeks
after the agreement was concluded: ``We don't need to trust them; we
don't need to like them; we don't need to believe anything they say. We
need to observe what they do.''
What we have observed is alarming. While the Taliban may have adhered
to one aspect of the deal by not attacking U.S. forces, they have
violated the spirit of the agreement, as overall violence is on the
rise.
The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction assessed that
enemy attacks against Afghan security forces and civilians increased by
50 percent in the third quarter of 2020. Former Acting Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Laurel Miller described
``an uptick in targeted assassinations [which] has sent shock waves
through urban areas.'' In mid-March, Secretary of Defense Austin noted
that, after meeting with Afghan President Ghani, ``It's obvious that
the level of violence remains pretty high in the country.''
Additionally, a United Nations report from last fall concluded that
the relationship between al-Qaida and the Taliban had not been
substantially changed by the February 2020 agreement between the
Taliban and the United States. The U.N. assessment noted, alarmingly,
that ``al-Qaida has been operating covertly in Afghanistan while still
maintaining close relations with the Taliban'' and that the group is,
in their words, ``quietly gaining strength in Afghanistan while
continuing to operate with the Taliban under their protection.''
Beyond the substance of the Trump agreement, the manner in which it
was concluded was also deeply flawed. To begin with, the Trump
administration concluded a deal with the Taliban, a fundamentalist
group using the name ``Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.'' Even though
the agreement states that the United States does not recognize such a
state, its very formulation is a propaganda boon for the Taliban.
As former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani
noted: ``Allowing the Taliban to refer to themselves as the Islamic
Emirate, even in parentheses, allows them to build the narrative that
they forced the U.S. to negotiate an exit from Afghanistan just as the
mujahideen had forced the Soviets out. If the administration is eager
to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, it would have done better to
announce a no-deal exit than allowing the Taliban such a huge
propaganda victory.''
Additionally, the Trump agreement was completed exclusively between
the Trump administration and the Taliban. There was no involvement of
the Afghan Government, reversing the longstanding position of the
United States, which prioritized an ``Afghan-led, Afghan-owned
reconciliation process.'' Further, there was no visible involvement of
our NATO allies who went into Afghanistan after we were attacked on
September 11, 2001, when article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked for
the first time.
As the Afghan Study Group noted, the group led ably by General
Dunford and our previous colleague Senator Ayotte: ``Our NATO allies in
particular have been steadfast in their support and have shared the
sacrifice; over 1,000 coalition troops have been killed since 2001.''
The Trump administration negotiated their exit without their say,
without their involvement. There was no involvement either by regional
partners despite potentially significant consequences for security in
the region. As the Afghan Study Group further noted: ``An unstable
Afghanistan risks destabilizing the region through continued trade in
illicit drugs, the attraction of extremist ideologies and the possible
exacerbation of the rivalry between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-
armed powers.''
Trump's go-it-alone, rush-to-the-exits mentality led to a deal where
the Taliban emerged as the key benefactor. The United States, its
allies, and partners won very little from the Trump deal.
Now, we are approaching 20 years of warfare in Afghanistan, spanning
over three different Presidential administrations or, perhaps more
accurately, 1 year of warfare repeated 20 times as we rotated troops in
and out of Afghanistan. In addition to the disastrous pivot to Iraq and
the flawed agreement with the Taliban, despite all our efforts over
multiple administrations, we have been unable to build an
effective fighting force that could defeat the Taliban and hold
territory. Afghan soldiers have fought bravely despite continuing
pressure and massive casualties, and several components have emerged as
particularly capable, such as the Afghan special security forces, but
after 20 years, this is not sufficient progress.
As the Afghan Study Group assessed: ``The ongoing lack of capacity
and inefficiency of the [Afghan National Defense and Security Forces
or] ANDSF limit its strategic options against the Taliban. As a result,
the ANDSF is generally on the defensive to provide security for much of
the population.'' We were never able to change the ``checkpoint
mentality'' of the Afghan forces. Their focus on static positions, as
much for appearance as for tactical advantage, still persists today,
making them extremely vulnerable to a more agile Taliban.
Moreover, two decades later, the Afghan forces still have no organic
logistical capabilities. An assessment by the Department of Defense
from last June noted: ``All components of the Afghan National Defense
and Security Forces will . . . continue to rely over the long term on
contracted logistic support and on the United States for the vast
majority of the funding needed to sustain combat operations.'' As I
recall the agreement that the Trump administration negotiated, it
requires the withdrawal of all contracted logistical support, and as
Napoleon once commented, ``An army moves on its stomach.'' Without a
logistical capability and without a tactically capable army, with few
exceptions, the ability of the Government of Afghanistan and the
military of Afghanistan to resist the Taliban is highly questionable.
We should be looking seriously at ourselves because, for 20 years of
efforts and billions of dollars, I would have hoped that we would have
seen a credible, decisive, effective Afghan force.
Another crucial factor contributing immensely to the Taliban's
success has been the inability of the United States to eliminate the
sanctuary the Taliban was granted in Pakistan. Center for Strategic and
International Studies terrorism expert Seth Jones wrote in 2018: ``The
Taliban['s] . . . sanctuary in Pakistan and state support from
organizations like [Inter-Services Intelligence or] ISI have been
essential to their war effort, and the U.S. failure to undermine this
safe haven may be Washington's most significant mistake [of the war].''
