Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the top coalition commander in Afghanistan said U.S. troops should remain in Afghanistan after 2014 when the major combat mission ends, but he said he has not made a recommendation on the size of that force.
Transcript:
SESSIONS:
All right. I respect that. This is a quote from undersecretary -- former undersecretary of defense Michele Flournoy. Quote, "In Afghanistan right now, there's a huge amount of anxiety about the scale and nature of U.S. commitment long term," close quote.
Do you think there are actions that we can take to eliminate that huge amount of anxiety? And would that not help us be successful?
DUNFORD:
Senator, I absolutely believe there are things we can do, and I absolutely believe that the environment within which the Afghans will assume the lead this year, it's critical that we shape that environment with this idea of commitment.
I mentioned the bilateral security agreement a minute ago. From my perspective, signing the bilateral security agreement -- of course, that takes both the Afghans and the United States to agree on the modalities -- but signing that will be a clear manifestation of our commitment post-2014.
And I do think that continued emphasis on the resources and the commitment we'll provide from the advise and assist and the counterterrorism perspective post-2015 is important. It can't be one day, we make a message and then allow it to go some months before we say it again. I think a constant drumbeat of our commitment post-2014 is necessary to overcome the uncertainty that is very real and very counterproductive inside of Afghanistan right now.
SESSIONS:
This article notes there's a historical paranoia in Afghanistan, a result of the previous abandonment of Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to take over. Do you think that's an accurate assessment, there is a sense of uncertainty and paranoia maybe among the people?
DUNFORD:
Senator, I see evidence of that. You know, I mentioned the age of Afghans. Even those Afghans who weren't alive in 1992 talk about the beginnings of civil war in the 1990s and the desire not to return back to those days.
SESSIONS:
Secretary Flournoy went on to say that spelling out U.S. intentions, including how many troops will stay, would, quote, "reduce counterproductive hedging behavior on the part of various parties in Afghanistan and in the broader region," close quote.
Do you think that's a valuable observation?
DUNFORD:
I think providing a specific range of numbers right now with a demonstrated commitment to the level that we provide support would be helpful.
SESSIONS:
Are you aware that one White House adviser has said no troops may remain in Afghanistan?
DUNFORD:
Senator, I read that in the newspaper.
SESSIONS:
Well, would that create uncertainty in Afghanistan if that were thought to be a reasonable -- a potential policy of the United States?
DUNFORD:
Senator, having no forces and no presence post-2014, in my mind, would undermine our campaign success.
SESSIONS:
Well, in this article -- I just found it to be a pretty good summary of some of the difficult choices we're wrestling with and you're having to deal with. I mean, you're not the commander-in-chief. Ultimately, the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, will decide how many troops are there. You'll make a recommendation up through the chain, is that correct?
DUNFORD:
That's correct, Senator.
SESSIONS:
Well, one of the things that was troubling to me is our commander-in-chief, President Obama, has been there five years, and we've got troops on ground in harm's way right this minute. This is why Mr. Michael O'Hanlon, the defense analyst at Brookings said, in this article on April 2nd, one of the most consistent, I guess, observers of our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, of anybody in America -- I mean, from the beginning he's been observing and commenting and writing about it. And this is the liberal Heritage Foundation. (sic)
He says the absence of a clear message from Obama about continuing U.S. presence in Afghanistan may be an indication -- excuse me. He's not saying this, it's what the writer said. "The absence of a clear message may be an indication that the president has not made up his mind, said Michael O'Hanlon, defense analyst at Brookings. Obviously -- quote, "Obviously, Obama was of two minds about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq after the war ended there, O'Hanlon said. He may have similar ambivalence in Afghanistan."
So if the president is ambivalent about the future -- well, I won't ask you to respond then. I will just say that if the president is ambivalent about the future, what will happen in Afghanistan, I will observe, I think without doubt, it makes your job more difficult and makes success more difficult.
And we've got to get our act together. I think we have to have a clear message. I appreciate your firm view that success is possible. I think that should be the goal, and the goal should not be to meet some political vision of troop levels unconnected to the reality in Afghanistan.
Thank you for your service. We appreciate it -- and all the men and women that serve with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.