Hearing on Afghanistan Withdrawal

Chairman McCaul (00:00):

Brings great opportunities to the United States, but also our allies around the world, for freedom and democracy. I also want to congratulate the incoming chair, the Subcommittee Chair of Oversight and Accountability, Chairman Brian Mast, who is selected as the next chair by the Steering Committee. Mr. Mast, thank you for your service, not only to this committee, but to the nation. Your service in Afghanistan, your sacrifice that we all know every time we see you. I pledge my support to you, and I hope we're going to work hand-in-glove in the next Congress, do good things, and congratulations to you. Finally, 5:00 will be a get-together to rename this committee hearing room as the Benjamin Franklin Committee Hearing Room, and it'll also be a Christmas party, and also my farewell address to the committee, so I hope to see all of you there. And with that, I'd like to begin this hearing.

(01:15)
Secretary, I'm pleased that you are here today, and over the last four years we've enjoyed a, I think, cordial relationship. We've worked together on many, many issues of great importance. However, today, your appearance here today, and I have to be honest with you, it comes after six months after I've requested your testimony following my comprehensive report into the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan. I have constitutional authority, and I have that constitutional authority that I, as chairman, am responsible for, and I also have a responsibility to the American people, and to the 13 servicemen and women who died, and all the many other service members who died, and the Afghan allies left behind who died, and the women who were left behind. This, under Article One of the Constitution, is Congress's greatest role of oversight and transparency.

(02:21)
I would have to say I've been disappointed that you've ignored my request for your testimony, forcing me to subpoena you, not once, but twice. And rather than accept my good faith efforts to accommodate your schedule, you failed to show up for your September hearing. And I don't like this probably any more than you do, but while your presence here is duly noted, you are showing up only after violating a congressional subpoena, triggering consideration of a resolution holding you in contempt of Congress. I've been more than accommodating during the process, but you and your staff have fought this committee every step away. The fact that you're here today, on one of the last weeks of the 118th Congress, clearly demonstrates my commitment to this critical issue even in the face of persistent delays. You insist you have appeared before Congress 14 times, but the truth be told, that number is really misleading. You've not appeared once during my chairmanship, to testify about the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal before this committee. Twice, you have appeared on the budget.

(03:43)
And as the head of the State Department, it was your duty to appear before this committee to inform us about legislative solutions to the issues outlined in my Afghanistan report, so that this never happens again. My only goal has been to work together with you, sir, to help prevent that such another catastrophic event, to prevent that from ever, ever happening again. Instead, you prioritized this administration's political agenda touting the failed withdrawal as a success. On April 14th, 2021, President Biden announced his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan no matter what the cost, " Go to zero," were his words. As Secretary of State, you are entrusted with the protection of American interest and citizens overseas. You ignored the Taliban's violations of the Doha Agreement. You ignored objections by our NATO and Afghan allies. You ignored the security risk in keeping the US Embassy in Kabul open despite warnings from our top military advisors. You ignored the warnings of collapse by your own personnel, as evidenced by the July, 2021 dissent channel cable, one that I call a cry for help that was unanswered.

(05:14)
And now tragically, more than three years after this administration's disastrous withdrawal, you're finally here to take responsibility. As secretary, I've reviewed thousands of pages of documents produced in discovery by the State Department. I've conducted 18 transcribed interviews, led eight hearings on the Afghanistan withdrawal. I do not take the issue of subpoenas lightly, but today's hearing on your department, provided these only after the committee was forced to use its oversight powers. My comprehensive investigation reveals that President Biden's unconstitutional surrender to the Taliban, that you had plenty of opportunity to plan for the inevitable collapse of Afghanistan. Instead, even with the warning bells sounding loudly, ringing loudly, you denied the imminent and dangerous threats to American interest, American citizens, and our decade-long Afghan partners, all the while, the Taliban captured province after province on their march Kabul. And rather than step up as America's chief diplomat, you delegated this responsibility. And as Kabul was surrendered to the Taliban on August the 14th, 2021, you, sir, were vacationing in East Hampton, New York.

(06:57)
I do not say that with delight, I say that as a fact. Mr. Secretary, to preserve optics, you sacrificed the safety and security of our service members, diplomats, citizens, and allies. You treated terrorists as diplomatic partners, and created an environment ripe for chaos. And on October 26, 2021, an ISIS-K terrorist detonated a suicide bomb at the Hamid Karzai International Airport, murdering 13 heroic US service members and over 170 Afghan civilians. My heart goes out to the Gold Star families, and I pray for them every day, every day I've been chairman of this committee. It was a deadliest day for the United States' presence in Iraq, I mean in Afghanistan, since 2012. And the saddest thing, sir, is it did not have to happen.

(08:02)
Mr. Secretary, it's time that we again remember the fundamental principles of diplomacy, peace may only be obtained through strength. This catastrophic event was a beginning of a failed foreign policy that lit the world on fire. I welcome your testimony, and I hope we take the opportunity for you first, to take accountability, and second, for us to move forward so this never happens again. As you are aware, we cannot fix a problem without first admitting that there is a problem. I've dedicated my tenure as chairman of this important committee on this very important issue, and your testimony here, today, will help guide the work of the next Congress and the incoming administration. The American people, the US service members, the veterans, and most importantly our Gold Star families who are present here, today, deserve better. They deserve your candor, commitment, and transparency. With that, the chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Meeks.

Mr. Meeks (09:16):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me first say to you that it has been a distinct honor, privilege, and pleasure of working with you. We've worked together now, for over four years, two years of which I was the chair, and two years of which you were the chair. And really, there's been no difference, our relationship only intensified. We work collectively together on behalf of the people of the United States of America. You're a man of integrity. You're a friend. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with you, and to continue to serve with you, because we know, as you've stated, you're not going anywhere, you will still be here as the member of the United States House of Representatives. I appreciate the fact that we've always, even when we disagree, as we will disagree on this hearing, but we've always been able to talk about it, be honest with one another, and that's what's really important. When you have honesty and truth, and can talk, you can disagree, but it never becomes personal because of you and the character that you have.

(10:24)
So I just have to say for the record, that it has been an honor. You have been a fair chair, as well as when you were the ranking member, you have been a fair ranking member, because you are a fair individual. That's who you are at the essence. And I want to also congratulate Mr. Mast, the incoming chair, and I look forward to working with you. There's no question in anyone's mind, that you are loyal to the United States of America. You have done everything in the military, and otherwise, to represent this country, and I look forward to working with you come January 3rd or 4th, when this committee resumes, as the next chair of this committee, and look forward to working with you in the same manner that I've worked with Mr. McCaul.

Chairman McCaul (11:23):

Thank you for those kind words.

Mr. Meeks (11:23):

Yes, yes.

Chairman McCaul (11:23):

I appreciate that.

Mr. Meeks (11:24):

Now I want to thank you Secretary Blinken, for being here today. And I know that we want to get you out, there's a lot that's going on in Syria, and around the world, and you will be leaving here on a plane immediately, post this here. So your departure will take you straight to the Middle East, where there's a dealing with the related situations of Syria. But thank you for being here.

(11:48)
And for me, Mr. secretary, this will be, if I recall correctly, your sixth time being that you've joined us to provide testimony, including your appearance in September of 2021. You were the very first cabinet official from the Biden administration to testify to Congress immediately after our withdrawal from Afghanistan. And even before you testified before the Senate, you were right here in the House to testify about that. And despite insisting that they needed to hear answers from you, and repeatedly accused you of stonewalling, my Republican colleagues nevertheless released what I see as a partisan and misleading report on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in September, that distorts the facts received in their own investigation from 16 State Department witnesses, and thousands of pages of documents that you made available to us.

(12:52)
Sadly on this brand, as I have pointed out at every term and every hearing, the Republicans so- called investigation has been nothing but a cudgel aimed at partisan politics, in my opinion, to claim now, that it's aimed at a real and legislative purpose, when I don't see any tangible… They have not introduced a single bill. There's not been a bill at all, introduced from this investigation. But there is perhaps no better example on how dishonest and how, well, I would say politically-motivated this exercise has been, than how the Republicans misled the public on the ISIS attack at Abbey Gate. For months, Republicans publicly suggested the Abbey Gate bombing could have been prevented, and that a Marine had a bomber in his sights. Privately, however, they received information from the Department of Defense's investigation, dating back as far as February of 2022, and again reinforced in April of 2024, findings that the bomber and the person the Marine identified were two different people, and that the attack was not preventable.

(14:17)
Because the GOP had this information, you would think it would be logical to assume that the GOP's report would make those facts crystal clear. So does the report do that? No. Instead of being straightforward with the American people, or the Gold Star families who have suffered so much, and who we all keep deeply in our prayers, they continued to muddle the facts. Notwithstanding DOD's clear evidence, the GOP report tries to sow doubt in the minds, doubt on the DOD's findings, by asserting on page 27, that, quote, "Many who were on the ground that day still believe they were one and the same. The full report remains classified," end quote. To my colleagues across the aisle, beliefs are not facts. Information that the Department of Defense publicly reported, for which I asked unanimous consent to submit for the record.

Chairman McCaul (15:21):

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Meeks (15:22):

Is not classified. The two men were not the same. So changing, or twisting the truth, seems to me, only happens for political gain. And that not only hurts the integrity of this committee, it hurts the families of the 13 service members who lost their lives during the horrific terrorist attack, who have been led to believe that there are some greater truth to unearth, that when in reality, there just is not. So I also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record, the minority memorandum that I released in September of this year. That report summarizes the actual facts of the committee's investigation.

Chairman McCaul (16:21):

Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Meeks (16:23):

Which were remarkably consistent across 20 witnesses, and found the following: the full US withdrawal from Afghanistan was set into irreversible motion by President Donald Trump when he concluded the Doha Deal with the Taliban, and ordered the withdrawal of troops per that agreement, first from 14,000 to 8,600, and then all the way down to 2,500 by January 15th, 2020. And after the Trump administration failed to plan for the withdrawal they started, the Biden administration conducted a thorough policy review, acknowledged that we would again be at war with the Taliban if they abandoned the Doha Deal, and finished the work his predecessor started by building a withdrawal and contingency plan from the ground up, through 2021. And after President Ghani's decision to flee Afghanistan led to the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and security forces, creating the chaos on the ground, the men and women of the State Department acted heroically, alongside their military colleagues, to conduct the largest airlift in US history, relocating more than 124,000 people.

(17:45)
So I believe that President Biden ultimately made the right decision to end our 20-year war in Afghanistan, and not ask another generation of Americans to make an ultimate sacrifice for a war that no longer had a purpose. No one here has argued that our withdrawal was perfect. So I want to be clear, I'm not saying that I don't know any withdrawal that has been perfect, but we owe it to ourselves and our military and diplomatic personnel on the front lines, to learn from it, and from those 20 years, those 20 years of war in which they served, and to incorporate those lessons of 20 years in the future. But we do them a disservice when we do not examine all of the facts.

(18:38)
If we are to honor the 800,000 Americans who served in Afghanistan since 2001, including the 2,461 military personnel killed over to two decades of war, we should have conducted proper oversight of the policy decisions made across, not one administration, but four administrations, not only for the months in which President Biden was in office, for the sole purpose of politics. For the honest bipartisan assessment, we will have to await the Afghanistan War Commission's report, due in 2026, because what we have here today, is not the true, complete fact-finding, and my estimation is politics.

(19:25)
And finally, let me just say this though, I want to conclude by thanking Chairman McCaul for honoring a request that I made publicly. I asked that he publicly release all of the transcripts from closed-door interviews that were part of this Afghanistan investigation, and I asked the chairman to do the same for all other remaining transcribed interviews conducted as part of the committee's oversight investigation. And the American taxpayers paid for this work. I asked and you responded, and you did cooperate and make them all public. And for that, I thank you. And with that, I yield back.

Chairman McCaul (20:07):

I appreciate the ranking member's comments on that. I intend to release all of this to the American people, we do. We are negotiating a interview with Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, it may be in a classified setting. To the extent we can release that to the American people, we certainly will. I also want to state that there are two pieces of legislation currently in the National Defense Authorization that deal with this withdrawal from Afghanistan. One from me on having one point of contact, who's in charge, if you will. Another one by Warren Davidson on evacuation. So with that, I'd like to say to the members, that opening statements may be submitted for the record. I want to welcome the 71st Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, someone I do have admiration for. We disagree on this one strongly, but we have traveled abroad, and at the end of the day, when we travel abroad, we're all Americans. But as you know. Sir, I have issue with you over the handling of this matter, and I recognize you for your testimony here today.

Anthony Blinken (21:29):

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Meeks, distinguished colleagues on this committee, first of all, let me just say I have very much appreciated working with you these past four years, working with the ranking member. I think we've done good and important things together.

Speaker 1 (21:44):

Bloody Blinken, secretary of genocide, butcher of Gaza.

Speaker 2 (21:51):

258, we have a disrupt.

Speaker 1 (21:52):

You are a liar.

Chairman McCaul (21:52):

Remind the audience members disruption of committee proceedings is against the law, holding up signs or making verbal outbursts during the proceedings is disruptive and will not be tolerated. Any disruption will result in a suspension of the proceedings until the Capitol Police can restore order, this includes the raisings of hands and other forms of disruption. With that, I now recognize the Secretary.

Anthony Blinken (22:23):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just to say how much I've valued and appreciated working with you these past four years, the dialogue that we've had, including with this committee, where we've agreed, where we've disagreed, including on Afghanistan. I want to recognize everyone who served in Afghanistan, including on this committee. Our thoughts are with the Gold Star families of the 2,461 American service members, as well as State Department and USAID employees.

Speaker 3 (22:54):

[inaudible 00:22:55] of Gaza.

Speaker 4 (22:58):

Sit down.

Speaker 3 (22:58):

I have young kids, you're a father, I don't know how you sleep at night when you're killing so many kids.

Chairman McCaul (23:04):

Committee will suspend while the Capitol Police restore order to this committee. The gentleman will continue.

Anthony Blinken (23:16):

As I said, our thoughts are with all of the Gold Star families. They're with the State Department and USAID employees who lost their lives over the course of 20 years of our military involvement in Afghanistan. And I think today, especially of the 13 heroes that we lost at Abbey Gate, and I deeply regret that we did not do more and could not do more to protect them. And to those families who are here with us today, you're in my thoughts, in my prayers. I wish that Nicole was here with us today, I'm deeply sorry that she's not. I'm also deeply grateful to the dedicated professionals from the State Department, from the Defense Department, from across the government, from civil society, other partners who did so much to support the people of Afghanistan over those two decades.

Speaker 5 (24:10):

Blinken, you scum. The blood of your victims will [inaudible 00:24:13].

Chairman McCaul (24:13):

Committee will come to order.

Speaker 5 (24:16):

Will never let you forget.

Chairman McCaul (24:17):

Committee will suspend while the Capitol Police restore order.

Speaker 5 (24:20):

[inaudible 00:24:22].

Chairman McCaul (24:24):

Committee will come to order. The gentleman will continue.

Anthony Blinken (24:35):

I'm here today to continue the department's extensive cooperation with this committee. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the department's provided over 20,000 pages of documents to you. We've conducted nine high-level briefings for members. We facilitated transcribed interviews for more than 15 people. I personally testified before the House and Senate committees 14 times, with questions on Afghanistan, including four times before this committee. Now, I believe that any attempt to understand and learn from the US withdrawal from Afghanistan has to be put in the proper context of what preceded it, both in terms of the two decades following 9/11, and the decisions and events of 2020 to 2021 that culminated in the removal of our personnel.

(25:19)
When President Biden took office, he inherited an agreement the previous administration had reached with the Taliban, to remove all US forces from Afghanistan by May 1st, 2021. At US insistence, the Afghan government had released 5,000 Taliban prisoners, including top war commanders. The United States reduced our own troop levels from 14,000 to 2,500 in December of 2020. In return, the Taliban agreed to stop attacking US and partner forces, to refrain from threatening Afghanistan's major cities, and to pursue intra-Afghan negotiations toward a ceasefire and a political settlement. But it continued a relentless march in the countryside, so that it controlled, or actively contested territory containing three-quarters of Afghanistan's population by December, 2020. In January, 2021, the Taliban was in the strongest military position it had been in since 9/11, and we had the smallest number of US forces in Afghanistan since 2001. Despite the profound effects of the Doha Agreement, President Biden ultimately opted to implement the previous administration's decision to withdraw American troops and honor his pledge to end our nation's longest war.

(26:35)
To the extent President Biden faced a choice, it was between ending the war or escalating it. Had he not followed through on his predecessor's commitment, attacks on our forces and allies would've resumed, and the Taliban's assault on the country's major cities would've commenced. That would've required sending tens of thousands more US forces back into Afghanistan to defend ourselves and prevent a Taliban takeover, with at best, the prospect of restoring a stalemate and remaining stuck in Afghanistan, under fire indefinitely. President Biden inherited a deadline but no plan to meet it. At his direction, beginning in the spring of 2021, the administration, and the State Department in particular, engaged in extensive planning for a whole range of outcomes. We pursued a sustained campaign to urge any Americans in Afghanistan to leave. We restarted, and dramatically increased resources to what had been a moribund special immigrant visa program, to bring Afghans who had worked by our side over 20 years, to the United States. Even the US government's most pessimistic assessments did not anticipate that the Afghan government and security forces would collapse so rapidly in the face of Taliban advances.

(27:50)
Nevertheless, because of the administration's extensive inter-agency planning and coordination, when Kabul fell on August 15th, the United States was able to evacuate our embassy and relocate our diplomats to the airport within 48 hours, and then conduct the largest airlift in US history, helping approximately 120,000 Americans, Afghans, and citizens of allied nations, depart Afghanistan in just two weeks. In the three years since the end of our country's longest war, all of us, including myself, have wrestled with what we could have done differently during that period, and over the preceding two decades. I asked retired Ambassador Dan Smith, one of our most senior diplomats, to lead an after-action review of the State Department's actions between January, 2020 and August, 2021. In response to Ambassador Smith's report, the department has taken more than 40 concrete initiatives, and identified steps to guide our response to future crises. The actions we've taken have already made a difference in subsequent emergencies, including in Sudan, in Israel, in Lebanon.

(28:59)
Even as we work to address the places where we fell short, I firmly believe the President's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was the right one. American troops are no longer fighting and dying in Afghanistan. The American people are safer and more secure. In fact, many of the most pessimistic predictions have been thoroughly disproven. We were told Afghanistan would once again become a haven for terrorists, and that, as the majority report contends, we would be all but blind to the situation on the ground. In fact, al-Qaeda, the group that attacked us on 9/11, has not regrouped in Afghanistan. And in August, 2022, we launched a precision strike in downtown Kabul that took out its leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, with no American boots on the ground. We were told that our allies would no longer trust us. Well, having just returned from more NATO meetings in Brussels, and my 20th trip to the Indo-Pacific as Secretary of State, it's clear that our alliances, our partnerships are stronger today than they've been in a generation. You can see that in the more than 50 countries that we brought together to defend Ukraine against Russia's ongoing aggression, and in the unity of purpose and action that we built for contending with the challenges posed by China. We were told hundreds of Americans and Afghan partners would be left behind, yet today, every US citizen who told us that they wanted to leave during the evacuation has now had the opportunity to do so. And to those Americans who entered the country since August, 2021 and have been detained by the Taliban, we will not rest until we bring you home. Since September, 2021, the administration has resettled more than 185,000 Afghans. We've approved, or welcomed to the United States, more than 68,000 Afghans under the Special Immigrant Visa Program, that is nearly half of all of the SIVs issued since the program's inception in 2009.

(30:53)
This is a profoundly difficult period for the Afghan people, especially Afghanistan's women and girls, but I believe the final chapter has not been written on Afghanistan. Just last week, I had the chance to be with many partners who supported the evacuation effort, including members of Congress. We were joined by a resilient and resourceful young women who left Afghanistan in August, 2021, and is now an aerospace engineering student at MIT. She aspires to be the first Afghan woman astronaut. In part, because of our two-decade commitment to Afghanistan, there are many more women who have the opportunity to go to school, to connect with a wider world, to imagine a different life for themselves. And these women, their experiences, their hopes, will, I know, one day help pave a path to an Afghanistan where all people can actually choose their own futures. Thank you.

Chairman McCaul (31:44):

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I personally, and other members, we got four busloads of girls at the American School of Music out after Abbey Gate, who are now in Portugal. They performed at Carnegie Hall and the Kennedy Center. But there are many women unfortunately, who are now enslaved under Sharia Law by the Taliban. I now recognize myself for questions.

(32:14)
Mr. secretary, in September of this year, your state Department's Inspector General revealed that Embassy Kabul, under your leadership, abandoned, quote, sensitive security assets, unquote, during the deadly Afghanistan evacuation. Those lethal assets included firearms, armored vehicles, and other weapons. Your IG concluded the embassy left them intact for the Taliban. And if that wasn't bad enough, documents, classified documents, many that I subpoenaed, also revealed that you left behind droves of the embassies, again, classified documents, to the Taliban. Your own diplomats described desperate attempts to burn documents on the rooftops and in the embassy while helicopters took off the embassy's roof, very reminiscent, in my younger life, of Saigon, all because the administration failed to prepare.

(33:19)
Finally, your chief of mission kicked out the embassy's Afghan employees from HKIA, telling them to come back later, leaving them to the Taliban, who never made it back, who never survived, who we gave our trust to, that we would protect them. You left weapons behind to the Taliban. Classified documents to the Taliban. You left behind Embassy employees to the Taliban. And now three years later, your own IG, Inspector General, concluded that your State Department has been unwilling and unable to learn from its mistakes. My question is, have you read the IG report, and have you held your own State Department accountable?

Anthony Blinken (34:07):

Mr. Chairman, first, with regard to the documents, we have in place, at every embassy, including in Afghanistan, a process by which sensitive documents are destroyed in the event of an evacuation and shutting down the embassy. We began that process on August the first, and then when we got to August the 12th, before the collapse of Kabul, we proceeded with the emergency destruction of all of the remaining sensitive documents, and that process was complete by the 14th, the day before Kabul fell. That's a process that we engage in wherever we have an emergency, and that's exactly-

Chairman McCaul (34:47):

We were [inaudible 00:34:48] by time. The fact is they should have been evacuated long before. You were still negotiating as a Taliban entered Kabul, the embassy should have been, as the military advised you to do, evacuate

Chairman McCaul (35:00):

With that embassy. Let me ask you this. When President Biden announced unconditional surrender to the Taliban on April the 14th, 2021, you demanded that Embassy, Kabul, remain open no matter what the cost. Your personnel opposed that. In fact, they did so in a cable dissent that we were able to get from you in our discovery process, a cry for help. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the Centcom commander, Milley, McKenzie, said this was a fundamental mistake, fatal flaw, and their biggest regret is keeping the embassy open despite the advice of your own people on the ground, and military advisors. Why did you do that?

Anthony Blinken (35:49):

Very simply, because no one anticipated that the government and the Afghan armed forces would collapse as quickly as they did. We anticipated, in every intelligence assessment, that we had anticipated that Kabul would remain in the hands of the government, and the hands of the Afghan armed forces, through the balance of the year and into the next year.

Chairman McCaul (36:08):

I'm [inaudible 00:36:09] reclaim my time, because I want to say-

Anthony Blinken (36:10):

Please, let me finish.

Chairman McCaul (36:11):

I will let you finish, but I strongly disagree with that comment.

