U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–387PDF 2014

THE BERGDAHL EXCHANGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE FIGHT

AGAINST TERRORISM

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 18, 2014

Serial No. 113–158

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

TED POE, Texas, Chairman 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Andy Andrews, father of deceased Second Lieutenant, USA, Darryn Andrews ..................................................................................................................... 12

Spc. Cody Full, USA, Retired (served with Sgt. Bergdahl in Blackfoot Company, Second Platoon) .......................................................................................... 17

Mr. Mike Waltz, senior national security fellow, New America Foundation 

(commanded a Special Forces’ Company in Eastern Afghanistan in 2009) .... 27

Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., senior advisor, Truman National Security Project ........ 38

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Andy Andrews: Prepared statement ............................................................... 14

Spc. Cody Full, USA, Retired: Prepared statement .............................................. 19

Mr. Mike Waltz: Prepared statement .................................................................... 29

Mark Jacobson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .......................................................... 40

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 78

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 79

Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman, Subcommittee on 

Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade ............................................................. 80

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 82

(1)

THE BERGDAHL EXCHANGE: IMPLICATIONS 

FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE 

FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. POE. The subcommittee will come to order. Without objection 

all members will have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and 

extraneous materials for the record subject to the length limitation 

in the rules. 

The purpose of this hearing is to hear more about Sergeant Bowe 

Bergdahl and his exchange for five terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Let’s hope that the Bergdahl negotiators are not the 

same ones currently negotiating with Iran over nuclear weapons. 

Be that as it may, releasing five senior Taliban commanders may 

put the lives of our senior service members and Americans around 

the world at risk. One of the five detainees was a Deputy Chief of 

the Taliban’s Intelligence Service. One detainee fought alongside 

al-Qaeda as a Taliban Military General. Another was a Senior 

Commander wanted by the United Nations for war crimes and 

worked closely with al-Qaeda and their affiliates. In fact, he led an 

attack with al-Qaeda the day before 9/11. Al-Qaeda called this attack an important part of the 9/11 total strategy. And still another 

was a close confidante of Taliban Leader Mullah Omar. 

The terms of the release to Qatar are quite disturbing. They may 

help out the Taliban while they are in Qatar, and it’s very likely 

that all of them will end up fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan later in the year. That will be about the time United 

States forces will be leaving and the Afghans will be on their own. 

It appears that recent law that was signed by the President was 

violated in this secret deal. This law, among other things, requires 

two things; that the administration must notify Congress 30 days 

before releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees. And, second, the administration has to specifically tell Congress how releasing each 

terrorist is in the national security interest of the United States. 

2

The administration did neither. Plus, it has been the policy of the 

United States not to negotiate with terrorists, and this seems to 

also have been violated. 

The Haqqani Network are the ones who held Sergeant Bergdahl. 

It’s a designated foreign terrorist organization according to the 

United States State Department and has killed countless Americans and Afghan soldiers. It maintains close ties with al-Qaeda and 

it’s the most dangerous terrorist group fighting in Afghanistan. 

It doesn’t matter that Qatar acted as a go-between the United 

States because it did involve negotiating with terrorists in the 

Haqqani Network. This raises another concern close to home in 

Texas. 

One of my constituents, Victor Lovelady, was taken hostage during the terrorist attack on an Algerian gas facility in January 2013, 

an event that many Americans have forgotten. He was captured 

after he hid some of his coworkers in a space in the refinery. The 

terrorists never found the coworkers and they eventually escaped 

alive. 

It’s been reported that the hostage takers wanted to trade those 

three American hostages at the facility, including Victor, for two 

convicted terrorists in the United States custody. Victor’s brother, 

Michael, and his daughter, Erin, wrote to me recently to say that 

they were told by our Government during the attack that the 

United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Victor was later 

killed. 

I ask for unanimous consent that the letters be made part of the 

record. So ordered. 

The Bergdahl release troubled them, and rightly so. Victor’s 

daughter wrote to me in this letter, ‘‘The question that continues 

to come to mind is what makes one American life more important 

than another? And if we’re going to negotiate for one, why would 

we not negotiate for everybody?’’ I cannot answer that question, 

and I really do not know what the United States’ current policy is 

on negotiating with terrorists. Maybe we will find out. 

Negotiating with a designated terrorist organization like we did 

with the Haqqani Network is unprecedented. Department of Defense says it will hold Sergeant Bergdahl accountable for his actions; however, National Security Advisor Susan Rice has said that 

Sergeant Bergdahl has served with honor and distinction. Once 

again, this hearing will shed more light on that issue. One of our 

witnesses today served with Sergeant Bergdahl and he will discuss 

Bergdahl’s disappearance. 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is on record stating that he 

was not aware of any United States soldier who lost their life in 

search for Sergeant Bergdahl. The family of one of those brave 

Americans who gave his life, Lieutenant Darryn Andrews, is here 

today to set the record straight. He earned a Silver Star for his actions which included protecting his brothers in arms and taking the 

brunt of the Taliban rocket-propelled grenade which ultimately 

took his life. Darryn left behind a pregnant wife and a young son 

at the time of his death. 

So, today we have witnesses who can tell us what else happened 

in eastern Afghanistan in 2009, those who have suffered as a reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jul 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\061814\88387 SHIRL
3

sult, and what this so called deal may mean for Afghanistan and 

the United States going forward. 

I yield back my time, and I will now recognize the ranking member from California, Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Andrews. We know that you are 

the father of Darryn Andrews, Second Lieutenant who gave his life 

for his country. We cannot thank you enough for your family’s sacrifice. We salute Darryn’s courage. 

I would also like to thank you, Specialist Full for your service to 

our country. Mr. Waltz is a Senior National Security Fellow at the 

New America Foundation who commanded Special Forces in eastern Afghanistan. Thank you for your service. And Dr. Jacobson, 

thank you for your 20 years of service in the military, including 

your deployment to Afghanistan. 

First, as to a preliminary issue on Iraq, let me point out that we 

do not have forces in Iraq. We do not have a Status of Forces 

Agreement with Iraq. It was President Bush that installed alMaliki as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006, and the misgovernance 

of Prime Minister Maliki is directly responsible for the violence 

taking place in that country today. It should not be surprising that 

Maliki refused to enter a Status of Forces Agreement with the 

United States under President Obama. He refused to enter a longterm Status of Forces Agreement with President Bush, the man 

who, in effect, allowed him to take power. 

As to releases from Guantanamo, while we’re focusing today on 

five Guantanamo prisoners being released, President Bush released 

over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo. Most of them were dangerous. Over 100 of them we know are fighting us on the battlefield 

and we know where. Most of the others are fighting against us, as 

well. We just can’t pinpoint where they are located. And what did 

we get for the 500 that President Bush released? Absolutely nothing except thank you notes from their native countries. 

As to Section 1035 D of the National Defense Authorization Act, 

the President has filed a report. Members of this committee can go 

read it. It is in depth. It is arguably late as many reports to Congress are. 

Keep in mind that we have to construe Section 1035 D so as to 

avoid constitutional questions; therefore, it has been and should be 

interpreted not to apply in this circumstance, particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange. 

Keep in mind that the last Republican Attorney General of the 

United States, Michael Mirkasey, stated that ‘‘This code section is 

unconstitutional to the extent it acts to prevent a prisoner exchange.’’

Now, I would have preferred if President Obama had, indeed, 

conferred with leaders of Congress. I’m glad to see he is conferring 

with congressional leaders about what to do in Iraq. America is 

strongest when our President views Members of Congress as a 

source of counsel and input, not persons to be notified only when 

the notification is compelled by a constitutionally valid statute. 

And I will point out that Members of Congress, leaders of Congress can keep a secret. Some 16 congressional leaders knew that 

we had ascertained the hiding place of Osama bin Laden, and that 

information did not leak. 

4

As to negotiating with terrorists, it’s a nice phrase that we don’t 

do it. The fact is, we do it all the time. The Bush administration 

negotiated with every single terrorist regime in the world. We identified five state sponsors of terrorism, and the Bush administration 

negotiated with Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea. The 

Bush administration paid an al-Qaeda affiliate a ransom for the release of Martin and Gracia Burnham. Secretary of State Colin Powell designated the Afghan Taliban as an organization authorized 

for legal authorization. 

Now, it is said that because we paid a price for the release of 

Bergdahl that this put terrorists around the world on notice of a 

fact they somehow didn’t know before, and that is that America 

cares about those who are detained. A walk through the halls of 

this building shows the POW flags from the Vietnam War. Everyone in the world knows that we care about our detainees. There are 

resolutions introduced by Republican members available to anyone 

on the Internet that show that we regard the release of Sergeant 

Bergdahl as an important national objective. 

Bringing our prisoners home is important to America. The enemy 

already knows that, and we know it, as well. And I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. For the information of the 

committees, we are in a series of votes. The Chair plans to hear 

the opening statements of all the members and then come back for 

the testimony after the vote. 

The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Middle 

East Subcommittee, chairman. You’re not the ranking member, although——

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. It’s good enough. Thank you. 

Mr. POE [continuing]. Mr. Sherman thinks you should be. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. POE. For 5 minutes, thank you. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for being 

with us, especially Mr. Andrews whose son Darryn Deen was killed 

in Afghanistan in 2009, and Mr. Full, and Mr. Waltz, thank you 

for your service. Mr. Andrews, I cannot imagine what it would feel 

like to lose a child in the service of our nation, but as a stepmother 

of a U.S. Marine Aviator who served in Iraq, and a mother-in-law 

to another Marine Aviator who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I know the sleepless nights and the constant worry that parents face when their child or loved ones are constantly in harm’s 

way. 

Our country owes our brave men and women who have served 

and who have earned our gratitude a debt that can never be repaid, but it must start with being completely forthcoming with 

them. 

In late 2011, while I was chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the administration gathered the chairmen and the ranking 

members of the pertinent national security committees, as well as 

congressional leaderships to brief us on a potential prisoner swap 

of Taliban terrorists for Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. And although the 

meeting was classified, news reports from just earlier this month 

indicate that the administration had a team of officials from the 

National Security Council, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, DiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jul 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\061814\88387 SHIRL
5

rector of National Intelligence present the administration’s plan to 

us. 

At the time of the briefing, using all available information given 

to me, I was adamantly opposed to the proposed swap, I said so at 

the meeting as did many of our colleagues. My opinion has not 

changed as more information has been revealed. 

I opposed the swap not because I did not want to bring Bowe 

home. It’s important to have him home and out of the hands of the 

Taliban. I opposed the swap because the proposal would have resulted in a huge coup for the Taliban, would have benefitted them, 

jeopardized the safety and security of our brave men and women 

in uniform, and compromised our national security interest. 

With so many of our colleagues expressing our disapproval of the 

swap, the administration seemed to have gotten the message and 

dropped its exchange plan, or so we thought. Then earlier this 

month, I like the rest of my congressional colleagues and the American public read the news that the administration had swapped five 

Taliban commanders for the Sergeant. Despite his promises to notify Congress, not to mention its legal authority to do so, the administration kept the deal secret and acted unilaterally. The deal 

is precisely the reason for the legal mandate that Congress be 

given 30 days notice because the administration has a proven track 

record of overstepping and abusing its authority. 

As we’ve already seen, the Taliban used this to its benefit using 

the video tape of the exchange as propaganda, and as a recruitment video. And it has only emboldened them further. Not only 

that, but despite the agreement with the Government of Qatar, 

which by the way is only for 1 year, to supervise these five Taliban 

high-level operatives, there are no assurances that they won’t be 

back in the fight in short order and orchestrating attacks from 

their lavish new headquarters in Doha. 

The fact that we are placing our hopes in Qatar, a country that 

has been full throated in its support for the Muslim Brotherhood, 

especially in Egypt where Qatar’s support for the Brotherhood actively worked against our interest in seeing a Democratic transition 

there, will likely further or strain our already damaged ties with 

our traditional partners in the Gulf. 

This may have serious implications for our national security objectives, especially as it relates to our efforts in Iran. But this swap 

is more than just Bowe Bergdahl or the Taliban, it’s about U.S. national security, the safety of our men and women in uniform, and 

it’s about the administration’s disregard for the law and the contempt it holds for its obligations to Congress. 

The administration’s deal to swap five senior Taliban officials for 

the Sergeant has far-reaching implications. Negotiating and ultimately forging a deal with Taliban terrorists unnecessarily endangers all of the service men and women who are operating in war 

zones right now that these five senior Taliban operatives are likely 

to rejoin the fight. And it also inspires the Taliban and other terrorist groups to conduct abductions of our armed forces personnel, 

as we have already seen one Taliban commander admit that the 

Taliban is now encouraged by the results of the Bergdahl trade. 

Then, of course, there are questions of the legality of the administration’s unilateral decision, and the frustration level and lack of 

6

trust that Congress has with the administration as a result of this 

swap. There are many, many unanswered questions, Mr. Chairman, the administration still needs to answer, but for today it’s important that we have the opportunity to hear from some of the people and how this decision has impacted them personally, those who 

served in Afghanistan fighting side by side with a fellow soldier, 

those service men and women who may have been placed even further in harm’s way as a result of this exchange, and those who lost 

a loved one in Afghanistan, they deserve to be heard, and they deserve the truth. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time. 

Mr. POE. Thank the gentle lady for yielding back her time. 

The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the Middle East 

Subcommittee, Mr. Deutch, from Florida for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Chairman Poe and Ranking Member 

Sherman. 

To our witnesses, thanks for appearing today. Mr. Andrews, I 

join with my colleagues in telling you that words will never be 

enough to express our gratitude for your son, your family for making the ultimate sacrifice for this country. I appreciate your being 

here today, and will forever be grateful to Darryn for his courageous service to our nation. 

Mr. Full, we’re deeply grateful for your honorable service to this 

country. And Mr. Waltz, Mr. Jacobson, thank you for being here 

and for your years of service. 

We all know that there are substantial questions surrounding 

the disappearance of Sergeant Bergdahl and the subsequent decision to exchange the Taliban Five for his release. It may take 

months before we know for sure what transpired in the days and 

weeks leading up to the disappearance of Army Sergeant Bowe 

Bergdahl. Was he suffering from psychological trauma? Was he 

AWOL? Was he a deserter? The Army investigation has begun and 

rest assured answers to these questions will come to light and the 

Army will take whatever action it deems appropriate. 