As the Afghan Study Group notes, these ``sanctuaries are essential to
the viability of the insurgency.''
Additionally, Pakistan's ISI aided and abetted the Taliban while
opportunistically cooperating with the United States. As Brookings
scholar Vanda Felbab-Brown assessed in 2018: ``Pakistan provided direct
military and intelligence aid . . . resulting in the deaths of U.S.
soldiers, Afghan security personnel, and civilians, plus significant
destabilization of Afghanistan.'' This support to the Taliban runs
counter to Pakistani cooperation with the United States, including, as
they have, allowing the use of airspace and other infrastructure for
which the United States provided significant funding. As the Afghan
Study Group noted: ``Pakistan has played both sides of the field.''
These dynamics further play out against a complex environment in
Pakistan, which has implications for the national security of the
United States, its allies, and partners. Pakistan is simultaneously
fragile and armed with nuclear weapons, making its vulnerability
particularly dangerous. To add to this toxic mix, Pakistan is in a
longstanding struggle with its neighbor, India, which is also armed
with nuclear weapons. As Seth Jones described: ``Pakistan and India
have long been involved in a balance-of-power struggle in South Asia.
Both lay claim to the Kashmir region, and have fought three wars over
Kashmir since 1947. Afghanistan is not the ultimate objective of either
country but rather an arena for competition in what has
[[Page S1964]]
long been called the `great game.''' While bogged down politically and
militarily in daily crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States,
over multiple administrations, has been unable to focus the necessary
attention on Pakistan. Therefore, these problems have only gotten
worse.
Another factor shaping the President's decision is that the United
States and its coalition partners were never able to develop an Afghan
Government that could gain the confidence of the people, especially
beyond the cities, and provide basic services, including security,
education, healthcare, and justice. A study by the World Bank in late
2019 found that 55 percent of Afghans were living below the poverty
line, with even basic civilian services underfunded. The lack of the
government's ability to meet such needs erodes the people's support for
the government.
Afghanistan has also been undermined by profound corruption. The
Afghan Study Group assessed that corruption has ``delegitimized the
existing government and created grievances that are exploited by the
Taliban to gain support and, at times, legitimacy.'' Corruption is a
national security concern that further erodes the ability of the
government to build faith and trust.
Additionally, the leadership of the Afghan Government is seen as
being removed from the populace. This makes it harder to understand the
needs of the people and to govern effectively. A prime example of this
conundrum is the current President, Ashraf Ghani. Ghani was reelected
after a 5-month delay in the polling results and following a
longstanding dispute with his political rival. While Ghani is a serious
scholar and technocrat who literally wrote a book on fixing failed
states, he appears unable to fix his own state. As the New York Times
reported just last week, ``From most advantage points, Mr. Ghani--well
qualified for his job and deeply credentialed, with Johns Hopkins,
Berkeley, Columbia, the World Bank, and the United Nations in his
background--is thoroughly isolated. A serious author with a first class
intellect, he is dependent on the counsel of a handful, unwilling to
even watch television news, those who know him say, and losing allies
fast.''
But even if President Ghani was a strong leader, it would likely not
be enough. The instability of the central government, which has been
fueled by rival factions seeking power resulting in inconclusive
elections, has led to unwieldy power sharing arrangements. Beyond
challenges between those political officials and technocrats who want
to serve the government and may have competing visions, there is the
fundamental tension between those trying to achieve the complex task of
governing Afghanistan in Kabul and the Taliban, who have a single
focus: ejecting foreign forces. There also appears to be a lack of
willingness by the government to seriously negotiate with the Taliban
and make tough choices that could have obtained, perhaps, a lasting
peace deal.
The Afghan Government also remains unable to generate revenue to fund
its operations. Instead, it relies almost solely on foreign
contributions. This includes an average of $5 billion in security
assistance, along with $3.5 billion in civilian assistance from the
United States and the international donors each year. The World Bank
assessed in late 2019 that even if there was a peace agreement between
the Afghan Government and the Taliban, Afghanistan would still need as
much as $7 billion a year from foreign forces to sustain its most basic
spending.
With all of these complex dynamics at play, it underscores a further,
albeit profoundly unsatisfactory conclusion facing the President. The
alternative to withdrawal was not the status quo. More U.S. and NATO
forces would have been required for self defense and especially if
there was another attempt to ``surge'' forces to degrade the Taliban.
It appears that the President concluded that more troops might buy more
time and casualties, but more time would not create a government that
could defeat the Taliban and effectively govern Afghanistan. As the old
Afghan saying goes: ``You have all the watches; we have all the time.''
