U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

87–620 2014

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–88] 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN 

AFGHANISTAN 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 13, 2014 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

ALEXANDER GALLO, Professional Staff Member 

MICHAEL CASEY, Professional Staff Member 

AARON FALK, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2014 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, March 13, 2014, Recent Developments in Afghanistan ...................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, March 13, 2014 ...................................................................................... 37 

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2014 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services .................................................................. 1 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Dunford, Gen Joseph F., USMC, Commander, International Security and 

Assistance Force and U.S. Forces–Afghanistan ................................................ 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Dunford, Gen Joseph F. ................................................................................... 46 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 41 

Smith, Hon. Adam ............................................................................................ 43 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Bridenstine ................................................................................................. 65 

Mr. McKeon ....................................................................................................... 65 

Mrs. Walorski ................................................................................................... 66 

(1) 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 13, 2014. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The committee meets to receive testimony on recent developments in Afghanistan. Joining us 

today is General Joseph Dunford, the Commander of International 

Security and Assistance Force, ISAF, and U.S. forces in Afghanistan. 

General, this committee knows that your mission in Afghanistan 

is at a critical juncture, and we appreciate you taking time to come 

home. We know that you have got lots of demands over there. It 

gives us an important opportunity to find out what is going on. We 

want to thank you for your superb leadership and the things that 

you have been able to accomplish over there. 

Today, approximately 34,000 U.S. troops and approximately 

19,000 international troops from 49 nations continue to work as 

part of an international coalition to help Afghanistan continue its 

transition to self-governance and become a secure and stable nation. 

Yet, as we convene this hearing, the future of our commitment 

to Afghanistan is uncertain. President Karzai is undermining his 

own people’s security. He refuses to sign the bilateral security 

agreement [BSA]. 

Last month, he broke an international commitment by releasing 

65 terrorists held in Afghan custody, all of whom were associated 

with groups who have killed both U.S. troops and Afghan civilians, 

including the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Haqqani Network. 

Last week, we learned President Karzai was disbanding the security force that currently provides static security at U.S. bases 

and logistics convoys in Afghanistan. Afghans and Americans alike 

should be outraged by these tactics. 

But we need not pin our hopes on one man, especially one who 

will no longer be President in just a few months. The Afghan people continue to be amazing allies. The Loya Jirga supported the 

BSA and said it should be signed immediately. That is 2,500 lead-
2 

ers from all around the country representing the people of that nation. Polls show that 70 percent of Afghans want us to stay. 

There is also an election coming up, and many of the presidential 

candidates—or most of them—publicly support the BSA with the 

United States. Afghanistan and the region are extremely complex; 

nonetheless, the United States military continues to execute their 

mission with skill. 

And we continue to have vital national security interests in the 

region. We must ensure that Al Qaeda cannot use Afghanistan as 

a launching pad to attack the United States again. This requires 

a national commitment to see the mission through. That starts 

with the President. 

I recently gave a speech about Afghanistan, and I noted that 

counterinsurgencies have two fronts—the one out there and the one 

right here. The troops and you, General, have held the line out 

there. The President must hold the line here. 

By rarely discussing what is at stake in Afghanistan and allowing public support for the war to erode, the President has lost political capital that could have been used to solve a number of problems. 

On the other hand, I believe a safe and secure Afghanistan is 

within our grasp. The biggest uncertainties we face in Afghanistan 

are no longer military. 

The President has sustained international support for this new 

democracy. He went out and obtained international commitments 

for billions of dollars in aid to help lift them out of despair. 

He kept the coalition of countries willing to send troops to fight 

with us and, as a direct result of his military strategy, Afghanistan 

is freer and America is safer. 

For that, I congratulate him. That is why I think he should talk 

to the American people about it and take credit for that. 

General Dunford, I hope you can help remind the American people and our political decisionmakers here in Washington what is at 

stake. I expect that you will provide this committee, as you do with 

the President, your best military judgment on the post-2014 mission set and associated presence necessary to continue fighting terrorist threats and to sustain a secure environment for the Afghan 

people. And I look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Smith. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join you in welcoming General Dunford here before our 

committee, recognizing the hard work you have to do in Afghanistan and appreciating you taking the time to come back and keep 

us informed, because that is part of the mission as well, is making 

sure that Congress knows what is going on. And I really appreciate 

you taking the time to do that. 

And I also congratulate you and the forces over there that have, 

you know, fought so well for so long and the progress that has been 
3 

made. As the chairman mentioned, we are down to 34,000 U.S. personnel from a peak of just over a hundred thousand; and, yet, during that timeframe, the security situation has arguably gotten at 

least slightly better. It certainly has gotten no worse, which shows 

that the transition to Afghan responsibility for security is, in fact, 

working. 

And the only reason that transition is working is because of the 

hard work that you, the people who serve under you, and our coalition partners have done to train that force and, I think, as importantly, to be willing to let them take over, knowing that, you know, 

given our military is the most capable in the world, there is no way 

that anyone we turn a security job over to is going to do as well 

as we would. 

But we have to do it because they have to be responsible for security in their own country. Long term, a foreign occupying force 

is not going to be able to bring security to Afghanistan. It is going 

to have to be locally driven. You made the tough decisions to begin 

that transition and, by and large, that transition is working. 

Now, we don’t have any illusions here. There is no time soon that 

Afghanistan is going to be, you know, a peaceful place. There are 

still too many factions, still too much violence, and there will be 

long term. Our goal here is not to completely eliminate the insurgency in Afghanistan. 

Our goal is to have a strong enough Afghan security force and 

a strong enough Afghan government that it can stand, that it can 

make sure that it keeps down that insurgency and, as the chairman mentioned, keeps Al Qaeda and other affiliated groups from 

being able to once again find a secure base inside of that country. 

And with that goal in mind, I think we are making an enormous 

amount of progress. 

Now, the key is to successfully complete that transition. And for 

years now I have been a strong advocate of drawing down our presence in Afghanistan. I have not wanted us to stay there as long as 

some others have or in as great of numbers. 

But, nonetheless, I recognize that we have to do that responsibly. 

If in our desire to be rid of this difficult problem we were simply 

to rush towards the exits, we would create an even bigger problem. 

And I think we have done that. I think we are moving in a responsible direction. 

But as the chairman mentioned, we now face some significant 

challenges in completing that, and I would hate to see us, you 

know, lose that orderly transition in the final months and years of 

it. 

President Karzai presents the biggest challenge there. We have 

a bilateral security agreement that the overwhelming majority of 

Afghans support, but the President refuses to sign. We need that 

bilateral security agreement. 

One of the things I will be very interested in hearing your opinion on is if we can, in fact, wait for the next President. The elections are, as mentioned, on April 5. That is the other big part of 

the transition. This will be the first time since the Taliban fell that 

we will have a transition of government in Afghanistan, which is 

always a tricky business. 
4 

So doing that successfully, getting a BSA in place, I think are 

critical, because I do think—if at the end of 2014 all U.S. and coalition troops were pulled out, I think it would be a disaster. 

We need to continue an orderly transition to do that. It seems 

like the number of troops—somewhere between 8,000 and 12,000, 

as has been discussed—makes a great deal of sense, to continue 

with the training mission, to continue support, and continue with 

the counterterrorism mission. 

If for some reason we can’t do that, if the BSA doesn’t get signed, 

I think it will be a huge disaster for Afghanistan and that region 

and our interests. So I hope we can get there. 

I very much appreciate your leadership and the leadership of— 

frankly, of all who have been involved in this, gosh, over 12-, 13- 

year conflict now. After that amount of time, after the sacrifices 

that so many have made, I think it is absolutely critical that we 

get it right as we complete that transition. 

I look forward to your testimony explaining to us how we can 

best do that and how we can support you in that effort. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the Appendix on page 43.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General, you have provided your recommendation for U.S. troops 

to the President. As long as you have come this far, we ought to 

hear your testimony before I jump into questions. Excuse me, General. The time is yours. 

STATEMENT OF GEN JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, USMC, COMMANDER, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND ASSISTANCE 

FORCE AND U.S. FORCES–AFGHANISTAN 

General DUNFORD. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good morning, Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee. 

I do appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning and to 

represent the men and women of the United States Forces–Afghanistan [USFOR–A]. Their courage, commitment, and their performance are a direct reflection of your support, and I am confident that 

no force has ever been better trained and equipped. 

We are now in the final year of the combat mission in Afghanistan, a mission to deny safe haven to Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked our Nation on 9/11. We recognize that our vital national interests are best served by a stable, secure, unified Afghanistan 

from which terrorism cannot emanate. 

We have accomplished much in pursuit of those ends. Since 9/11, 

forces have placed extraordinary pressure on Al Qaeda and extremist networks in Afghanistan. Today, as a result of those efforts, Al 

Qaeda terrorists are focused on survival rather than on planning 

attacks against the West. 

Since 9/11, and with increased emphasis beginning in 2009, we 

have focused on developing Afghan National Security Forces. 

Today, as a result of those efforts, capable and confident Afghan 

forces are securing the Afghan people and the gains that we have 

made over the past decade. 
5 

Since 9/11, we have worked to improve the daily lives of the Afghan people. Today, as a result of those efforts, Afghans have increased access to clean water, electricity, new roads, and education. 

But more important than any sign of progress in Afghanistan, 

the Afghan people have something today they didn’t have in 2001. 

They have hope for the future. 

We have paid the price for those achievements; 1,796 Americans 

and thousands more Afghans and members of the coalition have 

made the ultimate sacrifice. We vow to give their sacrifice meaning 

and to never forget them or their families. 

Some people have questioned our progress and pointed out that 

the overall security situation in Afghanistan didn’t really change 

from 2012 to 2013. That is true. 

And when put into perspective, it is also extraordinary because 

security remained roughly the same with Afghans leading and with 

over 50 percent of the coalition redeploying. 

After watching Afghan forces respond to a variety of challenges 

since they took the lead in June, I don’t believe that the Taliban 

insurgency represents an existential threat to them or the government of Afghanistan. 

I am also confident that they can secure the upcoming presidential election and the nation’s first democratic transfer of power. 

Yet, to make our progress enduring, work remains to build the 

long-term sustainability of the Afghan forces. 

Although the Afghans require less support in conducting security 

operations, they still need assistance in maturing the systems, the 

processes, and the institutions necessary to support a modern national army and police force. 

They also need continued support in addressing capability gaps 

in aviation, intelligence, and special operations. To address these 

gaps, a train, advise, and assist mission will be necessary after this 

year to further develop Afghan self-sustainability. 

A continued counterterrorism mission will also be needed to ensure Al Qaeda remains focused on survival and not on regeneration. Without continued counterterrorism pressure, an emboldened 

Al Qaeda will not only begin to physically reconstitute, but they 

will also exploit their perceived victory to boost recruitment, fundraising, and morale. 

In closing, I think it is fair to ask if we are winning in Afghanistan. And I believe the answer is yes. And several facts allow me 

to say that with confidence. 

First and foremost, our efforts in Afghanistan have pressured the 

terrorist network and have, in fact, prevented another 9/11. 

Second, we have built Afghan security forces that, with increasingly reduced levels of support, are capable of providing security 

and denying terrorists safe haven. 

Third, we are providing a stabilizing influence in a region that 

is providing the time and space for a wide range of complex issues 

to be addressed. 

And, finally, as a result of our efforts, the Afghan people face a 

decade of opportunity within which they can determine their own 

future free of the brutality and the intolerance of the Taliban. Despite all the skepticism surrounding our mission, that looks like 

winning to me. 
6 

Thank you again for the opportunity. 