Anthony Blinken (36:12):

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs comment, Mark Milley, said, "Nothing I or anyone else saw indicated a collapse of the army or the government in 11 days." The DNI, Avril Haines, said, "In the days leading up to the Taliban takeover, intelligence agencies did not see collapse as imminent. This unfolded more quickly than many anticipated, including in the intelligence community."

Chairman McCaul (36:34):

Okay. Reclaim my time. I hear what you're saying that no one saw the collapse coming. However, I've read the dissent cable, your embassy personnel, that you provided to me, that they sent to you in July, before the collapse in 2021, warning of Afghanistan's imminent collapse, fearing for their safety. You personally read this, sir, and cleared it. Your deputy secretary, Brian McKeon, testified before this committee that you took no step to answer the cries for help. And, as you know, Secretary of State, you have a responsibility to protect Americans and diplomats.

Anthony Blinken (37:16):

Mr. Chairman, that's incorrect.

Chairman McCaul (37:17):

Why did you ignore the cries for help? Why did you leave this embassy open? And, finally, who was in charge? Was it you or Mr. Sullivan? Because it seems to me, you delegated all your responsibility on this. You had very little to do with it, and it was Jake Sullivan, and the National Security Council at the White House, calling all the shots. However, under law, sir, you are the captain of the ship.

Anthony Blinken (37:44):

Mr. Chairman, that's incorrect on a number of counts, as is the report that I've read. First, when it comes to a NEO, the evacuation, that is a decision that's reached by the entire inter-agency, and ultimately by the president. The State Department initiates it by asking the Department of Defense to proceed with it, but the decision itself is reached as a result of inter-agency deliberations, and we did not, as an inter-agency, and that includes the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the National Security Advisor-

Chairman McCaul (38:14):

Who was in charge?

Anthony Blinken (38:16):

… the President.

Chairman McCaul (38:16):

This is going to help us legislate, sir.

Anthony Blinken (38:18):

No. No. This is important.

Chairman McCaul (38:19):

Were you in charge of this evacuation?

Anthony Blinken (38:21):

I was in charge of the State Department, the government, the Administration, was in charge of the evacuation, specifically the State Department and the Department of Defense together, on any NEO, work closely together with clearly assigned responsibilities. And that's exactly what we did. And [inaudible 00:38:36] called for that NEO until it was actually-

Chairman McCaul (38:35):

And it is the statutory responsibilities, sir, for you to execute the plan. Correct? The NEO. The plan.

Anthony Blinken (38:43):

The NEO was executed by the State Department and the Defense Department together.

Chairman McCaul (38:45):

And I would have to say, sir, waiting until the last minute is not executing a plan, at all. And it led to the death of many Americans-

Anthony Blinken (38:54):

Again, Mr. Chairman-

Chairman McCaul (38:54):

… and Afghan people, and Afghan allies.

Anthony Blinken (38:57):

Mr. Chairman, the record reflects that, again, this decision was reached collectively. No one urged initiating the NEO until we decided to do it on the 14th.

Chairman McCaul (39:06):

I think, in my review of our investigation, there was so much confusion coming out of your embassy, coming from the top military advisors who told me, testified, that they told you to close down that embassy, in advance, to protect Americans and American assets and classified documents.

Anthony Blinken (39:27):

That is incorrect.

Chairman McCaul (39:27):

They were left to the Taliban. You were charge, by law. You may have delegated this, I don't know, but to legislate moving forward, I need to know who was in charge. And that's why it is so important that Mr. Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, come before this committee and give his testimony about what the hell was going on during this disastrous evacuation. With that, I now recognize the ranking member.

Mr. Meeks (39:55):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do recall a meeting here in the Capitol, bipartisan, downstairs, and we were meeting with President Ghani of Afghanistan. And we had talked to some folks, and President Ghani was very vehement that he was not going to leave Afghanistan. He was vehement that the Afghan troops were there, and he would stay there, to all these members of Congress. And to everyone that I talked to from almost anywhere, it was clear that that was his position.

(40:56)
No one knew that one week later, not one month, one week later, he would get on a plane, and get out, and all the troops were gone. Everybody, at that moment in time, was surprised, and that's a fact. Let me ask some yes or no questions, real quick, because I believe that you got to look at this whole thing you talk about. So Mr. Secretary, President Trump's Doha deal explicitly committed to the United States to withdraw all US and allied troops, as well as contractors, by May 2021. Yes or no?

Anthony Blinken (41:50):

That's correct.

Mr. Meeks (41:52):

But the speed of that withdrawal, outside of an initial reduction to 8,600 troops, was not specified by the deal. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (42:02):

That's correct.

Mr. Meeks (42:04):

And despite that, President Trump unilaterally reduced the US presence twice beyond that, leaving just 2,500 troops when President Biden took office. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (42:21):

That is correct.

Mr. Meeks (42:23):

We've seen that President Trump was prepared to go to zero. In fact, Ambassador Kala Azar testified to the committee that the messages coming out of the Trump White House led the Taliban to conclude that Trump was getting out regardless of what was agreed in the Doha deal. So let's be clear about the conditions. If we're going to be factual about this, you've got to consider the conditions that Trump handed over to you and the Biden Administration. A firm commitment for a total withdrawal with no allowance for a residual force or contractors, a limited number of troops on the ground, and no real prohibition or attacks on our Afghan allies. We've heard testimony from General Milley, Ambassador Kala Azar, and others, that if we had tried to re-open the Doha deal, the Taliban would have resumed attacks against us. Do you agree, Mr. Secretary, with that assessment? Yes or no?

Anthony Blinken (43:33):

I do.

Mr. Meeks (43:34):

So that was the fundamental choice facing President Biden. To complete the withdrawal that was initiated by President Trump or re-escalate the conflict. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (43:52):

That is correct.

Mr. Meeks (43:53):

So what do you think President Biden's decision to complete the withdrawal, and end this so-called forever war, gained us?

Anthony Blinken (44:04):

It gained us an end to America's longest war. It gained us not having another generation of Americans going off to fight and die in Afghanistan. It gained us the opportunity to refocus and rededicate our resources to the challenges, of this moment, from the Russian aggression.

Mr. Meeks (44:21):

So yes or no, do you see any connection between Putin's reinvasion of Ukraine and the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (44:30):

No. On the contrary., I think our adversaries, including Russia, would have been delighted if we had doubled down and remained stuck in Afghanistan for another 20 years. Now, in 2008, we had, between Afghanistan and Iraq, about 200,000 forces deployed. You'll recall what else happened in 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. In 2014, we still had about 12,000 forces in Afghanistan. You'll recall what else happened in 2014. Russia, for the first time, invaded Ukraine. Because we were able to refocus our time, our resources, our efforts, we were able to build this coalition of more than 50 countries that has stood up to Russia's aggression and [inaudible 00:45:16]-

Mr. Meeks (45:16):

[inaudible 00:45:16] did not hinder our capacity or our credibility to lead our allies in a robust response to the invasion in Ukraine. That's correct?

Anthony Blinken (45:25):

That is correct.

Mr. Meeks (45:26):

As well as that withdrawal did not inhibit our relationships with our allies.

Anthony Blinken (45:35):

That is correct.

Mr. Meeks (45:36):

In fact, just the other opposite. It may be my last question. Your assessment of the strength of NATO and our alliance's system-

Mr. Smith (45:47):

I've asked some of those in the past, and so I won't repeat those. But I chair the China Commission. I've chaired 105 plus hearings on human rights abuse in China, Xi Jinping's absolute malevolent behavior towards the Uyghurs, and all the other atrocities that are committed each and every day. But what concerned me with our, I believe, egregiously flawed exodus from Afghanistan was how dictators around the world, especially Xi Jinping, looked at that, and his propaganda organs, like the Global Times, and said to the people of Taiwan, here's one editorial, "Why the US will abandon Taiwan, eventually." Another one was, " Afghan abandonment is a lesson for the Taiwan's DPP." And then, when you read it, they're telling the people over and over again, in Taiwan, that America's resolve was questioned, is questionable, that we will leave them too. And I won't read the editorial, the editorials, because they are very, very disturbing.

(46:53)
Dictators love weakness. They probe with bayonets, and if they can get away with something, they will. And I think the chairman is right when he talks about Putin, as well. And you had said, before, how you thought they would be happy if we were bogged down for the next 20 years. But I look at it a different way. They look at how it was done. Yes, we were going to get out of Afghanistan, but the way we did it led to the loss of American lives, which we've seen the pictures again shown here, and we've all met with those families of those loved ones, and countless numbers of Afghans. So the impact of this, can you, at least, admit that, to the dictatorships of the world, they saw that and they saw it as weakness, and they go to a void if they think there is one.

(47:36)
Secondly, how many Americans are still in Afghanistan? And post-exodus, how many were jailed, killed, tortured, left behind? I know that there was a lot of talk that we encouraged people to leave. But we all remember that Reuters broke that story about how the President had, in a conversation with Ghani, had said very clearly that, even if we have to make it up in terms of the situation to project it as if it's better than it is. Here's the way he put it. This is President Biden. "And there's a need, whether it's true or not, there's a need to project a different picture." And that was done on July 23rd. So while we may admonish people to leave, they're listening to our own president who says there's a 300,000 man army, well-trained, but meanwhile, in back channel, talking on the phone to Ghani he's saying, "Project a different picture." Very, very disturbing. I mean, we got to be truthful.

Anthony Blinken (48:41):

Thank you. Two things on this. First, we engaged in a sustained campaign to get every American in Afghanistan, who was still there, to leave. 19 messages to that community between February and August. By the time the evacuation took place, there were still about 6,000 Americans left in Afghanistan. Now who are they? They're almost all dual citizens, most of whom, almost all of whom, had lived, worked, had their families in Afghanistan for generations. And so you were still down to 6,000, despite every effort to get people to leave, including offering to pay for their travel. The airport remained open until August the 15th.

(49:18)
In the weeks of the evacuation, the two weeks of the evacuation, almost all of those 6,000 remaining, we were able to get out. We were left with a few hundred on August the 31st. There were a couple of hundred, and this is what I testified to, who had identified themselves to us, and keep in mind, as you know, when you travel to a foreign country or you leave a foreign country, as an American, you don't have to register. You don't have to make yourself known. We made every effort to get into contact with everyone, but by the time of the end of the evacuation, there were still a couple of hundred American citizens left, who had identified themselves to us, and told us they wanted to leave, and who couldn't get to the airport or get into the airport.

(49:55)
There were several hundred others who were there, and we knew of, who did not want to leave, either because they didn't want to leave extended family members behind or they just chose not to leave. So after August 31st, as I said and committed to this committee and to this country, there is no deadline on getting Americans out of Afghanistan who want to leave. In the ensuing three months until the end of the year, we got 500 American citizens out of Afghanistan, who had identified themselves to us and said they wanted to leave. To my knowledge, every American who identified themselves and said that they wanted to leave has been given an opportunity to do so, and we've carried that out every single day. As to those who went back, and some who got detained, we are working, every day, to get them out, to get them back, and we will not stop for the duration of this administration. And I know that the incoming Trump Administration will carry that on if we're not successful in getting them back.

Mr. Smith (50:50):

[inaudible 00:50:51] time. Are any in jail today?

Anthony Blinken (50:52):

Yes.

Mr. Smith (50:54):

They are.

Anthony Blinken (50:54):

They are. These are Americans who went after the evacuation for a variety of reasons. We're talking about seven people.

Chairman McCaul (51:03):

Gentleman, it's time [inaudible 00:51:02]. I aim to keep the five-minute rule strictly, because I want every member to be able to have time to ask questions. Chair now recognizes Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Sherman (51:14):

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service to our country. You bring up the fact that Americans in a war zone don't have to register with the embassy. I think we've talked, in the past, about requiring Americans in designated dangerous countries to register, and I look forward to working with your successor to do that, because you point out how difficult it is for the embassy to deal with these situations. Before I get to Afghanistan, back in May, you agreed that you would look at designating the Popular Resistance Committees, the third-biggest terrorist group operating in Gaza, as a terrorist organization. They are responsible for so many deaths, including three Americans. This committee voted for my bill to so designate them. Do I have your commitment that, in the next two weeks, your department will make a decision as to whether to designate the Popular Resistance Committees a terrorist organization?

Anthony Blinken (52:15):

If we can complete the work necessary to go into that, yes. I don't know if we'll complete it in time.

Mr. Sherman (52:19):

Well, I asked you to do it in May. How many years does it take?

Anthony Blinken (52:23):

Well, as you know, there's a lot that goes into these designations, but I can assure that we'll-

Mr. Sherman (52:26):

[inaudible 00:52:27].

Anthony Blinken (52:27):

… meet the law. And if we can complete that work, we will.

Mr. Sherman (52:33):

When you were here in the past, I think you correctly told us you inherited a deadline, you did not inherit a plan. The gentleman from New Jersey argues that we should have stayed, but that's after Trump released 5,000 bloodthirsty terrorists. Had we stayed, would those terrorists, including the current head of Afghanistan, who was also released by Trump, been able to … would they have been willing to risk the lives, every one of those 5,000, risk their lives in order to kill as many Americans as possible?

Anthony Blinken (53:12):

That seems highly likely. I can't speak to every one of the 5,000, but, certainly, many of them went back to the fight.

Mr. Sherman (53:18):

So we went into Afghanistan, we drove Al-Qaeda out. We accomplished something in the Bush, George W. Bush Administration. In Obama Administration, we killed Bin Laden. We stayed in Afghanistan for the whole Trump Administration. 63 of our best died. 57 came back without the president bothering to be at the ceremony [inaudible 00:53:48] their return. The question is, did we accomplish anything during the Trump Administration? Did we get a better deal in 2020 than we could have gotten in 2017? Now, the deal we got in 2017 was total surrender. The only requirement was that the Taliban not be a center for international terrorism. They have that obligation anyway. They did not commit themselves to protecting our troops on the way out, or our embassy on the way out. And moreover, the Taliban is not in violation of the Trump agreement when they hold twelve-year-old girls as sex slaves, kill every LGBT person they can, kill any Afghan that converts to Christianity. So the deal was the weakest ever, and it had no enforcement. So couldn't we have gotten that same deal in 2017, and would 63 more American soldiers be alive if we had done that then?

Anthony Blinken (54:51):

Look, in fairness, I think we have to ask ourselves about our ongoing presence in Afghanistan after we got Bin Laden. We had dismantled Al-Qaeda. We had removed it as a threat. We got the leader, the guy who attacked us on-

Mr. Sherman (55:03):

So if we … so we got something when we-

Anthony Blinken (55:05):

So I think we need to look back at this entire period, and look at the decisions that everyone made.

Mr. Sherman (55:08):

But clearly the Trump years, four years of death of American troops, and we accomplished absolutely nothing. We signed an agreement under which the Afghan government is free to use twelve-year-old girls as sex slaves, and to kill those who convert to Christianity. Some 11 to $ 13 billion of US weapons were sent, by Trump, and scattered all over Afghanistan, and this committee has put forward the idea that we should have somehow collected those weapons from men who wanted to keep them, and who armed with those weapons. Could we have accomplished that without any significant American casualties all over Afghanistan collecting the weapons?

Anthony Blinken (55:55):

No, we could not.

Mr. Sherman (55:57):

Would there have been hundreds of American casualties in your estimation?

Anthony Blinken (55:59):

I can't give you a number, but certainly there would've been casualties.

Mr. Sherman (56:07):

I yield back.

Chairman McCaul (56:10):

Gentleman yields. Let me announce also that Mr. Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, has agreed to testify before this committee on December the 17th, at noon. And I insisted, on behalf of the members, that all members be able to participate in that briefing. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson (56:41):

Thank you very much, Chairman Mike McCaul, and thank you for your four years of leadership on this committee. It's just been so effective for the American people. And then, we all know that Chairman Brian Mast [inaudible 00:56:53] will do an excellent job continuing the tradition of serving the American people. And what an exciting time in history that, as we face such positive changes with the removal of dictator Assad from Damascus, what can occur, and what needs to occur. But sadly, the Assad departure, and anything that's been positive, was despite the Biden Administration, because, hey, until last week, there was an effort to try to, of some level of normalization with Assad, which is … but that's not what we're here today, but it's a continuation.

(57:31)
And that is the Biden Administration's surrender in Afghanistan has actually set the stage for foreign policy disasters around the world, with mass murder shamelessly being conducted around the world. Our allies, who stood with us for decades, watched as the Americans capitulated to terrorists, creating safe haven for terrorism, and abandoned allies. It was so incredible that this catastrophic decision of American, was the worst ever for American military and national security. And sadly, President Biden, on August 26th, 2021, claimed that he had letters, quote, had letters from the military indicating they supported his decision.

(58:18)
And Mr. Secretary, I'll be giving you copies. That evening, I sent a letter, respectfully, to the president, asking for copies of the letters. And every couple of months, I've sent letters to the president respectfully asking for copies of the letters of where the military he alleged supported his decision. With the Doha agreement, President Trump stated, from day one, that any withdrawal would be conditions-based, and would actually maintain control of Bagram Airfield, which is so critical. The disorder and chaos that led to the murder of 13 of our service members at Kabul Airport just should not be forgotten.

(58:58)
And then, countless civilians, we understand, were the first domino to fall in the Biden-Harris appeasement policy. And also, this year, it should be remembered, we lost 13 at Kabul Airport, but we also had three reservists from Georgia who were killed on January 28th by the Hamas puppets, excuse me, Hezbollah puppets of Iran, and 60 were injured. And many with traumatic brain injury. It's just heartbreaking to think of the loss of life, and the lifelong injuries that people will have. Today, in Afghanistan, women have effectively been banished from public life, unable to speak in public or hold any job, including nursing. And I still cherish seeing little girls … I visited Afghanistan, very frequently, to see little girls going to school with their hijabs, or whatever. And then, little guys going to school with something not indigenous to people of Afghanistan, and it was baseball caps. And so that doesn't occur now.

(01:00:03)
Terrorists have a free rein to regroup, and work with their backers to coordinate additional attacks on American families. As we know, the FBI has said attacks are imminent. History reminds us that when America withdraws from the world, our enemies fill the vacuums. We now face a war we did not choose, of dictators with rule of gun invading democracies with rule of law. It began February 2022 when war criminal, Putin, invaded Ukraine. And then, on October 7, Iran through its puppet, Hamas, invading Israel. And we all see that the risk that we have, and it's personal to me, Mr. Secretary, my appreciation of the people of Afghanistan. I was grateful to serve with the late Sheila Jackson Lee as co-chair of the Afghan Caucus. And we met with so many wonderful people who … it's bipartisan, our concerns.

(01:00:57)
And then, I'm grateful my former National Guard unit, the 218th, recognized infantry brigade of the South [inaudible 01:01:04] Guard, served for a year under general Bob Livingston, and they developed a real fondness for their Afghan brothers. And finally, I'm really grateful my number four son, First Lieutenant Hunter Wilson, served for a year as an engineer in Afghanistan. And so, I would just really want to let in trouble at home. I said I wanted Biden to succeed, but this has not occurred, and we've just got to address this. And with that, I yield back my time.

Chairman McCaul (01:01:39):

Gentleman yields. The chair recognizes Mr. Connolly.

Mr. Connolly (01:01:44):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your tenure and for your friendship and decency serving as chairman of this prestigious committee. I'd like to put a picture up, which seems to suggest, Mr. Secretary, that the Republican narrative is correct about you. There you are with a prominent Taliban negotiator. Do our tech people have that picture? Well, I have it here. Isn't that you with a Taliban negotiator, Mr. Secretary?

Anthony Blinken (01:02:20):

I'm afraid I can't see the picture, but I'm not aware of having spent any time with a Taliban negotiator.

Mr. Connolly (01:02:24):

Oh, I'm sorry. That's Secretary Pompeo. Was he your predecessor in the Biden Administration as Secretary of State in the Biden Administration?

Anthony Blinken (01:02:39):

No, he was my predecessor in the previous administration, the Trump Administration.

Mr. Connolly (01:02:42):

The Trump Administration. And there he is in Doha with the chief Taliban negotiator. I guess I got that wrong. Well, Mr. Secretary, all things seem to flow from Doha. Secretary Pompeo and President Trump appointed a chief negotiator, on behalf of the United States, for the negotiations in Doha. What was his name?

Anthony Blinken (01:03:07):

Zalmay Khalilzad.

Mr. Connolly (01:03:09):

Ambassador Khalilzad. And he, of course, testified before this committee, and I can remember an exchange with him in which I expressed deep concern about the direction of the US posture, and the ramifications with allied Afghans who would work for us or work with us, and women. And he kind of brushed them off at the time. Tell us about the details of the agreement he forged in Doha. What were the chief elements of that, concisely, if you would?

Anthony Blinken (01:03:39):

In essence, the agreement provided for this. It provided that the Taliban would not use Afghan soil to attack us or our interests. It would start an intra-Afghan negotiation. And as part of that negotiation, there would be discussion of a ceasefire, and a political roadmap for the future of Afghanistan. And during the time between the agreement and the commitment that we made as part of the agreement to leave Afghanistan by May 31st [inaudible 01:04:11].

Mr. Connolly (01:04:11):

So a firm date was set for all US troops to get out. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (01:04:17):

Yes. All US troops were to be up by May 31st. In the meantime, 5,000 prisoners were released from … Taliban prisoners were released from Afghan-

Mr. Connolly (01:04:24):

As Mr. Sherman points out, among those 5,000, were terrorists, fighters and people who returned to the battlefield against the Afghan government, which-

Anthony Blinken (01:04:33):

That's correct.

Mr. Connolly (01:04:33):

… allegedly, we were supporting at the time. Now speaking of that Afghan government, were they in Doha at the negotiating table as equal partners?

Anthony Blinken (01:04:42):

They were not.

Mr. Connolly (01:04:43):

They were not.

Anthony Blinken (01:04:43):

They were not.

Mr. Connolly (01:04:44):

Why were they excluded? That's the government we were supporting.

Anthony Blinken (01:04:48):

I can't answer that. I wasn't there at the time, but they were not.

Mr. Connolly (01:04:51):

Well, if the government we're supporting is not allowed to have a voice at the peace negotiations where a deal was, in fact, agreed to by the United States, could that conceivably undermine confidence in that government, and by that government, in itself, in terms of its future?

Anthony Blinken (01:05:11):

Yes, and indeed, I think General McKenzie has testified to exactly that point, that Doha created a tremendous crisis in confidence and about the future for the Afghan government, and presumably, to some extent, for the Afghan security forces themselves.

Mr. Connolly (01:05:26):

Could it also have a morale effect on the Afghan military that we were training and equipping to, in fact, fight the Taliban?

Anthony Blinken (01:05:36):

Yes, it could.

Mr. Connolly (01:05:37):

So here we are cutting-

Anthony Blinken (01:05:38):

Not to attack US forces, but with the obvious conclusion to be drawn from that that if that deadline was not respected, the Taliban would resume its attacks on US forces, on partner forces, and its attacks on the city.

Mr. Connolly (01:05:52):

So in other words, Mr. Secretary, we cut a deal to get out and cut our losses at the expense of the Afghan government, the Afghan military, and ultimately the Afghan people. And that was all set in motion before you took the oath of office or President Biden took the oath of office. Is that a fair statement?

Anthony Blinken (01:06:08):

I think that's where the Doha agreement led.

Mr. Connolly (01:06:11):

I thank you, and I yield back.