I’m a bit perplexed when some Members of Congress have already decided the facts of this case. We have a solemn obligation 

to leave no American soldier behind. And when the opportunity to 

get an American soldier back from the enemy presents itself, we 

take it. This country has a long history of getting American servicemen back through prisoner exchanges because we promised the 

men and women, when they signed up bravely to serve their country, that we would do everything that we can to protect them and 

to ensure that they return home. 

Some of my colleagues have apparently concluded now how Sergeant Bergdahl’s status should be treated, how the facts should be 

resolved. And that perhaps one concludes that he be left with the 

Taliban. So, I would ask what kind of military court is it, what 

kind of military court of justice do we have where Members of Congress play the role of judge and jury, find someone guilty, and leave 

it to the Taliban to carry out the punishment? 

We have every right to question why Congress wasn’t consulted 

and notified of this deal. I believe that was a mistake, but I would 

simply caution against prejudging the facts of this case. What message are we sending our troops if we don’t do everything that we 

7

can to retrieve an American soldier that the Army has officially declared missing and captured? You can have a debate over whether 

the price for Sergeant Bergdahl was too high, and it’s an appropriate debate to have, but we should also be reminded of the 532 

Guantanamo Bay detainees who were transferred before this President came to office. Where was the outrage then? 

There are those who have suggested that the administration has 

politicized this deal. I would simply point out that many members 

of this Congress who are now saying that they oppose this deal 

supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange and were urging the 

administration to do more to secure the release of Sergeant 

Bergdahl. 

Turning back to our witness, Mr. Andrews, there is nothing that 

we can say to take away the pain of losing a child, and I’d like 

again to offer my sincerest gratitude for Darryn’s honorable service 

to his country. I thank you, Mr. Full, I thank you for your service, 

and all of the witnesses for your commitment to protecting this nation. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from all of you today, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. POE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding back some of his 

time. 

The Chair will now recognize the individual members for 1 

minute of their opening statements. Mr. Chabot from Ohio is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. Like many of my colleagues and most 

constituents I talk with, I’m very troubled with the administration’s insistence that the deal made to free five Taliban leaders in 

exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl was the best deal we could get. 

The Washington Post reports that among the Taliban Five are 

the former Taliban Interior Minister who was known to have close 

ties to Osama Bin Laden, a former Taliban Army Chief of Staff 

who along with another of the freed Taliban is thought to have 

been present when CIA Officer Johnny Spam was killed back in 

2001, and two Taliban operatives who work closely with al-Qaeda, 

notably Mohammad Nabi Omari, whose case file says is ‘‘one of the 

most significant former Taliban leaders detained’’ at Guantanamo 

Bay. 

Now, I don’t know how many of my colleagues have had the opportunity to visit our facility in Guantanamo Bay and look into the 

eyes of those who were involved in the killing of so many. I’ve been 

there three times. As much as I’d like to think that they’ve learned 

the error of their ways and want nothing more than to spend a 

quiet life with their families in Doha, I’m afraid you’d have to put 

me down in the skeptical, very skeptical column. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will hear the testimony or the opening statement of one more member, and then 

we’ll hear the rest of them after the vote. 

Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and Ranking Members Deutch and Sherman for holding today’s hearing. I 

want to thank all of the witnesses, especially Mr. Andrews and 

Specialist Full for their services and for your willingness to share 

your very personal stories with us today. Words can never adequately provide comfort to you, Mr. Andrews, and to your family, 

8

nor can words convey the deep gratitude of our entire nation for 

the service of your son. 

It’s important that we take time today and in the weeks and 

months ahead to diligently, and thoroughly, and dispassionately examine the details surrounding the exchange of several high-value 

prisoners from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for the return of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. 

We should never lose sight of the long-held American tradition 

that we’ll do everything possible to secure the release of an American service member. I’m hopeful that today’s hearing will highlight 

ways in which the administration and Congress can work together 

to protect the safety of our armed forces and insure the security of 

our country. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and gaining greater 

clarity regarding the circumstances surrounding the exchange of 

Sergeant Bergdahl. 

And, finally, I hope this hearing will serve as a reminder to all 

of us that we must stay focused on ending American involvement 

in Afghanistan, and insuring the safe return of our fellow Americans serving there. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman from Rhode Island yields back. The 

Chair will be in recess for 15 minutes, and we’ll continue with 

opening statements, then testimony of our witnesses. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. POE. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 1 minute. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s fun listening to 

I think the strategy session across the aisle was hey, what are 

going to do? Well, let’s blame Bush. It seemed to have worked for 

the last 6 years, so it’s going to be an interesting hearing. 

I just want to say first off, thank you to the witnesses for being 

here. You know, when I went through survival training I was told 

your country will never leave you behind. I think it’s very important to note that there was kind of a mutual understanding that 

your country will never leave you behind, if you never leave your 

country behind. And then, secondly, there was a mutual understanding that there can be a cost that is too great to pay. Your 

country promised to always search for you, they promised to move 

Heaven and Earth to come get you, but I was never in survival 

training promised that my country would release some of the five 

biggest enemies of the United States and the people that we’ve 

tried to bring freedom to in exchange. So, I’m interested to hear 

what everybody’s thoughts is on why this happened, and some of 

the things surrounding this. I only have a minute, so I want to 

thank the chairman and yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the 

gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, for 1 minute. I know you 

ran back. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Catch my breath. Well, thank you, and thank you, 

gentlemen for all being here. Mr. Andrews, my heart breaks for 

you, and to the gentlemen, I thank you for your service. 

I want to give a little different—my own personal perspective. 

My own son has served both in Iraq and Afghanistan as a United 

9

States Marine. I’m very proud of that. He is home. But I will tell 

you this, when he went off to war I, of course, like probably most 

parents not only feared he would not come home alive, or that he 

would come home very maimed; but for me, my biggest worry was 

that he would be taken as a prisoner of war, tortured, put in a 

cage. It was just unimaginable. And that’s why I believe so strongly 

in the U.S. military principle that we should leave no man or 

woman behind. It maintains confidence, it maintains order. 

When we send our young men and women off to war, they should 

know we have their backs. We will do everything possible to bring 

them home. Thank you, again, for your service and, sir, for your 

loss. 

Mr. POE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton, for 1 minute. 

Mr. COTTON. Five years ago today I was a captain in the United 

States Army in Laughman Province so I think I will take the prerogative to speak on behalf of the soldiers who served in Afghanistan. I find it offensive and insulting that this administration, up 

to and including the President, would cite the principle of leaving 

no man behind to justify this action. 

Every day in Ranger School we recited the Ranger Creed, that 

I will never leave a fallen comrade. You know who didn’t leave a 

fallen comrade, Cody Full, Darryn Andrews, or all of the soldiers 

who went after him in the weeks and the months after his disappearance knowing that he had deserted. 

When we made those promises to each other, we didn’t promise 

that we would exchange five stone-cold Taliban killers for each 

other, nor would any soldier want that to happen. Would we exchange Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken said directly to me that we would not. 

Finally, I want to say something to the anonymous sources in the 

President’s administration for disparaging the service of the 2nd 

Platoon and Blackfoot Company. Show yourself, speak your own 

name, have the courage of your convictions. And if you don’t, shut 

up and stand back and thank these men for their service. 

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis, for 1 minute. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m hearing my colleagues on the other side talking about oh, 

don’t politicize this, but then blame Bush or whatever. It seems to 

me that, you know, the President politicized this when he had a 

White House Rose Garden ceremony for Mr. Bergdahl’s parents. 

I’m going to ask Mr. Andrews, and I’d like to know whether any 

of the people who served honorably and were killed in action were 

given the courtesy of a Rose Garden ceremony at the White House? 

I think the answer to that is probably no. 

The bottom line here is either what the President did benefitted 

the security of the United States, or it did not. I believe it did not, 

and I think that this was something that the American people disagree with. And I see that many of my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle are looking to essentially run interference for the administration by blaming previous Presidents. That doesn’t cut it. 

Let’s deal with this issue as its own, and I yield back. 

10

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Connolly, for 1 minute. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Andrews, 

my deepest sympathy to you and your family. That may be your 

wife behind you? There aren’t any words to express the terrible 

sense of loss you must experience. And I’ve had friends have similar losses and my heart goes out to you. Thank you for being here 

today. 

We’re here today to examine the decision to exchange Sergeant 

Bergdahl, a soldier held in captivity for 5 years, for five detainees 

in Guantanamo. Now, it’s easy to yield to the temptation to decide 

that Mr. Bergdahl did not serve his country. I would caution my 

colleagues, this isn’t a partisan affair. This is about somebody’s 

service, and we should withhold judgment on the quality and nature of that service until the facts are known. The benefit of the 

doubt belongs to Mr. Bergdahl pending that. It is not for Congress 

in advance to decide somebody’s status before we justify leaving no 

one behind. So, I’m interested in this hearing. I’m interested in the 

facts, and I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this 

one time to let us resist the temptation of partisanship. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for 1 minute. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recently returned 

from Guantanamo, and got to look in the eyes of many of the detainees that are there. Make no mistake, the ones that we released, 

are in no comparison to the 400 or 500 that have been released 

prior. These men were a danger to the ones who guarded them, so 

dangerous that we can’t even identify those who do guard them for 

their own protection. 

They are not choir boys, but I will assure you they are singing 

a song. It is a death march for those men and women who will 

come in their way in the future, and the cost in my opinion was 

way too high to release the Taliban Five in exchange for this. And 

with that, I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 1 minute. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague is correct, 

this is not a partisan affair. This is the Committee of Foreign Affairs, and that it is, it is a foreign affair. And the President is 

charged with negotiating on our behalf, unfortunately. I hope that 

we come to the conclusion to implore this President, Mr. President, 

stop negotiating on our behalf, please. 

Some would say that in military terms what the President did, 

we got one conventional weapon, some would say a dud. They got 

five nuclear weapons. Maybe we need to come to the conclusion to 

send a letter to the President, please, Mr. President, stop negotiating for us. 

As to the Andrews, as Abraham Lincoln said in a letter to Mrs. 

Bixby, ‘‘There’s no words that we can express to you but to generally relate our sincere appreciation for your sacrifice.’’

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for 1 minute. 

11

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. President Obama has 

put American military personnel, U.S. diplomatic personnel, and 

yes, even American businessmen and tourists at risk by releasing 

five terrorist leaders in exchange for a captured American. We 

have given terrorists the incentive to capture and hold hostages 

more and more. 

I would say that what we have to realize is that our President 

has just made a decision that will result in our country and our 

people being less safe than had he not made that decision. And, 

yes, President Bush released 500 Taliban that had been held in 

GITMO, but let me note, he did not make a deal for them. He did 

a survey to find out if they were the least threatening of those people who were being held. Had he done a deal for them, we would 

be condemning him, as well. 

The fact is, this was an exchange, a specific exchange, a quid pro 

quo that will do nothing but encourage terrorists around the world 

to seek other hostages to make similar deals. 

Our President has done a great disservice to those who defend 

us, as well as to the people of the United States. He’s put us at 

risk. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for 1 

minute. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, thank you so much for your family’s service. Specialist Full, 

thank you for your service. It’s very personal to me. My two older 

sons served in Iraq, my third son served in Egypt, and my fourth 

son just returned from his service in Afghanistan, so I truly have 

a great appreciation of the commitment of military families, service 

members, or veterans. And the President has disrespected all of 

them by releasing five Taliban. The response was mass murder in 

Pakistan. There were two attacks on the airport there in Karachi, 

dozens of people were murdered. Also, Shiite pilgrims were murdered just last week. The response is very, very clear. 

And, in fact, we found out that one of the Taliban leaders said 

how much he appreciated the release, the pardon of one of the particular Taliban Five who is the equivalent of 10,000 Taliban fighters. This is serious. The President has put the American people at 

risk. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. POE. Does any other member wish to be recognized for opening statement? Seeing none, the Chair will go into the statements 

of the witnesses. Without objection, all the witnesses’ prepared 

statements will be made part of the record. I ask that each witness 

please keep your presentation to no more than 5 minutes. When 

you see the red light come on that means stop. 

You’re welcome to summarize your prepared statements if you 

need to. Witnesses are also advised that, as usual, testimony provided to the subcommittee is subject to the False Statements Act 

under 18 USC Section 1001; and, thus, any deliberate misrepresentation or concealment of material information is punishable by law. 

I’ll introduce each of the witnesses, and then we’ll allow them to 

testify in the order that they are seated. Mr. Andy Andrews is the 

father of the fallen Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews who was 

reportedly killed while on mission to look for Sergeant Bergdahl. 

12

He is joined by his wife, Sandra Andrews, who is seated directly 

behind him, and she is wearing the dog tags of her son. 

Mr. Andrews, I know your time is limited because you have to 

catch a plane to go back to Houston for chemotherapy, and we appreciate you and your wife making the trip all the way to Washington, and wish you both a quick recovery. 

Specialist Cody Full was a Specialist in Sergeant Bergdahl’s 

squad at the time he disappeared, and they were previously roommates together. 

Mr. Mike Waltz is the Senior National Security Fellow at the 

New America Foundation. Mr. Waltz commanded a Special Forces 

Company in eastern Afghanistan at the time Sergeant Bergdahl 

was captured. He was previously a Senior Defense Department Coordinator for Afghanistan and Vice President Cheney’s Counterterrorism Advisor. 

And then Dr. Mark Davidson is the Senior Advisor at the Truman National Security Project, Adjunct Professor at George Washington University. He previously advised both General Stanley 

McChrystal and General David Petraeus, and has served on the 

staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

We will start with Mr. Andrews. You have 5 minutes, sir. You 

will need to turn on the microphone. It’s that little button in front 

of you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ANDY ANDREWS, FATHER OF DECEASED 

SECOND LIEUTENANT, USA, DARRYN ANDREWS 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking members and 

members of the subcommittee. I am Andy Andrews, father of Second Lieutenant Darryn Deen Andrews who was killed in Afghanistan during the process for searching for Bowe Bergdahl. 

Darryn’s first tour in Afghanistan was in 2004 as an enlisted soldier. He developed a medical condition that required surgery so he 

was sent to Germany, and then back to the States. He applied to 

the Green to Gold program and was accepted into it. He enrolled 

in 2006 at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas to complete his Master’s degree while enrolled in ROTC. 