And, Chairman, I look forward to the questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Dunford can be found in the 

Appendix on page 46.] 

The CHAIRMAN. General, you have provided your recommendation for U.S. troops to the President for the post-2014 mission set, 

which includes the training, advising, and the things that you just 

talked about, assisting the ANSF [Afghan National Security 

Forces] in their counterterrorism and force protection. 

At what level of residual U.S. troop presence would you be unable to conduct the train, advise, and assist mission down to the 

core level of the ANSF? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, last year, in February, the defense 

ministers met in Brussels and identified a mission with a range of 

forces from 8,000 to 12,000. That was just NATO [North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization] trainers. A number over and above that 

would be part of the counterterrorism mission. 

I am comfortable that, within that range of numbers, we can effectively conduct train, advise, assist at the core level and get after 

that issue of self-sustainability that I mentioned in my opening remarks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Should the counterterrorism component of the post-2014 mission 

include going after the Haqqani Network in addition to Al Qaeda? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, my assessment is that the focus of 

a counterterrorism mission post-2014 would be Al Qaeda. But in 

order to maintain viability of the force, we clearly need to protect 

the force—and viability of our bases, we need to protect the force. 

In that context, my assessment is that going after Haqqani 

would be necessary because that will be the greatest threat to the 

force in a post-2015 environment and, in my assessment, will remain the most virulent strain of the insurgency. 

The CHAIRMAN. And should the ANSF be maintained at its 

352,000 surge capacity beyond 2014? And, if so, how long? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, right now my assessment is that 

at least through 2018 it ought to be maintained at 352,000. 

That is based on analysis done—independent analysis done by 

the Center of Naval Analysis, directed by Congress. It is based on 

studies done by the Center of Army Analysis that for the last 2 or 

3 years has worked with us to determine the right size of the force. 

And it is based on also our own assessment. 

And if I could just come back to the Haqqani Network question, 

the important thing is for the committee to realize that today we 

are not conducting any unilateral operations in Afghanistan. 

All the operations are being led by Afghan forces, with the exception of our own force protection operations, sustainment, and redeployment operations. So when I talk about 2015 and the need to 

go after the Haqqani and other organizations, my assessment is 

that would be by and large done by, with, and through Afghan 

forces. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
7 

General, how would you assess at this point the strength of the 

Taliban and the broader insurgency? 

As has been mentioned, since we have drawn down and the Afghans have taken over responsibility, there has not been a significant uptick in violence. Most of the confrontations that have come 

have been successful for the Afghans. 

There is some speculation that the Taliban are choosing not to 

do a full-scale confrontation because they are waiting, basically, for 

us to leave, and there is a whole lot of speculation around this. 

What is your assessment at this point both of the current 

strength of the insurgency and how that is likely to adjust once we 

get to the end of 2014, regardless, frankly, of—you know, let’s assume we keep the 8,000 to 12,000, but we have drawn down significantly as a result of that. Where do you see the insurgency going 

now and then? 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congressman. 

I think the best thing to do is to go back and take a look at what 

the Taliban has tried to do over the past several months and what 

they have been able to do, in answering that question. 

Last spring they came out with their campaign objectives for the 

summer of 2013. They intended to crush the spirit and will of the 

Afghan forces. They intended to seize various district centers in 

order to make a statement of their dominance over the Afghan security forces. 

They intended to create a perception of insecurity across the 

country and to disrupt the political process that began with the announcement of candidates in the fall. And I would summarize last 

summer by saying that they were unsuccessful in doing that. 

This fall they clearly made an effort to disrupt the Loya Jirga, 

where thousands of people came to Kabul to meet to discuss the 

bilateral security agreement. We knew from intelligence that there 

were a number of very, very capable threat streams that had intention to disrupt that event. 

They were unsuccessful in doing that because the Afghan security forces were able to secure the event and, also, to disrupt the 

enemy with activity surrounding the Kabul area. 

Similarly, last week there was a Ghazni Islamic festival. Six 

thousand people from throughout the region came to Afghanistan. 

The enemy had an intention to disrupt that event. They were unsuccessful once again because of the Afghan security forces. 

Physically, I believe today the Afghan security forces have what 

I would describe as tactical overmatch against the Taliban. What 

the Taliban have left remaining are some psychological factors, and 

not the least of which is the one you mentioned, Congressman, 

which is they expect us to leave at the end of 2014. And from my 

perspective, they draw strength from that. 

In the rank-and-file fighters today, that is the message they have 

received from the Taliban leadership, is that this summer is very 

important, the coalition is leaving, the Afghans won’t have the support of the coalition this year, they will be gone by the end of 2015. 

And I think they draw strength from that. 

My sense is that, if a BSA is signed, an enduring presence decision is made, we keep our commitments to Chicago and Tokyo, 

which will resource Afghanistan post-2014, the final remaining 
8 

thing the Taliban have today, which is those psychological factors 

in their favor, they won’t have those anymore. 

Mr. SMITH. And one of the big issues for me is the support that 

the Afghans are going to have as we draw down, once we get down 

to that 8,000, 12,000 level. 

In particular, you know, in all of these fights, the close air support that we can provide is enormously important, and the Afghan 

people, the Afghan military, just—they don’t have hardly any of 

that type of close air support. 

Once we get to the end of 2014, is it anticipated that we are 

going to be able to continue to have some C–17s, helicopters, some 

of our own equipment there that will be able to provide that close 

air support? 

Because I know that the Afghans—they have got like four attack 

helicopters in the entire country right now and some others and 

their jet fighters are not going to be online until 2017, 2018, something like that. 

How do you see—number one, how critical is the air support 

issue going forward? And, number two, how do you envision that 

being provided for the Afghan forces 2015 and beyond? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thanks. 

The Afghans, as you pointed out, they won’t have their fixedwing capability until 2015. We actually this year will begin to deliver the A–29, which is going to be their attack aircraft. There will 

be 20 of those delivered. And we will complete delivery of those in 

2015. But the full aviation enterprise won’t be integrated for some 

time after that. 

Mr. SMITH. Training the pilots and basically—— 

General DUNFORD. Training the pilots and the logistics enterprise. 

What is important is that we also have worked very hard to deliver a very capable artillery force to the Afghans, mortars as well 

as a mobile strike vehicle. All of those are intended to provide fire 

support for the Afghans to compensate for a lack of close air support. 

Whether or not we will provide close air support in 2015 is a policy decision. That decision has not been made yet by the President. 

The assessment is that we will do all we can to make sure the 

Afghans can survive on their own, keeping in mind the Taliban 

also don’t have any aviation support. 

And, frankly, the Afghans have an extraordinary asymmetric advantage in the combined arms capability that we have delivered to 

them over the last couple of years, again, not the least of which is 

D–30 artillery, the mortars, and the mobile strike vehicle. 

Mr. SMITH. Can you give us also—just last question—a quick 

word on Pakistan, how the relationship is with Pakistan and Afghanistan now, and how—the cross-border traffic, the ability to 

control, you know, the insurgents as they move back and forth 

across the Pakistan border. How is that relationship at this point? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, clearly the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan is going to be important for us to 

achieve our ends. 

Over the last year, I have been encouraged by a couple things at 

the political level. Prime Minister Sharif and President Karzai 
9 

have met four times. That is probably unprecedented over the last 

several years in terms of engagement at that level. 

We have also had an effective mil-to-mil relationship, military-tomilitary relationship, between the Afghans and the Pakistanis that 

we have tried to facilitate. It has been in fits and starts, frankly, 

in 2013, for a variety of reasons. 

But I met about 6 weeks ago with the new chief of the army staff 

in Pakistan, General Raheel Sharif. He is committed to improving 

the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

The one thing I think I am most encouraged with is I believe 

Pakistan recognizes the existential threat that extremism presents 

to Pakistan; so, they believe today that a stable, secure Afghanistan is in their best interests. 

And as you addressed, the border area is important in that regard. And they no more want the TTP, or the Pakistani Taliban, 

to have safe haven inside of Afghanistan than the Afghans want 

the Afghan Taliban to have safe haven inside of Pakistan. 

I am encouraged right now by the conversation that is focused 

on two particular areas. First and foremost, the Ministers of Interior have met to discuss the issue of extremism and, also, the 

broader border management issues that start with the political 

issues, the economic issues, and the security issues. 

So we have good momentum. I wouldn’t tell you that we are 

weeks or months away from a major breakthrough or that we are 

weeks and months away from a true partnership between the two 

countries. 

But I think we have got to the point where they recognize that 

it is in their common interests to deal with the threat of extremism 

and to improve the regime along the border. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, General. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Thornberry. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, General, thank you for being here. 

When he was here last week, General Austin said—I think this 

is pretty close to a direct quote—that, without our presence in Afghanistan, the Afghan Army would fracture. 

And I would like to know whether you agree with that. And what 

are the consequences to Afghanistan and to us if we are not there 

and the Afghan Army does indeed fracture? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thank you. 

My assessment is that, if we are not there after 2014, the Afghan 

security forces will immediately begin to deteriorate and, largely, 

that is because of what I mentioned in my opening statement, the 

systems, the processes, these institutions that allow them to sustain themselves. 

Things like spare parts, fuel, oversight of contracts, ammunition 

distribution, those are the areas that we are focused on working on 

right now. 

When the Afghan security forces begin to deteriorate over time, 

the Afghan environment as a whole will begin to deteriorate. 
10 

And my assessment is that what we will see is, in fact, a fracture 

in the Army over time and, as importantly, deteriorating security 

conditions. 

And I think the only question after 2014 is the pace of deterioration of both the Afghan security forces and the environment as a 

whole. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay. Well, give me the other side. 

If we stay, 8,000 to 12,000, plus counterterrorism, what is your 

prognosis for the Afghan security forces? And how long would we 

need to be there to provide that stability for them? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, there is four main areas that 

I would focus on in terms of capability gaps that will exist after 

2014. 

The intelligence enterprise is one. The aviation enterprise is another; we spoke about that a minute ago. Their special operations 

capability, which obviously requires both the aviation enterprise 

and the intelligence enterprise to be integrated. And then what I 

have touched on is what I would describe as the capacity of the 

ministries to actually sustain tactical-level forces. 

My assessment is that, with the training mission that is envisioned, we can ensure that the connection is made between the 

ministerial level and the tactical level so spare parts can, in fact, 

be acquired and distributed, so fuel can be acquired and distributed, so we can have a pay system that is in place. 

So my assessment is that we can do that over the course of a 

couple years. And, frankly, our presence will change over time. It 

is largely conditions-based in the sense that there are certain 

things that I believe we can do in 2015. Our forces would then adjust in 2016 and continue to adjust over time. 

But I would also say this, that my assessment is that we have 

vital national interests in the region and, although the nature of 

our engagement will change over time and the size of our presence 

will change over time, I don’t see a time when we will walk away 

from the region. 

We will be engaged at some level, even if it is a small presence 

inside the embassy with an office of security cooperation and perhaps with joint exercises and military exchanges and those things 

that will allow us to continue to sustain what we have been doing 

over the past decade, albeit at a much smaller price and a much 

smaller presence. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay. Finally, would you briefly comment on 

getting stuff out of there. Obviously, it is an enormous job to get 

equipment and so forth out of Afghanistan. Some things we are 

turning over to them. 

There are reports that we are destroying some things rather 

than turn it over to the Afghans. Can you just briefly comment on 

that effort. 