It is important to emphasize, though, that the President's decision
should be seen as a transition, not closure. We still have vital
security interests in the region. Afghanistan is not in the rearview
mirror. Pakistan is not in the rearview mirror. There is a high
probability that without NATO and U.S. support, the Afghan security
forces will degrade and collapse, which will ultimately cause the
Afghan Government to collapse. The Trump administration's agreement
with the Taliban included the departure of all security personnel,
logisticians, and contractors, which means that when the United States
leaves, the international presence that, again, is the foundation for
Afghan resistance is removed. The intelligence community's Annual
Threat Assessment for 2021 noted: ``The Afghan government will struggle
to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support.'' And
according to the New York Times, American intelligence agencies
assessed that if U.S. troops leave before a peace deal is reached
between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, Afghanistan ``could fall
largely under the control of the Taliban within two or three years
after the withdrawal of international forces.'' We have already seen
evidence of this trend even prior to the full withdrawal. The
International Crisis Group assessed that ``as U.S. force levels have
fallen, battlefield dynamics have steadily shifted in the insurgents'
favor.'' Dexter Filkins described: ``Since 2001, the main arena of
conflict in Afghanistan has been the countryside: the government held
the cities, while the Taliban fought to control the villages and the
towns, particularly in the south, their heartland. But by early this
year, the paradigm had begun to fall apart. The Taliban were entrenched
across the north; their shadow government had begun to creep into the
cities.''
Another possibility, either in the interim or a permanent fact, is
that the country could fracture with local warlords and the Taliban
controlling different territory. This would further intensify conflict,
increase instability, and create second order effects, such as the flow
of internationally displaced persons and refugees. The International
Crisis Group noted that the likelihood of fracture increases ``if U.S.
and other funding declines'' and that it has the possibility of pulling
Afghanistan's neighbors and other regional powers into backing proxies
in a multisided struggle. Again, the Afghan Study Group warned: ``Any
scenario in which the state collapses, as it did in 1992, will make it
considerably more difficult for the United States to ensure its
fundamental national security interests.''
If the Taliban reestablishes its emirate in Afghanistan, it would
likely result in erasing all the progress that has been made toward
building democracy and particularly the rights of women and girls. As
Seth Jones, again, wrote in a recent article published by the Combating
Terrorism Center at West Point, ``The Taliban is in many ways a
different organization from the one that governed Afghanistan in the
1990s. Yet most of their leaders are nevertheless committed to an
extreme interpretation of Islam that is not shared by many Afghans, an
autocratic political system that eschews democracy, and the persistence
of relations with terrorist groups like al-Qa`ida.''
If NATO and the United States depart, another consequence is
increasing pressure to limit or end international aid. Afghanistan
cannot fund itself and, even under the best case scenario, would
require $7 billion from international donors annually. It will be
extremely difficult to administer programs and provide aid on the
ground without oversight, and that, too, would very well lead to
smaller international donations. Furthermore, the entire budget of the
Afghan Ministry of Defense is paid for by international contributions.
If soldiers are not getting paid, it would have a profound impact on
national security.
Another likely consequence of withdrawal, which has been previously
discussed, is the creation of a vacuum that allows the resurgence of
terrorist groups, including al-Qaida and ISIS of the Khorasan Province.
As the Afghan Study Group also pointed out, these groups are ``for now
limited by the military presence of the United States and its allies,
which allows the threat to be monitored and, when necessary, disrupted,
while also enabling Afghan Security Forces to continue to put
[[Page S1965]]
pressure on these groups.'' However, the group warned: ``During its
deliberations, the Study Group was advised that a complete U.S.
withdrawal without a peace agreement would allow these groups to
gradually rebuild their capabilities in the Afghanistan Pakistan region
such that they might be able to attack the U.S. homeland within
eighteen to thirty six months.'' This timeline is short, alarming, and
has direct implications for our national security.
Also, an immediate concern as the United States begins to withdraw is
an increase in attacks from Afghan forces against the United States and
coalition forces, commonly referred to as ``green on blue attacks.''
Finally, we must anticipate a flood of refugees as Afghans flee the
chaos. In addition, we must do our part to aid those Afghans who have
aided us.
Given these facts and given the President's difficult decision to
leave Afghanistan, I believe we must take serious actions to mitigate
these threats. The withdrawal of U.S. forces should not mean an end to
our counterterrorism efforts. Most importantly, we must ensure that
Afghanistan will not be a source of planning, plotting, or projection
of terrorist attacks around the globe, including against our homeland.
Instead, we must transition to a new type of presence leaving the
country but staying in the region in a meaningful capacity. We must
build an anti terrorism infrastructure on the periphery of Afghanistan.
We must continue to direct the proper level of attention, intelligence,
and resources to evaluate the evolving terrorist threat in the region.
This also includes closer cooperation with our allies and partners.
We must continue to engage regional powers diplomatically, and the
Biden administration has already begun to reinvigorate that process. We
must use the power of our alliances and particularly those in the
region who would endure severe consequences and instability from
sharing a border with a failed Afghanistan. Working in cooperation, the
United States and its allies and regional partners must be a check on
potential instability.
President Biden is committed to ensuring that this is not a forever
war. But he has also made it clear he won't allow Afghanistan to become
a safe haven for terrorism. Our mission to protect the homeland
remains. Our duty to do so remains. As we go forward, this is a moment
of transition, not of closure; this is a moment to do all we can to
protect this country and hopefully ensure a safer region
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.