He was commissioned to Second Lieutenant of the U.S. Army. He 

was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, then briefly at Fort Richardson, Alaska before being sent to Afghanistan in April 2009. 

We were able to talk to Darryn by telephone whenever he got the 

chance to call. We conversed with him around July 1st or 3rd. His 

birthday is on the 3rd. He told us they had been out looking for 

the last 24 hours for this soldier who had walked away. I asked if 

the soldier had been captured while on guard duty. Darryn said he 

didn’t think so because all of his gear was found neatly stacked, so 

he thought the soldier had just left. The soldier’s name was not 

mentioned, so all we knew was that a soldier had left. 

Darryn could not tell us where he was, or what they were doing. 

When we would talk to him in the next few months, we would occasionally ask if they had found the soldier, and he would say no, 

they were still looking. No name or specifics were ever mentioned. 

Darryn was killed on September 4th, 2009 which coincidentally, 

was our 41st wedding anniversary. Second Lieutenant Darryn 

Deen Andrews distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in 

13

combat as the Platoon Leader of the 3rd Platoon Blackfoot Company, First Battalion, 501st Infantry Airborne in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Darryn’s wife and son, his twin brother 

Jarrett and his family were in Cameron, Texas to celebrate 

Daylan’s, which is Darryn’s son, second birthday on September 7th. 

My wife and I had been on the coast to celebrate our anniversary. 

We had just pulled into our driveway and started to unload the 

truck. Jarrett had come over and told us that Darryn’s wife’s neighbor had called to tell her that the Army was looking for her. This 

was approximately 15:30 hours. We told him that we would call her 

and tell her to be back at the house at 18:30 hours. I unhooked the 

boat, and we all went to New Braunfels. 

The Army notification team arrived at approximately 19:00 

hours. The Sergeant told us that Darryn had been killed on September 4th, and he would probably still be alive if he had remained 

in the truck like most officers would have instead of getting out of 

the truck to help get it out of the hole the IED had made. We were 

told he had saved soldiers lives when he spotted enemy combatant 

fire, an RPG, shoved others out of the way and alerted other soldiers. Darryn took a direct hit from the RPG. 

When we attended a memorial service for Darryn and other soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Lieutenant Colonel Baker’s wife hosted 

a luncheon for us. At that luncheon, Captain Silvino Silvino 

Sandoval told us exactly how Darryn was killed. He stated they 

were on a mission to locate high interest Taliban and were passing 

through a village. The road had walls on each side and room to maneuver was limited. The lead vehicle hit an IED and was disabled, 

because of the walls were on each side around the vehicle was not 

possible. They got out to assess the damage. Darryn had Staff Sergeant Zavodny and PFC Martinec with him. Darryn saw the enemy 

combatant step from behind the wall and fire an RPG. Darryn 

yelled RPG and pushed Zavodny and Martinec to the ground, and 

then Darryn took a direct hit from the RPG. Staff Sergeant 

Zavodny received some damage to his ears, and Private Martinec 

survived the airlift to Germany, but died a few days later. 

On February 12th, 2010, Second Lieutenant Darryn Deen Andrews was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his heroic actions. At no time during this was it mentioned that he was searching for Bergdahl, only searching for a high interest Taliban. 

When Bergdahl was portrayed on television as serving with 

honor and distinction by State by Susan Rice. The soldiers who 

were there contacted my wife to make sure we knew, we understood what a hero was, and was not, and Bergdahl’s walking away 

was a contributing factor in Darryn’s death. 

I saw the Lieutenant Colonel on the television state, ‘‘If you want 

to know what happened ask the enlisted people, don’t ask the officers because the enlisted people can tell you exactly what happened.’’ We received testimony from six different soldiers, the same 

testimony that Bergdahl walked away and was not captured, and 

that Darryn was killed while searching for him. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

14


88387c-1.eps
15


88387c-2.eps
16


88387c-3.eps
17

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. The committee now will hear 

from Specialist Full. 

STATEMENT OF SPC. CODY FULL, USA, RETIRED (SERVED 

WITH SGT. BERGDAHL IN BLACKFOOT COMPANY, SECOND 

PLATOON) 

Mr. FULL. Chairman, ranking members and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to share my firsthand account of my experiences serving in Afghanistan. 

One of the first things I noticed about Bergdahl when he arrived 

in our unit, he was always asking questions. He seemed focused, 

he was well read, intelligent, blended in as he needed to be, always 

at the right place, right time, right uniform. 

In November I got deployed to the National Training Center to 

train for an upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. During this 

time, myself, or anybody I’ve spoken with can’t remember Bergdahl 

walking off the base and abandoning his team. This story seems to 

be repeated over and over again. I have no idea why. We would 

have at least heard about that or known it was happening. It did 

not happen. 

In March 2009, our brigade deployed to Afghanistan but 

Bergdahl did not make the deployment with us. He had gotten a 

staph infection and would not make it until May 2009. 

Soon after arriving in Afghanistan, we were tasked with building 

an overview called Observation Post MEST. While there we were 

on the front lines digging holes for bunkers, filling sandbags, driving T posts, hanging wire, all grilling tasks in themselves in 100 

degree weather, go ahead and add your equipment, it’s very tough. 

We were told we could take some items of clothing off to keep us 

from having a heat stroke. Security was always set in place. Nobody was ever in jeopardy. This has been used against us saying 

that we were a band of outlaws or misfits, not the case. Leaders 

were reprimanded for that by somebody higher up. We in the platoon felt that it was without merit. 

After arriving in Afghanistan, it didn’t take long for Bergdahl to 

start voicing his disagreements with the way our missions were 

being led. He didn’t understand why we were doing more humanitarian missions instead of hunting the Taliban. Our Team Leader 

and Squad Leader both told Bergdahl that those were our orders 

and we will follow them. 

Before we went out to OP MEST the day of June 30, 2009, about 

a week before we were told this is the last time we would ever go 

out to this observation post. During this time, Bergdahl mailed his 

items home or to a family friend. He mailed them back to the 

States. We didn’t know this until after we got back, after he deserted, and we found that his equipment had been mailed home. 

On the night of June 30th, excuse me, the morning of June 30th, 

100 percent accountability was held around 6 a.m. Everyone was 

given the proper number of men and equipment except for 3rd 

Squad Alpha Team, which was my team, the squad that Bergdahl 

was in. Platoon members immediately started searching the tiny 

observation post for missing items. We looked under cots, the latrine, under trucks, everywhere we could think. Bergdahl was noVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jul 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\061814\88387 SHIRL
18

where to be found. In a single man tent Bergdahl been sleeping in 

we found his gun, ammo and plate carrier. 

Patrols were immediately kicked out to the surrounding area to 

look for Bergdahl. According to some small children we spoke to 

they had seen a single American matching Bergdahl’s description 

crawling low on the ground through the reeds earlier that day on 

their way to school. The story was also confirmed by a cleric and 

a teacher that saw the same thing. 

A few days later we heard from our interpreter that the American that was walking around in the Afghan village looking for 

somebody that spoke English and water also wanted to seek out 

the Taliban. That was from the interpreter speaking it directly to 

us. 

After Bergdahl was found that he walked off, DUSTWAN was 

called up that his duty status and whereabouts unknown. Every 

asset in Afghanistan was pushed to this effort. After Bergdahl 

shipping his items home, local accounts of seeing him crawling and 

asking for the Taliban, the false stories he emailed his father and 

odd questions all helped us connect the dots later, but at the time 

of the unfolding of the events it seemed like normal off-the-wall jargon common when the infantry is deployed. 

The facts tell me that Bergdahl’s desertion was premeditated. He 

had a plan and was trying to justify it in his head. How long he 

had planned this I do not know, but it is clear to me that he had 

a plan and executed it. Countless people looked for him when he 

went missing putting their own lives on the line for his. 

Combat is difficult. The only thing you can count on in combat 

is the commitment of your fellow Americans. Knowing that someone you needed to trust deserted you in war and did so of his own 

free will is the ultimate betrayal. 

Now that Bergdahl is back in the United States an investigation 

needs to take place as to why he left us. All the documents, including the intelligence known on Bergdahl now need to come to the 

public view. Americans need to also see the original investigation 

on Bergdahl’s desertion. You should not be able to desert your fellow Americans without consequences. Bowe Bergdahl should not be 

characterized as having served with honor and distinction. Any 

armed service member who violates UCMJ is punished. Bergdahl 

should not be an exception. If Bergdahl hadn’t deserted us, he 

would never been held in captivity. 

In my opinion, Bowe Bergdahl needs to be charged with desertion, missing movement, disrespect for a superior commissioned officer, insubordinate conduct toward non-commissioned officer, failure to obey order or regulation, misbehavior before the enemy, and 

misconduct as prisoner. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Full follows:]

19


88387b-1.eps
20


88387b-2.eps
21


88387b-3.eps
22


88387b-4.eps
23


88387b-5.eps
24


88387b-6.eps
25


88387b-7.eps
26


88387b-8.eps
27

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Full. Mr. Waltz, your testimony for 5 

minutes, please. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE WALTZ, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY FELLOW, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION (COMMANDED A 

SPECIAL FORCES’ COMPANY IN EASTERN AFGHANISTAN IN 

2009) 

Mr. WALTZ. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, ranking members, 

thank you for holding this hearing today on a subject of vital national importance. 

I, too, want to take just a moment to pay tribute to the family 

members of the thousands who served their country in this conflict, 

particularly the Andrews family that are here with us today. At the 

end of the day, we volunteered, we volunteered to go but the families have to deal with the consequences of our service. 

On June 30th, 2009, I commanded a U.S. Army Special Forces 

Company with responsibility for operations in Afghanistan, particularly Paktika Province where then Private Bergdahl went missing. 

That evening two of my special forces teams boarded helicopters on 

a mission to search an Afghan compound where we had indication 

that Bergdahl may be held. This marked the beginning of several 

weeks worth of missions into some of the most hostile areas of Afghanistan and the Pakistan border to find him. 

Within days we received orders to halt all other ongoing missions 

and initiatives; notably, including preparations for the 2009 Afghan 

National Elections. We were ordered to devote all resources and energy to the search for Bergdahl. It soon became apparent, however, 

that the Taliban knew we were conducting an all-out search for 

him and they began feeding false information to our informant network in order to lure our forces into a trap. 

On several occasions, my men were lured into ambushes, including an Afghan home rigged with explosives, a car bomb that was 

primed to explode, and other types of deadly traps. Fortunately, the 

bombs failed to explode in those situations, but they were too close 

for comfort. Other soldiers, as we know, were not so fortunate. 

All of us commonly understood at the time that Bergdahl had 

walked off his post after a guard shift into a local Afghan village. 

We knew, though, that we had to do whatever it took to find him, 

and that was fine. But I have to tell you, all of my men, me included, were absolutely furious and resentful, frankly, that a fellow 

American soldier had put us into this position. It violated the most 

fundamental and basic ethos of being a soldier and a soldier’s 

creed. 

I’ll leave further speculation regarding his state of mind of his 

motives to my fellow witnesses who knew him personally, but I am 

confident in saying Sergeant Bergdahl endangered the lives of 

thousands of men and women sent to search for him. He diverted 

scarce and valuable resources such as predator drones, helicopters, 

IED clearing teams from other units that desperately needed those 

assets. 

Wittingly or unwittingly, he handed our enemies a significant 

propaganda tool that they repeatedly used in videos to denounce 

the United States and recruit for their cause. 

28

And, finally, we all know that he handed the Taliban’s leadership 

a strategic bargaining tool that they effectively used to free five of 

their most senior leaders, what I call the Taliban war cabinet. 

I just want to take a moment, I think it’s important to put the 

release of these men in the broader context of our policy toward Afghanistan. As I’m sure you are aware, millions of Afghans voted in 

the runoff election this past Saturday. They are in the midst of one 

of the most sensitive and unprecedented political transitions in 

their history. In my view, there are still significant questions 

whether they will succeed. 

Every Afghan that I’ve spoken to from civilian society, to government officials are stunned that we would release these individuals 

back into their society. We have to keep in mind, these men were 

household names, particularly they’re household names of the 

worst kind, particularly the women and minorities that were 

slaughtered at their hands. 

It’s the timing, though, of this release that has some of these 

groups particularly perplexed. We spent the last year dueling and 

cajoling President Karzai to sign a long-term security agreement 

with us, the Bilateral Security Agreement. Both of the final candidates to replace Karzai have indicated they would sign it, yet 

weeks before the Presidential election, the administration announces a full withdrawal of all U.S. forces by the end of ’16, essentially a zero option, and then we have restocked the Taliban war 

cabinet. So, even if the Government of Qatar is able to prevent 

these men from returning to their own ways, what’s going to happen a year from now? You know, a year in that part of the world 

is a blink of an eye to people who have long memories and a long 

view toward their objectives. 

You know, one can understand the confusion and transparency, 

and trepidation, excuse me, of even the most ardent supporters of 

a strong Afghan-U.S. relationship, so where does that leave our 

policy going forward? In my view, it’s one of hope and assumption. 

We’re assuming the Afghan army can hold its ground, we’re assuming there will be no ethnic violence as part of the transition. We’re 

assuming reconciliation talks will resume in our favor. And, most 

importantly, we’re assuming that al-Qaeda can’t reconstitute like it 

has in Iraq and as in Syria. 

And I would just leave you with a word of caution. If that scares 

us, and what’s going on right now with ISIS, and Iraq, and Syria 

should, what’s going to happen when we’re dealing with a nuclear 

arsenal in Pakistan? I have other views, but I’m happy to answer 

a question on AUMF and on future GITMO release, but I am out 

of time, and with that I will stop, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]

29


88387a-1.eps
30


88387a-2.eps
31


88387a-3.eps
32


88387a-4.eps
33


88387a-5.eps
34


88387a-6.eps
35


88387a-7.eps
36


88387a-8.eps
37


88387a-9.eps
38

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

STATEMENT OF MARK JACOBSON, PH.D., SENIOR ADVISOR, 

TRUMAN NATIONAL SECURITY PROJECT 

Mr. JACOBSON. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, Ranking Members Sherman and Deutch, and distinguished members of the joint 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. 

I should first note that I, too, extend my gratitude to the Andrews family for the sacrifice they have made. I would like to have 

known their son. From what I have read and from what I have 

heard, he’s a true hero. 