General DUNFORD. First, Congressman, I am very confident with 

where we are with the retrograde as a whole. 

And to put that in some perspective, at the height of the surge 

in 2012, we had about 800 pieces of tactical infrastructure. Those 

are bases down to patrol bases. Today we have approximately 80. 

So we have 10 percent of the footprint that we had in 2012. 
11 

A little over a year ago we had almost 40,000 vehicles that needed to come back to the services to be reset. We have less than 

10,000 that are in place today. 

And as I mentioned earlier, we have got about 33,000 forces, 

American, today, and we had well over a hundred thousand at the 

beginning of the surge. 

So the retrograde and redeployment has gone apace, and I am 

very confident that we will meet our objectives in 2014. 

With regard to equipment that is being destroyed, I can assure 

the committee that today no equipment that is serviceable is being 

destroyed. 

We do have 4,000 pieces of equipment that have been identified 

as excess defense articles. So after we have gone to the services 

and we have said, ‘‘What is it that you need to have returned back 

home to reset the service?’’—after they have identified those requirements, there is 4,000 vehicles left, 1,200 of which are MRAPs 

[Mine-Resistant, Ambush Protected vehicles]. 

It costs us a little less than $10,000 to destroy an MRAP. It costs 

us somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 to actually move that 

MRAP. 

If we wanted to give it to another country, that country would 

have to accept the MRAPs as is, where is. In other words, they 

would have to pay for anything to get that vehicle serviceable again 

and, also, to move that vehicle to their country. 

So we are in the process right now, Congressman, of making 

sure, number one, that the services have revalidated their requirements and we get everything back to the United States that is necessary to reset the force for the next crisis or contingency. 

Number two, we are looking at alternatives to provide these vehicles to partners, to include Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other 

partners that have participated in operations with us right now. 

And if we make a decision to destroy some of those vehicles, it 

will be after carefully thinking through the cost-benefit of bringing 

those vehicles back to the United States in excess of the original 

requirement or destroying them in Afghanistan, keeping in mind 

that these vehicles have already done the primary thing we wanted 

them to do, which is keep our young men and women alive over 

the past decade. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, General Dunford, for being here and for your 

service, all the hard work in Afghanistan. 

I know my colleagues have already mentioned several areas in 

which we have some question about the ability of the Afghan security forces to sustain and to continue to build. 

Certainly the air force is one particular area. Logistics is another, where how comfortable are we that they have enough in 

place to be able to move forward with that. 

But I also wanted to ask about the women in the Afghan security 

forces. We have put aside some money to direct that effort and to 

hope that the recruitment and retention of women will continue in 

the Afghan security forces. 
12 

Do you think that, once the U.S. forces are gone, that that will 

also continue? 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, I believe, if we stay and we 

accomplish the mission that is envisioned for train, advise, assist, 

we will continue to see progress in that area. 

And I could point to an example right now. In the Ministry of 

Interior, we have 13,000 women that have been selected to be 

searchers at the polling stations during the elections. 

And I recently met with the Minister of Interior as we talked 

about the challenges that he had in meeting his stated goal of 

5,000 women in the Ministry of Interior in the next 2 years and 

10,000 by 2017. 

And he very quickly pointed out that what he would do is focus 

on these 13,000 female searchers as a pool from which he could 

draw additional police. 

And I will add that he just recently appointed the first female 

police chief in Afghanistan and there is a second one under consideration. 

The progress has been very slow. We identified some years ago 

a goal of 10 percent women in the Afghan National Security Forces. 

We are at less than 1 percent today. 

And so the progress is very slow. There is about 1,800 women in 

the Ministry of Interior and about 600 in the Ministry of Defense. 

I believe that the Afghan leadership today, in part because of the 

support we provided and the $25 million that you have identified, 

Congresswoman, that is specifically designed to assist our recruiting and retention efforts—and both of those are equally important. 

Not only do we need to incentivize women—and it is very difficult culturally, of course, to incentivize them to join—but we need 

to then set the conditions to where they are encouraged to stay. 

Mrs. DAVIS. May I ask, General, do you see institutional reforms 

occurring as well along with that, along with the recruitment and 

the work certainly in terms of some of the women, even minor 

changes like the building and how they accommodate women? 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, that is exactly where some 

of the money that the Congress has allocated is going. They seem 

simple, but they are important. Separate changing facilities or separate restroom facilities for Afghan women in a police station. Very 

difficult if those things aren’t available to them. 

And so that is where some of the money will go. And, of course, 

that will make it much more attractive for a woman to pursue a 

career as a policewoman or a soldier if those kind of facilities are 

available. And I do see, again, small, incremental, and slow, but 

change, nonetheless. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

I wonder if you could clarify just quickly the timeline for getting 

the BSA signed. And I believe you made a statement that you are 

comfortable if that occurs after the election. There is also a chance 

that the results may not be known or a new president in place 

until even September or after that. 

What is our—do we have some not necessarily drop-dead dates? 

But how do you see that? And can we continue with the agreement 

that is in place today? 
13 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, first I would say I want the 

BSA to be signed immediately. And it goes beyond the planning for 

a military retrograde and redeployment. 

First of all, it affects confidence of the Afghan people. It affects 

the confidence of the Afghan National Security Forces. I think it 

affects hedging behavior in the region, as they are uncertain as to 

what Afghanistan will look like in 2015. 

I am also concerned about holding the coalition together over 

months of uncertainty, and I think that is very, very important. I 

was encouraged by my recent meeting in Brussels in that regard, 

but holding the coalition together. 

The other factor—and these are all interdependent variables that 

reflect the BSA—is the retrograde and redeployment. 

I am most comfortable with the delay in signing the BSA in our 

ability to maintain options for the President over the next several 

months, and I feel like we won’t approach an area of high risk until 

September. In other words, I can maintain all options that the 

President may want to select from through the summer. 

As you get towards September, you enter a period of high risk 

simply because of how much work has to be done to redeploy the 

force and how many days you have left to do it, which is why that 

is a period of high risk. 

But we can sign the BSA with the next president. My assumption is that we will sign the BSA with the next president, largely 

because all the primary candidates have said they will sign the 

BSA and because of the overwhelming support for the BSA that we 

see inside of Afghanistan. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And, General, thank you for your service, your leadership. 

And I would like to read a statement and then ask you a question. This is from an article called ‘‘Money Pit: The Monstrous Failure of US Aid to Afghanistan.’’ 

I realize that is not your area of responsibility; so, I want to 

make that clear to start with. 

The article says: Nonmilitary funds Washington has appropriated since 2002 is approximately $100 billion, more than the 

United States ever spent to rebuild a country. That estimate came 

out in July. Since then, Congress has appropriated another $16.5 

billion for reconstruction. And all of that has not bought the United 

States or Afghans a single sustainable institution or program. 

This is an article that came out this week in the ‘‘New York 

Times.’’ It says ‘‘Warlords with Dark Pasts Battle in Afghan Election.’’ 

General Dunford, again, you and your staff and your marines 

and soldiers and everyone else in uniform have done a magnificent 

job. 

But as Ms. Davis was talking about the election coming in April 

and then results not known until September, the Afghan security 

forces—I think, in the 12 years we have been there, every general 
14 

that has been here or every admiral has always said we are making progress, but it is slow and it is fragile. 

I look at and listened to my chairman recently talking about all 

the cuts that are coming to the Department of Defense. I have listened to Secretary Hagel, who I have great respect for, as well as 

the chairman, talking about the cuts that are coming. And we 

know we will be faced with this in the April, May, June, July timeframe, I am sure. 

At what point—do you ever have one-on-one conversations with 

the President of the United States about Afghanistan? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, I have discussed Afghanistan 

with the President a few times over the past year. 

Mr. JONES. Okay. May I ask just how recent? And I am not going 

to ask any details, but just how recent. 

General DUNFORD. I was in the Oval Office with the President 

at the beginning of February. 

Mr. JONES. Okay. February. 

Well, if, by chance—and I know you have the knowledge because 

of who you are and intelligence and relationships that you have in 

Afghanistan—if an unfriendly leader is elected, more unfriendly 

than Karzai, who maybe has a similar background to Karzai, which 

is very questionable at best—he has soaked the American people 

for millions and millions of dollars, maybe billions by now, and we 

continue to give them money—would you believe that there would 

come a time that we need to be very careful with future commitments if the person elected to lead Afghanistan is less trustworthy 

than Karzai? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, I believe our presence after 

2014 is inextricably linked to our ability to have a partnership with 

the new government of Afghanistan, and that partnership has to 

be able to facilitate our counterterrorism goals and it also has to 

be able to support the progress that we have made to date with regard to the Afghan security forces. 

And I would just point out that, of the three leading candidates, 

all three have indicated strong support for a continued U.S. presence, strong support for continued coalition presence, and a recognition that that presence is necessary to move Afghanistan forward. 

Mr. JONES. General, I know at one time—and I think we, as a 

government—you had nothing do with it; the military had nothing 

do with it—I think we felt that Karzai was going to be our friend, 

too. 

I don’t question your statement at all, sir. I have too much respect for you, and you have more knowledge than I do. But I think, 

again, the American people are tired. The financial problems facing 

our country are probably more complex and enormous than we 

have ever had. 

And I hope that the leadership of the Congress, as well as the 

leadership in the military, will be, as you have been, sir—be honest 

and frank with the American people, because they are tired of seeing their money and seeing the waste, fraud, and abuse in Afghanistan, and, yet, the military has done a magnificent job. 

My time is up. Thank you for allowing me to make these statements to you, and thank you for your responses. 
15 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to yield my time to Mr. Veasey of Texas. I would 

like to yield my time to Mr. Veasey. 

The CHAIRMAN. To? 

Mr. LARSEN. Mr. Veasey. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Veasey is recognized for the remainder of 

Mr. Larsen’s 5 minutes. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Dunford, I wanted to ask you how long it will take to 

get all the elements of the Afghan National Security Forces up to 

the level where they can conduct their missions themselves. 

And let me give you an example of what I am talking about. The 

Afghan Air Force lags well behind the other elements of the force. 

And I wanted to know, for instance, how long will our Air Force 

be required to have assistance in the form of a U.S. presence? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thanks. 

Our current plan has the air force—the work that we are doing 

with the Afghan Air Force being complete in 2017. But I would 

quickly point out that today we have 58 Mi-17s that are flying in 

full support of the Afghan forces. We have 20 light—what are 

called C–208s, light aircraft that can be used for everything from 

CASEVAC [casualty evacuation] to moving troops. We have four attack helicopters. And we have delivered two C–130s. 

And so, while the air force will be complete in 2017, it is very 

much operational right now. In fact, a special operations capability 

that the Afghan Air Force has today in the form of the Special Mission Wing is flying profiles that are as mature and as complex as 

those that I saw as a captain in the 1980s. And so, while we will 

be finished in 2017, the Afghan Air Force is very much capable 

today. 

No decision has been made as to whether or not our aviation capability would be available to the Afghans after 2015, which is why 

we are working so hard on making sure that those aircraft platforms that we just spoke about are fully integrated, and, also, that, 

from a fire support perspective, they have alternatives, to include 

their artillery, their mobile strike vehicles, mortars, and other combined arms capability that will allow them to compensate for a lack 

of close air support. 

Mr. VEASEY. So it is your opinion that, although we are going to 

be helping them until, what—that 2017 date I think is what you 

stated a second ago—that it is realistic to think that they can take 

over all the required functions by themselves by, like—do you think 

they are ready now? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, the biggest—it is not a problem 

delivering an airplane and it is not a problem creating a pilot. We 

are working through those. 