Chairman McCaul (01:06:13):

Gentleman yields. Let me just state that the Taliban was not in compliance with the Doha agreement when the evacuation was ordered. And your own senior advisor, Ned Price, said that the Doha conditions were quote-unquote immaterial, immaterial to the evacuation. That speaks volumes. I now recognize Mr. Perry.

Mr. Perry (01:06:35):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. The statement from you in a 2024 Senate hearing where you said, "No one has done more to support Israel than Joe Biden." Now during the Obama term, Joe Biden was the vice president, so I understand it's difficult, it was difficult to say something, but he didn't say anything about the US funding the campaign to oust Netanyahu. And I get it. While President Obama was the president, he's the vice president, that's a difficult thing to do, but he was unburdened when he became president, so he could have said something then.

(01:07:17)
Immediately upon taking office, he re-designated the Houthis from a foreign terrorist organization. We see what they've done. That hasn't been helpful to Israel. He restored a sanctions waiver. I remind everybody that Iran exports are at a five-year high with 3.4 million barrels being sold every day, funding their terrorist activities all across the globe. The president made a red line for Israel going into Arafah to defend itself, withheld arms shipments to Israel, so it couldn't defend itself, continually called and calls for Israel to lay down its defenses in demanding a ceasefire, continues, at this time, to undermine Netanyahu in this time of war.

(01:08:13)
Again, I think I already said about the sanctions waiver, but the president didn't even go to greet the prime minister when he came to the United States. He didn't even send the vice president. Actually used Israel funding to get Ukraine funding. Used Israel. Again, oil exports are at a five-year-high, and that money goes directly to support Iran, Israel's mortal enemy, and all their proxies, including the Houthis, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, you name it. Continues to support United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and the activities of those within, involved in the terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th.

(01:09:12)
That's just a few things that I quickly found knowing that you would be here, Mr. Secretary, and you said, "No one, starting with President Biden, has done more to make sure they have what they need to defend themselves from Hamas, to deal with the threat Hamas poses." And that's also from a 2024 Senate hearing, Mr. Secretary. "No one has done more to support Israel than Joe Biden." I'm thanking the good Lord that he's not against Israel, Mr. Secretary. I don't know if you have anything to say. I'm sure you're going to have a list of all the wonderful things that he's done to support Israel, but you can't support Israel while you're, at the same time, supporting their mortal enemy. You can't support Israel at the same time demanding that Israel support Hamas.

Mr. Perry (01:10:00):

You can't support Israel when you're allowing Iran access to billions of dollars used to fund terrorism, not only in Israel but around the globe, threatening not only Israel, our greatest ally, but also the United States of America and its interest abroad. So if you want to defend all that, you're welcome to it Mr. Secretary.

Anthony Blinken (01:10:24):

Thank you. I'll say simply this, when Israel was attacked on October the 7th, the President of the United States rushed there, the first president to go to Israel during a time of war. When Iran mounted unprecedented attacks on Israel, not once but twice, the first time we've seen direct attacks by Iran on Israel, the United States for the first time ever actively participated in Israel's defense and rallied other countries to do the same. Making sure that those attacks couldn't succeed and enabling Israel to take the strikes that it took to debilitate Iran's air defenses. If you want to go back more years than that, the memorandum of understanding, the ten-year memorandum of understanding that provides the money for Israel's defense, that was negotiated by President Obama and Joe Biden was a lead in that effort to get it. And as a result, the equipment, the munitions, the arms that Israel has had, as a result of that agreement, have enabled it to deal with Hezbollah, to deal with Hamas, to deal with Iranian-aligned-

Mr. Perry (01:11:31):

If I may, sir, in the remaining 10 seconds, if this president weren't on both sides of this war providing Iran all that it has provided, maybe those people in Israel that died on October 7th would still be alive. I yield.

Anthony Blinken (01:11:43):

That is simply incorrect and-

Chairman McCaul (01:11:44):

Gentleman yields. Chair recognizes Mr. Keating.

Mr. Keating (01:11:47):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First to gold star families that are here. I appreciate your being here, ever lasting gratitude for your sacrifice. I come from a gold star family and in my own family, even decades afterwards, members of my family went back through military records in years-long painstaking research just to find out exactly what happened to him as he was killed serving our country. And I understand the need for that and hope that you take advantage of what the ranking member has submitted, take advantage of what is there publicly and I hope there's further opportunity to declassify. Because it's important, as it was to my own family, to get the facts not just beliefs about exactly what happened. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here in your last hearing. I want to thank you for your selfless public service, your integrity, your personal sacrifice. I was researching the Budapest agreements the other day, just trying to get more detailed information, including our obligation to Ukraine in those agreements to defend aggression that they had, and the name that kept cropping up through the whole research was your father.

(01:13:12)
And I know your father would be very proud of your service and I want to thank you for that. I want to congratulate Mr. Mast. I want to thank my colleague, Chairman McCail for working together. When I first came into Congress, he was the chairman, I was the ranking member of a subcommittee. We worked together on investigating the Boston Marathon bombing, finding out what happened, what mistakes were made, and we saved lives as a result of that report. And it was comprehensive. I dare say, though, that the particular report that he issued here had things in it but it was certainly not comprehensive. In fact, it was really the report was painstaking in avoiding facts that are integral to seeing what happened here, why we got to the point we got to. The involvement of President Trump. He had committed the United States to a full date-certain withdrawal in a deal he negotiated the Taliban, as we've heard, without the Afghan government even being part of that.

(01:14:19)
Without discussion of rights of women's or children in Afghanistan. Forcing the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban fighters back into the battlefield before a final withdrawal. These are the things that should be looked at in a comprehensive report if we really want to get to the answers, and sadly it's lacking here. In that timeframe too, something we should draw attention to is when President Trump unilaterally did this he left out his own military people when he announced that, he left out senior officials in his own office, and he left out our allies who were fighting in this battle in communicating to them. So I'd just like you briefly to talk about the importance for the first time under Article 5, and the importance of NATO. Our allies came, and the only time, came to our assistance in fighting this war. I visited them in Afghanistan along with our own troops. So could you talk to the importance of that NATO alliance, how important it was in this, how important it is in the future?

Anthony Blinken (01:15:30):

Thank you very much Congressman, and thank you for the reference to my father. I deeply appreciate it. As you said the first time, the only time Article 5 has been invoked was in defense of the United States after 9/11 and NATO allies came far and wide to join us in Afghanistan in dealing with al-Qaeda, in dealing with Bin Laden, in dealing with the people who attacked us and attacked democracy on that day and that's something we'll forever be grateful for. I'm very proud of the fact that as we leave office, that alliance is stronger, bigger, and better resourced than it's ever been. When we took office, of the Allies only nine were meeting the pledge that had been made in 2014 to dedicate 2% of GDP to defense. Now 23 Allies are meeting that pledge and the remainder are route to do so. We have two new Allies in Finland and Sweden, making the Alliance stronger and more effective.

(01:16:28)
And I'll just say this in conclusion. I think what the American people need to understand about the Alliance, and I understand it's easy to forget, is what makes it so unique and why it's so important going forward. When countries came together to join NATO, they made this commitment under Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all, and that means that any would-be aggressor thinking about attacking any one of these countries knows that if they attack one, they've got to take them all on. That is the best way to prevent war in the first place. It's the best way to deter aggression. It's the best way to make sure that we don't have a world of conflict. Americans don't want to be at war. NATO has been the best guarantor that we can have of making sure those wars don't happen in the first place. But if they do that, we are not fighting them alone.

Mr. Keating (01:17:16):

Thank you so much, I yield that.

Chairman McCaul (01:17:17):

Gentleman's time has expired. I will agree, and Mr., NATO's never been more united or stronger and I do think that Mr. Putin had a strong role. Chair now recognizes Mr. Mast.

Mr. Mast (01:17:31):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Sometimes we speak about decorum in here and I would say that it doesn't take a four-letter word to violate decorum. We insult every single person that served when we come in here and we say words like we're sorry that the Afghanistan withdrawal was not exactly perfect, but maybe we could have done a few things… That is a violation of decorum against every person that put on a uniform. And this place absolutely lives up to being a swamp when we try to cover up the fact that 26 of your diplomats told you directly that if you continued down the path that you were going, that it was going to be a disaster and we should not be covering that up. I want to talk about a couple of things today. You are our top diplomat, that's not in dispute. Have you been in Afghanistan since 13 American service members were murdered?

Anthony Blinken (01:18:31):

No, I have not.

Mr. Mast (01:18:33):

Have any of your staff visited the US Embassy in Afghanistan since that day?

Anthony Blinken (01:18:38):

We've had people in Afghanistan. I do not believe they visited the embassy.

Mr. Mast (01:18:42):

Do you know who is currently residing in our embassy?

Anthony Blinken (01:18:45):

The embassy is obviously not under our control. We don't have the ability not being in Afghanistan to control it.

Mr. Mast (01:18:53):

Do you have any information on anybody that has spent any time residing in our embassy since our departure?

Anthony Blinken (01:19:01):

No doubt if we do, or in any event the intelligence community does. And I'm happy to share that as appropriate.

Mr. Mast (01:19:09):

Yet we are still giving the Taliban tens of billions of dollars. There's an American citizen out there literally woke up this morning losing 30% of their paycheck and a good percentage of that is going to the Taliban or other programs abroad. And this is something that we all need to think about, and we will be thinking about deeply for the next two years. There's a joke that's made often out there about kids going to college to learn basket weaving and what a joke that would be. But the United States right now is literally sending tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban, 14.9 million to be exact, to teach Afghans how to do carpet weaving. Let's think about that. We are giving $280 million to the United Nations to do cash transfers for food in Afghanistan, yet we're not sending an ear of corn from Iowa, a sack of potatoes from Idaho, or a cucumber or an orange from Florida. And that discounts the fact that there's no American tonnage going through our ports to send those things out of here either. It's just cash transfers. Another line item, these are directly from SIGAR reports. $75 million to teach Afghan women to be farmers. I don't believe that we spend $30 million in the United States of America to teach women to be farmers.

(01:20:42)
My colleague, Mr. Wilson, brought up that they can't even dance in the streets or speak to one another or go to school. I'm not sure that we can trust that that $75 million is being used to teach them agriculture. And as you pointed out, we don't have any diplomats on the ground to confirm the validity of these programs. Here's one that I was entirely curious about and maybe you could explain it to me. $3.5 billion transferred to the Afghan fund that is tended to protect the macro financial stability on behalf of the Afghan people. What the hell does that mean? Can you tell me? I don't know. That's a bunch of gibberish to me.

Anthony Blinken (01:21:22):

Happy to address all of this, Congressman. Thank you.

Mr. Mast (01:21:25):

I'll give you one more-

Anthony Blinken (01:21:26):

Okay.

Mr. Mast (01:21:26):

… Before you address it.

Anthony Blinken (01:21:27):

Please.

Mr. Mast (01:21:28):

Even worse. By the numbers, we've spent $9 billion to resettle 90,000 roughly Afghan refugees here since the fall of Afghanistan. My simple army math tells me that's about $100,000 a person. That's absurd. So my question for you, we do not even have an embassy in Afghanistan, we have no diplomats there. What are we doing giving them $1?

Anthony Blinken (01:22:03):

So Congressman, as I believe you know, the money that we provide, and the international community provides, is done through implementing partners, UN agencies, NGOs, they have-

Mr. Mast (01:22:12):

Yes. We could say that about all the State Department dollars, foreign NGOs, foreign countries, foreign companies, and in this case foreign adversaries.

Anthony Blinken (01:22:22):

So each of these institutions, as verified by the department, has in place processes to make sure that the money that we provide and others provide is spent appropriately. And the money that has been spent in Afghanistan, and I think internationally it's about $8 billion since the evacuation, has helped avert famine, it's helped prevent the collapse of the health system, it's helped prevent the collapse of the entire economy, it's helped avoid bringing even more disaster on people who are suffering.

Mr. Mast (01:22:47):

Mr. Secretary, you know for a fact that people literally, especially outside of this country, they directly lie to us. Your people had to come back and correct. Hey, it turns out we were in fact spending half a million dollars to expand atheism in Nepal through the third party implementer of Humanist International. They were lying to us. They didn't show us the exact slideshow that they put together for half a million dollars and all this. They lie to us. We have no eyes on the ground. And I would simply close with this. Again, we do not even have an embassy there, we have no business putting $1 into that place. I yield back.

Anthony Blinken (01:23:22):

And I respectfully disagree. I think that the work that we have done through these partners and many other countries have done has saved many, many lives in an incredibly difficult situation. And of the money that has been provided-

Chairman McCaul (01:23:32):

Gentleman's time has expired, sir. And I'll recognize Mr. Castro.

Mr. Castro (01:23:34):

Thank you Chairman. Secretary Blinken, welcome and thank you for being here today and thank you so much for your testimony and for your years of service as Secretary of State to our country. And speaking of refugees, before I get to the question, I want to note that my city of San Antonio, my hometown and the place I represent, is home to a growing and vibrant community of Afghan-Americans, many of whom are from the coast province and fled Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover of the country. I appreciate the work the State Department and other government agencies and nonprofits have done to help them adapt to their new lives in the United States. I wanted to ask you a question about the 2001 AUMF. Secretary Blinken, one of the legacies of the Afghan war is the 2001 authorization for the use of military force which authorizes military force against Al-Qaeda.

(01:24:22)
This law continues to be enforced 23 years after it was first enacted and has been used by this administration for military action across the world. In a sense, the war that began on 9/11 will not end as long as this authority continues to be in use and our nation remains at war across the world with little transparency for the American people. While much of this is reported to the Congress, too much remains classified and unavailable to the American people. The Obama administration, in which you served, released in its final days a comprehensive legal and policy framework on the use of military force. Will the Biden administration do the same and release a report so the American people know where we are still at war?

Anthony Blinken (01:25:05):

I appreciate what you're saying and the point that you're making, I can't speak to what we'll do in the remaining weeks of this administration on something like that.

Mr. Castro (01:25:14):

Do you think that it's a good idea in the same way that the Obama administration?

Anthony Blinken (01:25:17):

I think we should in any event, as we've been very open to doing, revisit various authorizations and authorities to make sure that they are right for the moment we're in, not the moment we were in 20 years ago.

Mr. Castro (01:25:32):

I want to speak also to a very important issue. It was mentioned that you're headed to the Middle East perhaps right after this committee meeting, and that is the war in Israel and Gaza. And I think you know, I've said it both publicly and privately, I have great respect obviously for our president, for your service, for the work that others like Bill Burns have done in trying to reach a ceasefire agreement. At the same time, this will be one of the defining foreign policy legacies of this time and I'm profoundly disappointed in how it's been handled. All of us on this dice have supported Iron Dome to protect the Israeli people over the years, we've supported the money and the memorandum of understanding that goes for 10 years. We have condemned in the harshest terms October 7th, we have sanctioned Hamas and other terrorist groups and warned anybody about associating with them around the world.

(01:26:35)
And at the same time, what we've seen by the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has been inhumane. In fact, it's amounted to war crimes. When an army targets civilians in refugee camps, in hospitals, in schools, in churches, in religious institutions, and does it repeatedly over and over again, those are war crimes. And many people in Israel have said so, former ministers in the Israeli government have said so, and I wish that this had turned out differently. I wish y'all had been successful in getting the ceasefire, but when you weren't, I wish that we had used more leverage with the far right Netanyahu government the same way that Ronald Reagan did years ago. The leverage of holding offensive weapons to get them to change what they're doing because what they're doing has been inhumane and the world has seen it. We live in a different world now.

(01:27:43)
This is no longer the world of the Vietnam War, certainly not World War II, not even the world of the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The world is much more transparent now. All of us are essentially social demographers and documentarians who can record the world around and then send that out to everybody else around the world. And that's why the world has become more transparent and people can see the inhumanity on both sides. But again, we have taken action to go after Hamas, to label them as terrorists, to sanction them to do what we can to stop them. We have not done enough to stop Benjamin Netanyahu and what he's doing to the Palestinians. And my question is whether you believe we should have done anything differently.

Anthony Blinken (01:28:30):

And I see I'm about to be out of time. I'm happy to take that up. I'm happy to respond if you want to give me more time.

Mr. Castro (01:28:40):

Chairman, can I get a few seconds on a response?

Chairman McCaul (01:28:43):

Yes

Anthony Blinken (01:28:47):

For us, for me, there'll be a lot of time to look back and ask ourselves whether we could and should have done things differently. From day one we've sought to accomplish several things. One, to make sure, to the best of our ability, that we helped Israel ensure that October 7th would never happen again. Two, to try to prevent a wider war from taking place that would result in more death, more suffering, and likely prolong the war in Gaza, including a potential war with Lebanon and Hezbollah, with Iran, with Iranian-aligned militia groups and with others. And we have actually successfully done that. Third, to do our best to make sure that civilians caught in a crossfire of Hamas's initiation who didn't start this and can do nothing to stop it are protected. And we've worked every single day to do that. I've also been to the region 12 times since October 7th. I'm heading back in an hour or two to continue the efforts to get a ceasefire and hostage agreement, to get the hostages home, to get the guns to stop firing, to put Gaza on a better path. And meanwhile, to try to make sure that people have the assistance they so desperately need.

Chairman McCaul (01:29:56):

Gentleman's time has expired and we wish you all-

Anthony Blinken (01:29:58):

Is with us every single day.

Chairman McCaul (01:30:00):

Chair now recognizes Mr. Burchett.

Mr. Burchett (01:30:03):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll miss your leadership. Appreciate your friendship, brother. Mr. Secretary, 13 brave Americans lost their lives. One of them, his people live in my area and I live on the street named after him. Staff Sergeant Ryan Knauss. And I remind folks that 13 brave Americans lost their lives and there's a lot of moms and dads that lost their kids because of this, and the blood is on your all's hands and that needs to be acknowledged. But Mr. Secretary, in your opening remarks, you stated that Al-Qaeda is not regrouped in Afghanistan. A friend of mine had just returned from there wants you to know that Al-Qaeda in fact has thousands of fighters in Afghanistan and eight new bases there. One of those bases is in the Panjshir Valley, which is the home to Afghan resistance. In July of 2024, a call was issued to foreign fighters around the world to migrate to Afghanistan and join the ranks of the Jihad. This was widely covered by the media and in fact, there is video evidence of al-Qaeda fighting alongside the Taliban. Knowing all that is Hamza bin Laden still alive?

Anthony Blinken (01:31:09):

I couldn't tell you definitively.

Mr. Burchett (01:31:11):

Well people who don't know, he is a leader of al-Qaeda and his father at Osama bin Laden was killed. Hamza was thought to be dead sometime in 2019, but new reports suggest that he's alive and still charge of al-Qaeda. What is the relationship between Taliban, al-Qaeda, and ISIS?

Anthony Blinken (01:31:31):

When it comes to ISIS, which is the group that is of greatest concern in Afghanistan, the relationship between the Taliban and ISIS is deeply adversarial.

Mr. Burchett (01:31:42):

Okay.

Anthony Blinken (01:31:42):

The Taliban sees ISIS as its number one enemy. And it has the will, but not necessarily the capacity, to deal effectively with it.

Mr. Burchett (01:31:50):

Okay.

Anthony Blinken (01:31:50):

al-Qaeda is a different story. This is obviously a group that the Taliban in the past has collaborated with, given shelter to and otherwise acquiesced to.

Mr. Burchett (01:31:59):

Okay. What has the State Department done, briefly, to unify the Afghan resistance groups who want to drive out the Taliban?

Anthony Blinken (01:32:06):

There is not much of a resistance active in trying to do that.

Mr. Burchett (01:32:10):

All right. Well my friend, Legend, an Afghan-American and former US army non-commissioned officers traveled to Afghanistan after the collapse. And of course, the Taliban has been benefiting from US cash shipments sent to the Afghan Central Bank. This is American funds. And that sanctioned terrorist are diverting US aid meant for the Afghan people. Why are we giving the Taliban millions in taxpayers dollars while they hold Americans hostage and are killing the Afghan people? And in my opinion, sir, they will hate us for free. We don't need to be giving them money.

Anthony Blinken (01:32:43):

We're not giving the Taliban anything. As I discussed with Congressman Mast, we are providing money, as many other countries are, to UN agencies, NGOs, to help the Afghan people.

Mr. Burchett (01:32:54):

And these agencies are funding the Taliban. Sir, reports are saying between 40 and 80 million US tax dollars are given to the Taliban every dadgum week. I mean, is that acceptable?

Anthony Blinken (01:33:06):

According to the report that I read and that Congressman referred to, the SIGARs report, of the approximately $8 billion that the international community, including the United States, is dedicated to Afghanistan, about $10 million of that, that is 0.1% has no doubt gotten to the Taliban in terms of fees, utilities-

Mr. Burchett (01:33:24):

I don't care if it's a dadgum penny. I don't care if it's a penny. I mean, for you to sit up here and admit that our enemies, I mean these people swear to hate Christians and Jews and that takes care of about everybody in this dadgum room. And we're sending them, I don't care if it's 1% but let me tell you, $10 million is a hell of a lot of money to the people I represent, sir. And it needs to be something that you all… Let me get all my questions, I'm running out. I've invited Presidents Lee and Commander Massoud of the Afghan Resistance of the US to meet with myself and colleagues, will the State Department work to facilitate their entry into the country to meet with Congress?

Anthony Blinken (01:34:01):

I'll be happy to follow up with your office on that.

Mr. Burchett (01:34:03):

All right. Just for the record, this State Department has funded our enemies and they've turned a blind eye to our open southern border. US Border Patrol has caught known terrorists sneaking into our country, likely using our tax dollars to do so. And this disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan was not a solution, it was a beginning of a much bigger problem waiting to happen. Let me ask you one more question. And the committee asks, Mr. secretary according Ambassador Khalilzad, I don't sure how to say that, do you believe the Taliban by the Doha agreement and you purportedly advised President Biden during the inter-agency review to emboarce the agreement conditions and not withdraw until the Taliban complied.

Anthony Blinken (01:34:47):

The Taliban was in violation of the Doha agreement in a number of ways. It was in violation when the previous administration drew down forces repeatedly. It was in violation during the time that we were in office before the evacuation.

Mr. Burchett (01:35:00):

But why did you advise conditionally?

Anthony Blinken (01:35:04):

When it comes to the agreement, what we tried to do was to get them to abide by the conditions. Notably, to engage in a negotiation with the Afghan government to produce a new government that would bring everyone together. They didn't do that. But because we had the deadline and because we have the prospect of the Taliban resuming attacks on US forces, which would've required us to put tens of thousands of Americans back into Afghanistan, we followed through with pulling them out.

Mr. Burchett (01:35:32):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. It's clear to me that this group is clearly out of their league and the new administration couldn't get here fast enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman McCaul (01:35:42):

Gentleman yields. Chair recognizes Ms. Titus.

Ms. Titus (01:35:47):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Secretary. Just bring things back a little bit to the realm of reality. Throughout this do-nothing Congress, which has been led by the Republicans, we've seen time and time again the majority's lack of interest in actually solving problems. On this committee the Republicans have blown a lot of smoke about the process, they've tried to hold you in contempt, and they've ignored our kind of foreign policy making responsibilities by just not paying any attention to democratic backsliding in Georgia, what's just happened with the toppling of Assad in Syria, just to do nothing but yammer about who's qualified and who's not to make these kind of decisions. Democrats on the other hand have been focused on real solutions. We took the after action report and introduced legislation, codifying some of these recommendations in an effort to support the State Department's crisis response, to protect our Afghan allies, which they claim they want to do, and to position our national security apparatus to address the landscape of this kind of new Afghanistan situation.