I’m also honored to be sitting beside my friend, Mike Waltz, who 

is also a true patriot and a hero, and has served his nation bravely 

in Afghanistan. And thank you, Specialist Full, for your service, as 

well. 

As someone who served in the Pentagon on September 11th, 

2001, the threat posed by terrorism is not lost on me. While I had 

made the decision years before to devote myself to my nation, that 

day changed all of our lives forever. As a result, I spent several 

years in Afghanistan as a Naval Intelligence Officer, and later as 

a civilian advisor. 

I am acutely aware of the danger that remains today in Afghanistan. For the four of us at the table, this conflict is personal and 

we all feel the impact of this war in a way most Americans do not. 

One of the greatest commitments an American can make to their 

nation is to put on a uniform and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. By taking this oath, 

these men and women make the selfless decision to put their country first. They do so knowing that they may be one day called to 

give that last full measure of devotion, to give their lives for their 

comrades, their families, and their nation. In exchange for that, the 

military makes its own promise, a promise to keep faith with those 

who have been captured. The commitment is simple, leave no man 

or woman behind, no exceptions. This commitment is unequivocal 

regardless of the circumstances of capture. This is something we 

owe to all those who have served, do serve, and will serve. 

In short, this is why I believe that securing Sergeant Bergdahl’s 

release was absolutely the right thing to do, and was worth the potential risks. Indeed, if Bergdahl did act improperly, then it is even 

more important that he brought home and held accountable in the 

military system for his actions. 

While there is always risk when releasing detainees, those risks 

must be seen within a broader context. Indeed, the potential risks 

for the administration are no greater today than they were during 

the previous administration when 532 detainees were released 

from Guantanamo Bay. But there are reasons why given the situation today we should temper our concerns. 

First, as outlined by Secretary of Defense Hagel, the Qatari government has committed to specific risk mitigation measures, including travel restrictions, monitoring, and other limitations. Second, there is not a consensus that these five individuals will inevitably return to the battlefield. And, if they do, the Afghanistan of 

2014 is simply not the Afghanistan of 2001. 

39

As Mike Waltz mentioned, the Afghan people have just gone 

through elections, 14 million ballots cast in two separate elections 

in open defiance of the Taliban. The strength of the insurgency will 

not regenerate because of the presence of five more individuals on 

the battlefield, especially since they’ve been off the battlefield for 

over a decade. 

Some have questioned whether the recent prisoner exchange created new precedents that will endanger the lives of U.S. personnel. 

While the exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl took place before the end 

of the war in Afghanistan, in the past we have conducted prisoner 

exchanges before the end of hostilities, World War II and the Korean War, for example. 

Likewise, the threat of kidnaping U.S. members of the armed 

forces by terrorists and insurgents has long been the case in Afghanistan. It was my own number one threat while I served in uniform. There is no reason to think that this calculus will be changed 

by the recent exchange. 

Finally, the United States has been negotiating with the Taliban 

for some time now, a recognition that the war in Afghanistan cannot end without a political settlement. I understand the disappointment we feel in the stories coming out about Sergeant Bowe 

Bergdahl, and I understand the anger felt by some of his comrades 

who feel that he deliberately left his post. If I were them, I might 

feel the same way, but the truth is we do not yet know the whole 

truth. 

In our nation of laws, the presumption of innocence is sacrosanct. 

People are innocent until proven guilty; thus, before passing judgment there must a thorough investigation. It must be allowed to 

take place without politics or partisanship. Without that we are unlikely to ever have accountability. 

We may not like it, but in the end foreign affairs and national 

security policy are often about juggling bad options and finding the 

least worst approach. There are rarely simple solutions. The decision to exchange Sergeant Bergdahl may be imperfect, but it was 

the right decision. We never leave our soldiers behind. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, for inviting me to testify. I am pleased to stand ready for your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobson follows:]

40


88387d-1.eps
41


88387d-2.eps
42


88387d-3.eps
43


88387d-4.eps
44


88387d-5.eps
45


88387d-6.eps
46

Mr. POE. Thank all of you all for your testimony. We’ll now go 

to questions by the individual members. I recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

There are several issues that have come to light during this 

hearing, the first one is Sergeant Bergdahl, why did he leave his 

post, and what’s going to happen to him in the future? The second 

would be those that looked for him, what happened to some of 

them, and what did the government, the U.S. Army tell those who 

lost sons looking for him? 

There is the issue of do we negotiate with terrorists or do we not 

negotiate with terrorists? What is the foreign policy of the United 

States? Maybe one of you could come up with the answer to that 

question. 

And then there’s the Taliban Five, or as Mr. Waltz has called 

them, the Taliban war cabinet, I believe is what the term was. Who 

are the folks, and why were they in GITMO in the first place, and 

what are they going to do in the future? So, those are the four 

issues that I want to address. 

Let’s start with you, Mr. Andrews. What did the Army tell you 

about the way your son was killed? 

Mr. ANDREWS. They said that they were searching for a highranking Taliban, and had gone to this bazaar to search for him. 

And because of—this was actually in the Silver Star commendation, but because they had so many problems with IEDs on the 

road, that instead of coming in from the south, they sent them 

around to come in from the north. 

Mr. POE. Excuse me for interrupting, but they told you they 

were—your son was looking for a Taliban commander of some type? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Bergdahl was never mentioned. 

Mr. POE. All right. When did you learn that that was not true? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Last Saturday. 

Mr. POE. Were you ever instructed, or asked, or told by the U.S. 

Army to sign a confidentiality agreement not to tell anybody about 

what you were told by the Army? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I was not, but the soldiers who contacted my wife 

were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, they said. 

Mr. POE. All right. Sergeant Full, you obviously are very passionate about your testimony. Were members of the United States 

military killed looking for Bergdahl? 

Mr. FULL. I don’t know. What I do know is we were told that we 

wouldn’t be in certain areas before he went and deserted us. So, 

if he wouldn’t have deserted us we, probably—those people 

wouldn’t have been in those places where they were killed on that 

day. They would have been somewhere else, they would have been 

in a different section of Afghanistan. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Waltz, do you want to weigh in on that specific 

question? 

Mr. WALTZ. Mr. Chairman, I can’t draw, and I don’t know of anyone that can draw a direct line, but I can tell you to the best of 

my knowledge every unit, particularly in Paktika Province where 

Specialist Full was located, but also mine, and Khost, and the 

Zorani Provinces in Ghazni were dedicated to that search. If someone was killed during that specific amount of time, unless they 

47

tripped and hit their head on the way to the mess hall, they were 

out looking for Sergeant Bergdahl. 

Mr. POE. The Taliban war cabinet, Mr. Waltz, you indicated a lot 

of concern about who these guys are. One of them, even the United 

Nations has indicted one of them for war crimes. Who are these 

people? Americans are really not sure, they don’t know who these 

type folks are. 

Mr. WALTZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have—we’ve released now 

the Taliban’s Deputy Minister of Defense, a senior operative in 

their intelligence service that was responsible for migrating alQaeda intelligence tactics over the Taliban. We have released the 

former Taliban governor of Herat, which is the westernmost province on the border with Iran and was responsible for liaising with 

the Iranian Government on behalf of the Taliban. And we released 

gentlemen that were wanted for war crimes for literally massacring 

thousands of the ethnic minority that are Shia. We look at the sectarian violence going on across the Middle East, I wouldn’t call that 

necessarily a wise move. 

These gentlemen—the question I can’t get anyone to ask that 

was involved with this, and I’ve talked to a number, is why did the 

Taliban pick those five? Out of all of the spectrum of folks they 

could have chosen out of Guantanamo, why did we give them essentially their top five draft picks? 

Mr. POE. And one follow-up question on that. Understanding the 

agreement, Qatar is supposed to supervise them, but the supervision or house arrest, if you will, is for just 1 year. Is that your 

understanding of the deal that was made? 

Mr. WALTZ. That’s my understanding, Mr. Chairman. And, frankly, I think some of the details of what they can or can’t do in the 

next year are almost moot. The fact is it’s only for a year. 

Mr. POE. Last question. Dr. Jacobson, we’ve heard this through 

the media. The Lovelady family in Texas was told that the United 

States doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Their son was later killed 

in the Algerian attack. Does the United States have a policy that 

we don’t negotiate with terrorists, or we don’t have a policy? 

Mr. JACOBSON. What I can tell you is that I don’t believe that 

the Bergdahl exchange is an example of negotiating with terrorists. 

I believe it is an exchange of prisoners, something that we’ve seen 

historically toward the end of war. 

Mr. POE. Thank you very much. The Chair will now recognize 

the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me first put to rest this absurd argument that 

these five Taliban prisoners would have to have been released 

under the laws of war when we concluded combat operations in 

2014, or when we were down to a couple of hundred trainers in 

2016. I’m pleased to note for our record that just last week the 

General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Steve Preston, testified there that we would continue to have a legal right to hold 

Taliban prisoners, not just with the conclusion of war in Afghanistan, but until the broader battle defined under the AUMF was 

concluded. 

We’re going to continue to have American trainers in Afghanistan for many, many years. The Taliban soldiers will try to kill 

48

those trainers. The laws of war do not require us to augment the 

forces trying to wage war against our trainers or against the Afghan Government. We are at war with the Taliban for as long as 

they are allied with terrorist organizations waging war against the 

United States, or as long as the Taliban is waging war against the 

government in Afghanistan. 

Mr. Jacobson, I’ve got a number of questions. I’m hoping you’ll 

be able to answer them very succinctly in some cases with a yes 

or no. We’re told that some of these five released are ‘‘wanted by 

the U.N. for war crimes.’’ Does the U.N. have a process by which 

anyone can be wanted by the U.N. for war crimes? Have they ever 

indicted anybody? Do they have a process to indict anybody? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I’m unaware of that, and I understand that there 

is some debate over how that came in some of the DoD documents, 

and where that came from. 

Mr. SHERMAN. There are many urban legends in foreign policy. 

Are any of these five under indictment from the International 

Criminal Court or any other recognized body that focuses on war 

crimes? 

Mr. JACOBSON. You would have to ask the Department of State, 

or you’d have to ask the International——

Mr. SHERMAN. Are you aware——

Mr. JACOBSON. I’m not aware, no. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And I did ask you to research this, didn’t I? 

Mr. JACOBSON. What I think is important, Congressman, is understanding, again, this context. These individuals are dangerous 

but they are simply not going back to that same battlefield from 

which they were captured. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I’ve got very limited time. I want to go on to something else. The question arises whether continued patrols should 

have been made to try to retrieve Sergeant Bergdahl. I should note 

for the record here that Senators Toomey, Burr, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, along with eight Republican members of the House, at a time when we already knew the mysterious 

circumstances of Bergdahl’s departure, and that this was widely 

published put forward a resolution stating that ‘‘abandoning the 

search efforts for members of the armed forces who are missing or 

captured is unacceptable.’’ At the time, there was only one member 

of our armed services missing or captured, and these fine Members 

of Congress, House, and Senate knew full well that those additional patrols that they were demanding would be dangerous for 

our armed forces. 

I should also point out that as to whether this deal was a good 

deal, it was Senator McCain who knew exactly the parameters of 

this deal, except for the details, that it was these five for one 

named Bergdahl because the possible outlines of this deal were 

published on the front page of the Washington Post on February 

17th, and in that context on February 18th Senator McCain said 

he was for the deal if the details were correct. Now, maybe the details don’t meet his specifications, but it is, indeed, a close call 

whether this five for one deal was or was not in the national security interest of the United States. 

We are told that it is somehow news that we’ve revealed to the 

Taliban that we care about our prisoners. The only other democVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:15 Jul 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_TNT\061814\88387 SHIRL
49

racy to have soldiers captured in the Middle East to my knowledge 

is Israel. Dr. Jacobson, what were the Israelis willing to do to get 

back Sergeant Major Gilad Shalit? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I don’t want to mistake the details of that particular case, but what I am aware of is at times the Israelis have 

exchanged over 1,000 prisoners for one individual, and also they’ve 

exchanged prisoners for the remains of their fallen. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So, anyone observing the practices of democracies 

doing battle in the Middle East would reach the conclusion that if 

you could capture somebody, democracies have a particular need to 

try to get that person back and are willing to make extraordinary 

concessions, as you pointed out, sometimes 1,000 to 1. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I don’t think anyone would disagree with the 

point that our democracy has shown that it cares a great deal 

about our men and women who have been left behind and captured. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And, finally, as to these five released Taliban, 

their battlefield experience is from 2001. Were the tactics that 

they’re familiar with near as good as the tactics used by the 

Taliban today? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Unfortunately, in my opinion the insurgents in 

Afghanistan have evolved tremendously since that period in 2001 

in terms of their tactics. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Sherman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank 

you all for being here. I just, you know, again we’re going to the 

idea of let’s point out everybody that ever said anything about releasing this one person and, therefore, the administration made the 

right decision because others said it. 

I’d be remiss if I didn’t make a bigger point here on the Afghanistan issue, which is the President has announced that in January 

2017, all American troops will be out of Afghanistan. And, you 

know, that’s fine for him to make that decision, but I would just 

point people to what’s happening in Iraq today as a precursor of 

what’s going to happen in Afghanistan if that occurs. But, again, 

we’re here for the specific issues. And, again, I want to thank all 

of you for being here. 

Let me ask a question to the Specialist. What do you think—

when you were in training and you heard this idea of your country 

will never leave you behind, and it’s something that as members 

of the armed forces we take very seriously, and something that we 

take a great deal of comfort in. When you heard that, what is your 

understanding of your country will never leave you behind mean? 

What does that guarantee in your mind, and is that an idea that 

they will release five or 1,000 terrorists to get you back? What is 

it that that meant to you, Specialist? 

Mr.FULL. Well, what it means to me is, you know, I put my nation first when I volunteered to serve the United States Army in 

the time of war. So, by putting them first, they would put me first 

to a certain extent. But I keep hearing, you know, we shall leave 

no man behind because we can trade with another nation, and it’s 

done in all these previous wars, but Taliban is not a nation. 