And we—in the United States, we have a ratio of 1.5 pilots to 

aircraft, and we will have that established in Afghanistan in 2015. 

The real difficulty is creating the aviation enterprise that sustains airplanes. It is the maintainers. It is the logistics system and 

so forth. And so my assessment is that we will be working on that 

for a couple more years. 
16 

Even as the Afghans independently fly missions and support the 

Afghan Army, we will be helping them develop the logistics enterprise that will allow them to be self-sustaining in the future. 

Mr. VEASEY. I also wanted to ask you about the train, advise, 

and assist mission post-2014. And how much risk do you see in 

that particular mission if we have a force of about 10,000 people? 

General DUNFORD. I would assess, if we are able to provide train, 

advise, assist at the core level—and that NATO mission of 8,000 

to 12,000 would allow us to do that—that the risk is moderate, and 

that is moderate risk to both the force and to the mission. 

Mr. VEASEY. Is there something else that you think that we could 

do to reduce that risk and to move it out of the moderate level? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, I don’t. In Afghanistan in 2015, 

just like today, it will be a combat environment. And I can’t imagine that it would ever get better than moderate risk in a combat 

environment with all of the other interdependent variables that are 

going to affect our progress in Afghanistan. 

Mr. VEASEY. Are there any particular areas where you would like 

to see an enhanced effort? 

General DUNFORD. At this time, Congressman, I am comfortable 

with the range of options that have been provided to the President. 

And we are, of course, waiting for a decision. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, General, thank you very much for your service. I know firsthand the faith that the service members have in your service. My 

youngest son just returned from being an engineer serving under 

your command in Afghanistan last year. 

My wife and I just felt very confident knowing of your leadership. 

And it has turned out to be a very extraordinary experience for my 

son, who has now returned to his civilian employment. But thank 

you very much. 

Also, the people of South Carolina have a bond with the people 

of Afghanistan. We were really grateful that the 218th Brigade 

that I had served in for 25 years—that they served out of Camp 

Phoenix, across the country, working with the security forces under 

the leadership of General Bob Livingston, who is now our adjutant 

general. 

He has identified that, working with the Afghan security forces, 

it was a bonding together with Afghan brothers to provide security 

for the people of Afghanistan. 

I am very appreciative. Chairman McKeon has raised this, and 

that is that the people of Afghanistan are appreciative and support 

the efforts by our forces, NATO forces, and—nearly 70 percent, as 

identified by the chairman. Additionally, there was the vote by the 

Loya Jirga indicating a continuation of support. 

What is your view of the feelings of the Afghan people toward 

the American and NATO forces? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, in addition to what you just 

mentioned—and that is the polling data that is somewhere between 

65 and 80 percent—and that includes Afghan media polling data 
17 

that support the BSA and support a continued presence—what I 

have seen in my time in Afghanistan is overwhelming appreciation 

and recognition for the contribution and the sacrifice of Americans 

and the coalition as a whole. And I think the Loya Jirga speaks 

to that. 

But I would probably just share with you one anecdote. Two 

weeks ago Monday, I met with nine members of the Afghan Parliament, and they were the oversight committees for the Afghan security forces. I told them I was coming back to testify, and I said, 

‘‘What message should I carry back with me?’’ 

And the message they asked me to carry back was to say that, 

first, ‘‘Don’t let one man speak for Afghanistan or the Afghan people. The Afghan people recognize and appreciate, again, the sacrifice that you have made. Please let them know that, as much as 

we appreciate it, we also recognize that that commitment needs to 

continue in the future in order for us to realize the objectives that 

we set out together some years ago, and those objectives include 

both the protection of the United States and the advancement of 

the Afghan people.’’ 

So I have no doubt that the vast majority of the Afghans, you 

know, upwards of 80 percent, fully support our presence right now, 

and, as importantly, again, recognize what we have done over the 

last few years for them and their people. 

Mr. WILSON. And that is a tribute to our military, their service. 

And, also, USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development]. 

I visited there 12 times. It has always been impressive to me to see 

the clasped hands of the U.S. flag and Afghan flag. And I noticed 

that the signs are rusty, which means they have been there for a 

while. If the people didn’t want it, it would be easy to take it down. 

I took that as a real sign of appreciation. 

Our President has been correct. There is such an interconnection 

of the threat by the Taliban to Afghanistan, but, also, to the people 

and government of Pakistan, and it has been ever-changing. 

But what is the latest in regard to Pakistani efforts in fighting 

terrorism and resisting terrorism in their country? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thanks. 

And it is critical that we develop an effective relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan. From a military campaign perspective, one of the objectives that we have and one of the elements 

that I describe as what winning looks like is to establish a constructive military-to-military relationship between Pakistan and 

Afghanistan so that their efforts in dealing with the dynamic of extremism in the region are complementary. 

We have made progress over the past year. I am more optimistic 

as I look at the next several months than when I look backwards. 

And part of that is because, again, of the commitment that we have 

from the new chief of the army staff, the commitment from the new 

Prime Minister of Pakistan, his efforts to reach out to his counterpart in Afghanistan and to the Afghan people and, frankly, some 

of the initiatives that have even taken place over the last few 

weeks, to include, as I might have mentioned a minute ago, the 

Minister of Interior from Afghanistan meeting with his counterpart 

in Pakistan to work on a border management framework that addresses not only the security challenges that confront both coun-
18 

tries, but, also, the political and economic aspects of their shared 

border area. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, it certainly would be to the mutual advantage 

of the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan and, truly, the world. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General Dunford, thank you for your outstanding service to our 

Nation and your steadfast leadership in a dynamic theater and for 

your testimony today. 

I guess my question would be more or less to enhance what my 

colleague from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, has asked you. 

I am interested in your perspective on what role that Asian partners, particularly India, can play over the next 5 and 10 years in 

Afghanistan. Would this be helpful or harmful to long-term U.S. 

efforts? 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, I think India’s role in Afghanistan is critical. India is a very close partner to Afghanistan 

and, I think, from an economic perspective and from a trade perspective, probably their most important partner in the region right 

now. 

They are not providing lethal aid to Afghanistan as a result of 

dynamics in the region. They certainly—Pakistan would certainly 

be concerned with that. But I think India can play a very important role diplomatically and economically in particular and, in fact, 

they are doing that. 

They have a very close relationship with the Afghan people. And 

even with the Afghan security forces, they have assisted in the 

sense of providing some nonlethal support—helicopters and parts— 

and some training that will help our efforts to grow Afghan security forces. 

So I think India is a very important partner in that regard. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So would it be helpful or harmful to our longterm U.S. efforts? What would be the answer to that? 

General DUNFORD. No. Thanks, Congresswoman. It would be 

very helpful. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. 

My next question is: From your viewpoint, what still remains to 

be done in terms of reconstruction? What steps could we in Congress take to ensure that those dollars are used effectively? And 

are there any partnership programs or tools that have been particularly effective that we need to continue or enhance? 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, at this point, with regard to 

reconstruction—and I will talk just to the DOD [Department of Defense] mission and the Afghan National Security Forces—we are 

very close to completing the program of record, the plan that was 

laid out some years ago for the infrastructure necessary to support 

the Afghan forces. 

We will actually have 32 projects remaining in 2015. Those are 

a combination of Afghan police projects and Afghan Army projects. 

We will be in a position to provide proper oversight for the majority 

of those projects, and we will use the plan that we are working 
19 

with the State Department to use Afghans to provide oversight for 

the balance of those programs. 

So in terms of oversight, I think we are in a position where we 

can share with you the entire program of record. We can tell you 

where we are today. We can tell you where we are going to be 

through 2016. And, again, as I mentioned, it is really—as a portion 

of the program as a whole, a very small percentage of the program 

is remaining to be completed. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

And one last question. This has to do with the election April 5. 

There has been some talk that the present administration may 

want to continue on. Do you hear that or is that just something 

that is—I am sure he would want to play an important role with 

whoever is being elected. But is there still that talk going on, that 

he may try to seek another term? 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, what President Karzai has 

said publicly is that he believes that political transition is an important part of his legacy. 

And all that I have seen over the last few months in terms of 

preparations for elections on the 5th of April, the legislation that 

was passed, the registration process that took place, the physical 

distribution of ballot materials and all those kinds of things, indicate to me that we will have elections on the 5th of April. And that 

also includes the security planning that is taking place in support 

of those elections. 

So I feel very confident that we will have elections on the 5th of 

April, you know, just some few weeks from now. 

Ms. BORDALLO. But he does expect to play some kind of a role 

in the coming election? 

General DUNFORD. Well, I think President Karzai is still a relatively young man and an important political figure in Afghanistan 

and would want to maintain influence in Afghanistan after his 

term of office is expired. I think that is probably fair. 

And certainly things that we have seen and hear him say would 

indicate that is the case. But I don’t see anything that would indicate that elections won’t be conducted and there won’t be another 

president. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, General, for your answers. 

And I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Dunford, every time we have had a hearing on Afghanistan I have tried to raise the issue of the narcotics trade. 

I think so many times it is pushed aside in importance and its 

effects on Afghanistan both in instability of the country and the 

government, corruption, funding of insurgencies, stunting the 

growth of a real economic base by providing an alternative economy, and certainly supporting significant criminal activity also 

within the country itself. 

Now, there has been a long discussion of how we address the 

issue of the drug trade. If you look historically at the production 

of, you know, poppies in Afghanistan, you see that the historical 

level of poppy production was actually doubled after we went into 
20 

the country and then there has been times where we have been 

able to have an impact, have a dip in the overall level of production, and times, of course, where it has surged. 

Some of the strategies we have used is to go after the labs, the 

fields, the cash, the transportation routes, demands, the leaders, 

and looking for alternative crops. But still we struggle with the 

level of narcotics being at a very high rate. 

Could you give us an update as to where we stand. Do you see 

it remaining as a concern? And then, also, I would like to discuss— 

have you discuss the issue of what happens if the United States 

withdraws. Are the Afghans able to continue the efforts that we 

have? And what do we need to do better? 

Thank you, General. 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, I think you captured it. 

I mean, it would be hard to look at where we are today with the 

narcotics problem in Afghanistan and say that what we have done 

has worked. 

Our focus, on a military perspective, has been to go after where 

there is a nexus between the insurgency and narcotics. We focused 

on that to try to disrupt insurgent financing. 

But in terms of the broader problem of narcotics, it has increased 

over time. It is larger today than it was a few years ago, and I do 

think that there is a need to address that challenge. Otherwise, it 

will have an adverse impact on the future of Afghanistan and the 

region and those nations that suffer from the plight of narcotics 

being distributed in their countries. 

And while, you know, a large part of that makes its way to Europe and Russia and lesser it makes its way to the United States, 

I have certainly also taken note from a distance—but I have taken 

note of the increased heroin challenge here in the United States. 

So, clearly, the narcotics issue in Afghanistan is one that ought 

to be addressed, but our progress to date has not been very good. 

It has not been, again, a part of the military mission except where 

there is a nexus between the insurgency and narcotics. 

Mr. TURNER. Well, I am very concerned about that. Perhaps you 

can give us some additional insight as to what you think needs to 

be done, recognizing what you just said is that you have not been 

given the clear assignment. 

You have to, however, you know, be waving the flag of a need 

to address the issue through the, you know, structures that you 

have in front of you with counternarcotics operations. You know, 

you are here to tell us what you need and what needs to be done. 