(01:37:03)
Many of those proposals, in fact, made it into the NDAA that just came out over the weekend. I was glad to see some of those proposals in the State Department's appropriation or authorization. And one of those that I was especially pleased with was my Care Authorization Act. That this would codify the coordinator for Afghan relocation efforts at the State Department for the next three years. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you could talk about the importance of the Care Program, just measure to codify and how it can impact the work that you're doing in the new landscape.

Anthony Blinken (01:37:42):

Well, thank you very much and I deeply appreciate the support that you've shown and other members have shown for these efforts. We have an obligation that I believe is a strong bipartisan obligation and sense of responsibility to the many Afghans who stood beside us for 20 years in Afghanistan. And we've worked very hard, as I said, to revitalize the SIV, the Special Immigrant Visa program. We brought in more people, more visas in the last three years, almost as many as in the entirety of the program going back to 2009. But part of that, of course, as well as refugees who come in under other parts of the law, needs a tremendous amount of support when it comes to relocating them, resettling them here in the United States.

(01:38:26)
And the Department established this effort in this office to do just that, to work to make sure that we could bring Afghans out, get them to so-called lily-pad countries where we could finish processing them, then to bring them to the United States and then to work with resettlement agencies to make sure that they could be resettled and integrated into communities. And we've also seen an incredible outpouring from Americans all across this country through a sponsorship program we set up so that private individuals and groups could also welcome Afghans to this country. And we've seen tens of thousands of people stand up to do that. But we do need the, I think, ongoing support from the Department to make sure that we have the people in place to continue this effort. And so we welcome congressional efforts to support that.

Ms. Titus (01:39:14):

Thank you. I'd like to follow up about the SIVs. The report from the majority alleged that President Biden abandoned our allies but the numbers tell an entirely different story, as you referenced. During Trump's time in office, the SIV coordinator role was vacant for the entire time. Just to give the numbers to the point you make. Trump only issued 7,116 SIVs in a three-year period. And processing time increased from 480 days in January of 2017 to 996 days in January of 2021. When you were here in 2021, you spoke to us about this immense backlog, I'm sorry, that the administration had inherited of more than 17,000 applications of SIVs. Ambassador Smith affirmed that the Trump administration had taken, this is a quote, "Taken no steps to reduce the backlog" in just his first eight months of the administration. However, president Biden issued 8,760 Afghan SIVs and halved the processing time. So the success is in those numbers and it's very clear what the emphasis has been under the previous administration, not what's been alleged. And can you just talk a little bit about how you were able to accomplish this?

Anthony Blinken (01:40:41):

Well, I think you've covered it very well. But simply to say that yes, we inherited a program that was basically stuck. Nothing was happening. There hadn't been an interview for someone to get their visa going back to March of 2020. We had a backlog of about 17, 18,000 people. And as soon as we came in, we restarted the interviews. The president issued an executive order, one of the very first, instructing us to look at what we could do to cut the delays, to beef up the staffing. We cut the time in half for processing SIVs. I quintupled the resources at the State Department, going to look at the applications so that we could get people through the system. And as a result, I won't repeat the numbers that you cited, we rebooted a program that had been moribund and we brought many, many, many Afghans here. But that didn't stop after the evacuation. And as I noted, since then almost 70,000 Afghan SIVs. And that was as many in three years-

Chairman McCaul (01:41:46):

With all due respect, Secretary, the gentleman's time has expired. Chair recognizes Mr. Baird.

Mr. Baird (01:41:52):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to start my comments. I appreciate you being here, Mr. secretary, but I want to express my appreciation to the gold star families that are here today. And I also want to express my sorrow for your loss. And one of those was Corporal Humberto Sanchez. You made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on April 15th 2021, could you give us some idea what the purpose of that visit and then what information did you bring back and share with the president from this unannounced visit?

Anthony Blinken (01:42:27):

Thank you. The purpose of the visit was to see for myself the situation on the ground, how they were pursuing the mission, our diplomatic mission, our mission to bring more SIVs out. And also to talk to Afghans, not just from the government but from across society, which I did on that trip, to hear from them how they saw the situation as it was evolving. And that was a very informative trip, as were my many discussions at NATO with our allies and partners throughout that period. Now I'm not going to share the advice or council that I gave to the president, that's between me and him. And having said that, I think what we were looking to do was to see if we could get the Taliban to meet its [inaudible 01:43:23]. That he wanted to continue working on getting an agreement with the Taliban, but if he couldn't he would stay and fight to the death. And he left the next day. So my trip back then obviously helped to inform our diplomacy, our approach to what we were trying to do. And I wish we could have gotten, obviously, the Taliban to agree to meet its commitments, but we didn't.

Mr. Baird (01:43:46):

So thank you. The thing I'm also interested in, do you feel that the president acted on any of the information that you brought back to him from that meeting? And was it any coincidence that the president announced an unconditional withdrawal just six days after you had that meeting with him?

Anthony Blinken (01:44:05):

The president absolutely factors in, and I know firsthand, the information, the ideas, the judgment, he's the one that makes the final call. Again, it was our effort and our policy to see the Taliban meet its obligations. It didn't. But I remind again that we had a deadline that was bequeathed to us, and during that period, from the Doha agreement to the [inaudible 01:44:34].

Mr. Baird (01:44:36):

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman McCaul (01:44:38):

Chairman yields. Chair recognizes Ms. Jacobs.

Ms. Jacobs (01:44:41):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. Thank you to the Gold Star families. Actually learned from America's two-decade, $2.3 trillion investment in Afghanistan. An investment which was intended to foster democratic governance and state capacity,

Ms. Jacobs (01:45:00):

… but which ultimately fell short as evidenced by the fact that the government instantly collapsed after our departure and is long-standingly ranked as one of the most corrupt states in the world. So the Global Fragility Act, a law which was signed by President Trump, was designed to incorporate some of these lessons from Afghanistan and to pilot a more integrated strategic approach to how we deal with fragile and conflict-afflicted regions. Reflecting on the shortcomings of our twenty-year war and the withdrawal's aftermath, what key insights have guided the department's evolving approach to conflict prevention and stabilization? And how have these lessons shaped the implementation of the Global Fragility Act to ensure that future engagements emphasize building resilient, accountable institutions rather than just propping up hollow corrupt ones?

Anthony Blinken (01:45:53):

Well, I think you've said it very well. I think one of the lessons that I at least take away from the 20 years is that while very well-intentioned and noble and aspiration, the idea of nation-building and trying to impose a democracy on a country, in effect, by military means alone is simply [inaudible 01:46:16] is necessary. It's not sufficient to getting the job done. And unless you have a whole of government and really a whole of society approach that looks at the various things that are likely to drive people apart and create conflict within a society, you're unlikely to stop it. And you're unlikely to see the emergence of a stable never mind democratic government. And I think what you and others have done in your work in support for the Global Fragility Act very well, and across the government and not only US NGOs, the private sector and others, again, were unlikely to actually prevent these countries from failing, never mind building something successful.

(01:46:59)
So we've now had some beginnings of experience with the Global Fragility Act, but as you know very well, the other insight is that this doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't happen by flipping a light switch. These are engagements and investments that we have to sustain over a decade. So we're in the early years of this, but I think this is a much better approach to trying to get the results that again are extremely well-intentioned, but I think Afghanistan and in different ways Iraq-

Ms. Jacobs (01:47:33):

… measures you've implemented to streamline decision-making authority, improve inter-agency coordination, ensure rapid accurate communication during future emergencies, and how have these reforms addressed some of the issues identified in the after-action review.

Anthony Blinken (01:47:46):

Yeah, thank you very… 2020 through the evacuation to look at the State Department and what we did right, what we did wrong, and as I mentioned earlier, a number of important recommendations came out of that to strengthen us going forward. We had 34 recommendations in 11 categories. We've taken 40 actions since then and engagement with US citizens in one place. Before, we had a dispersed staff. We didn't have the proper capacity to surge our people, communicate with American citizens in realtime to avoid duplication overlap. There are a number of things, I'd really commend you-

Mr. Barr (01:48:37):

The biggest foreign policy blunder of the administration over the last four years. But I would argue maybe even the last generation, that the failure was not the twenty-year fight against terrorism in Afghanistan. That was not the failure. In fact, that was a success where the brave men and women of this…

(01:49:00)
… events of August of 2021. Important. I agree. So let's talk about the Doha Agreement. Mr. Secretary. According to Ambassador Khalilzad, you believed the Taliban violated the Doha Agreement and you purportedly advised President Biden-

Anthony Blinken (01:49:14):

… agreement and to get the Taliban to live up to what it had promised to do.

Mr. Barr (01:49:18):

Right. And I'm going to reclaim my time. Yes, I agree with that. But the Taliban failed to live up to the agreement. The Taliban…

(01:49:23)
He was implementing the Doha Agreement. It was not that he was bound by the Doha Agreement. He disregarded the Doha Agreement, he said, "We're going to retreat regardless of the Doha Agreement." And that's what happened here. Let me talk about NATO because-

Anthony Blinken (01:49:44):

Just to be clear, the Doha Agreement agree said we would be out by May 31st, 2021.

Mr. Barr (01:49:48):

Yes, based on conditions, Mr. Secretary. And you know that in fact you acknowledged that the Taliban was failing to live up to the conditions and so Doha did not bind your administration to retreat the way you did-

Anthony Blinken (01:50:01):

But what would have happened if we had not-

Mr. Barr (01:50:01):

… certainly not the way you did. Certainly not the way you did. Now, Mr. secretary, I want to talk about NATO because you all talk about and tout this great strength in NATO alliance. I was just in Europe in October. I agree NATO's strong, but it's not because of your retreat from Afghanistan, it's because of Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine that required NATO to get stronger despite the invitation to aggression that the retreat from Afghanistan gave to Putin. Let me ask you about NATO and how NATO felt about the policy of this administration back in 2021. According to the State Department documents that we subpoenaed, our NATO allies wanted the Biden-Harris administration to enforce the conditions of the Doha Agreement. You met with former NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg in March of 2021 at the NATO ministerial meeting, correct?

Anthony Blinken (01:50:52):

That's correct.

Mr. Barr (01:50:52):

Yes. And according to State Department documents, Mr. Stoltenberg opposed an withdrawal and you in response stated, I share your view that it would be preferable to reach a political settlement before foreign troops depart. We've also learned that you were jolted by how strongly NATO officials argued against a complete withdrawal. Did you share NATO's concerns with the White House?

Anthony Blinken (01:51:18):

I shared everything I heard from NATO allies and partners with the White House, with my colleagues with the President. That's my job.

Mr. Barr (01:51:26):

General Miller testified that NATO leaders were "unhappy" with the President's unconditional withdrawal and they, "Voiced that unhappiness in different publications." Then you're number two, Mr. Choulet lied to this committee stating, "NATO itself didn't take a position." We are told by public sources that NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg was livid, informing Secretary Austin and yourself that he, "Strongly disagreed with the decision and felt that NATO's collective position hadn't been taken into account."

Anthony Blinken (01:51:59):

I'll let Mr. Stoltenberg speak for himself-

Mr. Barr (01:52:01):

Yeah, so here's the bottom line-

Anthony Blinken (01:52:03):

… so I have great respect for, but that's not the-

Mr. Barr (01:52:03):

… NATO's stronger today, but not because of you all. NATO is stronger because your weakness invited Putin to move against Ukraine. You signaled you weren't going to stand with our NATO allies. You didn't care. President Biden didn't care about our NATO allies and what they thought about a retreat from Afghanistan. Instead, what it did is it signaled weakness and Putin took advantage of it. The reason NATO is stronger today is because of the invasion. It's not because of US policy.

Anthony Blinken (01:52:32):

Now that's incorrect. The reason NATO is stronger today is because of President Biden's leadership. This alliance is bigger, it's better resourced, it's got more members because of his leadership. But if you ask any NATO ally, that's exactly what they'll tell you.

Chairman McCaul (01:52:44):

Gentleman's time has expired. Chair now recognizes Ms. Manning. Also, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin Mr. Van Orden be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in today's hearing without objection. So, Ms. Manning, and we will certainly miss you. And thank you for your service.

Ms. Manning (01:53:03):

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman McCaul. Thank you Ranking Member Meeks. Thank you Secretary Blinken for your service and for your answer to that last question. I want to express my appreciation for the gold star families in the room today. I have a gold star mother on my staff and I do understand the terrible sacrifices those families make. I must say I am disappointed that we are having yet another hearing on the now three-year- old withdrawal from Afghanistan. It seems to me that the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and what happens next, including the potential resurgence of ISIS or other terrorist groups, has major consequences for our security and the future of the region, and it would be a much better use of our time to talk about that topic today. So Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully suggest that the committee hold a hearing and a classified briefing on this critical situation, the situation in Syria next week.

Speaker 6 (01:54:00):

[inaudible 01:54:04].

Ms. Manning (01:54:05):

Thank you very much.

Chairman McCaul (01:54:06):

Running out.

Ms. Manning (01:54:06):

I look forward to that meeting before I'm no longer on this committee. Mr. secretary, in your view, what are our core interests that are at stake in Syria?

Anthony Blinken (01:54:18):

A number of them. First and foremost, of course, is protecting our forces that are there, that remain there. Second is making sure the best of our ability that ISIS does not reconstitute. Through the Obama administration and the Trump administration, we were successful in eliminating the territorial caliphate that ISIS had developed in Syria. We don't want to see that revive. And in particular, there are thousands of foreign terrorist fighters who are detained in a dissension center that is being policed by our Kurdish partners in Syria. We want to make sure that that's preserved. Third, there may be, and I very much hope there is an opportunity to move Syria away from the disaster of recent decades toward a country that is unified, that reflects all of the different communities that make up Syria. And so that we get a political transition that's inclusive and that brings everyone together. We have an interest in seeing that because if Syria goes the other way, if it fragments, then we're likely to see more mass migrations. We're likely to see more places in Syria that become centers for terrorism and extremism, none of which is in our interest.

Ms. Manning (01:55:25):

Mr. secretary, the President-elect has suggested that we have nothing, no interest in Syria, that he doesn't want to get involved there when he takes over. What impact would that have if the United States were simply to step aside and wash our hands of what's going on in Syria?

Anthony Blinken (01:55:40):

Well, again, as I just said, in fact, there was I think a very important success through the Obama administration that was completed by the first Trump administration in eliminating this territorial caliphate that ISIS had established in Syria. That was a job very well done over two administrations. And I believe that the incoming administration we'll have an interest in preserving the gains that it helped achieve.

Ms. Manning (01:56:06):

To what do you attribute the resurgence of the rebels in Syria and the fall of the Assad regime?

Anthony Blinken (01:56:14):

I think what we're seeing is a result of a number of factors, but first, all of the outside patrons of the regime, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, were at the very least distracted and in some cases on the ropes because of problems of their own making and problems that we helped exacerbate for them. Second, Assad's utter refusal to engage in any kind of political process to try to bring the country together despite everything he'd inflicted on the country. I think that sowed the seeds of his downfall.

Ms. Manning (01:56:47):

I do want to address one thing that we're seeing happen in Afghanistan and since the fall of Kabul in 2021, we've witnessed the tragic consequences of the takeover of the Taliban, particularly on the Afghan women and girls. Women who had high-ranking positions, who had good productive jobs are no longer able to work. Girls who were attending school are no longer able to attend school. When I read the Trump-Doha Agreement, I was shocked by how few conditions there were in there for the Taliban. There were no protections requested for Afghan women and girls. Since the withdrawal, we've seen the Taliban issue more than 100 edicts targeting women and girls, restricting not just their education and their ability to work, but also their ability to leave their homes, their ability to seek healthcare services from male providers.

(01:57:44)
And just recently the Taliban issued an edict suspending medical education for women. We know what this means. Afghan women will eventually be unable to get medical care that they need. This will be a disaster not just for the women of Afghanistan, but for the country. What steps have you taken to push back on those edicts and help the vulnerable Afghan women and girls?

Anthony Blinken (01:58:08):

These edicts are abhorrent and they would take Afghanistan back to the dark ages. From day one, we've worked to do everything we can to defend support and where we can empower women and girls in Afghanistan, including having senior officials whose mission is to do just that, including setting up different mechanisms so that their voices can be heard in our policy deliberations and in the international policy deliberations, including when it comes for example, to recognizing the Taliban. We sanctioned many members of the Taliban-

Chairman McCaul (01:58:40):

Gentleman's time has expired.

Anthony Blinken (01:58:40):

I'm happy to follow up.

Chairman McCaul (01:58:41):

The chair recognizes Mrs. Salazar.

Ms. Manning (01:58:43):

Thank you.

Mrs. Salazar (01:58:46):

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Mr. Blinken for being here with us. And you know the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan had ramifications around the world, not only in the Middle East and only including the messages to dictators just like the Taliban, but to other people, specifically the Western Hemisphere. I just want to concentrate my time in three countries that are highly important for my constituents starting with Venezuela. Sir, I hear that you're planning to cancel the oil licenses to actors like Chevron and Repsol and others. And my question is are you planning to cancel those oil contracts before or after January 10th, which is when Maduro is supposed to be assuming the presidency?

Anthony Blinken (01:59:28):

I can't speak to the actions that we'll take in terms of when we'll take them. I'm happy to follow up with your office.

Mrs. Salazar (01:59:35):

You can take this opportunity to announce, sir, that we are not going to be doing business with the dictators anymore. And then the whole world is looking at you. So why don't you send the right message to Maduro and say, "If you [inaudible 01:59:47] the elections, you're not going to make any money [inaudible 01:59:49]."

Anthony Blinken (01:59:49):

Well, I think we've been sending very clearly the message about how we see the election, how we see the abuse of the system by Maduro the work that we've done to support Mr. Gonzalez and others going forward-

Mrs. Salazar (02:00:00):

I know, sir. But the problem is that if the Maduro regime has money from Chevron that goes to [inaudible 02:00:08] goes to the treasurer and then they have more money for the repressive apparatus, you know that.

Anthony Blinken (02:00:12):

And as you know, the opposition supported all the efforts that we took to see if we could get an election that would reflect the will of the people. We got an election, we saw the will of the people. Unfortunately it's not been recognized.

Mrs. Salazar (02:00:25):

And they stole it and now he's going to be sworn in on January the 10th. But you can send them message to Chevron saying no more oil for now.

Anthony Blinken (02:00:29):

We will take the necessary steps to make clear-

Mrs. Salazar (02:00:31):

But I hear that you are thinking about doing that. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (02:00:35):

Again, everything is on the table right now including in terms of the licenses.

Mrs. Salazar (02:00:39):

Good. Now let's go to Colombia, sir. President Petro from Colombia has asked President Biden to pardon a guy, but most people here won't know who he is. His name is Simon Trinidad. He's a terrorist. He's serving 60 years in prison at a federal prison for kidnapping three American contractors. What was your recommendation to the President? To pardon Simon Trinidad?

Anthony Blinken (02:01:05):

I'm not aware of that request, but I'm happy to follow up. I'm not aware of that.

Mrs. Salazar (02:01:07):

You're not aware?

Anthony Blinken (02:01:07):

I'm not aware of that request.

Mrs. Salazar (02:01:08):

But that request should go through the State Department. That's you.

Anthony Blinken (02:01:11):

Imagine it would.

Mrs. Salazar (02:01:11):

So you have not heard about.

Anthony Blinken (02:01:13):

I'm not aware.

Mrs. Salazar (02:01:13):

But if that were to be the case within the next hours, what recommendation would you give the President?

Anthony Blinken (02:01:18):

I'd have to make sure that I'm fully informed.

Mrs. Salazar (02:01:21):

Well, he's a terrorist.

Anthony Blinken (02:01:22):

Again, I want to see if there is something, I want to see it, understand it and read it, but certainly his record speaks for itself.

Mrs. Salazar (02:01:30):

Wait, I understand. But you understand that if you were to pardon Simon Trinidad, you will make every single Colombian living in the United States a Republican, right. We don't want to do that. I mean, we're happy about that, but that's not the honorable thing to do. So make sure that President Biden doesn't make a mistake. Just it's a humble opinion. Let's go to Cuba. Is Cuba under review to be removed from the list of countries sponsor of terrorism. Is it under review, sir?

Anthony Blinken (02:01:58):

I don't anticipate any changes in our policy toward Cuba during the pendency of this administration.

Mrs. Salazar (02:02:03):

All right, I'm happy you're saying that, laudable to hear that. But specifically is it under review right now? Because if you're going to remove a country from a list of terrorists of this country's sponsors of terrorism, you need to start a review. And my question is, is it yes or a no? Is Cuba under review?

Anthony Blinken (02:02:25):

Under the law, depending on the different authorities of this kind, some mandate a regular review, others don't. All I can tell you right now, sitting here today is I don't anticipate any changes in our policy.

Mrs. Salazar (02:02:37):

So you are telling me that between now and January 20th, the President of the United States is not planning to remove those bastards, the Cuban regime off the list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

Anthony Blinken (02:02:53):

As I said, I don't anticipate any changes.

Mrs. Salazar (02:02:55):

You don't anticipate. So how can I interpret, anticipate? Can you commit right now that that's not going to happen? You know why, because all I'm doing is trying to prevent to give money to the repressive apparatus that has been taking everything away from the Cubans. You're aware of that, right? So I just need to make sure that you understand the message from my community. Do not do that. Don't give them the oxygen that they want to continue, we greasing the repressive apparatus. Tell me, you have 20 seconds.

Anthony Blinken (02:03:29):

I do not make decisions for the President-

Mrs. Salazar (02:03:32):

Sure you do. Come on. Sure you do. You're the State Department-

Anthony Blinken (02:03:33):

I do not make decision for the President. The President makes decisions-

Mrs. Salazar (02:03:35):

… you give the recommendation whether to take them or not. Tell me. I'm sorry.

Anthony Blinken (02:03:37):

All I can tell you is-

Mrs. Salazar (02:03:38):

Tell me.

Anthony Blinken (02:03:38):

… I don't anticipate any changes in our policy toward Cuba between now and the end of this administration.

Mrs. Salazar (02:03:48):

Thank you. I'm going to take your word as your bond. Let's keep it that way. I appreciate it, sir. Thank you.

Chairman McCaul (02:03:56):

[inaudible 02:03:56] Chairman recognizes Mr. Stanton.

Mr. Stanton (02:03:59):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Blinken. I'd like to focus my questions on a topic of great importance to my home state of Arizona, the US-Mexico relationship. I believe we're at a make or break moment for the region. Our two countries face significant shared challenges and there remains a lot of work to do to address migration, securing our borders against illicit drugs, traffic north and arms traffic south, and to fight pervasive organized crime. But the US-Mexico relationship is more than just migration and security. Our economies are fundamentally intertwined. Mexico recently surpassed China to become US largest trading partners supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in my home state of Arizona. And I am particularly excited about the vast economic potential of nearshoring, moving supply chains closer to the United States market as hundreds of businesses including semiconductor supply chain enterprises, critical to our national security move from Asia back to America or to North America or even Latin America.