They’re a terrorist organization, so is the Haqqani Network who 

50

helped Bowe Bergdahl. From what I gathered from it, it was always leave no honorable man behind, not leave no man behind. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And do you believe—so, you may be in touch 

with folks that are still in Afghanistan or, obviously, people you 

served with. And I’ll ask the four of you, and you can expand on 

this, Specialist, because we want—the other three I’ll ask to keep 

fairly short. 

Do you believe that the release of Bergdahl from the Taliban and 

the subsequent video they put out, obviously, has to have some 

meaning showing, i.e., the American helicopter leaving and, in essence, withdrawing from the area. Do you believe that was a propaganda victory or a propaganda defeat for the Taliban, this exchange? And what do you think that does to the heart of the soldier 

that saw this happen, Specialist? 

Mr. FULL. I think it’s a propaganda victory for the Taliban on account of now we’re kind of a direct—only traded one for five. It’s 

simple math. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And do you sense that this will help or hurt the 

Taliban’s recruiting effort to recruit people to kill Americans, and 

to kill Afghans who have put their lives on the line to build a 

strong and stable country? 

Mr. FULL. I would assume it would help them, and not hurt 

them. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Mr. Andrews, what’s your thought on that question? 

Mr. ANDREWS. From what I can see, it is a victory propagandawise for the Taliban. They won, you know, it is the way it looks 

like when you see the footage, so I think it benefitted the Taliban 

greatly. I think it also put soldiers more in danger of being captured because the rewards are more for getting one and trading 

them rather than——

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. Mr. Waltz, and Mr. Jacobson, please, 

very quickly if you guys could just respond either yes or no, basically. 

Mr. WALTZ. Just very quickly, Mullah Omar, the leader of the 

Taliban, considered it a victory and stated so as soon as he received 

his five top commanders back. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I don’t trust Mullah Omar, so I would say it pales 

by comparison to the video that could have taken place with one 

of our soldiers being beheaded like we saw with Nick Berg or with 

Daniel Pearl. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, that’s an interesting twist. So, your twist 

is you don’t trust this guy; therefore, him saying that it was a victory for his organization is probably a lie. And, I mean, that’s kind 

of surprising to me, because I think if it was not a victory for them, 

they probably wouldn’t have said anything. They released a video 

and they probably would have sat back and been very quiet about 

it, so that’s an interesting spin. You have a right to your opinion, 

but I think that was an interesting take that the other three do 

not share. 

And do you believe, Specialist, do you believe he intentionally left 

his post? And do you have a sense as to why he might have intentionally left? 

51

Mr. FULL. Yes, I do believe he left without a doubt. We knew 

within 1 hour, 2 hours that he had deserted. I don’t know why he 

did it. He, obviously, had a plan. It was premeditated. Why would 

you ship all your items home in the middle of a deployment? So, 

with the emails and other questions he asked us, connecting the 

dots later, yes, he deserted without a doubt. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So, I get—and thank you. And while I get, you 

know, some folks saying well, we need to wait to have this adjudicated in courts, and I understand the idea of that. The reality is, 

we know that Sergeant Bergdahl left his post. We know it. 

Now, was he in full mental state? I guess that can be determined, but there are a lot of people that have had mental challenges with dealing with what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq 

that still do not leave their brothers and sisters behind in combat. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the witnesses, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Waltz, Sergeant Bergdahl was designated missing and captured, right, at the time? 

Mr. WALTZ. My understanding, sir, is he was designated missing 

and a prisoner of war, and that’s why he was since promoted in 

absentia. That confers a number of benefits. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And, Dr. Jacobson, how is that determination 

made? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Well, that determination was made by the Department of Defense. I don’t know the specific details, what they 

would have to go through, but I would agree with—my understanding is the same as Mike’s. 

Mr. DEUTCH. For both of you, what process—I understand, as I 

said in my opening comments, and now it has been confirmed by 

some of the comments by my colleagues, some of them know what 

happened. They have reached a conclusion. It was obvious, we’re 

told. But what does the military actually do to reach the same conclusion? What steps does the military take in determining whether 

someone who is determined to be missing is actually—has actually 

deserted? Mr. Waltz? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, if I—I think the key point here is that 

what the military has done to date has been initial and, therefore, 

incomplete. They have not done a full investigation and, therefore, 

I’m not sure how one would draw a full conclusion as to what they 

think—what we think happened. 

Mr. DEUTCH. But how do they—do you have any further insight? 

It seems very easy from what a lot of elected officials said, it’s not 

that hard to figure out. He’s a deserter and, apparently, we 

shouldn’t have made this deal. Well, what’s the military done to 

reach that same conclusion? 

Mr. WALTZ. Sir, my understanding of the deal at the time was 

that a 15–6 or some type of investigation under UCMJ was conducted. A number of the folks that were on site were interviewed, 

and the reason that investigation was not closed was they needed 

to interview the subject at hand, who was obviously missing. 

52

Mr. DEUTCH. And if that investigation continues, what might 

they learn, Dr. Jacobson? What could they learn during that investigation? 

Mr. JACOBSON. From what I have seen in the press so far, a 

great deal has come out. For example, we have seen information 

come out that perhaps Sergeant Bergdahl tried to escape several 

times, which forced his captors to put him into isolation. We’ve now 

seen reports about Sergeant Bergdahl’s prior enlistment in the 

Coast Guard. 

I walk away with more questions from what I’ve seen come out 

so far. We’ve even seen today in testimony, what type of person, 

was Sergeant Bergdahl? So, again, more questions, which is exactly 

why there needs to be a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his capture. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Dr. Jacobson, Mr. Waltz, what happens if my colleagues are wrong? What happens if the military completes its investigation and determines any one of a thousand different things 

happened, and that Sergeant Bergdahl was, in fact, missing and a 

prisoner of war, not a deserter? Can you speak to that? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Let me speak to it. Mike might have some other 

comments, but my concern is if we look back at what happened to 

many of our prisoners of war during the Korean War and during 

the Vietnam War, many were accused of collaboration, not acting 

properly. In fact, Senator McCain was at the forefront of insuring 

that many of those records were sealed until proper investigations 

could be done, because our enemies want us to think that certain 

things happened. And I’m not suggesting one way or another that 

this happened during the Bergdahl case, but that’s why we have 

to be careful so we don’t impugn those who didn’t do wrong. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I have a minute left, let me just cut to the chase. 

If the military conducts its full investigation and determines that 

Sergeant Bergdahl is a deserter, what’s the penalty for that? 

Mr. WALTZ. Sir, in wartime, and there’s some debate whether 

this has been officially declared as a war. In wartime, that could 

be punishable up to death. There are various forms of UCMJ punishment obviously less than that. But to your point, sir, there’s 

been a lot of discussion of rush to judgment, and I would postulate 

at least I would have reacted very differently. I know Specialist 

Full would have reacted very differently if this had been handled 

appropriately in the first few days after his release with the accusations of hero and served with distinction and what have you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Waltz, I’m grateful for the distinction in your 

approach. In all sincerity, I’m glad you made that comment. I 

would just finish with this last question. As you pointed out, there 

are a whole range of punishments from—under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice. Is one of those punishments subcontracted out 

to the Taliban to decide how to punish someone? I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. POE. You may answer the question yes or no, if you can. 

Mr. WALTZ. Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure I understand the question. 

Mr. POE. Okay. The gentleman does yield back his time. The 

Chair will recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton, for 

5 minutes. 

53

Mr. COTTON. Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, I am deeply sorry for your 

loss. Nothing will bring back your son, Darryn, but hopefully the 

truth, which I’d like to get at in the next 5 minutes, will help salve 

the wounds that no doubt are still with you. 

For the record, I’d like to corroborate what Specialist Full and 

Mr. Waltz have said that impact our missions across Afghanistan. 

I was in Laughman Province which is part of a thing called N2KL, 

Nuristan and Kunar, through Laughman Province. We saw the diversion of air assets to search for Private Bergdahl. 

Second, I’d also like to stipulate for the record that if there were 

no doubt that Private Bergdahl had been captured heroically on the 

field of battle trying to save his fellow Americans, I would still 

think trading five senior Taliban commanders was a bad idea. 

Likewise, even though all evidence points toward his desertion, 

it would still be the right thing to do to try to rescue him as Specialist Full and Lieutenant Andrews did. And, of course, he deserves his day in court according to this chain of command, or now 

unlawful command influence of this President, or any civilian leaders or general officers in the Pentagon. 

Now, Mr. Jacobson, would you trade Khalid Sheik Mohammed 

for Private Bergdahl? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Congressman, I mean, that was——

Mr. COTTON. Reclaiming my time, it’s a simple yes or no question. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I don’t think that there are simple yes or no questions like that in war. 

Mr. COTTON. Reclaiming my time, I gather by your unwillingness 

to answer the question you realize that you cannot answer it. Tony 

Blinken, the present Senior Deputy Security Advisor said that he 

would not. So, I guess that means under those circumstances the 

President would have been leaving Private Bergdahl behind. 

Now, moving to Specialist Full, you say in your statement that 

you are part of Alpha Team. Were you on the same team as Private 

Bergdahl? 

Mr. FULL. Same platoon, same squad, same team. 

Mr. COTTON. Okay. So, down to the lowest level, those of you 

don’t know, that’s a four-man fire team. 

Mr. FULL. We were one man short, so it was just——

Mr. COTTON. Were you his team leader at the time? 

Mr. FULL. No, I was not. 

Mr. COTTON. Okay. So, you are among the one or two people on 

the team who had been working most closely with him and seen 

him in action day, after day, after day. 

Mr. FULL. Yes. 

Mr. COTTON. Okay. I’ve heard numerous reports that Private 

Bergdahl sought out and had civilian Afghanistan friends, something I saw commonly in Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers engaging 

in conversation, oftentimes innocent with children, maybe dining 

on base with Afghan security officers. Is that an accurate report, 

that he had these civilian friends in and around OP MEST? 

Mr. FULL. Yes. 

Mr. COTTON. Okay. You testified, or you stated in your testimony 

a cleric and teacher saw him looking, roaming as to the children, 

and you heard over the radio the interpreter that an American was 

54

looking for someone in the village who spoke English, and wanted 

to talk to the Taliban. If he had numerous civilian Afghan friends, 

is it curious to you that he would ask them where the Taliban is 

rather than simply hide out with him? 

Mr. FULL. I’m not sure I understand the question. 

Mr. COTTON. So, if Private Bergdahl left his post and attempted, 

as you say, to wander across the mountains perhaps to India, do 

you think it’s curious that he wouldn’t be asking his friends in Afghanistan where the Taliban is rather than just hanging out in a 

hideout with his friends? 

Mr. FULL. Yes. 

Mr. COTTON. Tactics, techniques and procedures, TTPs, that describes how we conduct operations, what is the established order 

for conducting any particular task or operation in the Army. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. FULL. Yes. 

Mr. COTTON. In the missions after Private Bergdahl’s disappearance did it appear that the Afghan enemy had greater knowledge 

of your unit’s TTPs, such as where you park after an IED, or how 

you react in ambush? 

Mr. FULL. I don’t know if they had greater knowledge after he 

did disappear. I don’t know if another player moved into the area 

or whatnot, but after he did disappear, yes, the ambushes picked 

up, cover and concealment was used. They hit us hard after he left. 

IEDs were moved in different directions, and they were, instead of 

taking a tire or a front end off a vehicle, they were hitting direct 

hits on the vehicles. 

Mr. COTTON. And that would be consistent with Private Bergdahl 

being held in captivity by the Taliban, Haqqani Network and 

breaking under interrogation and sharing those TTPs. Correct? 

Mr. FULL. I don’t know. I wasn’t there while he was held under 

captivity. I don’t know what he told them. I wasn’t there. 

Mr. COTTON. It could also be consistent with the fact that he 

willingly shared those TTPs with the Taliban and Haqqani Network. Correct? 

Mr. FULL. Like I said, I don’t know what he told them, what he 

didn’t tell them. I wasn’t there. 

Mr. COTTON. When you were conducting missions in the days 

and weeks after his disappearance did any of your NCOs or your 

team leader or company commander raise the possibility that Private Bergdahl might be a security risk himself if you were to find 

him on the battlefield? 

Mr. FULL. Our main focus at that point was just trying to find 

him and get him back. It didn’t matter how, who, or when, but that 

was our main focus from the time he left until about 21⁄2 months 

later, every day trying to find this guy. 

Mr. COTTON. Were you asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement 

as part of your Article 15–6 investigation? 

Mr. FULL. I was asked to sign a media gag order. There was 

other people in my platoon that were asked to sign an official NDA 

with, you know, a field grade officer present to witness them signing. 

Mr. COTTON. Mr. Waltz——

55

Mr. POE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jacobson, obviously we’ve heard testimony today and there 

have been some reports of some unusual behavior attributed to 

Sergeant Bergdahl. And, obviously, our great American soldiers 

overwhelmingly are able to sustain the stresses and difficulties of 

combat without exhibiting unusual behavior that had been described both during this hearing and in the media. And is there a 

system or process in place to evaluate the behavior of a soldier to 

make a determination as to whether or not it’s related to the combat operations, or related to his or her service? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Congressman, speaking from my own experience 

there were—the first line of defense when you have a soldier who’s 

a problem or not doing things right is his chain of command. That 

would include their NCOs and the officers above them. There are 

also—during my time in Afghanistan there were a great—there 

was a great deal of effort expended to make sure that there were 

preventive mental health clinics and places where soldiers could go. 

I cannot speak to the specifics of any of this with regards to 

Bergdahl, though. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But there’s a system in place to monitor members 

of the armed forces to insure that we’re understanding the impact 

of being in combat and the stresses of their service. 

Mr. JACOBSON. That’s my understanding, especially over the last 

decade. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And in addition to that, one of the reasons we—

there’s a process to conduct a hearing and an investigation, and a 

review of those facts to make a determination as to whether or not 

someone has deserted, or something else is going on. Is that right? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And there is a process that will happen, in fact, 

in this case as it relates to this individual? 

Mr. JACOBSON. In fact, the Department of Defense earlier this 

week announced that it will be a Two Star General who will be 

leading the overall investigation. We’ve heard Army Chief of Staff 

Odierno say that there will a full investigation, and that was 

echoed by the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, General Martin Dempsey. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So, in addition to that we have this other principle about insuring that we leave no soldier behind as part of kind 

of the warrior ethos, as part of the soldier’s creed. It’s a deeply held 

American belief and practice that we leave no soldier behind, and 

we do everything we can to secure the release of any American 

who’s caught in time of war. Correct? 