What do you see or what would your recommendation be? What 

don’t you have? What needs to happen? You gave a compelling 

statement of this goes right to the heart of, you know, one of the 

issues that you have concerns about. What should we do? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, where I have seen progress— 

and I didn’t mention this—is growing the capacity of the Afghan 

counternarcotics forces. And so we have had some great work done 

by the DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration], which we have 

supported over time. 

The Special Mission Wing has been established, in part, with 

some narcotics funding to go after distribution and so forth. And 
21 

those have all been good, and I think we need to continue to do 

those things. 

I don’t personally have an easy solution for dealing with the narcotics challenge in Afghanistan. I don’t think it is just a U.S. problem. I think this has to be certainly maybe some U.S. leadership. 

But that is a broader issue that the region needs to grip and deal 

with. And certainly those countries like Russia that suffer the most 

from the narcotics problem also have to be part of the solution. 

But I don’t see a military solution to the narcotics problem in Afghanistan right now, and I don’t see a solution that the United 

States can either, in large part or in whole, support. I think this 

has to be something that is done by, again, primarily the countries 

in the region and those that suffer the most from narcotics. 

Mr. TURNER. General, I would just ask that you move this item 

up the list of problems that are identified that you are facing in 

Afghanistan. 

Even if you don’t have the solution, you are shackled with the 

problem, and I think so many times when we receive presentations 

on Afghanistan this is a portion of the problem that is not highlighted sufficiently. 

So I would appreciate both your efforts and, you know, others to 

continue to raise this so that we can address it, because I don’t 

think you will ever or we will ever or the Afghans will ever have 

success in Afghanistan until this issue is addressed. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, General Dunford, for being here. 

I have been a Member of Congress now for a little over 6 years, 

and as a Member, I have made about five trips to Afghanistan, like 

so many on this committee who feel how important it is that we 

do go there. And in our last trip, we were so fortunate to meet with 

you, and I thank you for meeting with us. 

It was part of a mothers delegation on behalf of Mother’s Day. 

And we go with a dual track, really, of getting an update on the 

situation on the ground, but also, we have a unique opportunity 

and do seek out ways in which we can connect with Afghan women 

to see how their lives have changed as a result of our presence 

there. 

And in every instance, we really meet remarkable women. We 

have met cadets at the country’s military academy, we have met 

staff members at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, we have met university students, we have met government officials, we have met community leaders. So it is clear that as a result of all of our presence 

there, we have created a more open society and that women are 

more fully participating in many meaningful ways in their country’s life. 

And I think I always come away thinking how important it is. 

We take pride in these gains. I think we should rightfully take 

pride in these gains, but we all know how fragile they are, like so 

many other things in their country. And I hear always a really 

deep concern from the women we meet with as to what will happen 
22 

as our presence, as we draw down. They are so grateful for their 

ability to contribute to their country’s life, but deeply concerned. 

And I think the upcoming elections are critically important to the 

future of women’s participation in their country’s lives. And I think 

that it is so important that women, Afghan women are fully able 

to vote and participate in a choice about the future of their country 

without fearing for their own security. 

So I was pleased to read in your written testimony about your 

confidence in the Afghan National Security Force’s ability to support a secure election. And the biannual 1230 report mentions that 

there are approximately 22,000 polling centers and stations in Afghanistan for use during the April election, but that in November, 

the ANSF had only 2,000 women members, which you referenced, 

to assist with security operation during the elections. 

So can you outline—and you also mentioned an additional 13,000 

people that have been recruited. So can you talk about what we are 

doing to make sure that all these polling stations and centers are 

places in which women can go to vote. 

The report also said, you know, what is at stake here. Quote, 

‘‘failure to recruit more women could deter female voter turnout, 

harming the legitimacy of those elected to office in 2014.’’ So it is 

about a number of things, but in particular, the legitimacy of the 

government going forward, and if women are not able to participate 

in a meaningful way, that will really be drawn into question. 

General DUNFORD. Thank you, Congresswoman. And we consider 

successful elections, the words we use are ‘‘inclusive,’’ ‘‘transparent,’’ and ‘‘credible,’’ and the inclusive part is the one you are 

obviously addressing, the one that we mostly focus on from security 

perspective. 

You mentioned the 20,000 polling centers; about 40 percent of 

those will be women only. So that is one way that we will be able 

to see an opportunity for women to vote. Those 13,000 female 

searchers will allow women to vote at the polling stations and the 

polling centers. There’s 6,775 polling centers across the country; 

there will be access women at those centers. But what you really 

talked about are the stations. Those are the places in some of the 

smaller areas and so forth, and, again, 40 percent of those will 

have access as a result of these 13,000 women that have been 

trained now to be female searchers and really be there to make 

sure that the polling centers are accessible to women. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Do you feel you have the support of the Karzai 

government in this? Is this something we are having to take on? 

What is your sense of that? 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, you will be glad to know 

that we did not have anything to do with the 13,000 female searchers. This was a program that we certainly supported and our Congress supported, but the Minister of Interior is the one that has responsibility for the elections. He is the individual that set up the 

program to train the female searchers and to make sure they were 

properly distributed, and he worked with the Independent Elections Commission to make sure that the polling centers were available to women in that 40 percent, I mentioned to you that were 

women only would be there for inclusive election. 
23 

So I very much see this as an Afghan-owned election. We have 

certainly provided some logistic support, but in terms of accessibility to women, I think that has very much been an initiative by 

the governor of Afghanistan, and I think there is a recognition by 

the governor of Afghanistan that to look back on these elections 

and say they were successful will in part be determined by the 

inclusivity to include women’s participation. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, General. My time is up. 

Mr. THORNBERRY [presiding]. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General Dunford, thank you so much for joining us today. Thank 

you for your service to our Nation. How would you characterize the 

ANSF’s ability to maintain infrastructure and equipment currently, 

and what their capacity may be in the future? We all know that 

there is some question about their mentality in maintaining what 

we have given them and how they would use it in the future. 

Obviously, as far as sustainability for the operations, we would 

like to see them pursue to maintain security in the nation. How do 

you see that now? What do you think might need to be improved 

with that? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thank you for that question. 

You know, I think it is fair to say that over the last couple years 

we really focused on the quantity of the Afghan forces. We doubled 

the size of the Afghan forces just since 2009 alone. And along the 

way, there was some challenges with the quality of the force, one 

of which is the one you are talking about. 

But you mentioned the mentality, that has not been a part of the 

logistics challenges from my perspective of the Afghan forces. In 

fact, when you come over in the next couple of weeks, you know, 

you will have an opportunity perhaps to see some young Afghans. 

And given the parts and the opportunity, they can fix anything. 

And so I am very impressed with what goes on at the lower tactical 

level in terms of their desire to fix their equipment and their ability to fix their equipment. 

What we really have a shortfall on is the planning, the programming, the budgeting, the acquisition of materials that eventually 

allow a part to be delivered down into a motor pool where a young 

mechanic can actually hang that part and get the vehicle back in 

a high state of readiness. 

And so the piece that we need to really fix is, we need to train 

the mechanics, and I think we have made great progress in that 

regard over the last couple years and we will continue to focus on 

that. But most importantly, we need to make sure that the systems 

and the processes are in place to actually deliver those parts to 

that young mechanic in a timely manner. And that is really what 

I think needs to be addressed in the coming months and that is actually our focus. 

I mean, it is important to point out, we have shifted from providing combat advising, which we were doing through last year, to 

do what we call security force assistance based on the functions 

that need to be addressed for the Afghans to be sustainable. 

So our orientation today, our advisors, when they go to work 

every day, are focused on the things that you are talking about, 

Congressman, helping fix the logistics system, helping fix the pay 
24 

system, helping make sure that the parts are actually delivered to 

those motor pools. 

And we have some work to do, but we also have the buy-in of 

Afghan leadership. They actually own the problem now. They recognize if they don’t fix this problem, they won’t be able to make 

progress. And so we are increasingly in a support role and they are 

very much leading and fixing this problem. 

Mr. WITTMAN. In the context of U.S. presence there, let’s look at 

the scenario if the President decides there will not be a post-2014 

presence in Afghanistan. Will we be able to get out our equipment 

by December 31, 2014, and what kind of lead time would we need 

in order to accomplish that to make sure that we are getting our 

equipment out and making sure, too, that we are wrapping up our 

mission there and especially how we interrelate there with NATO? 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congressman. If today, I knew that 

we were going to draw down the force and withdraw all the people 

and equipment by next December, I wouldn’t do much different between now and July. We are stabilizing the force to make sure the 

Afghans are set up for success in securing the elections and for the 

summer of 2014. 

In July, in August, we will be able to maintain both options: the 

full regional approach that I spoke about earlier, the NATO train, 

advise, assist mission, or to withdraw all of our equipment and people by the end of 31 December. 

As we get into September, we enter a period of high risk in our 

ability to actually withdraw all of our people and equipment in an 

orderly manner by the end of December. And the reason simply is, 

Congressman, there is about 102 days worth of work to do based 

on the force size in September of 2014. 

So I call it the ‘‘physics plus friction equation.’’ The physics of 

withdrawal will be about 102 days. You obviously want to buffer 

for bad weather, aircraft maintenance issues, enemy gets a vote. 

And so as you start getting to less than 120 days, you start entering a period where your risk of an orderly withdrawal starts to increase. And that is the 1st of September. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Let me ask in another scenario. If we are able to 

achieve a post-2014 residual presence, looking at that retrograde 

mission, does that retrograde mission personnel number count 

against the boots on the ground [BOG] cap? 

General DUNFORD. In 2014, Congressman, we have a number of 

individuals called the CENTCOM [Central Command] Material Reduction Element that support us in our retrograde redeployment efforts, and those numbers don’t count. So when I talk about the 

30,000 Americans in Afghanistan, those numbers don’t count. 

Those people come back and forth. And they do a lot of great work 

for us, but they are not part of the train, advise, assist mission that 

we have. 

My assumption is that all of the forces that are there in 2015 

will be accountable, will be part of BOG accountable is, I think, the 

term that you are looking for. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
25 

General Dunford, your appearance and presentation today represent the best of our military, and you exemplify the professionalism that, you know, is just tremendous. I thank you for your 

appearance today, and I thank you for your knowledge, your comprehensive knowledge of the affairs of your command. 

And I wanted to ask you, a recent worldwide threat assessment 

by the Director of National Intelligence asserts that an Al Qaeda 

core probably hopes for a resurgence following the drawdown of 

U.S. troops in Afghanistan. How are you measuring the strength 

of the insurgency; and in particular, what can we conclude from 

considering the current number of insurgent attacks, the sophistication and scale of the attacks, or the kinds of targets the insurgency is choosing? 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congressman. First, with regard to 

Al Qaeda today, I believe Al Qaeda today is focused on survival in 

Afghanistan, and that has been as a result of the constant pressure 

on the terrorist networks that we have had over the last several 

years, in particular with our special operations capability. 

The second part of your question gets after the insurgency and 

what kind of targets they are focused on right now. There is no 

doubt in my mind, and we know this both for our intelligence and 

from open source, that the insurgency is focused on disrupting the 

elections in 2014 and focused on crushing the spirit and the will 

of the Afghan forces in 2014. 

Because they believe that we are leaving at the end of 2014, they 

look at this as a very critical year. And so what we expect to see 

are high-profile attacks to create the perception of insecurity. What 

we have seen and expect to continue to see are assassinations 

against government officials and political leaders and campaign 

workers and candidates during the election, and then what we expect to see through the summer similarly are high-profile attacks, 

again, to garner media attention and create that perception of insecurity. 