(02:05:03)
Meanwhile, the upcoming World Cup gives us an opportunity to forge a durable security relationship to address international threats. There's a choice in front of us now. Do we choose to forge a strategic path forward together, rooted in mutual respect and cooperation or do we each go it alone? The Mexican government recently passed a series of sweeping constitutional reforms that will harm the US-Mexico relationship, overhauling its independent judiciary, eliminating independent regulatory agencies and closing access to its energy markets. These changes could undermine Mexico's obligation under the USMCA. And I've heard from business leaders in Arizona and around the country who are anxious that these reforms will hurt investor confidence and their ability to do business in Mexico. Secretary Blinken, how do you see these constitutional changes impacting our economic relationship with Mexico?

Anthony Blinken (02:05:56):

Well, first, you're exactly right about the importance of that economic relationship. It's vital to this country, it's vital to Mexico and our citizens benefit from it every single day. Second, the Mexicans, of course have the sovereign right to make their own laws, amend their own constitution. That's not for us to say. As their friend and partner, and as countries that are bound together by the USMCA, though we do have opinions on some of the steps that they're taking, and we have raised concerns about certain aspects of the constitutional reform, the judicial reform, in particular.

(02:06:31)
And we've shared those very clearly and very directly with the Mexican government, both with former President Lopez Obrador and with President Sheinbaum. But the Mexicans will make their own decisions about this. But the concerns that we've underscored are exactly what you just cited, which is what effect does this actually have on private sector and investment that's so critical to actually meeting the full potential of this relationship, including things like near shoring, including having a supply chain where the Mexico and the United States are joined on the most critical things necessary to our economies and even to our security.

Mr. Stanton (02:07:08):

And I want to commend Ambassador Ken Salazar for speaking with such clarity on this most important issue. There were a recent discussion about sweeping 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada by the President-elect. Secretary Blinken, in your opinion, how would these proposed tariffs impact us and diplomatic interests in Mexico?

Anthony Blinken (02:07:30):

Look, I don't want to speculate on what the incoming administration will do or not do. That's really not my place. I think what I can say is just to underscore what you said a few minutes ago, which is this economic partnership is so vital and we want to maximize it, not minimize it. Mexico is now the US, it's our top trade partner for goods. We've got $800 billion traded in the last year we have accounting for, 2023. That's more than a million dollars every single minute of every single day. So I think we just want to make sure whatever we do and whatever the incoming administration does, how do we strengthen that? How do we build on that because it's good for both of our countries.

Mr. Stanton (02:08:15):

I mentioned the upcoming World Cup as a unique opportunity. North American World Cup for US, Mexico, Canada, to work together to build obviously an incredibly important security partnership to make sure the World Cup is as safe as possible, but then make that a durable security partnership and relationship. How should the United States government work with the Shane Vaughn administration on a security partnership to counter the drug cartels violent crime?

Anthony Blinken (02:08:41):

Well, we've been working incredibly closely together over the last almost four years now on exactly that. And I think that works continuing with the new Sheinbaum administration. You saw one of the results just the other day. The Mexicans seized with our help, 20 million fentanyl pills. Each one could have killed an American citizen. They've seized more fentanyl at the border over the last two years than in the previous five combined.

Chairman McCaul (02:09:08):

Gentleman's time has expired.

Anthony Blinken (02:09:09):

This is a product of-

Chairman McCaul (02:09:10):

Chair recognizes Mrs. Kim.

Anthony Blinken (02:09:11):

… the work that we're doing together. Thank you.

Mr. Stanton (02:09:13):

Thank you, Secretary. Good luck.

Mrs. Kim (02:09:15):

Thank you, Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member for holding today's hearing. The American people and the families of our 13 fallen service members and the Afghan allies are demanding answers. Secretary Blinken, your appearance before our committee today is long overdue, as we seek to understand the role that you played in the Biden-Harris administration's failed and disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal in August 2021. And in your previous conversation with my colleagues before me, you claim that you have done everything you can to support Afghan women and girls, yet you excluded them and Afghan civil society from Taliban talks with the UN in Doha. So why do you continue to deprioritize Afghan women and girls?

Anthony Blinken (02:10:11):

Just the contrary. We've done everything we can to integrate them, their voices, their views into everything we do, including any engagements that we've had with the Taliban, including in the engagements that we have with partners around the world, particularly when it comes to decisions being made about recognizing or otherwise engaging with the Taliban. So it's exactly the opposite. We've made every effort to engage women and girls.

Mrs. Kim (02:10:30):

We're continuing to hear from those families. And also this committee has heard gravely concerning stories of what it was like trying to get through HKIA as an evacuate. Your own personnel testified that there was little to no guidance from you on who qualified to be evacuated from Afghanistan. So based on documents we received and witnesses we interviewed, at no point did you identify who the US would be responsible for getting out during the non-combat evacuation operations. So did you ever determine which populations were eligible to be evacuated?

Anthony Blinken (02:11:09):

Yes, absolutely. And that was very clear. There were-

Mrs. Kim (02:11:11):

Who were they then?

Anthony Blinken (02:11:12):

… very discrete populations. American citizens, legal permanent residents, and Afghan allies and partners, particularly those who had stood with us.

Mrs. Kim (02:11:24):

How does your department determine which populations were eligible for evacuation? Who was responsible for making those decisions?

Anthony Blinken (02:11:29):

These are determinations that are made by the administration, by the State Department. And when it comes to Afghans at risk, there were many Afghans at risk that we were seeking to get out. And because this was such a dynamic situation with changing by the hour. At different moments during the evacuation-

Mrs. Kim (02:11:47):

Let's talk about some documents that was [inaudible 02:11:49]-

Anthony Blinken (02:11:49):

We had greater access to certain parts of that population than others. So we focused-

Mrs. Kim (02:11:51):

Secretary-

Anthony Blinken (02:11:52):

… where we could.

Mrs. Kim (02:11:52):

… what documents did those evacuees have to provide to prove their eligibility? Are you aware of a hall pass that your department provided instead of legal identification documentation?

Anthony Blinken (02:12:05):

We sought to do everything possible to get them the documents or identification that they needed in order as necessary to get through the Taliban, which had control of the area around the airport. And of course, documentation is necessary for our own people.

Mrs. Kim (02:12:20):

That hall pass that we're talking about, were reprinted in droves that was then sold to people outside of HKIA. So did you direct them to replace legal [inaudible 02:12:32] they were shared?

Anthony Blinken (02:12:34):

I have not seen that, but I'm happy to look at whatever information you have about that.

Mrs. Kim (02:12:40):

Okay. During the evacuation over 80 Afghans who risked their lives to work with the United States government contacted my office for assistance. So when you include their families, that's more than 526 Afghans who claimed they faced a direct or personalized threat. But despite the referral to SIV program, my office is only aware of only 80 applicants who are able to complete the requirements and file. And of those three, none have been approved and are still awaiting processing. Hearing from those Afghans, the SIV verification process has been difficult and tedious. And according to your deputy, one of the biggest obstacles to the verification process came from SIV applicants who have been employed by the DOD contractors. And that was well documented. Yet you did not ask the DOD for support until the end of July 2021. So why'd you wait until just weeks before the Afghanistan withdrawal to fix that obvious issue?

Anthony Blinken (02:13:47):

These were long-standing issues and problems with the SIV program going back many years. And as I said earlier, we inherited a program that was totally moribund. There hadn't been a single interview for an SIV going back to March of 2020 when we came to office, we immediately reinstitute the interviews. I immediately surged resources to go through the SIV applications. We cut the time in half to process the applications. We went from issuing a hundred visas a week on SIVs to a thousand a week. All of that happened in the space of just five or six months because of our dedication to the program. But we inherited a program, not only moribund, but that had 14 different steps required by Congress to make sure that the SIV was issued in the appropriate way. And of course, security usually important. We want to make sure that we're not bringing threats into the country. That's important. Being able to document effectively. Yes. That they had been working with us. And the challenge, as you rightly point out, was that because it was with DOD, it was contractors, many of whom were out of business.

Chairman McCaul (02:14:50):

[inaudible 02:14:49] I agree. This is a very important issue-

Anthony Blinken (02:14:51):

But we can follow up on that.

Chairman McCaul (02:14:52):

… that we'd like to follow up with you Mr. Secretary. Chair recognizes Ms. Madeline Dean.

Ms. Dean (02:14:57):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the words of many others on both sides of the aisle. I feel lucky to have had the chance to serve with you on this committee as you were our chairman. You are our chairman. Look forward to the renaming of this room. I thank Mr. Meeks as well, it's been a pleasure. I do acknowledge the attendance of gold star families and other military families and veterans, thank you for your extraordinary sacrifice and service. And thank you Secretary Blinken for being here, for being in front of us and being available to tell us sometimes harsh truths and also to just reveal the thoughtfulness that your department has taken over the course of these years. So I thank you for that. And it is important to understand what happened with the withdrawal of Afghanistan. It's important to understand what happened before, during, after.

(02:15:55)
And my only problem with this report and this set of hearings and the set of questions that you are facing, is that sadly this became a partisan investigation and never should have. This committee sadly came up with a report digging into evidence that would only focus on the Biden administration, a 20-year war, a withdrawal set in place by the previous administration. The cherry-picking was clear. The report's own methodology says, "The US withdrawal from Afghanistan is understood to encompass the US military retrograde beginning with a go to zero order, officially announced by President Biden on April 14th, 2021." That's a strange, very narrow window if we really want to understand what happened, what went wrong, what went right. So, Secretary Blinken, just to set the record straight, the Doha Agreement was entered into under the Trump administration, is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (02:16:54):

That is correct.

Ms. Dean (02:16:54):

Signed on February 29th, 2020. The agreement included a commitment to reduce US forces in Afghanistan to 8,600 troops in 135 days. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (02:17:07):

It is, yes.

Ms. Dean (02:17:07):

The only other force reduction commitment in the agreement was complete withdrawal of US forces within 14 months. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (02:17:14):

That's correct.

Ms. Dean (02:17:15):

Then President Trump, despite not being required by the agreement, ordered more troop drawdowns as he was eligible to do as President of the United States, those being in September of 2020 reduction to 4,500 troops. Am I right?

Anthony Blinken (02:17:31):

That's correct.

Ms. Dean (02:17:32):

And then strangely to me, in January of 2021 on the administration's way out the door, a reduction to 2,500 troops. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (02:17:42):

It is.

Ms. Dean (02:17:43):

Puzzling, absolutely puzzling. So those were all actions taken before Mr. Biden was even sworn into office January of '21. What effect did the significant reductions have on the administration and on the withdrawal?

Anthony Blinken (02:17:58):

Well, I think the combination of the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners under the agreement and the reduction in US forces to 2,500 put the Taliban in the strongest position it'd been in since 9/11 and the United States in arguably the weakest position we've been in, because we had the fewest number of forces on the ground than we'd had since 2001.

Ms. Dean (02:18:19):

What a terrible deadly combination of factors. And also, again, so much good was able to be done under those horrifying circumstances. But nothing can take away the tragedy of Abbey Gate. I'd like to move just as Ms. Manning did to other issues of the day, very critical issues of the day. Ukraine. I have always believed that the United States must do everything in our power to be sure that Ukraine has everything it needs to win. What is going on in these last few weeks of the administration? Lifting of any more restrictions, imposing any more sanctions on Russia or Russian banks? What is the administration able to do?

Anthony Blinken (02:19:09):

We're determined in the time that we have left to make sure that to the best of our ability, Ukraine has everything it needs to be as successful as possible and continue to push back on the Russian aggression to make sure that it has what it needs, if it chooses by necessity to fight through 2025 or if there's to be a negotiation that it can negotiate from a position of strength. And so that means making sure that it has the weapons, the munitions, et cetera, that it has the resources, the money, and also that it has mobilized forces to deal with the aggression.

Ms. Dean (02:19:42):

I appreciate all that. My time is limited. Israel-Gaza, where are we on a ceasefire? It has been 431 days since the horrific Hamas attack. 431 days hostages still held. Where are we? When will we get them home?

Anthony Blinken (00:00):

Anthony Blinken (02:20:00):

We want to get them home now. As we speak, there are intense efforts underway to see if we can reach, finally, a hostage ceasefire deal. Again, it's ongoing. That's as much as I can say right now.

Madeleine Dean (02:20:17):

And I hope that humanitarian aid is flowing more fully. I appreciate your letter. Pleased to see our letter to you.

Anthony Blinken (02:20:25):

Yes.

Madeleine Dean (02:20:25):

Again, thank you for your service and I yield back.

Anthony Blinken (02:20:27):

Thank you.

Chairman McCaul (02:20:27):

The lady yields back. Chair recognizes Mr. Davidson.

Warren Davidson (02:20:31):

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to review a couple dates. First on February 29th, 2020, the Trump administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban. The agreement promised a conditions based incremental withdrawal, and the Trump administration delayed that withdrawal precisely because those conditions were not being met. On April 11th, 2021, the go-to-zero presence in Afghanistan was given by the Biden administration, and that was given freely by the administration despite not being in compliance with the Doha Agreement. Your own Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mark Evans, testified before this committee that the decision to go to zero was not contingent upon the Doha Agreement. Secretary, one of the dates I really want to focus on is July 8th, 2024. That's the date that the total withdrawal was finalized by the administration, and the date certain, it shifted from a conditions based to a date certain. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (02:21:27):

The date certain was there, I believe, starting in April when the president said we would follow through on the withdrawal that the previous administration had agreed to, except it was extended from May 31st to September.

Warren Davidson (02:21:40):

So it was always going to be date certain, not conditions based?

Anthony Blinken (02:21:44):

Well, that was what the [inaudible 02:21:46]-

Warren Davidson (02:21:47):

Look, that's what you said. So when you made that decision, did the State Department block American citizens from departing from the airfield in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (02:22:00):

Absolutely not.

Warren Davidson (02:22:01):

They didn't? Who did then?

Anthony Blinken (02:22:01):

We [inaudible 02:22:02] blocked our citizens.

Warren Davidson (02:22:03):

Who blocked them?

Anthony Blinken (02:22:04):

I'm not aware of blocking any US citizens. On the contrary, we were doing everything possible to get-

Warren Davidson (02:22:09):

You know they were blocked.

Anthony Blinken (02:22:09):

… citizens out of there.

Warren Davidson (02:22:10):

You know they were blocked.

Anthony Blinken (02:22:11):

I'd be happy to look at any information you have on that. I'm not aware of any American citizens who were blocked. And in fact, we were doing everything possible. And by the way, I want to thank you and thank every member who's been involved in this and the work that they did to get Americans out.

Warren Davidson (02:22:23):

Mr. Secretary, your state department blocked American citizens and Afghan allies from leaving there. I personally worked with your state department during those days. I have the emails, I have the photographs of American blue-passport-holding American citizens who were on the airfield awaiting departure that got clearance for safe third countries to depart to and the order came down from the United States government. Was it the State Department?

Anthony Blinken (02:22:48):

I'm not aware of any such orders. I'm happy to follow up and look at that. I'm certainly not aware of it. We were doing everything possible to get Americans out.

Warren Davidson (02:22:55):

Last year, Colonel Francis Hoang, my classmate, testified before this committee that due to the fiasco in Kabul, many Americans and allies were forced to conduct a dangerous 400-mile journey to Mazar-i-Sharif Airbase where they were delayed for weeks. Colonel Hong testified, "That we spent three weeks hiding these nearly 400 people from the Taliban, keeping them alive and fed using funds from American donors. All this while the State Department delayed and frankly blocked American citizens from leaving." Secretary Blinken, I have communications, as I said, that show this happened. And you're saying that didn't happen?

Anthony Blinken (02:23:32):

Why would we block Americans from leaving Afghanistan?

Warren Davidson (02:23:34):

That's the problem I have. I had it at the time. Why?

Anthony Blinken (02:23:37):

We were [inaudible 02:23:38] everything possible to get Americans, but I'm happy-

Warren Davidson (02:23:38):

And here's the thing, Mr. Secretary-

Anthony Blinken (02:23:39):

… happy to look at the information.

Warren Davidson (02:23:40):

As I was working with your state department while you were Secretary of State. In relaying this information, someone said to me, which tail number? Which tail number? You mean there's more than one plane you guys are blocking? Are you freaking kidding me? And then your state Department wanted to deny it and here today you won't even acknowledge the truth of that. It's disgusting to try to blame this on Donald Trump when we all know there is no way that anyone forced you guys to do the dumbest thing possible. You don't have to have worn our nation's uniform like I and other people did to know that first you get the civilians out, then the military. Not the other way around. This has to be one of the dumbest, most poorly executed paths to depart any country possible.

(02:24:27)
My only hope is that in the 11 embassy evacuations that have happened on your watch, an unprecedented number, you've somehow gotten better at it. It's appalling to see you sit here and say, "Oh, I express sympathy," and yet have never acknowledged the failures or own the consequences of it. In fact, to this date, the only person that's been fired was a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps who spoke out. None of you have been held accountable. None of you even expressed shame or embarrassment. Have you learned anything? Have you learned anything from this?

Anthony Blinken (02:25:02):

First of all, on the planes, just to come back to it, the Taliban was blocking planes. We worked to clear them, and I'm happy to go over that with you, with your office, and also to see any information you have to make sure that we get to the bottom of what you're saying, but we were certainly not in the business of blocking Americans. We are in the business of getting them out, and continuing to do that.

Warren Davidson (02:25:17):

I appreciate you did create a position after that to address the problem. So you clearly had to be aware of it. You created a position to facilitate the coordination after you left them behind. I yield.

Anthony Blinken (02:25:28):

Of course, we were determined to get every American we wanted to get out out and that didn't stop on August 31st.

Chairman McCaul (02:25:31):

Gentleman yields.

Anthony Blinken (02:25:33):

We got 500 Americans out-

Chairman McCaul (02:25:34):

Chair recognizes Mr. Crow.

Anthony Blinken (02:25:35):

… between that and the end of the year because of that ongoing commitment.

Jason Crow (02:25:40):

Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Blinken for coming before the committee voluntarily and providing your perspective and helping address the questions of the committee.

(02:25:51)
As you know, I served multiple combat tours in Afghanistan and like the tens of thousands of Americans that did, we left pieces of our heart behind in that country and even though the military chapter and the diplomatic chapter are largely closed, although there are still issues that are in America's interest, those of us who served in combat roles with the Afghans feel a special obligation to make sure that we are protecting those friends and those folks who, in many cases, saved our lives. There's a lot of Americans, and I know you know this well, Secretary. We've had these conversations and I know this is a sentiment that you share very deeply as well. And these are people who, at great personal risk to them and their families, took on jobs that helped bring Americans home. And the story of that is not a finished story.

(02:26:53)
So with that in mind, I would love to hear from you, can you speak to the number of currently eligible SIV Afghans who are in that country? How many do we think are still there, and what are we doing to help get them out? What does the pipeline look like and what more do we need to do?

Anthony Blinken (02:27:12):

Thank you very much, and thank you for your enduring commitment to this. So we have, right now, about 63,000 SIV applicants who are in the so-called pre-chief of mission phase. That is they've expressed interest. They've started to compile the necessary documentation. We believe, based on experience, that roughly 20% will become fully documented. That's 20% or 63,000. There are 54,000 who are actually at the chief admission phase right now. Again, based on our analysis, we believe roughly 35% of those will likely be approved because as you know, unfortunately many people wash out either because they simply don't qualify or because of documentation issues, which we've tried to remedy over the last couple of years.

(02:28:05)
Finally, we have, right now, 10,000 who have chief of mission approval. The only thing they're waiting for is their interview, which they need to do out of country. Of those 10,000, about 9,000 are in Afghanistan. We have six flights a week now that are going out of Afghanistan to different places. And so we're working expeditiously to move people out, finish the process with an interview, and then get them on to the United States. That's roughly the current population.

Jason Crow (02:28:33):

And I know these averages change, but can you give me a snapshot of a typical month, how many folks are we getting out of Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (02:28:42):

We're working to get roughly 1,000 a week.

Jason Crow (02:28:46):

Okay. And at the current rate… I worked with House Leadership to get 12,000 additional visas authorized earlier this year. At the current burn rate, when do we run out of authorization? And I obviously will make a pitch to my colleagues here to join our effort to push for 20,000 additional visas in the next appropriation, which we're advocating for that.

Anthony Blinken (02:29:08):

We need that. We need that. We will run out of the allotment we have. That's the basis for our support for getting another 20,000 [inaudible 02:29:15].

Jason Crow (02:29:15):

When do you think we're going to run out?

Anthony Blinken (02:29:16):

Let me come back to you with the exact time based on our most recent analysis.

Jason Crow (02:29:20):

Okay. The last piece is the State Department did a pretty extensive and thorough after action review. There was a classified version of that, a public version of that. I've spent a lot of time reviewing both documents. And as a result of that, I have introduced legislation, the Crisis Act, to help codify some of the changes. Can you just tell us very briefly, what are some of the reforms and changes you've made within the department to ensure that the problems and the shortfalls that we experienced in the withdrawal, where we're learning from those lessons and we're ensuring that we're fixing things going forward?

Anthony Blinken (02:29:57):

Yeah. And very briefly, and much of this is in the report including the unclassified version, we now have a common operating picture that we didn't have before where we're fusing all of the information that we need in a crisis, whether it's cables, whether it's open source, whether it's intelligence. We now have what we didn't have before, which is a modern operation center so that we can surge resources, stand up a task force immediately, bring in the other agencies to do that. We now have what we didn't have before, which is a streamlined cloud-based system to track all of our engagements with American citizens to make sure we're not duplicating, to make sure that we're in near real-time communication with them.

(02:30:38)
We're working to better utilize our own personnel. We've stood up a 100-person roster of Rapid Response Corps. People sign up for six months. That means that they're ready on a moment's notice to become part of a task force. They get training throughout that period on what they'll need to know if there's an emergency. We stood that up there. I see my time is up. I'm happy to go over [inaudible 02:31:00].

Chairman McCaul (02:31:00):

Yeah. I'm just trying to make sure you stay on schedule for your flight.

Anthony Blinken (02:31:02):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah.

Chairman McCaul (02:31:03):

For your flight to the Middle East. I don't want you to miss that though.

Jason Crow (02:31:05):

I appreciate that, Secretary. Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman McCaul (02:31:08):

Gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Green is recognized.

Mark Green (02:31:11):

Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you for your leadership on investigating this. I'm over here, Secretary.

Anthony Blinken (02:31:16):

Thank you.

Mark Green (02:31:17):

This catastrophic withdrawal, and I want to thank you, Secretary Blinken, for attending today. I'm going to preface my comments with something very similar to what the Chairman prefaced his comments with. We've worked well together on nearshoring and stuff like that, getting the Tennessean out of Venezuela. Roger Carson's my classmate, did a fantastic job with that, but today, my comments are going to be, yeah.

(02:31:44)
As a global war on terror veteran who served in Afghanistan. I want to once again recognize the sacrifice of all the Americans that fought for our country in Afghanistan. I lost friends there, but those of you who came home, your service was not in vain. Those of you who died there, your service was not in vain. You helped keep our country safe for two decades, and I'm grateful for your sacrifice and the sacrifices of your families.

(02:32:15)
As a night stalker flight surgeon and an army Ranger infantry officer, I remember our most sacred creed, leave no man behind. Secretary Blinken, you and our Commander-in-Chief left people behind. You left those in your care behind. You left Americans and our allies behind. Your delayed appearance before this committee, I think, is a disgrace to those Americans who did die in Afghanistan, and your decisions or the absence of leadership on this issue during the withdrawal of 2021 are directly responsible for the disaster.