Mr. JACOBSON. That is something that I believe in. That is something that I think that even if you don’t like the circumstances of 

someone being captured you believe it’s necessary to go and get 

them, leave no one behind. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So, why wouldn’t we do this hearing, investigation, and all the kinds of things that are going to happen now before we secure the release of an American? Isn’t that what—

couldn’t we do it that way? 

56

Mr. JACOBSON. I’m not sure I understand your question. 

Mr. CICILLINE. My point is, we can’t conduct an investigation, the 

kind of investigation that is required and that is underway prior 

to securing the release of the prisoner of war in most instances. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I think that would be very difficult because you 

want to interview the individual captured. That’s why, as I said before, there was an initial investigation that was by definition incomplete. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So, it makes sense then that we do everything we 

can to secure the release of every American prisoner of war. And 

then if, in fact, an investigation proves that they have done something improper or engaged in some misconduct they will, of course, 

be required—be punished in the appropriate way. And in this case 

if, in fact, this individual turns out to be having deserted under the 

Military Code of Justice he could up to, you said, a death sentence. 

Mr. JACOBSON. Yes, I think—now, I understand that death is a 

possible punishment, too. I would note that the last American deserter prosecuted, Charles Jenkins, he had left his post on a DMZ 

in Korea, the demilitarized zone in Korea in the ’60s. When he 

came back to the United States 2006–2008 time frame he was 

court-martialed, sentenced to 26 days confinement, and then given 

a dishonorable discharge. That’s a range, or that comes after the 

investigation and after charges are referred and there is a trial. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And, Dr. Jacobson, my final question is what do 

you think the impact would be on our American military if our men 

and women did not know that this country was committed to securing their release and to undertaking every imaginable effort to 

bring them home? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I think, first, that that would shatter the bonds 

of trust between the soldiers and the American people, and the 

chain of command. Secondly, I think that it would be an enormous 

propaganda coup for our enemies when they have these people in 

captivity that we don’t care about. It would signal in many ways 

that we no longer are committed to our men and women in uniform. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Dr. Jacobson. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back the time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cook, Colonel Cook, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Andrews, I know it’s tough to be here. As someone who’s 

been in combat, the second hardest duty, I know probably the hardest duty is to actually go up to the parents or the spouses and then 

to tell them their son or daughter is no longer with them. It is very 

tough what you’re going through. You have my heartfelt condolences. 

Specialist, if you could bear with me some of the questions. I understand that his weapon was left behind? 

Mr. FULL. That is correct. 

Mr. COOK. All his ammunition? 

Mr. FULL. Ammunition, night vision, his plate carrier. 

Mr. COOK. Night vision device was left behind? 

57

Mr. FULL. Yes, all sensitive items were left behind. A couple of 

days before that he had asked another platoon member what would 

happen if one of his sensitive items went missing, would that certain soldier be in trouble? That certain soldier responded with yes, 

so Bergdahl left all his sensitive items. 

Mr. COOK. Did he have access to radio freqs? 

Mr. FULL. He would, but he didn’t have a radio with him. 

Mr. COOK. No, but just the frequencies themselves, they were all 

pre-programmed into the radio? 

Mr. FULL. Yes. Standard procedure when DUSTWAN happens 

you change your radio frequency. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. Any maps or GPS systems at all that went with 

him, or was that all left behind? 

Mr. FULL. I don’t know if he had a map on him, but GPS would 

be sensitive equipment. He didn’t have that. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. I think there’s been a lot of talk about desertion 

and everything else. Correct me if I’m wrong, but usually in a situation like that desertion is pretty much an admin term because one 

of the elements that you have to prove is permanent desertion. So, 

an individual that would disappear from the unit, I don’t know, all 

the instances that I had, and I was a legal officer when I came 

back from—it’s normally just unauthorized absence. That’s one of 

the charges because you have to prove permanent desertion from 

the unit. Am I correct or incorrect on that? 

Mr. FULL. That is correct. AWOL also turns into desertion after 

30 days. 

Mr. COOK. Administratively, normally, so that they’re carried on 

that. But once they turn themselves in or what have you, that 

turns into—okay. 

A couple of things in terms of just trust in the unit. I get the impression that the unit itself, and I really believe in the Code of 

Conduct. I believe in taking care of everybody in the unit, and to 

give your life for somebody like that. But I get the feeling that you 

lost full trust and confidence in that individual that he would be 

on your right flank or your left flank. In other words——

Mr. FULL. As far as the rest of the platoon? 

Mr. COOK. No, you, and if you could—if you had any opinions 

what the feeling of the rest of the platoon is? 

Mr. FULL. Well, the rest of the platoon, we’re brothers. None of 

the rest of us walked off on our own free will. 

Mr. COOK. No, but I—the attitude of this individual that was 

missing in action. 

Mr. FULL. Well, he walked off on his own accord. If he never 

would have walked off, he never would have been held in captivity. 

The rest of us fought for the guy to our left and our right, and in 

front and back. And I don’t know he felt about us but we all felt 

strongly that we would give our lives for him. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. In terms of the Taliban, I’m not going to go into 

the surprise, you know, that you weren’t notified, but just an impact on a combat unit that is fighting that organization and then 

suddenly for whatever reason that five of their top leaders, five of 

the ones that call the strategy, five of the ones that kill Americans, 

five of the ones that are involved in terrorism, are released. What 

58

kind of psychological impact do you think that would have for the 

unit aside from Bergdahl? 

Mr. FULL. Well, if my high-ranking members in my organization 

were released back to me, I’d feel pretty good about getting my top 

level guys back, personally. 

Mr. COOK. I understand that, but from the standpoint of the fact 

that the Taliban, basically the enemy that you’re trying to track 

down, find, and everything else, that the impact that hey, they’re 

back there calling the shots. Would that have a demoralizing impact on the unit if you were still with that unit, of course? 

Mr. FULL. Oh, no. The American forces are going to do whatever 

they can every single day, do what they’re supposed to do. I don’t 

think they’re really worried about anybody else. 

Mr. COOK. Okay. Mr. Waltz, in terms of permanent impact on 

policy in regards, have we set a precedent by doing this in regards 

to all the other terrorist groups? 

Mr. WALTZ. I believe we have, Congressman. I believe we’ve set 

a dangerous precedent, and I’d encourage this body to look closely 

at future efforts toward release and calls to close Guantanamo. We 

had these gentlemen detained. Men and women gave their lives to 

detain them. Now, unfortunately, I believe men and women will 

give their lives to capture or kill them once again. 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. And I want to thank the panel. I yield 

back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Vargas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And, again, 

thank you for holding this hearing. I want to add my condolences, 

too, to the Andrews family and, sir, to yourself and to your wife. 

And I hope that the chemotherapy that we’ve heard about just a 

little while ago is successful, sir. And your son, obviously, clearly 

was a hero, and thank God for him. And Specialist Full, too, we 

want to thank you. I want to thank you for your service to our nation. Mr. Waltz, you also, obviously, for the great service you’ve got. 

Mr. Jacobson, I want to ask you a little bit because earlier on everyone was thanked for their service except for you. Do you remember that? You were kind of cut off? You weren’t thanked for your 

service. Do you remember that? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I heard a lot of thanks for service. 

Mr. VARGAS. Okay. What was your service, because at one point 

everyone was thanked except for you. I thought you were in uniform for a while, too. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I did. I enlisted in the United States Army Reserve from 1993 through 2001 with service in Bosnia. I then took 

a U.S. Navy commission as an intelligence officer and continue to 

serve in the Navy Reserve today. 

Mr. VARGAS. Okay, thank you. I thought so. I wasn’t sure about 

it, so I just wanted to make sure. So, I want to thank you also for 

your service, thank you. 

Mr. JACOBSON. You’re welcome, Congressman. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you. Obviously, the issue here is the principle, I think, of do we exchange, do we negotiate, do we leave people behind? And, obviously, I mean, we’ve read a lot about what us 

politicians say, and I won’t take the time to read it. I was going 

59

to read from the Congressional Record because it’s interesting what 

politicians say when it’s beneficial to them. There’s lots of interesting things being said both sides. 

I’d like to know what the military thinks about this, Mr. Waltz. 

You seem to have a good ear to what the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 

others are saying. What do they say about this deal? Are they criticizing it? Are they in favor of it, have they been critical of it? Do 

you know what the Joint Chiefs have said, or what they believe? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, you know, obviously many of our—we 

have civilian oversight of the military and our most senior leaders 

are supportive of this policy. I can tell you from the rank and file, 

anecdotally, that are reaching out to me, they’re just as furious and 

resentful as we were at the time. And I think if things had been 

handled a little bit differently, if there had been a quiet reunion 

with the family and Sergeant Bergdahl had——immediately there 

hadn’t been a rush to judgment to call him a hero, and tell the 

world he served with distinction you would have seen a very—a 

much more muted reaction. 

Mr. VARGAS. So, it’s not necessarily the principle of getting them 

back. You know, I was very curious when I listened to you and you 

said that, I believe, and I don’t want to put words in your mouth, 

but I believe you said something we were out there looking for him 

and we were trying—and we should have, although we resented it, 

we were doing it. I mean, it sounded like you were doing what you 

thought you should have done. 

Mr. WALTZ. That’s right. I don’t know of many folks who debate 

the principle that we should get every American back. I think 

what’s debated and what’s controversial is, one, his treatment 

when it was announced. But then, two, the price we paid. And I 

personally believe the price was too high. Some people draw the 

line at Khalid Sheik Mohammad. I draw the line in the top five 

senior Taliban members that were requested by the Taliban. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, sir. Dr. Jacobson, I’m going to ask you 

the same question, again. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. What 

about that notion, do you know where the Joints Chiefs of Staff, 

where are they on this? Are they against it, are the military in 

favor of it? If they are, why? Would you comment on that? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I can only refer back in terms of the serving military leadership to the public statements made by Chairman of the 

Joint Staff Dempsey, General Odierno, and others. But two of my 

personal heroes who have retired from the military, General Jim 

Mattis and General Stanley McChrystal have been unequivocal in 

their support for that concept, and I’d be proud to stand where they 

are in this. 

I do understand that some feel that it’s the right thing to do, but 

they don’t have to like it. There are a lot of missions in the military 

that soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines are very happy to do, that’s 

why they’re professionals, and they don’t like it. 

At the same time, I think what makes our nation so great is that 

I’ve spoken to many individuals who actually are very content with 

this, and didn’t have a problem doing it. But I would find it strange 

if there was any less disagreement over the—how much one enjoyed having to do this, or whether or not we should have done it. 

60

I’d be very surprised if there was that disagreement in the military. 

Mr. VARGAS. Well, you know, I have to say one of the things that 

I find odd right here is it seems like no one is disagreeing with the 

principle that we should get this guy, it was just how it was handled, how it was handled, you know, saying that he was a hero, you 

know, giving the Rose Garden deal and all that. It doesn’t seem 

like the principle is one that Mr. Waltz or—correct me if I’m wrong. 

It sounds like the principle is one you agree with. And I apologize——

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, it’s the principle and the price that we 

paid, and I would argue that we’ll have to pay again to deal with 

these gentlemen in the future. 

Mr. JACOBSON. And, Congressman, I think that it was a good 

price. I think this was worth the risk to get Sergeant Bergdahl 

back home. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jacobson, you had taken issue with Mr. Waltz when he had 

mentioned, I think correctly, that Mullah Omar thought this was 

a great thing for the liban. You said well, yes, maybe thought beheading Bergdahl would have been better for them. We can’t say 

that. Do you honestly think if they thought beheading Bergdahl 

would have helped them that they would not have done it in a second? They did this, they got those men back because they want 

those guys back in command. Of course it was better for them, so 

I thought—that comment I thought was just—struck me as totally 

off base. 

Let me ask you this, do we have troops in Afghanistan right 

now? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Yes, Congressman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. So, you have referenced troops who have 

been left behind. And we can argue whether Bergdahl left his unit 

behind. And I agree with Specialist Full, I think he did that, everyone that served with him said that. If we still have troops there, 

who have we left behind? We’re still fighting the conflict. It’s not 

over yet, so the notion that somehow had we not done this trade 

that means we ‘‘left him behind’’ is utter nonsense. So, what we’ve 

done is we’ve replenished the enemy in wartime when we still have 

fighters in there, and those individuals will be back on the battlefield, even if you believe this Qatar year. They’re going to be back 

while we still under the President’s timetable still have troops 

there. So, we have not left anybody behind. 

And I think Mr. Waltz hits it right on the head about the price 

that you pay. Does this help or harm the security interest of the 

United States? I would refer to people, like to my colleague, Sam 

Johnson, who was a Medal of Honor winner, one of the most respected men in this body, prisoner of war. He said, ‘‘Absolutely not, 

this should not have been done.’’ And when he was a prisoner of 

war, he would not have wanted to go back if it meant harming the 

security interest of his country. And when I talk to veterans in my 

district, and I have people who were POWs, they say the same 

61

thing. Yes, of course, we want to get everyone behind. We don’t 

harm the country and put everyone else at risk to do that. 

Mr. Andrews, did your son, Darryn, get honored at the White 

House for his service? 

Mr. ANDREWS. No, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And you were never invited to any type of Rose 

Garden ceremony? 

Mr. ANDREWS. No, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And I think a lot of veterans had a visceral reaction when they saw Bergdahl’s parents given the lack of honorable 

service——

Mr. ANDREWS. That’s when the people are calling me. 

Mr. DESANTIS [continuing]. It was done to try to say we got a 

hero back. Susan Rice, honor and distinction, in order to divert the 

public’s attention from the price that we paid. They didn’t want the 

public focusing on the Taliban Five. They wanted the public focusing on we brought a soldier home, and so they had to inflate his 

service in order to try do that. So, it was an attempt at a deception 

of the public, and I think it struck a lot—I mean, me as a veteran 

and a lot of my folks in my district were very, very upset about 

that. 

Let me ask you this. The Army lied to you, basically, about how 

your son died. Correct? 

Mr. ANDREWS. They at least, at the very best didn’t tell the 

whole story. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. So, knowing that, knowing that you didn’t 

get the whole story, do you have confidence with this Bergdahl 

matter, we heard oh, we’ve got to let the military decide, but do 

you have confidence that they’re going to do an investigation that’s 

impartial and adequate? 