My assessment is that the physical ability of the Afghan security 

forces is sufficient to secure the country against the insurgency. I 

don’t believe the insurgency is capable of seizing ground, seizing 

terrain. What they are capable of doing is these, again, high-profile 

attacks, assassinations, and those kinds of things to create a perception of insecurity. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Does the ANSF have the support of the majority 

of the Afghan people? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thank you for asking that question, because that is a really important point. Since I have been in 

Afghanistan, of all the changes that have taken place in a little 

over a year, the most profound changes have been in two areas: 

One is the sense of accountability and responsibility of Afghan 

leadership and I have talked about that a little bit; but the second 

is, the ownership that the Afghan people have for their Afghan security forces. 

And I will just give you one example because it is a recent example within the last week. We had an unfortunate incident where 21 

young soldiers were killed out in the Kunar province in the northeast part of the country. In the wake of that event, there was an 

outpouring of support for the Afghan army. 
26 

Those soldiers were given a memorial service in Kabul. Thousands of people participated in that. We saw on the Web, on Twitter accounts and so forth, young Afghans voicing support for the 

Afghan army. And in the polling that has been done, to include the 

polling done again by Afghan media outlets, about 80 percent of 

the Afghan people have a positive assessment of their army and 

their police force. 

And so I think of all the developments that we have seen recently, the question you ask really highlights one of the more important developments, again, that sense of ownership that Afghans 

have, the sense of pride that Afghans have for their security forces, 

and we are very encouraged by that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, that is good to hear. Does that hold true in 

all regions of Afghanistan or just in the area surrounding the capital or what? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thanks. It is in all areas of Afghanistan, but there are about somewhere between 11 and 15 percent of the people that still support the Taliban. I would say it a 

different way, 85 percent of the people don’t support the Taliban, 

but clearly there are some people who don’t support the Afghan 

army and it is a very small percentage of the population. They are 

largely in the south and east. But the dynamic that I described earlier in terms of the sense of ownership and a sense of pride in the 

army is certainly something that cuts across all of the regions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. And I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, two questions kind of rolled up into one here. One, you 

talked about successes. Can you talk about significant successes, 

recent significant successes? And two, talk about NATO for a 

minute, if you would, and just kind of how the NATO coalition, 

what they are doing and what they are bringing to the table still 

and kind of how you view them? 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congressman. With regard to successes, particularly with the Afghan forces, I probably pointed to, 

the first was Loya Jirga that took place in November—3,000 participants. The city was completely secured, locked down physically 

by the Afghan security forces. There were probably 8 or 10 very 

high-profile threat or streams that we were tracking every day that 

the Afghans were able to disrupt. 

In the weeks leading up to the Loya Jirga, they were able to 

make sure that the enemy’s efforts, and they were very concerted 

efforts, to disrupt the Loya Jirga were unsuccessful. And that event 

was conducted without a single security incident. Very encouraging. And what is most encouraging is that effort was led by Afghans, the integration of Afghan security forces was done by Afghans and we had very minimal support. 

Just 2 weeks ago there was an Islamic festival in Ghazni. Once 

again, a lot of intelligence and a lot of chatter, a lot of threats 

against that event. Expected 6,000 people to come to that event, 

many from throughout the region, international leaders from 

throughout the region. Once again, the Afghan forces developed a 

plan, implemented that plan, and that event was conducted without a security incident. 
27 

And I would also point to the registration process as a prelude 

to the elections that took place during the summer and during the 

fall, which was successful and puts us in a position of being able 

to be successful on the 5th of April during the actual conducting 

the elections themselves. 

Just over the last couple months, I guess the last one I would 

mention, if you just look in the southern part of the country, the 

205th Corps is down there in the south, in Kandahar, one of the 

more difficult areas, of course. And they have conducted a series 

of operations into the enemy support area to completely disrupt 

and dislocate the enemy over the last couple of weeks. 

And during the winter months historically, the Afghan security 

forces have conducted about 10 operations a month. Over the last 

2 months, their average is about 20 to 25 operations per month. 

Again, integrated combined arms operations planned and led by 

the Afghan security forces with a minimal amount of support from 

the coalition, that is all something that even a year ago I couldn’t 

have imagined any of those examples taking place without a much 

greater role by coalition forces. 

With regard to NATO itself, in the fall, Congressman, when we 

were looking towards a defense ministerial that just took force in 

February, we were all concerned that if we didn’t have a decision 

in February, the coalition might begin to unravel. I did attend, 

with Secretary Hagel, a defense ministerial in a smaller session of 

just the 28 primary members of NATO. Secretary Hagel shared the 

conversation that took place between President Karzai and President Obama and talked about the need to plan for alternatives at 

this point. 

And I would tell you that all 28 ministers that sat around that 

table said we recognize the need to plan for other eventualities, but 

we want you to know we are committed to a post-2014 mission; we 

plan to stay the course; we recognize how important it is. And so 

from a coalition-cohesion perspective, I was very encouraged. 

Italy, Germany, and Turkey, in particular, are framework nations. Our mission in 2015 is envisioned as the Italians taking responsibility for the west, the Germans in the north, the Turks in 

the center, and then the United States would be in the east and 

the south. And those three countries, in particular, have stayed 

strong and indicated a strong interest in participating in a post2014 mission and worked very hard to make sure they had the political will in their respective capitals to be able to do that. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. One last question. I talked to Secretary 

Hagel about 2 weeks ago about Bowe Bergdahl, because the State 

Department had their lines; a lot of different agencies were doing 

different things; DOD had their take on how to get him back; and 

it sounded like it was all kind of disorganized. 

I know now that Mike Lumpkin, ASD SO/LIC [Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict] is the 

point man for DOD. So my question is, you don’t have total control 

over that but you have somewhere in your command structure, you 

have a part of it. What is your part? What is your take on it? How 

are you tied into it? And who do you see as the lead now on getting 

Bowe back? 
28 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, first of all, the force is very 

aware of Bowe Bergdahl and committed to making sure he is going 

to come home, and we are going to continue to do everything we 

can until he absolutely comes home. We have some special operations capability in Afghanistan. Depending on where Bowe Bergdahl may be, what intelligence we get, we would certainly be prepared to conduct operations as directed, if we were to get actionable intelligence. 

Mr. Lumpkin, as you mentioned, is the OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] coordinator. If anything has to happen in Afghanistan, that would certainly fall within U.S. Forces–Afghanistan and the special operations capability that we have there. And 

we are certainly prepared to do that. 

We have a detailed plan. I wouldn’t want to talk about it here, 

but we have a detailed plan that addresses everything from Bowe 

Bergdahl’s recovery to the medical support he may need and the 

onward movement back to the United States in the event that we 

are able to get Bowe Bergdahl back. And so we are prepared and 

wouldn’t waste a nanosecond were we to get an opportunity to return him to his parents. 

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I might just mention that Mr. Lumpkin will be 

with us in the IETC [Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities] Subcommittee in open and closed session this afternoon, so we 

may pursue this further. 

Mr. Barber. 

Mr. BARBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And General, thank you for your leadership and service over a 

long time to our country. And I want to also, through you, convey 

my appreciation and the whole committee for the men and women 

who serve under you, the incredible job they are doing in Afghanistan. 

We have a large number of men and women in uniform from my 

district who are serving under you in Afghanistan right now. They 

are members of the Army from Fort Huachuca and members of the 

Air Force from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, and some of those 

service men and women are from the 355th Fighter Wing at DavisMonthan in Tucson. 

As you know, General, these are very skilled pilots. They have 

provided close air support, forward control, and combat search and 

rescue for our troops on the ground, and have been very successful 

in fighting the enemy at close range. And as you also know, I am 

sure, General, this platform is able to land in austere airfields including dirt runways without harm to the engines, and other platforms with engines that close to the ground cannot do this. They 

just suck up dirt like vacuums. 

And as you know, General, President Obama’s budget proposal 

would divest the A–10 fleet to reduce costs at DOD. And I am wondering, General, if you could comment in your experience on the 

role that the A–10 and their pilots have played in supporting our 

ground troops in Afghanistan against the Taliban compared to 

other close air support platforms. 
29 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congressman. And I don’t think 

there is any question, and I know you have had a number of witnesses that have been here and said the same thing. In the current 

environment, you know, there has not been a substitute for the A– 

10, it has been an extraordinary platform. It has supported our 

men and women on the ground to a great degree, and I also had 

experience with it in Iraq as well, so I am a big fan of the A–10. 

More importantly, I am a big fan of the capability that the A– 

10 represents, and so I know there is a discussion about divestiture. I certainly am not part of that. My job is to identify the requirements and the capabilities that are needed to support the 

force and then the chief of staff of the Air Force provides those capabilities, and I know that they are working through those issues 

right now. 

Mr. BARBER. Well, let me just follow up on that, because earlier, 

Ranking Member Smith raised a question, I think it is a very valid 

question that you answered, I think, very frankly, and that has to 

do with the residual force, if we have one, which we hope we do. 

Because I agree with you, General, that if we don’t keep up force 

in Afghanistan we are going to lose so much of what we have invested in human casualties, lives lost, and treasure. 

I would like to come back to that question of a post-BSA. I hope 

we have one. If we finalize the BSA, and hopefully we do it soon, 

would you be recommending to the President that we maintain the 

capability to provide close air support to the remaining forces, the 

Afghan forces and our residual force? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, first, we will absolutely have 

close air support in support of our force. And at this point, you 

know, again, we provided the President with a range of options 

about 2014. And until he makes a decision, I would prefer to keep 

my recommendations private as best military advice to the President. But I will tell you absolutely that with regard to close air 

support, we will not have a post-2014 presence without being fully 

supported and that will include aviation capability. 

Mr. BARBER. And could you say that that would be best delivered 

by A–10s as it has been up to now? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, you know, I will identify the 

capability and, again, I will look to the Air Force to meet that capability. 

Mr. BARBER. Very good. Well, we all know the Warthog works. 

And when I speak to our Army men and women who come back 

to Fort Huachuca, they tell the stories about their deployment, of 

course, but they say that the best day that they have is when the 

Warthog is overhead and they know they are going to be safe and 

then search and rescue, of course, is well supported. 

Again, General, I really thank you for what you have done in Afghanistan. I do hope that we can get this BSA signed soon. What 

we put into Afghanistan cannot be squandered by not having a continued presence at whatever level is appropriate and that you recommend to the President. Thank you, again, for coming today. 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congressman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I start, I just 

want to make a comment in reference to our friends in the Senate 
30 

as relates to Ukraine, and actually diverting funds that are destined to our military to help the Ukrainians out. I think it is just 

a dumb idea that we would cut any additional money from our 

services, particularly when we are still at war, and the challenges 

that we face. 

But General, I truly do appreciate, you lead the men and women 

who are the tip of the spear, those that are engaged in combat 

today. I have had sons that have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and so I certainly do appreciate your leadership. But I have 

to tell you this, that I am concerned, you know, obviously the 

American people are concerned about continued engagement in Afghanistan. 

You know, I will be honest with you; I fluctuate back and forth 

about whether we should stay there and risk, it’s not just dollars 

but risk, you know, the blood and lives of American citizens in support of the Afghanis. It reminds me back when I was at a movie 

with my wife and we watched ‘‘Charlie Wilson’s War.’’ 

And the amazing thing is, our older son was in combat in Afghanistan for 15 months when we were watching that screening. 

And we said, geez, if we had only done something different back 

then, maybe our son wouldn’t be in Afghanistan today fighting a 

fight across the shores. 