(02:32:51)
Prior to President Biden's go-to-zero approach, the Taliban had ignored US attempts for a smooth exit and shown themselves totally ignoble negotiators. We knew the dangers and yet as the military withdrew, you told US Embassy Kabul to remain. Furthermore, you actually increased personnel when senior security advisors and leaders at DOD and embassy staff said it was time to make a non-combatant evacuation operation plan, a NEO plan, you said no. Instead, when the day came for the embassy to evacuate, there was no plan. You left your personnel high and dry to figure it out on their own. In fact, you never even issued the NEO. As Secretary of State, that is your responsibility. But instead, the NSC had to make that call. Did you step in? No. The NSC continued to lead the initial response including decision-making regarding Afghan population eligible for evacuation, which should have been state's responsibility. Because you weren't at the helm, there was little documentation or communication. State personnel had to rely on spur- of-the-moment decision-making just to get to the airport and thousands of evacuees were left in limbo.

(02:34:05)
I also want to share a story, a conversation I had with the leader of one of our greatest allies, Britain. I had a conversation with Boris Johnson six, eight months ago. I was at dinner with him and I asked him, I said, "Hey, could you confirm a rumor, Mr. Prime Minister? Could you confirm the rumor that the Commander-in-Chief of the United States, Joe Biden, you called him and asked him to stay an extra five days. Just five days so that all the Brits could get out?" And Boris Johnson told me, "Chairman Green, I remember exactly where I was when I made the phone call. I asked for five more days and President Biden told me, no."

(02:34:52)
This is our greatest ally on the planet participating in the Red Sea with us against the Houthis when few others would. I pulled wounded British SAS guys off a target in Iraq. Their blood was on my hands, and I'm going to tell you that relationship is, it's one of our greatest if not our greatest, and yet we slapped them in the face and said, "No, you don't get five extra days to get your people out." This according to the Prime Minister of England at the time. I find that unconscionable. And senior leaders at DOD have come here and testified. Senior leaders at DOD have testified on the HASK and told us, "We were telling the State Department four, five months in this drawdown period, get your stuff together and they didn't." Why?

Anthony Blinken (02:35:54):

Mr. Chairman, I hope you give me time to respond because I dispute virtually everything that was said with great respect though for the member and particularly, for his extraordinary service to our country.

(02:36:04)
First, did we leave people behind? No, we got them out, including after the deadline of our evacuation. By the time we got to August 31st, we had, as I said, several hundred Americans who were left who had identified themselves to us as wanting to leave but could not get to or into the airport. I committed to make sure we got them out. And between the end of the evacuation and the end of the year, we got the 500 remaining Americans out who either then or after August 31st identified themselves as wanting to leave. We made good on that commitment.

(02:36:39)
Telling the embassy to remain open. Yes, we all wanted the embassy to remain open. It was fully our expectation that the Afghan government and the Afghan military would not collapse. It was the desire of Congress to make sure that we remained engaged in Afghanistan, including to look out for our own citizens, including to make sure we were doing right by the SIBs and it was fully our intention to continue to bring them out by keeping the embassy open. And as I've said earlier and as many others have testified, no one anticipated the collapse of the forces. No one anticipated the collapse of the government.

(02:37:10)
When it comes to the NEO, again, let me be very clear. The State Department initiated the NEO. We did. That's what the record reflects, but this is a collective decision. As an instrumental matter, the State Department initiates it by requesting it of DOD. The decision to initiate it was a decision taken by the NSC, and ultimately, by the president. Not once before we initiated the NEO did anyone say you need to do this among the principles in the administration. It was a collective decision on the 14th of August. Those capitals, provincial capitals started to fall on the sixth, and by the 14th, we decided that the NEO was imperative.

(02:37:48)
Now, there's a reason, Congressman, that it was so important that we focus on this. The Ghani government was pleading with us throughout the summer, " Don't engage in an evacuation. That will actually precipitate exactly what we're trying to prevent, which is a collapse of the government, a collapse of confidence, people fleeing the countries in uncontrolled ways." So that was also part of our thinking. But in terms of preparing, yes, we started preparing intensely, going back to April, multiple exercises with different agencies, tabletop and otherwise, planning through different scenarios. We had tripwires, we had indicators, all of which came into effect. We moved the embassy in 48 hours to the airport. That wouldn't have happened without a plan. We got control of the airport because we had pre-positioned forces. We were able to start moving people out in 72 hours. We moved 120,000 people out, the largest evacuation in the history of this country,

Mark Green (02:38:46):

Mr. Secretary, I'll tell you that your DOD colleagues don't remember it that way. And I remember your face when we got that secret briefing during the midst of this. During the height of it, we all gathered in HVC. And I'm going to tell you, I think our memory here isn't as accurate as it could be. And I'll just leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. I'll never forget the fear in your face and the… I don't have anything else to say.

Chairman McCaul (02:39:27):

The gentleman yields. Let me just add, I think this is a very important issue the gentleman raised from Tennessee, and I appreciate your perspective, Mr. secretary. I'll tell you what our investigation revealed that Ambassador Wilson did not want a NEO. In fact, he punished his staff for even mentioning the word NEO and it wasn't… We got from the DOD, as you indicated, on August 6th, 2021 that the NSC said, National Security Council said, "A NEO equates to failure." That is what was going on. A NEO equates to failure. Maybe that's because President Ghani, as you said, Mr. Secretary, but those are really the facts. And only until August 15th, the day that Kabul fell, think about that. The day that Kabul falls is the first time that Ambassador Wilson requests a NEO. And by that time, Sir, it was too late. And with that, I recognize Ms. Kamlager-Dove

Sydney Kamlager-Dove (02:40:37):

Thank you. Mr. Chair, and thank you, Secretary Blinken for gracing us with your presence again. I have actually some questions about the Sudan, but because we have continued to talk about NEO, I will also ask a question on this. So Ambassador Wilson testified to the committee during a transcribed interview about the specified reasoning for why he called the NEO on August 15th describing the situation that included thousands of Talib fighters streaming directly into Kabul, a flow that contradicted orders that we, assurances that we had received from the Talibs and orders that we believed had been given for them to stop by Taliban senior leadership, the expected seizure of two prisons later that day and the release of thousands of inmates. Talib fighters, ISIS fighters, common criminals and the abandonment oversight of checkpoints into and within Kabul's Green Zone that were vital to our security.

(02:41:40)
We had been striving to maintain embassy operations in accord with the direction given to us. This was no longer possible. And at that point, I recommended to Secretary Blinken, our immediate evacuation. He agreed and the White House subsequently approved a non-combatant evacuation. The majority has repeatedly pointed to the testimony of military leaders to argue that the State Department waited too long to initiate the NEO, but Ambassador Wilson had a clear rationale for his timing and that calling for the NEO too soon would have complicated our ability to get out. If we had left earlier, several thousand SIV applicants that we got out in whatever the number of days that you want to talk about would not have been able to leave the country. We would not have been able to provide support to American citizens trying to get out. Our eyes and ears about what was happening around us would have been drastically degraded.

(02:42:41)
Secretary Blinken, would you agree that Ambassador Wilson's testimony reflects a detailed and realistic understanding of the conditions on the ground?

Anthony Blinken (02:42:50):

Yes, I would.

Sydney Kamlager-Dove (02:42:51):

Thank you. What would have been the repercussions if the State Department had called a NEO before conditions on the ground warranted one?

Anthony Blinken (02:43:01):

Yeah. It would have actually precipitated those very conditions, and it would have made it more difficult for us to get people out, including American citizens. The airport was open until August the 15th. We were trying to avail ourselves and push people out to take commercial flights. It would have made it much more difficult to get SIV eligible people out of the country, other Afghans at risk. All of that would have been made more difficult by precipitating the very kind of crisis we ultimately saw.

(02:43:27)
And again, I come back to a fundamental proposition, which is that no one, and I say this collectively, this is the state department, this is the intelligence community, it's the DOD. In terms of the consensus view on where this was going, there was no consensus view that the government, the Afghan forces were going to collapse. Our military, having worked with them for 20 years, believed that they would stay and fight. They needed to have the sustained support to do that.

(02:43:54)
General McKenzie has said that, including financial and logistics support, we had no indication that the government would fall. The intelligence community didn't see that. We have very remarkable people at the State Department, including those who wrote the so-called dissent channel cable, who were very concerned about what would happen after we left in terms of the durability of the government. I read that cable immediately. I responded to it almost immediately. And many of the measures that they called for in the cable were already in train because what they were focused on was trying to make sure that we got our people out of the country, especially the SIVs. And as I've talked about earlier, that's exactly what we were doing, having taken a program that was dead in the water, revived it and accelerated it dramatically.

Sydney Kamlager-Dove (02:44:39):

Thank you, also, for just even mentioning the dissent cable and the fact that regardless of if you agree with them or not, there is still a space for folks within the State Department to register discontent. I certainly hope that that is a practice that will continue in this next administration.

(02:44:55)
I would now like to ask in the few moments that I have left about the war in the Sudan, which is a catastrophic humanitarian crisis impacting innocent civilians. I think it is a moral outrage. Over 150,000 have been killed, 11 million have been displaced. The evidence of genocide in Darfur is significant and I believe an official genocide determination against the RSF and Allied militia is long overdue. Why has the administration refrained from making a genocide determination? And do you intend to come to a decision about a determination before the end of this year?

Anthony Blinken (02:45:33):

First and very quickly, you're right to put a spotlight on it, on Sudan. It's the worst humanitarian situation in the world by far, by orders of magnitude. We're working intensely to try, of course, to bring an end to it, but in the first instance, to get assistance to people who desperately need it. We've made some progress on that in the last few weeks with both the SAF and to a lesser extent, with the RSF. But in terms of atrocities, war crimes, genocide, we've been making determinations already about atrocities and war crimes. We're looking at the question of genocide, whether we complete that review in the time that we have, I can't tell.

Chairman McCaul (02:46:10):

Trying to be respectful. Gentlelady's time's expired. Let me just, if I could comment, you did not see it coming. I've heard that over and over. Perhaps we were getting different intelligence briefings, but I certainly saw it coming, and your own employees in the embassy saw it coming when they sent the dissent cable to you, a cry for help that Kabul's falling and the embassy will fall soon. And I don't know how you can say that honestly, Sir, with a straight face, the chair recognizes Mr. Huizenga.

Bill Huizenga (02:46:48):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate your work leading this committee. But Secretary Blinken, how many US citizens are still in Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (02:46:59):

I can't give you an exact number because we never know for sure. There are several-

Bill Huizenga (02:47:04):

Do you believe they're voluntary? I understand that you were going to start to say there's several thousand.

Anthony Blinken (02:47:09):

No, I believe that any American citizens who were left there, several as have noted before, who have actually been detained. These are people who went there after the evacuation for one reason or another, have been detained by the Taliban. We're working every day to get them out.

Bill Huizenga (02:47:24):

Hold on a second. Are you saying that the only people detained are those who went after the evacuation?

Anthony Blinken (02:47:29):

I'm saying the ones that we know of who are detained and that were actively working [inaudible 02:47:34].

Bill Huizenga (02:47:33):

We can clue you in. I got to give you credit. You are successful in doing this. You have completely pulled me off of what I was going to ask you about, much to my staff and everybody else's chagrin. But the crap that you were throwing out here about this is unbelievable. I will tell you, I was in that same briefing when you said that you thought there was, "several hundred citizens who were staying in Afghanistan voluntarily."

(02:47:58)
My caseworker had 185 individuals alone in my district, the fourth district of Michigan, that were asking us for help to get out, including those who did make it to HKIA and were beaten by the Taliban, and who we're known by the US troops and the troops that are being shown up here, including one of my constituents who I've referred to as Jose and Carlos and Juan and various things because I haven't wanted to use his real name at his request, who was blown up and injured, and knew every single one of those Marines and those navy corpsmen up there on that screen right now. They have not gotten satisfactory answers. And I will tell you, Secretary Blinken, that we have citizens there who are not there voluntarily, and they want to get out and this State Department has utterly failed them. Failed them.

Anthony Blinken (02:48:58):

Congressman, if there are citizens that you've identified, that have been in communication with you and that want to get out, please, if you haven't already, share that information with us.

Bill Huizenga (02:49:09):

We've shared it. We'll share it again and we'll keep asking, and-

Anthony Blinken (02:49:13):

We're happy to sit down and go through each of those cases.

Bill Huizenga (02:49:14):

And sometimes, at some point, the exercise in futility gets a little frustrating as a member, Secretary Blinken, when it does not feel like you're answering Mr. Green's questions or Mr. Warren's questions, or you're going to have a couple of other military folks who were there, had friends there. Well, I had a friend who was in Doha and he's telling me that there was no damn plan to have all of those planes divert to Doha, so they got caught flat-footed. There was no place for them to go. It was a bungled, bungled, bungled exit.

(02:49:45)
So I have to hit on a couple of the things that I have here and I'm going to try to truncate this. Recent report by Inspector General of Afghan Reconstruction, John Sopko found since August of 2021, implementing partners of yours from the State Department have paid at least $10.9 million in US taxpayer funds to the Taliban in form of taxes, fees, and duties. In fact, the SIGAR noted that while conducting its investigation, your State Department repeatedly refused to cooperate. They then requested that the State Department attest to that it had distributed a questionnaire to all the relevant implementing partners that responses were not altered and that no attempts were made to influence the implementer's responses. However, at the time the report was published, your department refused to sign the attestation. Mr. Secretary, did you instruct your employees to obstruct the SIGAR investigation of US tax dollars going to the Taliban? And then since then, has that changed?

Anthony Blinken (02:50:47):

To the contrary, we've done everything possible to cooperate with SIGAR, 13,000 staff hours dedicated to this. SIGAR and-

Bill Huizenga (02:50:53):

Why would the Inspector General say-

Anthony Blinken (02:50:54):

SIGAR and-

Bill Huizenga (02:50:55):

Is the Inspector General lying?

Anthony Blinken (02:50:56):

SIGAR and its report of, I believe in 2023, said that the department was cooperating with SIGAR. So [inaudible 02:51:05]-

Bill Huizenga (02:51:08):

So I got to skip a whole bunch of stuff. I just will say, Mr. Chairman, I've got a bill, H.R.9503, protecting taxpayer dollars from Taliban Theft Act, which makes US policy at tax dollars, US taxpayer dollars do not be paid to the Taliban in form of taxes, duties and fees. I wish I had a few more moments. I've got a couple of seconds here. I have to hit on this. This is about Iran. Thanks to congressional notification, we know that on November 8, just days following the Democrat's election loss, you signed off on a sanction waiver providing that Tehran access to $10 billion in funds of Iraqi electricity payments. Last dated December 2023, Congress is aware of two releases of funds for humanitarian purposes to Iran. Have there been any more withdrawals?

Anthony Blinken (02:51:56):

I assume you've asked the previous administration about the waivers that it issued.

Bill Huizenga (02:51:59):

Oh, okay, okay, okay. Complete… Yes, actually we did.

Anthony Blinken (02:52:02):

Yes. Well, we [inaudible 02:52:03]-

Bill Huizenga (02:52:02):

Actually we did. And the explanation of why this administration allowed Korean funds, the funds that were used that were shipped to Korea, that were supposed to stay in Korea, why were they shipped to Oman? Why were they given a treasury license-

Anthony Blinken (02:52:16):

You're confusing two things-

Bill Huizenga (02:52:17):

… and the State Department license?

Anthony Blinken (02:52:18):

Two different things.

Bill Huizenga (02:52:19):

Oh, now you're conflating what had been going on?

Anthony Blinken (02:52:21):

Oh, no. I'm saying that the waivers that we issued were the same waivers issued.

Bill Huizenga (02:52:24):

They were not. Absolutely 100% not. See, this is the thing. A group of us are actually on the financial services committee. I'm one of them. You can't throw this crap out because we actually write the sanctions. We actually know what the law is. And when you and Treasury come in here and say, "Oh, don't worry your pretty little head about all these confusing sanctions things," guess what? We wrote the damn things. We understand. And here you are throwing these load of… I wish I could curse more, Mr. Chairman, but I won't. This is so unbelievable. I am so glad to see this administration and you leaving because you have failed the American people with this. With that, I'm way over time.

Chairman McCaul (02:53:02):

Time's expired. And for the record, let me say that I personally, in the emergency wartime supplemental that dealt with Israel, that dealt with Indo-Pacific and Ukraine, put the sanctions that was waived or not enforced back into law. That would be on energy and on-

Bill Huizenga (02:53:21):

Problem.

Chairman McCaul (02:53:22):

Gentlemen yields back. Mr. Schneider is recognized.

Brad Schneider (02:53:25):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start, if the secretary wants to address the previous thing at all, I would be interested in your response.

Anthony Blinken (02:53:31):

I'm happy to share with the congressman everything we've done, we can go over this. We don't have time to do it now.

Brad Schneider (02:53:37):

Since the invasion by Hamas on October 7th last year, President Biden has stood with Israel longer than any president in the United States history. Biden has stood with Israel longer than any president in the United States history, ensuring Israel's security and strengthen its position in a very dangerous neighborhood. As you know that he was the only… Harder than I in trying to make sure we get aid into and throughout Gaza. I hope we can find a path to continue to move it in a better direction.

(02:54:14)
Turning to the topic at hand, the majority's partisan report recommended about the reaction to the dissent cable. "What I can say is that I think that those who read it at the time, their immediate reaction was, there's a lot here I agree with. There are a lot of things they're raising in here that in fact-"

Anthony Blinken (02:54:42):

Was both in reinforcing some of the things we were doing as well as appointing some things that we then subsequently pursued.

Brad Schneider (02:54:47):

Yeah. And if the cable had been more widely shared, do you think it would have changed the outcome?

Anthony Blinken (02:54:56):

No.

Brad Schneider (02:54:57):

Okay. So although you made a single dissent

Brad Schneider (02:55:00):

… sent cable available to us on this committee as part of a truly …

Anthony Blinken (02:55:03):

A deeply honored tradition of the department going back to the Vietnam War, one I take very seriously. I read every single dissent … back to the Vietnam War, one I take very seriously. I read every single dissent channel cable. I respond to every dissent channel cable. Will not be as well-informed as we need to be and it will make our decisions less effective than they otherwise would be.

Brad Schneider (02:55:24):

All right. Thank you. That, as we have discussed, was negotiated not by this administration but the preceding administration and handed over. By the time you received it, the administration, Biden administration received it.

Speaker 7 (02:55:39):

What?

Brad Schneider (02:55:40):

The Taliban had gained significant ground. Options were limited. The recommit-

Mr. Mills (02:55:46):

… committee. So I want to continue to thank you for that. Secretary Blinken, are you familiar with USC 22 section 4802?

Anthony Blinken (02:55:54):

Please tell me.

Mr. Mills (02:55:55):

It's basically your obligation in order to try and protect and provide security and safety for American citizens. Now in waiving their passport trying to get inside while we were on the phone, myself and Senator Markwayne Mullin trying to get your State Department task force to let them inside. You're telling me you didn't leave them behind?

Anthony Blinken (02:56:16):

I'm telling you, Congressman, that we got every American out that we could and when we completed the evacuation, I said, we're not leaving anyone behind. We're keep doing this until we get every American who says they want to leave and identify themselves to us out. And as I mentioned-

Mr. Mills (02:56:30):

You also said though that-

Anthony Blinken (02:56:32):

500 between-

Mr. Mills (02:56:32):

I'm reclaiming my time. You also told Congressman Davidson that the US government was not blocking aircraft. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (02:56:41):

I have no knowledge of the US government-

Mr. Mills (02:56:42):

Yet my aircraft who had five approved PPRs, which are prior permission required landings to HKIA to rescue 28 Americans was denied five times saying that it was at the behest of the Department of Defense and the Department of State to prevent us from coming in to rescue Americans. That was what was told to us over the radio from the ATC towers. But yet to your knowledge, no one was being blocked. Let me tell you, that is a farce and it's a complete lie.

(02:57:12)
I'll also tell you that in a NEO, State Department does not take ultimate control once it is declared. It's the Department of Defense who actually is supposed to. Yet your task force still tried to hold operational control, which led to a lot of disruption and that has been reported multiple times by commanders on the ground.

Anthony Blinken (02:57:28):

Yeah, that's not correct.

Mr. Mills (02:57:29):

So I will tell you, I'm going to finish, sir.

(02:57:31)
The other thing is that in Israel, a horrible incident occurred where over 1200 people lost their lives, and yet the State Department had done nothing to come in and actually rescue Americans who had been left behind. How do I know that? Because the very first rescues conducted was on October 11th from Nazareth, Tiberias and Haifa. How do I know it? Because I was the one who conducted them, 32 Americans that day, then into the West Bank, then into Jerusalem, then out towards Gaza, I got 255 Americans out by myself before the State Department lifted a finger and did anything to bring a plane in. Meanwhile, other nations were already flying aircraft in and out rescuing their citizens. Again, another failure of 22 USC 4802.

Anthony Blinken (02:58:16):

That's not correct.

Mr. Mills (02:58:18):

I'll also … It is correct and the reason I know it's 'cause I was there. Were you there, sir?

Anthony Blinken (02:58:21):

I had an entire embassy there.

Mr. Mills (02:58:22):

You were not. Let's go ahead and start with that.

Anthony Blinken (02:58:24):

An entire embassy there and I've been there 12 times.

Mr. Mills (02:58:25):

Yeah. How many Americans did you rescue, sir?

Anthony Blinken (02:58:28):

Yeah. We've gotten many Americans out.

Mr. Mills (02:58:29):

How many you personally rescued sir? None. Correct? So don't try and talk to me about ground truth. You couldn't even control what was happening in Afghanistan. Let's start there.

(02:58:38)
The next thing I want to talk about is under your leadership, we have allowed Iran, the regime to grow stronger than it's ever in its life. I'll give you some facts here. The Energy Information Agency said that Iran petroleum exports in Iran sold $144 billion in the first three years of your administration. Now, why is that number important? Well, because that is $100 billion or more than what was permitted in the full two years of the Trump administration.

(02:59:11)
You talked about we had to go forward with the Doha agreement, that that was part of the, even though it was a conditions-based agreement, you couldn't prevent from pulling out of that, but you had no problem pulling out of Remain in Mexico. That's led to an increase in sex trafficking, fentanyl deaths and illegal migrants. More angel families than ever. You had no problem, but again, you can't pull out of it in trying to delist the Houthi rebels from a terrorist organization that now has resulted in 12% of global trade through the Red Sea being disrupted. Do you agree that delisting the Houthis as a terrorist organization was a good play?

Anthony Blinken (02:59:47):

In terms of making sure that humanitarian assistance could get to the people of Yemen and that the Houthis were designated under multiple other authorities-

Mr. Mills (02:59:53):

So endangering American citizen were actual failures-

Anthony Blinken (02:59:55):

… were being sanctioned under many other authorities-

Mr. Mills (02:59:55):

And I can tell you with absolute clarity, sir, reclaiming my time, I can tell you with absolute clarity that Hezbollah got stronger while you were in office. Hamas was funded because of your failures to be able to impose necessary sanctions so that the Iranian regime couldn't continue to fund-

Anthony Blinken (03:00:12):

[inaudible 03:00:13] that way right now.