Mr. ANDREWS. My personal feeling is if they will let the military 

do it and leave the politics out of it, I think they will do it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Do you think that if there is a high-ranking flag 

or general officer who’s career could be impacted by how that case 

goes——

Mr. ANDREWS. See, that’s putting politics back in. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I think, unfortunately, once you get up to 

that level, if that’s where it is, and I’m a former JAG Prosecutor, 

so I’m worried about how it’s working out. 

Specialist Full, do you think that Mr. Bergdahl deserves an honorable discharge from the Army? 

Mr. FULL. No, I do not. It’s a slap in the face to all those that 

did serve honorably, upheld their oath, and didn’t desert, that he 

gets the same benefits that they do. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And if he goes—if this case gets diverted for 

whatever way and he’s not actually found guilty at a court-martial 

and given a punitive discharge, is it your understanding that he 

would then be entitled to back pay for all the years that he was 

gone? 

Mr. FULL. Yes, he would be entitled to back pay, which I think is around $300,000, college benefits, VA health care benefits, everything a veteran gets with an honorable discharge. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So, you think that given what happened, you 

know, if you were advising a prosecutor as to what to ask for the 

62

penalty, would a dishonorable discharge be one of the things that 

they should ask the military judge or the members for? 

Mr. FULL. Yes, reduced in rank, forfeiture of all pay, and a dishonorable discharge is what I’d recommend. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I appreciate that. I am concerned—I mean, 

I have been involved in the Military Justice System. There is an 

inherent amount of lot of politics involved when you get at that 

level, and I think it’s important that this is transparent. And I 

think Congress needs to conduct oversight. You know, how Nidal 

Hasan was handled, to me, was a travesty that it took that long, 

and he got over $300,000 just sitting in the brig. So, I appreciate 

the witnesses, and I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will recognize 

the gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Again, I want to just, to Mr. 

and Mrs. Andrews, I just—my heart breaks for you. I’m so sorry, 

I’m sorry that you have to be here. And I’ll try not to politicize this 

really for your benefit. To the other gentlemen really thank you, 

again, for your service. I cannot tell you how much as a mother 

of—and I don’t want to keep hoisting my son up, but I understand 

your bravery, your selflessness, just thank you, thank you, thank 

you. 

My first question is to Dr. Jacobson, and if the others want to 

answer, fine. What can we learn from Sergeant Bergdahl? I know 

we’re bringing him back, we’ve been talking in all types of disparaging ways about him. We don’t know that much about him, at 

least I don’t. But what can we learn from his capture? Can he give 

us valuable information? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Absolutely, Congresswoman Frankel. I know Representative Kinzinger knows from his time going through SERE 

training, a lot of what we understand now about captivity, a lot of 

what can do to help innoculate our personnel against those stresses 

comes from, unfortunately, the experience of individuals who were 

held captive not just during our wars, but during peacetime detention. So, as we have heard from the military, there is going to be 

a debriefing process, and in that one can hope that there is information that one day might save the life or make it less problematic 

for future U.S. personnel who are held in captivity in the inevitable 

conflicts in the future. 

Ms. FRANKEL. I believe for—without debating the merits of how 

long we stayed in Afghanistan, I do believe that we were there because our own freedoms were jeopardized by al-Qaeda, and they 

were being protected by the Taliban. I want to talk about those 

freedoms. 

What sets us apart from the Taliban? Specifically, I know you 

probably all agree, you go to fight for our freedom, freedom of 

speech, freedom of religion, and there’s something else I would respectfully like to suggest, which is our due process of law that we 

have in this country, and what a high standard it is. So, my question to all of you is should soldiers who misbehave be subject to due 

process of law? 

Mr. FULL. Well, he’s a member of the armed forces. He’s not subject to a civilian or Federal court, he’s subject to UCMJ action. 

63

Ms. FRANKEL. Should he have due process even though it’s a 

military court? 

Mr. FULL. Yes, that’s the whole point that I’m coming forward 

and telling my side of the story. He deserted, he’s back, great he’s 

back, but he needs to face and be held accountable for his actions. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Yes, Mr. Waltz? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congresswoman, there was a real fear, me included 

in those first 24 hours that there would be, you know, ‘‘ticker tape 

parades,’’ and Rose Garden ceremonies, and that this whole effort 

would get politicized, and that the truth, frankly, would be buried. 

And that’s why both myself, Specialist Full, and others have come 

forward. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Okay. So, I think we agree, though, the due process of law, that he’s entitled to that. 

Mr. FULL. Absolutely. 

Ms. FRANKEL. And, lastly, I mean, I want to—anyone who wants 

to answer this question. This I’m coming at as a mother, all right? 

Which is, do you believe all our soldiers, all these men and women 

who go into battle, go into war are perfect? Do we bring in perfect 

people? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I hope my friend Mike will agree. When you’ve 

been in charge of junior troops, hardly a day probably goes by, it’s 

almost like being a parent, where a parent—kids are imperfect. I’m 

sure my mother would say the same thing, but that’s why it’s so 

important to have well trained NCOs, to have good leaders in those 

positions to guide these troops through something that’s unbelievably stressful, and to ensure that they all get home alive. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, I do know this. I don’t know very much 

about Mr. Bergdahl or his family, or what he was going through, 

what his mom was going through. I hope that will be determined 

as you have suggested. I think that’s fair. But I do know this, that 

so many of our young men and women are coming home and they 

have been stressed out, and are mentally unstable. And I would not 

like to think that they would not be subject to due process if they 

committed a crime. 

So, with that, I want to thank you, thank you all of you for your 

service. Again, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, really I’m so sorry for your 

loss. And, Mr. Chair, I yield the rest of my time. 

Mr. POE. The gentle lady yields back. And just so the record is 

clear, Mr. Andrews served in the United States Air Force, so all 

four of you all, thank you for your service. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you for your service, sir. 

Mr. POE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Yoho, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, panelists. I appreciate 

your being here, and thank you for your service to our great country. 

Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, thank you for the sacrifice of what you 

went through. I, as a grateful citizen of this great nation and a 

Member of Congress am appreciative every day of the liberties and 

freedoms that we get to experience because of the willingness of 

people to serve, commit, and dedicate to this country. I thank you. 

I think we should keep the narrative on the policy. The description of whether or not he was a deserter or not, as you brought up, 

64

Specialist Full, that will come out and it will go through its due 

process. 

Mr. Waltz, you said in your bio, you state that you deal or provide strategic analysis and policy development for other countries. 

Was the transfer of one American soldier for five Taliban a wise 

decision in your opinion? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, I think we should look at this policy 

as a whole and learn from it. Right now, a gentleman by the name 

of Mullah Abdul Zakir is the head of the Taliban Military Committee that we released previously from Guantanamo, and we’re 

paying that price now. And further, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head 

of ISIS that’s terrorizing Syria and Iraq right now, was also detained in Camp Bucca. We need to learn lessons from these releases that we’re paying for later. 

Mr. YOHO. So, in your opinion it’s probably not a wise policy to 

implement. 

Mr. Jacobson, you and Mr. Sherman were referring to our democracy, and you brought in Israel, as democracies trade for prisoners 

all the time. And I know I don’t need to remind you, but this is 

not Israel, we’re not Israel. We don’t do that as a policy. And you’re 

talking about a democracy, and again I know I don’t have to remind you, a true democracy is majority rule, it’s mob rule. And 

what I hear the public want to do with Mr. Bergdahl is mob rule. 

And I had to remind people we’re a constitutional republic where 

the minority is protected by rule of law. And as Ben Franklin always talked about, a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding 

what to have for lunch. That sheep always loses, and so I’m thankful that we’re in a republic. And we need to remind people that we 

are different because we do follow that. 

And as far as Mr. Bergdahl, he will come home. And I think any 

time we get an American soldier back to our country we all should 

celebrate. But I think before we hang judgment on him, was he 

wrong or right, we need to look at and let the military go through 

what they’re going to go through to decide the fate of that young 

man. 

The issues that I want to ask you about, do we negotiate with 

terrorists or not? And, again, I think Specialist Full, you brought 

up they’re terrorist. It’s not even a nation, it’s a terrorist group. 

And, again, this goes against our precedents, it goes against our 

historical policy. Do you think this is a wise thing that we do, or 

implement? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Congressman, I certainly think that it’s a wise 

thing that we retrieved Sergeant Bergdahl. 

Mr. YOHO. There’s no doubt about that, but negotiate with terrorists. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I want to run through just a list of a couple of 

situations where we have negotiated not only with terrorists, but 

with insurgent groups, and state-sponsors of terrorism. As I mentioned, part of bringing the war in Afghanistan to conclusion will 

be continuing discussions with the Taliban, but taking a look back 

at our own history, not just discussions that we’ve had with the 

North Koreans. We also——

Mr. YOHO. Okay, North Korea, that’s a country, it’s not a terror——

65

Mr. JACOBSON. They sponsor terrorism. 

Mr. YOHO. They’re a country. 

Mr. JACOBSON. Was a state-sponsor of terrorism. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I also look back, as I said, if you understand that 

there are differences between insurgents, between terrorists, between state-sponsors of terrorism, the concern I think people have 

is this idea of ransom for a hostage. And I look back even at 

what—and I’m going to give you allied and U.S. examples: Ronald 

Reagan in terms of what happened with the Arms for Hostages 

deal. Margaret Thatcher and her secret talks with the IRA. No one 

would discount that the IRA was terrorist group. 

Sometimes you end up sitting across the table from those who 

have the blood of your friends on their hands to bring peace. And 

if that is the case that we are seeing, if that’s what sitting down 

with the Taliban means, then I fully support that. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. Let me ask you both, Mr. Waltz and Dr. 

Jacobson, did the President by not consulting with Congress 30 

days before in your opinion break the law? Mr. Waltz? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, that’s my understanding of the law. 

I’m not a legal expert, but my understanding of the law was that 

Congress was to be consulted. 

Mr. YOHO. Dr. Jacobson? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I’m not a lawyer, and you’re all going to argue 

about that statute, but I think what the President did, acting on 

short notice was absolutely the right thing to do. 

Mr. YOHO. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, my condolences and safe travels on your way back to Texas. 

I represent San Antonio. Thank you for being here, and thank you 

all, all your gentlemen for your service. 

And I agree with part of Mr. Yoho’s statement that I want to 

focus on the policy, the agreement that was made for Sergeant 

Bergdahl and that transfer has been made. There’s still a debate 

going on about whether that was good or bad, but I think the most 

constructive thing that we can get out of this hearing is what we 

do in the future. 

And in that vein, I think there’s two issues here. First, if someone deserts their unit, should we go retrieve that person? And then 

second, what is the appropriate deal that we should make for a soldier? So, it sounds like, at least, the prevailing idea is that even 

if somebody deserts, we should still try to retrieve that person. 

Does anybody on the panel differ or disagree with that principle? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, I think it comes down to a matter of 

intent. Dr. Jacobson raised the issue in the case of Mr. Jenkins 

who deserted into North Korea. To my knowledge, there were no 

attempts to bring him home until he appeared 40 years later in 

Japan. 

Mr. CASTRO. But would you, and I know that it has not been adjudicated whether he deserted or not. I know that there is some 

evidence within—among the other soldiers that suggests that perhaps he did, but that has not been adjudicated. But assuming for 

66

the sake of argument that he did, does that mean that if somebody 

deserts that we shouldn’t go get him? Should we change policy next 

time? 

Mr. FULL. Well, I think the problem as has been stated is they 

brought him to a hero’s welcome, and we’re not the only people 

that knew that he walked off on his own accord. There was an 

original investigation done. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. 

Mr. FULL. It’s still open because they have to get his side of the 

story, but everybody knew that he walked off on his own. 

Mr. CASTRO. So, assuming that he did this, right, and that 

there’s no argument, then you’re saying still bring him home, just 

don’t celebrate it. That would be your point. 

Mr. FULL. Why would you call him a hero when there’s people 

like his son who pushed somebody down and took an RPG round. 

Mr. CASTRO. Right. 

Mr. FULL. And gave his life for another one who is a hero, that 

didn’t get a hero’s welcome. 

Mr. CASTRO. But in terms of the policy, you would still say go 

get that person. 

Mr. FULL. I don’t know. I’m not—I’m truthful. 

Mr. CASTRO. And then to my second question, what is the appropriated deal that we should make to have a soldier return. Right? 

There is a big issue here over whether you negotiate with terrorists, or only nation states, but I think that the difficulty we’re running into here is that our enemies in this common era are no 

longer just nation states. They are groups like al-Qaeda, Haqqani 

Network, and others. 

So, let me ask you, Mr. Waltz, because you were both a soldier 

and you’re a policy expert. What deal would you have made for Sergeant Bergdahl? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, my own view is in any negotiation 

both sides should walk away unhappy. That means it’s about right. 

And in this case the enemy walked away happy. The enemy walked 

away declaring victory, and received exactly what they asked for. 

I don’t think that was good negotiation on our part. 

Mr. CASTRO. But how does that translate—what would you have 

given—if you were writing policy, what would you have exchanged 

for Sergeant Bergdahl? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, there’s a number of lower-level detainees held in Afghanistan and other places. I think it was the—a lot 

has been mentioned about trading numbers. The issue for me here 

is the quality. 

Mr. CASTRO. So, you might have given 100 people for one person 

if they were lower level folks. 

Mr. WALTZ. I don’t like it. I think that’s a policy issue that had 

to be debated, but the decision that was made, these five, was a 

bad decision. 

Mr. CASTRO. Did we get anything in exchange, Mr. Jacobson, did 

we get anything in exchange for the prisoners that were released 

from GITMO by President Bush? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Not that I’m aware of, but I have to say the news 

reports I can remember from that time period, there was talk about 

political deals and that, but I—nothing like the Bergdahl situation. 

67

Mr. CASTRO. So, that was just a straight release, essentially, of 

those folks? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Yes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Okay. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. POE. Thank the gentleman from Texas. The Chair recognizes 

another gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. Specialist Full, what would you say is 

the—was the morale in your unit following this illegal prisoner exchange? 

Mr. FULL. I’m not in the Army any more, sir. 

Mr. WEBER. Would you hazard a guess? 

Mr. FULL. Oh, as far as us when we’re talking? 