So, you know, that is why I am somewhat conflicted, because 

people back home say, you know, we just need to get away, just get 

out of Afghanistan and not risk any more of our service members’ 

lives. 

I hear your testimony and I have been to Afghanistan and you 

see some of the progress, but I am concerned about whether it is 

sustainable and how much money we have to put in play. But secondly, I was in Iraq and I had two sons in Iraq at the time during 

the drawdown. And one of the nights that we were in Iraq, there 

was an IRAM [Improvised Rocket-Assisted Munition] attack 

against U.S. forces and a number of our soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division were killed. 

I also know that troops identified where the bad guys were putting their heads at night and they were not allowed to go and either capture or kill those that were responsible because of the relationship that we had with the Iraqis; they blocked us from going 

to protect our own. 

Do you see any parallels that we could see that again in Afghanistan, or are we going to ensure that our troopers and marines that 

are there continue to have the ability to protect themselves and go 

out and find and destroy, not just dependent upon Afghanis to do 

that, but do we have the ability or will we have the ability? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thanks for that question. Along 

with Ambassador Cunningham, the ambassador to Kabul, I sat 

through 12 weeks of the BSA negotiations, and my primary focus 

was, of course, to ensure that the bilateral security agreement had 

the authorities inherent in that agreement to allow us to properly 

protect the force which includes both force protection measures of 

the kind you describe as well as the inherent right of self-defense. 

And I am confident that that bilateral security agreement has 

the authorities in it to provide proper protection. I would never, 

ever make a recommendation for us to deploy young men and 
31 

women in harm’s way without their ability to protect themselves, 

again, not only the inherent right of self-defense but also to take 

force protection measures that are appropriate in a combat environment. 

My assessment is that 2015 in Afghanistan will be a combat environment, and my strongest recommendation is that we will have 

the authorities necessary to properly protect the force. And, again, 

my role as one of the negotiators with the BSA was to ensure that 

those authorities were, in fact, in place. So I can give you confidence in that regard, Congressman. 

Mr. NUGENT. And General, that to me, as a Blue Star parent, I 

still have sons that are serving, that means a lot to us. For me, 

to support us, you know, continuing on in Afghanistan, I want to 

make sure, you know, not just the immediate self-defense, we all 

understand that, but the ability to go out, like you say, to project 

force if we know where the bad guys are that are actually attacking our troops. I want to make sure that for me to support that I 

would need to have the assurances that we have the ability or not 

only the ability but the willingness to do that. And I appreciate 

your comments. I really do. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Thank you, General. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, General Dunford. I was very happy to read in 

your prepared remarks that you devoted a section to stewardship 

of resources. It is always important to address the importance of 

being good keepers of taxpayer dollars, but it is ever more important in these times of constrained resources. 

You also acknowledge instances of inefficiencies and waste in Afghanistan, which is a huge concern for me going forward as our 

withdrawal intensifies. In your prepared statement, you mentioned 

developing a five-step process to increase the checks and balances 

to improve planning, execution, and oversight of resources. 

I admire the work of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction [SIGAR], and while they are independent, I 

would like to hear more about your involvement in coordination 

with their efforts, and a little bit more about your five-step process 

and what it entails. 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congresswoman. And first, with regard to the special investigator as well as all the other audit agencies, we have 15 people in U.S. Forces–Afghanistan that their specific role is to facilitate the audits and the investigations that take 

place. And I think we had some 100 of them last year. And I think 

the prolific nature of the SIGAR reports is probably the best indicator of the support they have received, because all of the information and all the access they have is reliant on our cooperation at 

U.S. Forces–Afghanistan. 

And I am certainly most interested with audits and investigations and what they can tell me that will allow me to avoid making 

mistakes in the future. And while I think it is important to gather 

lessons learned, what I am mostly concerned about today as a commander is what am I doing today and what am I going to be doing 
32 

tomorrow that might not be the best use of our resources, and so 

how do we do it? 

With regard to the processes that we put in place, maybe I will 

just give you one example that will bring a process, you know, 

probably to life. We, a couple years ago, built a program of record 

for Afghan security forces, and at the time there were certain assumptions made about the infrastructure that would be required to 

support the coalition forces at the time. 

And assumptions were made about the size of the force. For example, you would be surprised to hear that one of the assumptions 

is that there might still be 100,000 Americans in Afghanistan in 

2015. And so some of the infrastructure that was not made available to the Afghans was later not going to be necessary for the 

force. 

We went back through this year, starting in May, and we reviewed the entire Afghan program of record through this process 

that I just described. And in the course of that, we found a number 

of projects adding up to $800 million just since May, $800 million 

of projects that we could cancel or descope because there was other 

infrastructure available, you know, that the coalition was not going 

to be using in 2015. 

And while that sounds like a fairly simple thing to do, those are 

the kind of activities, especially now at the end of the campaign, 

those are the kind of activities we are doing every day where every 

single project goes through, you know, a very comprehensive process to make sure that, one, we have proper oversight; two, it is absolutely needed; and three, it is within our means in terms of the 

projected resources that we will have available; those being the 

three most important criteria that we look at as we go through this 

process. 

So, Congresswoman, I am actually pretty proud of the team of 

folks that I have over there that are working through this. They 

have come up with a lot of creative ways to make sure that we are 

good stewards. We realize that we are in the 21st century and the 

power of the narrative is all-important, and we also know that the 

narrative of us being good stewards is important to the mission, it 

is important to the Congress, it is important to the American people. 

And we have worked very hard over the past year to make sure 

that we had a powerful narrative of good stewardship. And again, 

I think although sometimes investigators and those being investigated, there is often inherent friction in that relationship that you 

understand, at the end of the day, you can’t argue with the results 

in terms of the numbers of investigations that have taken place in 

the areas that we have identified where we can be more efficient 

in the expenditure of our resources. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Well, one of the things that the special inspector general had said and was very complimentary to the military 

effort is looking at contractor fraud or contractors who need to be 

disenfranchised from the process, and that information is shared 

between the different military activities that are going on. But 

there were real concerns with as the military drawdown occurs, if 

that information will be passed on to other U.S. agencies, such as 

State Department, USAID, who they found were actually still con-
33 

tracting with folks who has been disenfranchised under the military procurement system. 

What work are you doing there to sort of transfer that information over to our sister agencies? 

General DUNFORD. Congresswoman, we meet with the U.S. Embassy and USAID on a biweekly basis, so our folks are completely 

integrated. All the information and intelligence that we have concerning contractors is passed to the embassy in real-time, and that 

will continue in the future. I have a liaison still at the embassy. 

I actually have a brigadier general in the embassy with a staff of 

about eleven. And their job is to make sure that we have absolute 

transparency between the U.S. mission, military mission as well as 

our U.S. Embassy. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Byrne. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And General, thank you for your patience in sitting here today. 

We appreciate your service. I have been in Congress about 3 

months now. I have got to tell you, before I came here, I was one 

of those people that said it is just time to get out. I was on the 

campaign trail. I heard that from a lot of my constituents. 

But since I have been here and served on this committee, I have 

been persuaded that I was wrong about that and that the sort of 

proposal that you have made about our ability to stay on the limited basis that you have proposed, if we can get the BSA, is a better way to go. 

Nonetheless, I still talk to people from my district who are serving, or have served over there, your boots on the ground. And when 

I talk to them, they think we should get out; that they are pessimistic about what our future can be there. And they base that on 

a couple things: One is, they don’t think we are wanted there, and 

they don’t see progress from their service. 

Now, they don’t get to see everything you see. So I was hoping 

you could help me out and tell me what you would say to them so 

that I know what to say to them as I take the position that I am 

taking on their behalf. 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thanks. And I will try to very 

quickly tell you what I say to the troops as I am talking to them. 

First of all, in 2002, we established the very first battalion, or 

kandak, of the Afghan army, 600 soldiers. So the first 600 soldiers 

were in 2002. We had less than half the number of Afghan security 

forces that we have today as recently as 2009. 

The first time I made a visit to Afghanistan was at the Helmand 

Province in 2008. At the time, the ratio of coalition forces to Afghan security forces was 10–1. Today the ratio is 10–1, Afghans to 

members of the coalition. You know, we have got about 45,000 in 

the coalition and 370,000, so it is closer to 10–1 than certainly the 

1–10 that we had. 

More importantly, even over the last several months, the Afghan 

forces have assumed responsibility for security. So we are no longer 

conducting operations. It is the Afghans that are conducting secu-
34 

rity for the Afghan people on a day-to-day basis, and increasingly, 

they are able to do things without our support. 

So if you go for—and I do have concerns about this. If you go for 

a 7-month deployment or a 12-month deployment, sometimes the 

change is imperceptible. But if you had the opportunity like I had 

to visit Afghanistan over the years and see us go from a ratio of 

10 members in the coalition to 1 Afghan soldier to the exact opposite ratio and increasingly decreasing the coalition, and by the way, 

the security environment, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, 

hasn’t changed since 2012 until today, and in that time we have 

gone from over 100,000 forces, members of the coalition to about 

33,000 Americans and 45,000 members of the coalition. 

The other thing that may be harder for our folks to measure is 

what I talked about earlier, and that is the human factors. And, 

you know, when I first saw the Afghan security forces, I remember 

seeing a young lieutenant who was pleading and cajoling with his 

Afghan counterpart to go out on patrol without much success. 

Today what we see is a sense of pride, a sense of aggression, and 

frankly most of the time the Afghans are telling us, look, if they 

don’t need our support, they are telling us to back off, they have 

got it. And we see that more than not in terms of where the Afghans are. 

So the greatest thing I have seen today is that the Afghan security forces really feel the ownership for security in the country, Afghan leaders are the ones that when there is a problem, identify 

it with logistics; when there is a problem, identify it with leadership; when troops aren’t getting paid, Congressman, it is not my 

problem anymore. It is the Afghan leadership’s problem. 

Now, they may come to me to help with the solution, but they 

own the problem. And I wish that the young men and women that 

have deployed over the years actually had the opportunity to see 

our progress over time as opposed to, you know, the limited period 

of time that they serve in Afghanistan where it may be very difficult to see. 

And with regard to the Afghans wanting us to leave, that is not 

a bad thing. We want to leave; they want us to leave. It is not a 

natural thing for us to be there in the numbers that we are in right 

now. But as much as they want us to leave, because they want to 

assume responsibility fully on their own, they also recognize that 

there is a few capability gaps that have to be addressed before we 

go. 

So I think there is a recognition right now, a professional recognition that what we are doing is necessary, and frankly, I don’t 

think it is a bad thing to consider our presence in Afghanistan at 

the size we have today to be a necessary evil to meet both our interests and Afghans’ interests knowing that that presence will be 

reduced over time. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, General. 

I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Gallego. 

Mr. GALLEGO. The last one. Thank you, General. I also want to 

thank you for your service, but also for taking the time to teach 

so many of us the intricacies of Afghanistan, especially on our visits over there, that is very meaningful to so many of us. 
35 

I represent 136th of the population of Texas, but nearly a quarter of it by land. And if you are looking at that map from San Antonio to El Paso, a lot of, I am going to call them kids, who either 

serve now or have served in uniform and have served in Afghanistan, and I meet with veterans; the one thing that ties us all together, big or small town, is the large community of veterans. 

And recently, in meeting with some veterans, there is, and I will 

be diplomatic in the term that I use, I will say there is some disappointment with the U.S. and the exit from Iraq, because there 

are a lot of those veterans who feel like they sacrificed so much and 

saw their colleagues and comrades in arms sacrifice so much. And 

at the end of the day there was not much left to show for it. 