Mr. Mills (03:00:12):

I'm still talking Secretary. You've had your time. You've had four years to destroy this nation, you and this administration. I will tell you with absolute certainty, sir, that America is better off with you not in office, that the Iranian regime will now finally start to weaken with stronger sanctions and with us being able to do our jobs for the Iranian people who are actually trying to lead a free democracy.

(03:00:37)
I can tell you that Hezbollah, Hamas, Hamas's leadership under Sinwar would not have been eliminated if they would've listened Israel to what Biden had advised, which is ceasefire and stop. Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah would not have been eliminated if they would listened to your leadership. And I can tell you right now that we are better off as a nation, we are safer as a nation and our American citizens will be safer with you not sitting in that seat. With that I yield back.

Mr. McCaul (03:00:59):

The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Costa is recognized.

Anthony Blinken (03:01:01):

Thank you for your judgment. I wish you very good luck.

Mr. McCaul (03:01:04):

Mr. Costa is recognized.

Mr. Costa (03:01:05):

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, first of all, like others, want to acknowledge the Gold Star mothers and families that are here. My grandmother was a Gold Star mother and I have a bit of an understanding of the difficult, difficult situation that you've been through. And Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your tenure as the chair here. I've enjoyed serving with you and working with you.

(03:01:30)
Mr. Secretary, you've done a good job in my opinion in the four years that you've been here under difficult challenges. We can all have different perspectives, but we're in a seminal moment in American and world history I believe, and I want to talk about that as it relates to our efforts with Ukraine clear and present.

(03:01:53)
I know you're doing a lot of things, but I think that I want to have some assurance that in the remaining weeks allowed that we do everything possible to move the necessary military equipment, material and authorizations that Ukraine needs to win this war. With that in mind, there is a transfer currently and I think you have the information your staff does of a dozen Black Hawk helicopters from the United States. They're waiting approval from the State Department to complete this transfer. I'm going to add up a letter, but can you comment on that quickly?

Anthony Blinken (03:02:28):

Congressman, I can't speak to a specific transfer. I can just tell you that we are trying to push out the door everything we possibly can to make sure the Ukrainians have everything they need to deal with the ongoing aggression. We continue to do drawdowns and I signed off on another one as recently as a day ago. I can't speak to the specifics, but I can tell you we're making sure that-

Mr. Costa (03:02:46):

Will you get back to us how it relates to these-

Anthony Blinken (03:02:48):

… every dollar that has been authorized and appropriated, we're using.

Mr. Costa (03:02:50):

These 12 Black Hawk helicopters. You have the information. Your office does.

Anthony Blinken (03:02:54):

I'll have to come back to you on that.

Mr. Costa (03:02:55):

And please do.

(03:02:57)
How about with other efforts in terms of the money that's been appropriated that we ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position? It's not clear to me what this next administration is going to do, and I think that it's incumbent upon us to keep our promises and also to maintain that leadership with our NATO allies.

Anthony Blinken (03:03:17):

Yes. We're determined to do everything we can and it's fully our intent. As I said, every dollar that's been appropriated we want to see get out the door.

Mr. Costa (03:03:27):

As it relates to Afghanistan and I was there numerous times, what would you say are the lessons that had been learned? I mean it's easy to Monday morning quarterback this I think, and obviously we have people with strong opinions, but you inherited a treaty that had already been signed by the previous administration. You talked in your opening comments about your efforts to try to implement it. It clearly didn't go the way all of us wanted it to. What are the lessons to have been learned, and most important, what changes would you make and why?

Anthony Blinken (03:03:56):

I think there are lessons to be learned over the 20 years. There are lessons to be learned over the year preceding the evacuation. There are lessons to be learned from the evacuation itself. As to the latter and actually the year preceding it, the report that I commissioned, the after action review that I commissioned looks at least at what the State Department could and should have done differently and how it could set itself better up for the future.

Mr. Costa (03:04:20):

Was the department aware of any Americans in Afghanistan after August 31st who asked for assistance to depart the country but not-

Anthony Blinken (03:04:26):

Yes.

Mr. Costa (03:04:27):

Had not been previously did so?

Anthony Blinken (03:04:29):

Yes, we had about, as I said at the time, at that time there were about 200 or so Americans who had identified themselves to us and wanted to leave but who couldn't get to the airport or couldn't get into the airport. There were several hundred others who we knew of who did not at that point want to leave because either they couldn't bring extended family with them or they decided that they wanted to stay.

(03:04:54)
After August 31st, the 200 or so who couldn't get to the airport, we were able to get out. Several hundred others came forward seeing the success of our ongoing efforts to get Americans out and said actually now we want to leave. And between August 31st and December 31st we got another 500, 495 I believe American citizens out of Afghanistan because of that enduring commitment to leave no one behind.

Mr. Costa (03:05:20):

Does it make sense that all Americans you may have heard of subsequent to August 31st 2021 wherever in Afghanistan and then assumed that you had been there or that the department had known waiting for your help to get them out prior to that date?

Anthony Blinken (03:05:35):

I'm sorry, can you repeat the question? I missed the question.

Mr. Costa (03:05:37):

I said does it make sense to, just to add up that all the Americans you may have heard subsequently prior to the August 31st date were ever in Afghanistan and then assume that you knew that they were there and that they were going to have an option?

Anthony Blinken (03:05:51):

Again, the challenge we've had as you know is that our citizens in any country around the world don't have to tell the government that they're there. They don't have to register with us when they leave the country. They don't have to de-register. And in Afghanistan, we had many thousands of people who were in effect dual nationals who had made their lives in Afghanistan. So our-

Mr. Costa (03:06:09):

Thank you for your service and thank you for the questions.

Mr. McCaul (03:06:13):

The gentleman's time has expired. To all members, I'm going to keep a very strict five-minute rule. And Secretary, I know you have a plane to catch to go to the Middle East. Chair recognizes Mr. Cain.

Mr. Cain (03:06:24):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to take this opportunity to thank you for your leadership in this congress as well as of this committee.

(03:06:33)
Mr. Secretary, you are here with us today to discuss the Biden administration's failure in the disastrous withdrawal from the Afghanistan in August 2021 and your role in the sad chapter that our country witnessed. During President Biden's time in office and your tenure as Secretary of State, our country has seen many international crises that have become more inflamed. This administration has slow-walked critical arms and capabilities to Ukraine and has prolonged this war into what will be soon its third year.

(03:07:10)
This administration has also intentionally delayed vital assistance to Israel and that has eroded confidence around the world about American continued support for our strongest ally in the Middle East. In addition, you and your president's lack of accountability and ownership for withdrawal from Afghanistan is inexcusable.

(03:07:33)
Mr. Secretary, why did you believe that the Taliban would negotiate with the Afghan government despite President Biden's unconditional surrender on April 14th, 2021?

Anthony Blinken (03:07:45):

As I said earlier, the Taliban had made commitments under Doha. We wanted to see them fulfill those commitments, including negotiating with the government on a transition. We made every effort diplomatically throughout that period to hold them to that, but it became clear that they wouldn't. And it also became clear that when the deadline expired, the deadline negotiated by the previous administration, they would go back to attacking our forces, attacking our partners, attacking the cities. It would've required us to send tens of thousands of Americans back to Afghanistan. That's not a decision the president was prepared to make.

Mr. Cain (03:08:15):

During that entire time, what leverage did the United States have over the Taliban once President Biden announced that he would abandon our allies no matter what the Taliban's violations of the Doha agreement would be?

Anthony Blinken (03:08:29):

Again, we had a deadline negotiated by the previous administration and the choice was not between the status quo and ending the war. The choice was between ending the war and escalating it because again, they would've gone back to attacking us. We had only 2,500 forces in Afghanistan at that point. We would've had to reinforce them dramatically had the Taliban gone back to directly attacking our forces, directly attacking our partners, going at Afghanistan cities. That was the choice before the president.

Mr. Cain (03:08:56):

Do you agree that your power-sharing agreement further destabilized and delegitimized the Afghan government?

Anthony Blinken (03:09:04):

I'm sorry Congressman, can you repeat that? The power-sharing agreement.

Mr. Cain (03:09:07):

Do you agree that your power-sharing agreement further destabilized and delegitimized the Afghan government?

Anthony Blinken (03:09:14):

There wasn't a power-sharing agreement. It was the intent of the Doha agreement that the Taliban negotiate with the government a ceasefire and a political transition, something that they didn't do, but that was what was in the Doha agreement. That was the objective.

Mr. Cain (03:09:28):

It was clear that-

Anthony Blinken (03:09:29):

Didn't happen.

Mr. Cain (03:09:29):

… the Taliban was going to violate, and they did.

(03:09:34)
On May 8th, 2021, your State Department held a rehearsal of concept drill with the Defense Department to plan for the withdrawal from Afghanistan and during that meeting, the military warned against keeping embassy in Kabul open. Your deputy, Brian McKeon responded, "We at the State Department have a much higher risk tolerance than you guys."

(03:09:58)
Mr. Secretary, it was you who tasked Mr. McKeon with purportedly leading the State Department's NEO planning. Is that correct?

Anthony Blinken (03:10:06):

I'm sorry. Again, I had trouble hearing that. Please repeat that.

Mr. Cain (03:10:09):

It was during this meeting where you were warned not to keep embassy in Kabul open. Your deputy Brian McKeon responded, "We at the State Department have a much higher risk tolerance than you guys." Mr. Secretary, was you who tasked Mr. McKeon with purportedly leading the State Department's NEO planning, is that correct? And do you agree with his assessment?

Anthony Blinken (03:10:32):

I can't speak to that conversation or to that meeting. What I can speak to is the fact that starting in April we worked on every scenario with our colleagues from DoD. We did multiple exercises. We planned out what we would need to do including in the event of a NEO. And as I said before, the decision to actually initiate the NEO is a collective decision made through the interagency process by all of the cabinet-level members and ultimately by the president. The State Department technically initiates it, and it was on August 14th that everyone agreed that we should initiate the NEO, and for reasons that we've discussed before, we didn't want to precipitate a panic. No one believed that or the government and military would collapse. We wanted to sustain our diplomatic efforts in Afghanistan.

Mr. Cain (03:11:16):

Respectfully, your decision to keep US embassy in Kabul open against military advice, put people's lives at risk and people were killed. And I wanted to also express my sympathy-

Anthony Blinken (03:11:28):

It was a collective decision of the administration-

Mr. Cain (03:11:31):

I want to express my sympathy to the families of the 13 service members who were killed at Abbey Gate, who I know many of the Gold Star families here today. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.

Mr. McCaul (03:11:44):

Gentleman yields. Chair recognizes Mr. Amo.

Mr. Amo (03:11:48):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I certainly want to thank you for your leadership as I've started my time in Congress on this committee and I certainly look forward to working with you in other ways in the future. I certainly also want to recognize the Gold Star families adding to the comments of my colleagues. We are grateful to you.

(03:12:08)
Thank you Secretary Blinken for being here today and thank you for your extensive cooperation with our committee's oversight of the United States withdrawal from Afghanistan. Over the past three years, your state department provided thousands of pages of documents and facilitated countless interviews with many career and political officials. I understand this is one of many appearances that you've had on this topic before our committee and I can relate despite only being in Congress for just over a year, this is my third hearing on Afghanistan in this committee.

(03:12:42)
Unfortunately, for my friends on the other side of the aisle, the quantity of these hearings is not really correlated with the quality of them. Their so-called investigation selectively airbrushed the full picture of what happened in Afghanistan. The report ignores any of the actions that Donald Trump took to negotiate the withdrawal. The report claims we abandoned our allies but fails to mention how Trump folks left behind a backlog of more than 17,000 applications made by our Afghan allies for special immigrant visas, a backlog that forced President Biden's administration to speed up visa processing, bring in temporary help and work around the clock to protect our allies during the withdrawal.

(03:13:28)
Of all the errors in this flawed report, its worst sin is that it refuses to let facts get in the way of a good story. The report repeatedly claims the State Department waited too long to initiate the US noncombatant evacuation operation, but the US ambassador to Afghanistan at the time, Ross Wilson has testified that initiating this evacuation operation too soon "would have complicated our ability to get out. If we had left earlier, several thousand SIV applicants that we got out would not have been able to leave the country. We would've not been able to provide support to American citizens trying to get out. Our eyes and ears about what was happening around us would've been drastically degraded."

(03:14:11)
Secretary Blinken, do you agree that Ambassador Wilson's testimony reflects the conditions on the ground at the time and after you initiated the non-combatant evacuation operation? Were there any additional steps that you personally took to ensure that our personnel and allies had the help and resources they needed?

Anthony Blinken (03:14:30):

Yes, thank you. I agree with Ambassador Wilson's assessment, and once the evacuation was underway, the NEO was underway, we surged resources to the embassy, including dozens of consular officers to make sure that we could process anyone getting to and into the airport, American citizens and others eligible to come to the United States. And I have to tell you, Congressman, I have immense pride in the people of my department. I had hundreds raise their hand and volunteer, including dozens who ran into the burning building of HKIA Airport during the evacuation to look out for their fellow citizens, to look out for our Afghan partners, and to do everything possible to bring them out of harm's way.

Mr. Amo (03:15:14):

Well, Secretary, I'm grateful for your leadership and I frankly just wanted to give you an opportunity to correct the record on any claims that we've heard today and really just communicate some lasting thoughts about this as you depart the State Department.

Anthony Blinken (03:15:32):

Look, all I can say is we don't have time to go through everything. I think we've addressed a number of these questions throughout this hearing, and I'm always happy to pursue these conversations. I just hope that somehow we can find ways to work effectively together to shed more light than heat on these very difficult issues. I think that's the spirit in which we should approach things. And for my part, I've been determined to learn the lessons from this experience, not only to learn them but to act on them. And we've made the State Department stronger and better able to respond to crises than it was when we found it or it was during the Afghan evacuation.

(03:16:13)
And I think that spirit is the one that I would hope would apply to everything we do. I've worked so well with so many members of this committee on both sides of the aisle. I hope that that continues even in places where we have deep disagreements. We can question each other's judgments. That's totally appropriate. I hope that we can get out of the business of questioning each other's motives.

Mr. Cain (03:16:39):

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And with that a yield back.

Mr. McCaul (03:16:42):

Gentleman's time has expired. I recognize Mr. Lawler from New York.

Mr. Lawler (03:16:46):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, have you read this report in full?

Anthony Blinken (03:16:51):

I have read the executive summary of the report. I haven't read the entire report yet. I've read the executive summary.

Mr. Lawler (03:16:57):

I hope that you'll take this copy with you on your flight to the Middle East and read it because this is your legacy. This is your legacy. Starting with the disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan that resulted in the death of 13 US service members creating 13 Gold Star families, families our Vice President hasn't even been bothered to meet with.

(03:17:24)
Then the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the terrorist attack on Israel, the illicit oil trade between China and Iran to the tune of $200 billion under your watch. That is what is funding Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and other terror networks in the region. China threatening Taiwan. This is your legacy and this stems from this disastrous withdrawal. So I hope you read the report in full and reflect upon that.

(03:18:07)
You talk about the Doha agreement. It's conditions based. This administration had no problem reversing policy decisions that it disagreed with President Trump on. In fact, Joe Biden revoked 94 executive orders to open up our southern border and create an absolute calamity.

(03:18:32)
70,000 Americans die every year from fentanyl overdose as this administration has allowed fentanyl to pour into our country. Drug trafficking, gangs, human trafficking, women and children being sold into prostitution, not a care on the world. This is the legacy.

(03:18:57)
So don't sit here and tell us having not read the report that you disagree with it or it's not true. Saying to my colleague from Florida, "Oh it's not true. We left people in Israel after October 7th." It most certainly is.

(03:19:16)
I had constituents calling in a full-fledged panic, and we called the State Department and we're told there is nothing we can do. Don't tell us that that didn't happen. This administration had no problem trying to renegotiate the Iran nuclear deal. No problem lifting sanctions on Iran allowing for the illicit oil trade. So when you say that the previous administration negotiated the Doha agreement and therefore we were bound by it, that is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it. You absolutely had the ability based on the conditions on the ground to keep our troops there, to ensure the safety and well-being of American citizens, and to make sure what happened did not. Mr. Secretary on August 26th, 2021, who was the President of the United States?

Anthony Blinken (03:20:38):

Joe Biden.

Mr. Lawler (03:20:40):

On August 26th, 2021, who was the Secretary of State?

Anthony Blinken (03:20:44):

I was.

Mr. Lawler (03:20:44):

Okay, take responsibility. Don't shirk in your responsibilities. Don't try to shift blame. The reality is you guys allowed the conditions on the ground to deteriorate. You did not hold the Taliban to account. And as a result, 13 US service members are dead and the world is a tinderbox. We are in the most precarious place since the lead-up to World War II. That is your legacy, period, full stop.

(03:21:25)
And if Israel listened to this administration and didn't go into Gaza and didn't go into the south, Sinwar would still be alive. And if Israel listened to this administration, Nasrallah would still be alive and Assad would still be in power in Syria, and Iran would be stronger than ever. That is your legacy.

(03:21:53)
This Congress has passed the Ship Act and the Abraham Accord Special Envoy. You didn't fill the special envoy and you didn't enforce the Ship Act. You've had over a year to do both. That is your legacy. You leave the world worse off today than it was when you inherited it.

Mr. McCaul (03:22:13):

Gentleman's time has expired. Recognize the-

Mr. Lawler (03:22:15):

Enjoy reading this because this is your legacy-

Mr. McCaul (03:22:17):

… gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild.

Ms. Wild (03:22:21):

Thank you.

Anthony Blinken (03:22:21):

I have a very different legacy, one that I'll be happy to reflect on. I won't have the time to do it today because of course you don't provide any time to do it. It's very nice to make a speech. Leave me no time to respond. That's the way this works-

Mr. McCaul (03:22:30):

The Chair has recognized Ms. Wild.

Anthony Blinken (03:22:31):

Mr. Chair.

Ms. Wild (03:22:34):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(03:22:36)
Secretary Blinken, let me just say that hearings such as this one probably will aid you in getting over this job very quickly. I do think that you have served commendably. I think also that you have been handed an unprecedented set of world affairs and that you've handled them very well. And I thank you for that.

(03:23:05)
I, too, along with so many of my colleagues want to express my tribute and my thanks to our Gold Star families and of course to our service members who lost their lives in all of Afghanistan's war, not just on the day that we withdrew. But that's really at the heart of what we're discussing today, Americans who wore our country's uniform, those who were injured, those who lost their lives and of course their families that served alongside them. And I do so wish I say to all the families that your loved ones had not been there on that day. I personally feel strongly that we should not have been in that war at that time, and I'm sorry for your losses and that happened.

(03:23:59)
Secretary Blinken, I do want to ask you the same question I asked Ambassador Khalilzad when he testified here a few months ago, because I think it really gets to the underlying reality of why we're here today. Why over the course of 20 years in Afghanistan, did administrations of both parties fail to correctly assess the level of dedication and cohesion of the Afghan forces and their political leadership?

Anthony Blinken (03:24:29):

I guess a critical question. I hope that the bipartisan commission that is looking into the 20 years of Afghanistan gets it exactly that. And as someone who served in several of those administrations, I also take responsibility for that, that we did not, I think see with clarity not only the durability of the Afghan government and the Afghan security forces, but see with clarity how difficult, if not impossible it would be for us from the outside to somehow build a cohesive country and society. And that is something that, as you said, took place over multiple administrations and I think that is a critical question that we get a better understanding of. And my hope is that the commission will look into that and ask that question.

Ms. Wild (03:25:19):

Well, thank you. I hope so too. I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that somehow seems to fit a pre-designed agenda over several decades of US military involvement. That is by no means any kind of critique of our troops ever. It's the people who are making decisions at a much higher level. And I worry that we have a cherry-picking of intelligence and data. And I hope that's something that the commission will also look at because I think it's vital to make sure that we don't end up in any more forever wars.

(03:25:59)
How do you account, and I know we're running out of time, but can you comment on the intelligence failures specific to Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (03:26:11):

Look, I think this is collective, which is to say the State Department had knowledge and perspective on this. The Defense Department having worked with the Afghan military for 20 years had perspective and knowledge and of course the intelligence community did. So the judgments that we reached, I would say were collective judgments. And as I said before, and we've said repeatedly as we looked at the preponderance of views, there was not, no one anticipated the collapse of the government, the collapse of the Afghan forces when it happened or as quickly as it happened.

Ms. Wild (03:26:49):

Can I just stop you real quickly 'cause I wanted to ask you, were you personally surprised by President Ghani's decision to flee?

Anthony Blinken (03:26:55):

I was. Because I think, as I mentioned earlier, I was on the phone with him late at night on the 14th of August and he told me we were working on trying to get an agreement to move forward between the Taliban and the government to negotiate some kind of transitional government as a way of averting all of this and moving Afghanistan to a better place. He told me that he was determined to try to do that, but if the Taliban refused, he was going to stay and fight. That was on August 14th. He was gone on August 15th.

Ms. Wild (03:27:34):

Well, thank you. I do hope we as a country learn from this experience. There's obviously a great deal of information to be gathered and hopefully will be gathered in a nonpartisan or a bipartisan manner so that we can learn in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. Self (03:27:51):

The gentle lady yields. I recognize myself for five minutes. You've mentioned probably five times today, the fact that your intel failure to know what was going to happen. There's an old book you need to read, it's called Groupthink. It examines disasters exactly like this in the past. It probably is worthwhile reading because that's what happened, groupthink.

(03:28:17)
Now, those of us on this committee who served in Afghanistan and Iraq understand that evil still stalks the world. We saw it and many of my colleagues on this committee served far deeper into Afghanistan and Iraq than I did. But evil still stalks the world. And I've also heard you say several times here about humanitarian assistance. There is an old military political concept that says military use is a failure of diplomacy. It's the last bastion of it.

(03:28:59)
Well, as expected Mr. Secretary, this has been an interesting back and forth as I knew it would be. And since I'm fairly low on the totem pole here, we've plowed that ground well. I want to talk about the consequences of this in the world following the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. I think one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talked about repercussions. There have been many, I'll just mention two following this botched withdrawal and the Taliban takeover. Our adversaries have been on the march around the world, encouraged by this error, this strategic error.

(03:29:39)
Words fail to capture the magnitude of the consequences that have been suffered across the globe because of this withdrawal. Yet according to President Biden himself, the emergency evacuation that costs 13 American service members' lives left behind 7 billion at the low end of military equipment

Mr. Self (03:30:00):

Cuomo, was an extraordinary success, yet our perceived weakness, following Afghanistan, I think it was two months later, Putin started moving troops toward Ukraine. Also set the scene for the horrific attacks on October 7th. Hamas terrorists and thugs obviously invaded Israel in a unprovoked assault that left Israeli men, women and children dead, wounded, in hostage, and Americans as well, I might add. That was a critical unforced error by Hamas. Since that day, Iranian hegemony has faltered, Hamas has lost its leaders and uncontested control over Gaza. While Hezbollah's senior leadership has been eradicated, setting their ambition back for decades. And I will stop here and say that both Unrwa and Unifil did not do their job in Gaza and in Southern Lebanon, to disastrous consequences.

(03:30:57)
We now find ourselves in the midst of yet another serious issue, which is Syria. The fall of Bashar al-Assad, both Russia and Iran have lost leverage in the Middle East, and while it's good that his reign of terror is over, gassing, torturing, slaughtering thousands, they're still looming questions, like who's keeping the lights on in Syria today and who's going to control the levers of government tomorrow? Amid the chaos, our steadfast ally, Israel, remains strong. They have significantly weakened Hamas and Hezbollah, directly diminishing Iran's influence in this region. Without Israel's Chutzpah and determination, the threats to the United States in the Middle East would be far greater.