Your testimony here has been fairly optimistic, so what would 

you say to those veterans about why Afghanistan is different, and 

why it is that we should be optimistic about the idea that we will 

draw down and draw out completely? 

General DUNFORD. Congressman, thanks. As I said to the force 

several times, one of the most important responsibilities I feel and 

all of us that are serving in Afghanistan feel right now, at the end 

of this mission, at the end of 2014, we need to look at the families 

that have fallen and we need to look at our counterparts that returned home much different than when they deployed and tell 

them that what they did was worthwhile. That is very important 

to us. 

And so I have described what we are doing today as, what does 

winning look like at the end of 2014? And what I would say to your 

constituents is, particularly those that played a role in Afghanistan, what winning looks like is effecting security transition and 

letting the Afghan forces stand on their own so that they can provide security in Afghanistan and, by the way, be effective partners 

in the war against terrorism that has threatened our country. So 

that is the first component. 

The second component is to assist and support political transition, and we are doing that and I anticipate we will see political 

transition here in the remaining part of the year. And the third 

real component is the broader, regional piece that I have talked 

about a couple times this morning and focusing specifically on 

Pakistan and the relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, 

and we are working very hard to facilitate a good bilateral relationship between those two countries. 

But the first two components are the ones that I believe at the 

end of 2014, particularly if we stay the course with a post-2014 

mission, we will be able to look at those who have sacrificed over 

the past 12 years and say what we came up to do was establish 

a stable, secure, unified Afghanistan with effective and capable Afghan security forces. And we are doing that. And you can see the 

evidence of it every day in terms of increased numbers of Afghan 

forces that are providing security and reduced numbers of coalition 

forces. 

And I think the elections in 2014 are going to be a watershed 

event. We will have given the people of Afghanistan the opportunity to determine their own future, and I think being a part of 

that, as you know from your constituents that were part of Afghanistan and Iraq, that matters to us. We appreciate, I think, and 
36 

value democracy as much as anybody, and to be a part of that development in Afghanistan, I think, is also important. 

So in my mind, at the end of the year, you know, people don’t 

use the term ‘‘winning,’’ Congressman. When I talk to 18-, 19-, 22- 

year-old young men and women that are risking it all to perform 

a mission, I think talking in terms of what winning looks like is 

important. And I can identify those three components, and all of 

them, all of them are achievable in 2014, and all of them can be 

secured with a fairly small presence post-2014. 

Mr. GALLEGO. I will tell you, General, as a parent of a very 

young son who is 9, I don’t see how some parents, you know, sleep 

with their kids over there. And so I thank you very much for doing 

all that you can to make sure that all of our sons and daughters 

over there are safe and for doing a phenomenal job at taking care 

of them. Thank you for that. 

General DUNFORD. Thanks, Congressman. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you, General. 

In some ways, it seems to me, we saved the most important questions and answers until the end, and I appreciate that very much. 

I know it is always hard for you to get away, but I think it was 

important for the committee and the country to hear your straightup assessment of where things stand these days in Afghanistan. 

Thank you for taking the time to come. 

And Afghanistan may not be in the news as much as it once was, 

but that, in many ways, is a good thing. And due to the professionalism and commitment of you and the people who serve with 

you. So thank you. Please pass along our gratitude to them as was 

just expressed, and with that, the hearing stands adjourned. 

General DUNFORD. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 13, 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 13, 2014 

(41) 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 13, 2014 

(65) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON 

Mr. MCKEON. We understand that in June 2013 you requested that various Army 

and DOD officials explore the possibility of replacing the current LOGCAP cost-plus 

contract with a fixed-price contract. In your letter to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (ATL) as well as the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, 

and Technology) and the Commander, Army Material Command, you cited a smaller 

and more stable footprint as well as a decade of LOGCAP experience as rationale 

for considering a fixed-price contract. We also understand that USFOR–A and others were considering a number of options for supporting U.S. forces post-2014. These 

options included using the LOGCAP contract as it is presently written, using a 

fixed-price LOGCAP contract, or using a different approach such as having the 

NATO Support Agency provide base life support services. We also understand that 

as of early February a decision on the base life support contract has yet to be made. 

Has the decision been made regarding how base life support will be provided to 

U.S forces during Resolute Support? a. If a decision has been made, can you please 

explain what course of action you selected and what factors or circumstances led you 

to select that course of action? b. If no decision has been made at this time, what 

is holding up the decision? Specifically, what decisions need to be made prior to selecting a base life support course of action? c. Do you have concerns that if an alternative to the current LOGCAP cost-plus contract is not selected in the near future 

there will be no alternative but to use the current cost-plus contract because of the 

time it takes to award and transition a contract? 

General DUNFORD. I believe this question would be best answered by U.S. Central 

Command. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BRIDENSTINE 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. U.S. and coalition forces operate in Afghanistan principally in 

vehicles with armored cabs or mine-resistant vehicles. An armored cab was designed 

and tested for the Medium Tactical Vehicle that the U.S. provided to the Afghan 

National Security Forces (ANSF). More than 200 were delivered to our Afghan allies. The armored cab solution could potentially be a very cost-effective alternative 

to provide the ANSF ballistic and blast protection. Can you tell me why we haven’t 

considered a broader application of this upgrade? 

News reports indicate that the U.S. is not providing the ANSF MRAP vehicles 

that the U.S. has deemed excess because they are too expensive for the Afghans to 

maintain. Is this accurate? If so, can you please provide the analysis that was done 

that arrived at this determination? 

Bottom line, are you satisfied that we are proceeding on the most cost-effective 

and thoughtful approach to provide resources to the ANSF? 

General DUNFORD. Blast and automotive testing for this armored cab design of 

the Medium Tactical Vehicle is still an ongoing effort. We have considered a broader 

application of this armored cab upgrade but believe it to be too complex and cost 

prohibitive to implement at this time. Nearly 100% of the vehicles that the coalition 

has procured for the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will have been delivered to Afghanistan and fielded by the time the results of blast testing are complete. 

The capabilities provided through the Mobile Strike Force Vehicle (MSFV), 

HMMWV, and Light Tactical Vehicle have been proven over the course of the past 

decade and now must be effectively sustained. 

We are considering providing MRAPs to the ANSF, but a final decision has not 

been made. The resources required to repair, field, train, and integrate existing 

MRAPs adds to the sustainment burden of currently fielded ANSF vehicles. In addition to annual MRAP sustainment costs, the cost to demilitarize and refurbish the 

MRAPs before transfer must be considered along with the facilities, maintenance 

and support infrastructure, and driver and operator training programs that must 

be developed to support these vehicles. 

We are committed to developing and executing a synchronized strategy as we continue to turn our focus to the sustainment of the capabilities we have fielded and 

helped develop in the ANSF. As this strategy develops through discussions and the 
66 

combined effort of our Afghan and coalition partners, we continually assess our approach to providing resources and equipment to ensure an enduring capability within the ANSF. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. WALORSKI 

Mrs. WALORSKI. President Karzai released 65 detainees from an Afghan-controlled 

prison at Bagram airfield on February 13, 2014. All of these detainees were initially 

captured by U.S. forces and subsequently handed over to the Government of Afghanistan, and all of them were associated with groups with whom the United 

States is currently fighting in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the 

Haqqani Network. Some were directly responsible for American casualties, and 

many specialize in IEDs. In addition, some of the detainees were linked to terrorist 

financing. 

It’s reasonable to assume that we still have a good number of detainees who have 

not yet been turned over to the Afghans. Whether Enduring Security Threats 

(ESTs)—the highest threat Afghan detainees—or other categories of detainees, what 

detainees are currently being held, and what is the likelihood that Karzai will seek 

to release them? 

What will happen to ESTs post-2014, both the ones currently under our control, 

as well as those currently under Afghan control? What will happen to other categories of detainees? 

General DUNFORD. As of 14 March 2014, there are approximately 1170 Afghan detainees under Afghan control at the Afghan National Detention Facility–Parwan 

(ANDF–P). Of the 1170 detainees under Afghan control; 621 are in pre-trial confinement and 482 are serving their sentence as dictated by trial outcome at the Justice 

Center in Parwan (JCIP). Separately, approximately 50 Third Country National 

(TCN) detainees from 13 countries are under U.S. control at the ANDF–P. 

Of the pre-trial detainees under Afghan control, there are 58 whose cases are 

awaiting adjudication by the Afghan Review Board (ARB). The ARB is a non-judicial 

body established in accordance with the 25 March 2013 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to assist in the legal review of criminal case files recently transferred over to GIRoA from U.S. control. The ARB has not yet adjudicated these 58 

files. Soon after its establishment, the ARB fell under malign political influence and 

ultimately made legal decisions that exceeded its mandate. Previously the ARB has 

issued release decisions on over 650 of the 900 detainees who fell under its jurisdiction. Many of those who were released by the ARB had substantial evidence warranting immediate prosecution or further investigation. The ARB will make disposition decisions regarding the 58 detainee files followed by adjudication at the JCIP 

in accordance with Afghan law. 

By contrast, current judicial actions by the JCIP have resulted in a 74% prosecution rate. Based on his recent statements in the media, and past actions, we assess 

it is possible that President Karzai will seek to release more detainees, with the remaining ARB decisions to be among the most likely to be released. There are approximately 15 TCN ESTs under U.S. control. It is our plan that the 15 TCN ESTs 

will be repatriated to their home countries, tried or released, pending U.S. policy 

guidance. They may also be transferred to Afghan control for criminal prosecution 

or release. 

Excluding the approximately 15 TCN ESTs noted, there are approximately 35 additional non-EST TCN detainees under U.S. control. It is our plan that these 35 

TCNs will be repatriated to their home countries, transferred to Afghan control, released, or tried in Afghanistan, the U.S., or the home country pending U.S. policy 

guidance. 

Separately, the Afghan government will either criminally prosecute or release the 

approximately 41 ESTs under Afghan control (which are part of the 58 pending 

ARB cases referenced previously). Under the March 2013 MOU, the Afghan government committed specifically to the continued detention of these 41 ESTs. For Afghan detainees, it is our desire that the Afghan government will continue to leverage the JCIP as a Central National Security Court. We also intend for the ANDF– 

P to be part of an enduring National Security Justice Center for pre-trial confinement, investigation, prosecution, and post-trial incarceration of individuals who 

commit terror and insurgent-related crimes. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I am concerned about Iranian activity and influence in western 

Afghanistan. Your predecessor, General John Allen, testified before the Senate in 

2012 that ‘‘Iran continues to support the insurgency and fan the flames of violence.’’ 
67 

What is Iran currently doing to support the insurgency, whether financial support, supplying weapons, providing training and logistics support, or direct attacks 

on U.S. or coalition forces? 

General DUNFORD. We believe Iran has provided measured assistance, weapons, 

and training to insurgents in Afghanistan, likely since at least 2002. Iran has historically backed Tajik and Shi’a groups opposed to the Afghan Taliban, but tensions 

and enmity with the West have driven Tehran to provide measured support to insurgents in Afghanistan. Over the years, coalition forces have seized several weapons’ shipments near the Iranian border that were almost certainly of Iranian origin. 

Iran also likely trained insurgents inside Iranian territory. Iran calibrates the size 

and scope of the lethal aid it provides the insurgency, likely so the insurgents can 

target ISAF and Coalition Forces, but without endangering the Afghan government. 

Æ