(03:31:48)
Israel, over the past few days, has done the necessary work of destroying the military power of rump Syria. So whoever does emerge to rule Syria cannot threaten Israel. According to the White House National Security Council spokesman, John Kirby, it is an open question, who is currently running Syria? Yes, Iran and Russia have failed, have lost influence in the area, but I am very eager for the leadership of the incoming National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, and I want to make sure that's Mike Waltz, the incoming National Security Advisor, not our recently failed vice president candidate. So a couple of questions for you. First of all, Mr. Secretary, are you confident that the leader of HTS will be able to keep his word to protect Christians and Islamic women in rump Syria?

Anthony Blinken (03:32:42):

Mr. Chairman, I'm not confident, I'm encouraged by the fact that they've said the right thing, but what we have to focus on is whether they do the right thing, including protecting minorities.

Mr. Self (03:32:52):

The second question is, do you expect Syria to descend into a terrorist enclave?

Anthony Blinken (03:32:58):

We certainly need to do everything possible to avoid that and the coming days, the coming weeks, will be critical to that. That's why, and by the way, I very much appreciate you keeping this hearing on time along with Chairman McCaul. I need to leave to get on a plane to go to the region to see King Abdullah of Jordan. And I appreciate that there's some other members here who've not yet had a chance to ask questions, I'm happy to take those questions on the record and get back to you quickly.

Mr. Self (03:33:26):

Mr. Secretary, I yield back to the Chairman and he will recess this. You do [inaudible 03:33:33].

Chairman McCaul (03:33:32):

Yeah. Thank you, sir. Chair recognizes Mr. Moskowitz.

Mr. Moskowitz (03:33:37):

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'll be quick Mr. Secretary. First, let me thank the Chairman, Chairman McCaul, for his bipartisan work on this committee, this has been one of those bright spots of this Congress. I want to thank you Mr. Secretary for your sacrifice and your service to the country. These jobs are unforgiving and have deep impacts on everybody's individual families and so I want to thank you for your service. I want to thank the Gold Star families for being here and like I have before, apologize to them, for what happened to their loved ones in Afghanistan.

(03:34:17)
I'm not going to go into all the stuff that's been said by 30 people, but I do want to say this Mr. Chairman, the official Twitter account of this committee put out a tweet at 11:27 and it says, "At this committee's final hearing, this Congress, we brought in Secretary Blinken to testify on the disastrous Biden-Harris withdrawal from Afghanistan after months of stonewalling. Sadly, many of the Democratic seats are empty at this important hearing." I don't know what intern put this out, but it is misinformation and it is literally a lie. First of all, if you look at the picture, half the seats on that side of the aisle are empty, and I'm not blaming them, that's how these committees work, we all know this. People come in and out of these hearing rooms, but let me give you the numbers. 20 of the 23 Democrats on this committee, were here today. 23 of the 28 Republicans were here today. Of the ones that were here, 17 Democrats asked question, 17 Republicans asked questions.

(03:35:16)
So the official account of this committee is making it appear that we don't care about what happened in Afghanistan. It is not true, and that tweet should come down. Because while our enemies are trying to divide us abroad, in social media, we're just giving them a gift by saying, "Hey, half the country doesn't care." There were major mistakes made in Afghanistan, I've said that in previous hearings. So I appreciate everyone going on their soapbox about morality and truth and facts and trying to hold the Secretary to that high standard. But then we got to do it ourselves, in this committee. Mr Secretary, a lot of things were said, I know you have to leave. I just wanted to give you the balance of my time to close, about your legacy.

Anthony Blinken (03:36:05):

Thank you. Look, I have to leave it to others to make those judgments, but from my perspective, we have worked from day one to reengage, reenergize and even reimagine our alliances and partnerships around the world. We've done just that and as a result we are in a much stronger position than we were, to deal with a multiplicity of challenges, more complicated than at any time in the 32 years that I've been engaged in this work. We demonstrated that with the work of bringing more than 50 countries together in support of Ukraine, as it dealt with the Russian aggression. We've demonstrated that in building extraordinary convergence that we have never seen before, in terms of purpose and action when it comes to dealing with the challenges posed by China, among European allies and partners and among partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific and beyond.

(03:37:01)
We've seen that in bringing countries together, to tackle everything, from Covid, to fentanyl, to food security, across the board, that's a result of our engagement, of our diplomacy, of bringing countries together in common purpose and in ways that advance the national interest. That's how I've seen it, others can are free to make their own judgments about it. But I think in doing that, one of the sources of our strength and success is the ability to work closely with Congress. We're stronger at home because we've made remarkable investments in things like infrastructure, the CHIPS and Science Act, the IRA. That goes directly to our strength abroad, other countries see that. They see that we've reinvested in our own competitiveness, they want to work with us, they want to engage with us, they want to partner with us.

(03:37:57)
And because we've been so attentive to our alliances and partnerships, we now have countries that, before, were looking to do things on their own, without us, that are now united with us in common purpose. That doesn't just happen, it happens because we have extraordinary men and women at the State Department, among other places, who are out there every single day building those alliances, building those partnerships. And then using them when we need to, to deal with challenges like Russia and Ukraine, like China, like so many of the other challenges we face around the world.

(03:38:32)
Thank you.

Mr. Moskowitz (03:38:33):

Thank you. I yield the balance of my time back Mr. Chairman.

Chairman McCaul (03:38:35):

Gentleman yields. Chair recognizes Mr. McCormick.

Mr. McCormick (03:38:38):

Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary. I know that your main responsibility as a secretary is to execute the President's foreign policy. As an Afghan veteran and as a guy who's got tons of friends that served over there even longer than I did, years away from their family, the guys who lost their limbs, the families who sacrificed, the people who lost their lives, my hat's always off for those families who are Gold Stars. And even the families who just served and made that sacrifice away from their families, I really have great respect. I know we were there for about 20 years, in Afghanistan, so you can't take responsibility for 20 years, but you can take responsibility for those four years. I know that we spent about 2 trillion of that dollars, a lot of that wasn't on your watch. That's also a lesson learned that we had to live with. I know 2,462 lives, roughly, passed because of that war, that we sacrificed as Americans, but most of those not on your watch.

(03:39:39)
What I do want to hold you and our leadership accountable for, is the stuff we left behind. Very specifically, yesterday I had the ambassador of Pakistan in my office and we were talking about terrorism in his nation and how we create stability in that region. I'm a foreign affairs guy, that's my region. And they've had over 600 terrorist attacks in their nation last year and I was like, "Why? Why so many?" He said, because a lot of the weapons that we left behind in Afghanistan are now being used for attacks in Pakistan and other areas around there, and it's munitions we left behind. I personally thought it was a horrible withdrawal, I've talked to Milley, I've already had a breakdown. He went down, and step-by-step went through the process of the withdrawal.

(03:40:25)
But quite frankly, it wasn't just the $4 billion of our troop supplies that we left behind, but the 90 billion that we had given to the Afghanis, that was then used now to sustain their country and the evil empire that's basically spreading terrorism throughout the region. I don't really accept the premise that they're not harboring bad guys, I know we have terrorist cells there, I know that they're training, we've been briefed on that. We don't need to get into specifics, but I quite frankly think, in a real sort of way, the equivalent of equipment that we left over there, which is probably similar to what we just gave to Ukraine in aid. And it's to fight a first world army, the Russians, is now being used to spread terrorism throughout the world, and that's on us.

(03:41:11)
The United States is literally sponsoring terrorism around the world, using the weapons that we gave to them, we didn't hold accountable for. And one thing we learn in the military, whether it was 16 years in the Marine Corps, four years in the Navy or I've trained with the army, accountability is our first step. We take responsibility for what we do. How would you answer to that?

Anthony Blinken (03:41:33):

So two things, Congressman, I very much appreciate the question. First, the weapons you're referring to, built up over 20 years. The hard reality is that in order to avoid extending the war, escalating the war, sending tens of thousands of Americans back into Afghanistan, would've been impossible to take out all of those weapons, all of that equipment. Much of it was dismantled or otherwise made inoperative, much of it that remained is almost certainly inoperative, because it had to be maintained and they don't have the capacity to maintain it. But I grant you, there are no doubt some number of weapons or equipment that, yes, are being used by the regime.

(03:42:19)
But the Taliban government itself, for all of the horrific things that it's doing inside Afghanistan to its people, is not in the business of exporting terrorism in this moment and that at least is a good thing. And so I don't see this equipment, such as it is, being used for that purpose. It is very regrettable that equipment was left behind, but I think it's a reality of 20 years, trillions of dollars of equipment to the Afghans.

Mr. McCormick (03:42:50):

So I would disagree with one premise, and this is where I think the crux of this is usually, because I want to learn from this. We should never set a date or time to be political about anything we do. This is about the survival of our troops, what's best for our investment, return on investment, and I think we got locked into a date. And if I could learn anything from this, we got locked into a date, let us make some really bad decisions planning wise, that left a lot of equipment behind. And quite frankly, when I was there, we had fewer people there than we have Spain, we never fought a war in Spain. And we were so in a hurry to say, I want this feather in my cap, that I got out of Afghanistan, that we forgot to do it right. And when you forget to do it right, shame on us, and I think we should never be locked into a date or a time or a situation where we're not in control, because we are the biggest, baddest country on the planet.

(03:43:37)
And shame on us for not doing it right, because I think that costs us a lot of reputation. With that I yield.

Chairman McCaul (03:43:43):

Gentleman's time has expired. We're going to try to keep this brief, I know the Secretary has to go to the Middle East to meet with the King of Jordan. Mr. Moran from Texas is recognized.

Mr. Moran (03:43:51):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here today. I want to start where Mr. Moskowitz left off just a second ago. Speaking about the withdrawal, he said, and I quote, " There were major mistakes made in Afghanistan." First of all, do you agree with that statement by Mr. Moskowitz?

Anthony Blinken (03:44:05):

I do.

Mr. Moran (03:44:07):

Could you specify the mistakes that you believe were made in the withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (03:44:13):

Yeah. I think the most fundamental mistake was, again, not recognizing the fragility of the Afghan government, the Afghan security forces and not anticipating across the government. And I take responsibility for this, along with the other departments of government, in recognizing that there was a potential, more than the potential likelihood of a very quick collapse by both the government and the security forces.

Mr. Moran (03:44:39):

How would you advise a president in the future under similar circumstances to do something different? What different advice would you give to him or her?

Anthony Blinken (03:44:47):

I think we have to do what we did, but obviously we didn't see this piece of it, which is to continuously question the assumptions. To continuously prod and push on any assumptions, including about the durability of a government or the military forces.

Mr. Moran (03:45:03):

Do you think it was a mistake to withdraw even though the conditions preceding, in the Doha agreement, had not been met by the factions in Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (03:45:11):

I do not. I believe it was the right thing to do to end America's longest war. I believe that our country is actually better for it, stronger for it. I believe our adversaries have seen that we were not going to get bogged down into another decade of war in Afghanistan and that has been a good thing. And again, I just remind you that the basic choice, to the extent there was a choice, was between ending the war and leaving or escalating it. Because part of the Doha agreement was a commitment by the Taliban not to attack our forces between the time the agreement was signed and the withdrawal date that was set in the Doha agreement, was reached. Once that was breached, they would go back to attacking us, our partners, our military determined we would have to send tens of thousands of forces back to Afghanistan. That was the choice-

Mr. Moran (03:46:01):

I think I heard you say earlier, that you didn't think there was a connection between the bias to withdrawal and the aggression, the increase in aggression by Russia as against Ukraine, earlier. Did I hear you correctly say that?

Anthony Blinken (03:46:12):

That's correct.

Mr. Moran (03:46:13):

When the withdrawal occurred, former US ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, warned, a few days after President Biden's unconditional surrender to the Taliban, that, "Moscow and Beijing will look closely at how we react in one situation to set the stage for the other." So did you disagree with that then or do you disagree with that now?

Anthony Blinken (03:46:33):

So what we saw first of all, is that of course, Russia had masked all of these forces well before the withdrawal or the decision actually to go forward with it. We saw that take place in the spring. Second, Russia has a long experience with Afghanistan, it probably knows better than anyone the folly of getting bogged down in that country. And what we've seen since, is the United States marshaling more than 50 countries coming to the defense of Ukraine and doing tremendous damage to Russia's efforts in Ukraine.

Mr. Moran (03:47:02):

Let's look at what the Chinese said about this. On the second anniversary of the withdrawal, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said, "On this date two years ago, the whole world witnessed the "Kabul moment" when the US hastily withdrew its troops from Afghanistan. What happened in Afghanistan marked a military political and counterterrorism failure of the US in Afghanistan." That's a quote by a Chinese government official. Do you think that our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the way that we handled it precipitated additional aggression by China towards Taiwan?

Anthony Blinken (03:47:34):

I don't. In fact, we've seen this build up for more than a decade. And again, as I said earlier, in 2008 we had 200,000 troops between Afghanistan and Iraq, that's when the Russians invaded Georgia. In 2014, we still had 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, that's when the Russians first invaded Ukraine. These decisions are made for their own reasons and with Russia and Ukraine or with China and Taiwan, this long predated any things we decided or did in Afghanistan.

Mr. Moran (03:48:02):

I want to ask real quickly as my time expires, about before and after our withdrawal. So if we're looking before and after the withdrawal, do you think that the situation in Afghanistan is better inside Afghanistan today or before withdrawal as it relates to, number one, the safety and security of women and young girls?

Anthony Blinken (03:48:19):

I think the situation is worse for women and young girls, there's no question about that.

Mr. Moran (03:48:23):

What about the access and opportunity for education for women and young girls today or before withdrawal?

Anthony Blinken (03:48:28):

Worse. No question about that.

Mr. Moran (03:48:29):

And the opportunities to enter the workforce for women today or before withdrawal?

Anthony Blinken (03:48:32):

Worse.

Mr. Moran (03:48:33):

Do you think a leave behind force, even a small force, may have created stability in the region or would that not have been something you-

Anthony Blinken (03:48:40):

That was not the choice. The choice was not leaving 2,500 people there, the choice was whether we were going to send tens of thousands of Americans back, indefinitely, with no guarantee of better results. It's also important to remember that, by December 2020, the Taliban either controlled or contested territory that had 75% of the population of Afghanistan. Life for them then, including women and girls, was not good. But I agree with you, it's gotten worse.

Mr. Moran (03:49:04):

Do you agree we need to take additional steps-

Mr. McCormick (03:49:05):

[inaudible 03:49:06].

Mr. Moran (03:49:06):

To protect the lives of women and young girls in Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (03:49:09):

Yeah, I agree we need to maximize every effort to do that and we welcome working with you on that.

Chairman McCaul (03:49:13):

The gentleman's time has expired. Chair recognizes Mr. Moylan.

Mr. Moylan (03:49:16):

Thank you.

Anthony Blinken (03:49:16):

Mr. Chairman, I'm very sorry to interrupt, but-

Chairman McCaul (03:49:19):

Sure.

Anthony Blinken (03:49:19):

As we said before this hearing, I had a hard stop at two o'clock. I have to get on a plane at 3.

Chairman McCaul (03:49:23):

I agree, yeah. If we could keep this limited, we have Mr. Moyle and Mr. Van Orden.

Anthony Blinken (03:49:27):

I'm happy to take-

Chairman McCaul (03:49:28):

And [inaudible 03:49:29].

Anthony Blinken (03:49:29):

[inaudible 03:49:29] respect the members and their questions, I'm happy to take the questions and respond within the next week, back to them.

Chairman McCaul (03:49:38):

Why don't we ask, both of you, I want to give you the opportunity to ask-

Mr. Moylan (03:49:39):

I'm sorry.

Chairman McCaul (03:49:40):

One question.

Mr. Moylan (03:49:40):

One question. Thank you Mr. Secretary, thank you Mr. Chairman. General Miller was our last commander of US forces in Afghanistan, Mr. Secretary, and he came before this committee. And the important thing that General Miller wanted to relay to us, was about the characterization of your State Department's attitude toward the military, Mr. Secretary. General Miller was saying to this committee that there was this assumption, the State Department's assumption, that, "We don't need the military. It was the State Department's assumption, according to General Miller, that, "Why don't you know this General? You're withdrawing. Why don't you get out of here? All of you, just go away."

(03:50:35)
That's General Miller, our last commander of US forces in Afghanistan, what he felt important to share with this committee. Mr. Secretary, in institutions like the State Department, your State Department, such attitudes often come from the top. I'm an R&D officer myself and it's all up to the leadership. So is it your assumption, sir, did you assume to your State Department, that your embassy in Afghanistan did not need the military?

Anthony Blinken (03:51:12):

Absolutely not. And on the contrary, Congressman, first of all, I have tremendous respect for General Miller, everything he's done, everything he's put at risk himself. Second, I've had the incredible honor of serving this country in various capacities, State Department, White House, National Security Council, for the better part of 30 years now. And throughout those 30 years, one of the things I take the most pride and pleasure in, is the work that I've been able to do with our military.

Mr. Moylan (03:51:40):

I understand that Mr. secretary,

Anthony Blinken (03:51:45):

And so my department, in my time, certainly in terms of my own instructions to them, has done nothing short of do everything possible to strengthen and continue this essential collaboration. We can't do our job without the United States military.

Mr. Moylan (03:52:04):

Mr. Secretary, I'll take back my time. In this case, Mr. Secretary, I understand what you're saying here and now, but the General's, Miller, our last commander of US forces, this is what he had to say to us. And sir, you may be saying this now, but however, the example that your employees understood is different than from what you're telling me. It's as if there was an absence of leadership that put the State Department of employees in America and America at risk. I'm sorry to say, sir, that this type of attitude that your state department has had regarding-

Chairman McCaul (03:52:42):

I would ask the gentleman to please expedite the question.

Mr. Moylan (03:52:44):

Yes sir, Mr. Chairman. Basically sir, it didn't work out, according to General Miller, our last commander of US forces. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman McCaul (03:52:55):

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes Mr. Van Orden.

Mr. Van Orden (03:52:57):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me on your committee and thank you for your leadership throughout the years. Mr. Secretary, thanks for coming here. I'm just going to establish some bona fides. I'm going to ask you a couple of quick series of questions and then I'm going to actually give you the chance, sir, to make sure that you could leave, with your last hearing, by doing something good for your legacy.

(03:53:20)
I have served multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, including one where I held one of my friend's hands as he was dying, listening to his wife crying through a satellite phone. And who's here, because she knew she would never see her husband again, and the Gold Star families here have my greatest sympathy, and we owe you a debt, does not go away, it's not a mortgage, it's not a 30-year commitment, it's forever.

(03:53:42)
I'm the longest serving enlisted member of the United States military to ever be elected to Congress in the history of our nation. I was responsible for writing contingency plans for the entire continent of Europe and making sure that they worked. So with that said, I mean, I want you to know that because a lot of the stuff that you said to my colleagues is either not true and that's either on purpose or due to incompetence. I would encourage you to hand to your successor, Joint Publication 3-68 and have them open up to chapter five, page one, paragraph C. Because what you told these guys about who can do this is just not true. So you said that there was a plan, when was it written?

Anthony Blinken (03:54:18):

Okay. You're referring to the-

Mr. Van Orden (03:54:20):

Neo.

Anthony Blinken (03:54:21):

Neo-plan? Through the course of the spring.

Mr. Van Orden (03:54:23):

Okay. Through the course of the spring. That should have been done years before.

Anthony Blinken (03:54:26):

Well, let me-

Mr. Van Orden (03:54:28):

When was it rehearsed?

Anthony Blinken (03:54:29):

And can I add to that? I'm sorry, Congressman, just to be very precise. We have a team of people that go to every embassy, especially embassies of concern, every year, including Afghanistan in December 20-

Mr. Van Orden (03:54:39):

I know, sir, I participated in those teams.

Anthony Blinken (03:54:41):

To work on this.

Mr. Van Orden (03:54:42):

So did it include removing the military and leaving civilians to fend for themselves against terrorists and then reinserting the military in a panic, to help rescue the Americans that you abandoned in Afghanistan? Was that an annex on the plan?

Anthony Blinken (03:54:56):

It was based on the premise that the-

Mr. Van Orden (03:54:57):

It wasn't.

Anthony Blinken (03:54:58):

The government wouldn't collapse.

Mr. Van Orden (03:54:59):

Okay. Did it include flying over 170,000 unvetted Afghans and distribute them throughout the country, including the 13,000 that you sent to my district in Fort McCoy, Wisconsin?

(03:55:12)
No. Okay. Where are those Afghans, by the way?

(03:55:18)
We don't know.

(03:55:19)
And I was just giving this note, what you just testified under oath is not true. The ambassador who led the NATO, excuse me, led the Neo said, they weren't operating on a plan. So you just lied under oath.

Anthony Blinken (03:55:33):

That is not true.

Mr. Van Orden (03:55:33):

Okay. Did your plan include intentionally abandoning American citizens and green card holders to terrorists in Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (03:55:41):

Of course not.

Mr. Van Orden (03:55:42):

Did it include unintentionally abandoning American citizens and green card holders to terrorists in Afghanistan?

Anthony Blinken (03:55:51):

No, of course not.

Mr. Van Orden (03:55:52):

Well, it happened, didn't it? Were American citizens and green card holders left in Afghanistan? The answer to that, is correct. How many? You can't tell me.

Anthony Blinken (03:56:05):

And you know why that is.

Mr. Van Orden (03:56:07):

Hey, listen man, I forgot to mention that, like my colleague Corey, I was one of the guys that went to go rescue American citizens.

Anthony Blinken (03:56:12):

All right.

Mr. Van Orden (03:56:12):

So I know you couldn't tell me, we knew and you either didn't know or you lied. And here is my question. You are the Secretary of State now, can you, with Secretary Mayorkas, grant a green card to someone who can absolutely 100% be verified for saving hundreds and hundreds of American service members and risking his life for over a decade, who is currently here under humanitarian parole? Can you guys do that?

Anthony Blinken (03:56:42):

I would be happy to work with you on that.

Mr. Van Orden (03:56:44):

His name is Azizullah Aziz.

Anthony Blinken (03:56:47):

Happy to pursue that with you, Congressman.

Mr. Van Orden (03:56:48):

Thank you very much, sir. And I'll tell you right now, you get this done, it's going to be one of the best things you could possibly do to redeem your reputation and your legacy as Secretary of State. And with that, I yield back.

Chairman McCaul (03:57:04):

Gentleman yields. Let me just say thank you Mr. Secretary for being here. I want to thank you for your service as well. I think you'll be pleased to know this will be the last time you'll appear before this committee as Secretary of State and me as Chairman.

Speaker 8 (03:57:17):

[inaudible 03:57:19].

Chairman McCaul (03:57:19):

And there's been a lot of talk about legacy. I know we've been working on legislation together, called the Overseas Crisis Response Implementation System and Immediate Strategy Act or Overseas Crises. I hope that could be part of your legacy and mine, as we close the chapter on Afghanistan, sir. And I wish you Godspeed to the Middle East and again, thank you for your service.

(03:57:47)
Pursue to committee rules. All members may have five days to submit questions without objection. The committee stands adjourned.

Speaker 9 (03:57:54):

[inaudible 03:57:57]