Mr. WEBER. Absolutely. 

Mr. FULL. Well, we were very upset with it. Like I said numerous times, with the hero’s welcome. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. In your opinion, would this have set up this 

agreement between an enlisted officer and those rank and file soldiers, or were they pretty much in agreement this was a bad deal? 

Mr. FULL. This is a bad deal all around. 

Mr. WEBER. All the way around. 

Mr. FULL. Nobody in the Blackfoot Company that would——

Mr. WEBER. If you could say anything to President Obama regarding this trade, what would you say? 

Mr. FULL. I’m not going to say that. 

Mr. WEBER. Fair enough. Mr. Waltz, you’re forewarned, same 

questions. What would you say would be the morale of those units 

following this prisoner exchange? 

Mr. WALTZ. Fairly low, Congressman. And in terms of your second question, I would point the President to the heroes at the end 

of this table. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. 

Mr. WALTZ. They deserve the same level of treatment. 

Mr. WEBER. Would you advise him to make the same trade 

twice? 

Mr. WALTZ. No, Congressman, I wouldn’t. And just a follow-on to 

the previous Congressman’s question. I think there are a lot of 

other policy options open that weren’t fully explored, more pressure 

on Pakistan, for one. He was held by the Haqqani Network which 

has been described as a veritable arm of the Pakistani Intelligence 

Service. There are a number of other options that were on the table 

besides a trade. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Dr. Jacobson, what would you say to the 

President? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Congressman, I would say good job, absolutely go 

do this again, bring our soldier home. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Andrews, after having sat here, and thank you 

very much, and you, Mrs. Andrews for being here, after sitting 

through this hearing, what now would you say to this committee? 

Mr. ANDREWS. For one thing, 5 minutes isn’t as long as it used 

to be, but what I would say to the committee is my son was a soldier’s soldier, and it didn’t matter what the assignment was, he 

was going to do it. And I don’t believe that you have to be a perfect 

person to follow the Military Code of Justice. You have a book right 

there. Read the book and do what it says. It’s not that complicated. 

68

But do not let my son—to me, this situation with us not being told 

the whole truth, and then trading a private for five high-ranking 

Taliban, exactly why did my son die? Tell me one more time, because I don’t know what we’ve accomplished. 

Mr. WEBER. If you could say that to the President, is that what 

you would say to him? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. And now the hard questions, and forgive me. If you 

could get your son back by trading five more of those senior 

Taliban? 

Mr. ANDREWS. If my son had been a deserter, then no, absolutely 

not. But my son was a man of honor, and I would do almost anything. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, folks. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, 5 minutes. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank each of 

you gentlemen for your service. Certainly, Mr. Andrews, I want to 

let you know as someone who’s worn the uniform that many Americans feel like the actions by the administration and the President 

have diminished your son’s service, and your and his sacrifice. And 

I let you know that I’m of that opinion, but I also want to let you 

know that he has done a great thing for the men that he served 

with, and the ones that are particularly alive because of his actions, and a very grateful nation. So, I just want to thank you for 

your sacrifice, as well. 

Turn to questions. I’ll start with Mr. Jacobson. You keep saying, 

or at least I’ve heard you say a couple of times the end of the war 

regarding the reference of prisoner swaps. And I’m just wondering 

has the Taliban, as far as you know, stated that they consider the 

war to be coming to a close? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Congressman, I was referring to the end of conflict in the Second World War and Korean, specifically. 

Mr. PERRY. So, the paradigm is not the same, is my point. We 

might be drawing down, but the Taliban, as far as you know, are 

they going to continue to fight? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Well, the Taliban have been in talks with the 

United States for several years. 

Mr. PERRY. As far as you know, do we have any reason to believe 

right now they’re not going to continue to fight when we stop? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I don’t believe we are stopping the fight, Congressman. 

Mr. PERRY. We’re just in disengagement. Right? So, the war is 

still going to continue as far as you know. 

Mr. JACOBSON. We’re still working with the Afghans not only to 

try——

Mr. PERRY. All right. I got it. I got it. So, are you—when you say 

that these folks that we released have been so long gone from the 

battlefield that they can’t be relevant, are you aware that Mr. 

Baghdadi, who’s currently running ISIS, was released in 2005? 

This is now 2014. Is he still relevant on the battlefield today? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I can’t comment to a specific situation. I’m 

not——

69

Mr. PERRY. I can comment. He’s damn relevant, sir. Let me move 

on. 

Mr. Full, there was an investigation regarding Mr. Bergdahl’s 

absence conducted at some point. Right? And I imagine you gave 

sworn statements in that regard? 

Mr. FULL. Yes, 15–6. 

Mr. PERRY. Right. So, do you think that the Army is aware of 

the circumstances, his circumstances of departure? 

Mr. FULL. Yes. 

Mr. PERRY. You do. And I do, as well. I would like to turn to Mr. 

Waltz at this point. 

Understanding your circumstances if captured, what is your understanding if you were captured on the battlefield of what we 

would do, and what we wouldn’t do, what you could expect from 

your country? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, we deploy knowing the high likelihood 

of being captured, and it comes with that understanding that ransoms will not be paid, and there will not be swaps for us. The 

United States will do everything it can to get us back, but there’s 

limits to what the country is going to do. And I personally would 

not want anything done that’s going to harm our ongoing national 

security or endanger my fellow soldiers. 

Mr. PERRY. Were you ever given the impression when you took 

the oath, or any time after that, that the United States would jeopardize our national security on your behalf to get you out of——

Mr. FULL. Absolutely not, Congressman, nor would I want that 

to happen. 

Mr. PERRY. So, let me ask you, you’re a Special Operator. On 

June 3rd, the AP reported that the United States Government 

knew the whereabouts of Mr. Bergdahl from three sources, UAS, 

satellite, and human intelligence. You’re a special operator and you 

know the capability—you got out in 2009. Right? It’s now 2014, 

things have changed a little bit, but I know you stay involved and 

in touch with your community. 

My point is the options. Right? So, we had some options on the 

table and we chose to trade five high-value targets for one service 

member, right, that we wanted to free and have come back home, 

which is laudable to have him come back home. It is the right 

thing to do. 

Do you have any lack of confidence in your ability, of your unit, 

the United States Army with the capabilities we have, if we knew 

where he was, your ability if tasked with the mission and given the 

resources to go and retrieve that soldier? 

Mr. WALTZ. I don’t know the details of——

Mr. PERRY. I know you don’t. 

Mr. WALTZ. But if we knew where he was and we were confident, 

and the risks were evaluated, absolutely we have the capability to 

get him. 

Mr. PERRY. So, you already spoke about the different options that 

we had or didn’t have, and you don’t think this was the best one. 

If we knew where he was, can you think—can you come up with 

some scenario where we have people on the ground that do what 

you did for a living, that we wouldn’t exercise that option? 

70

Mr. WALTZ. The only scenario that comes to mind, sir, is that 

this was part of a broader policy initiative to open up talks with 

the Taliban; that this was a confidence-building measure, and this 

has been discussed for some time now, that potentially this trade 

would be a confidence-building measure as a first step toward future talks. That’s the only plausible scenario that I can come up 

with. 

Mr. PERRY. My time is expired, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Duffy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DUFFY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, to respond to my colleague across the aisle about due 

process, all of us agree on due process. The conversation happening 

today is not about due process, the conversation today is about the 

decision the administration made for the five Taliban members in 

exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl. That’s the conversation. We all 

believe in due process. We’re Americans. 

Mr. Waltz, I think it was you who indicated that you had conversation about your country will never leave you behind. And I 

don’t know if it was you or Specialist Full who had mentioned you 

thought it was that your country won’t leave any honorable man 

behind. Specialist Full, was that your comment? 

Mr. FULL. Yes, it was. 

Mr. DUFFY. Was Sergeant Bergdahl left behind? 

Mr. FULL. No. 

Mr. DUFFY. No. 

Mr. FULL. He walked off on his own. 

Mr. DUFFY. He left. Correct? 

Mr. FULL. Yes, he left. 

Mr. DUFFY. So, he wasn’t left behind. He walked off. 

Mr. FULL. He left us behind. 

Mr. DUFFY. Right. And, Dr. Jacobson, you’ve indicated that the 

fight is not over. Right? They’re going to continue this fight. It’s not 

over, peace has not been declared with the Taliban. 

Mr. JACOBSON. That’s correct, Congressman. 

Mr. DUFFY. So, with the war or the fight that’s going to continue, 

it seems to me the argument that well, we’re all putting our arms 

down, and the conflict is going to end. This exchange makes sense. 

That’s what we do. World War II when the war is over, we put 

down our arms, we exchange our prisoners and everyone is happy. 

But that’s not this case, right? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Well, that’s not——

Mr. DUFFY. This case you’ve said the fight will continue, and 

with the fight still going on, we took someone who allegedly walked 

away from his post in exchange for five high-level Taliban members, and the fight continues. Am I wrong on this? 

Mr. JACOBSON. The fight continued in Korea after the prisoner 

exchanges, the fight continued in World War II after the exchanges 

in 1944, the fight will continue in Afghanistan. My argument is 

that the risk of putting these five individuals on the battlefield is 

mitigated by a number of factors to include all the accomplishments that we’ve seen in Afghanistan over the past several years. 

Mr. DUFFY. I’ll get to the risk in a second, but in regard to the 

prior swaps that have been made, those swaps have been made 

71

with nation states. Correct? Do you have an example where we’ve 

had swaps with a non-nation state before this one? 

Mr. JACOBSON. The examples I have, and you term this a swap. 

The examples I have of negotiation with non-nation——

Mr. DUFFY. I didn’t ask—I’m talking a swap, we exchange prisoners with a non-nation state, or better yet for a deserter, if that’s 

what he—the military finds him to be. 

Mr. JACOBSON. The closest thing I can think of is after the Battle 

of Mogadishu and the negotiations to get back Chief Warrant Officer Michael Durant. 

Mr. DUFFY. But not with—you don’t have a prior example of a 

swap with a non-nation state. This is——

Mr. JACOBSON. Well, that was with Mohammed Farrah Aidid 

who was not a nation state. 

Mr. DUFFY. In regard to the threat that this now poses, Mr. and 

Mrs. Andrews talk about a son, and how he may—that he would 

be able to make that exchange to bring his own son back. I think 

every heart breaks in here thinking about what his family has gone 

through and the sacrifice that his son made for his country. 

Do you feel pretty comfortable that with these five Taliban members released that we won’t have another hearing like this of another American family who lost a son or daughter who’s over fighting on behalf of the country because of these five that were released, or do you feel pretty comfortable that America is a safer 

place, and our men and women are safer in those foreign lands? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Our men and women who put on the uniform are 

always at risk regardless of what happened or will happen. 

Mr. DUFFY. That’s not my question. I’m talking about the five 

that were released. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I’m comfortable with the judgment that was made 

by our military leaders that all the risks involved, the risk of potentially these individuals ending back up on the battlefield, the 

risks of not getting Bergdahl. I’m comfortable that the assessment 

they made and the recommendations they made are the right one. 

Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Waltz, I think you said the Taliban got their top 

five draft picks in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl. 

Mr. WALTZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DUFFY. Good trade? 

Mr. WALTZ. Absolutely not. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman from Wisconsin yields back his time. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’ve 

been running in and out of meetings like everybody else here. 

We’re overwhelmed, so I’m sorry if I cover any territory that’s already been covered here. 

Let me just note that I disagree with the statement that our policy has been to do everything we can to get back a prisoner. That 

is not the case, that is not policy for our Government. Everything 

we can? No, even the people who are in the field totally understand 

that we’re not going to do things that will further put other Americans at severe risk in order to get them back. They understand 

that. And that’s part of why they’re heroes, and that’s part of the 

reason Mr. Andrews’ son is a hero. He knew he was taking a 

72

chance, and that even if he was captured that we would not be 

doing things that would put the American people at risk to get him 

back home. So, I want to make sure that is a very significant point 

for people to understand in the discussion of this. 

Second of all, I’d like to point out that there are other alternatives to try to get these guys back, or man back, Mr. Bergdahl, 

than just giving up these five leaders of the Taliban. We could 

have, for example—I have seen no evidence. Mr. Jacobson, have 

you see any evidence that there was pressure put on Pakistan in 

order to get the Taliban to return this prisoner? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Congressman Rohrabacher, I’m not aware of the 

specifics of those negotiations. I’ve only seen——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. So, you’re unaware of the—you’re 

unaware, I’m unaware. I’ve been looking, there is no indication 

here that this administration didn’t even put pressure on the major 

supporter, the ISI in Pakistan to do what they could do to get back 

this prisoner. Instead, they gave up five murderous leaders. Let’s 

take a look at who they are. We know that one of them was perhaps engaged in the strategizing for 9/11, which resulted in 3,000 

Americans being slaughtered in front of our face. He’s being let go. 

Then there is Mullah Mohammad Fazl, I guess that’s how you pronounce his name. I know about this man. I know that a long time 

ago he was, in fact, captured. This is, you might say, a second time 

he was released, you might say, because he was captured early on 

in 2001 after 9/11, and he was put into a French Fort with hundreds of other Taliban leaders and Taliban fighters, and there is 

a tradition in Afghanistan. The tradition is it’s almost the law that 

the people live by, it is their core principles as Afghans, and that 

is once you are captured you do not try to overpower the person 

who has captured you. And the reason that they have that as part 

of their law is because over the centuries they would have had to 

kill all of their prisoners if they didn’t uphold that. So, as part of 

their honor as a person to not—once you’re captured, you do not 

try to overcome your captors. 

Well, what happened in this case with Mr. Fazl? Yes, I’m sure 

that he’s already promised us that he wouldn’t go back to doing 

something and causing—putting our people at risk, or attacking 

Americans, but at that time he led an uprising against his captors. 

They murdered about 50 Afghans where General Dostum’s Afghani 

wife introduced Chairman Poe to General Dostum before. And they 

murdered his—the guys who were holding them captive, but they 

also murdered a CIA officer named Mike Spann. 

I visited that spot, I visited the spot where Mike Spann had been 

murdered shortly after he was murdered, and this is the guy that 

are one of the five guys we are releasing. We’re releasing a man 

who’s already murdered the first real American to lose his life in 

the Afghan War, we’re releasing him now. 

You think that’s going to maybe indicate that we’re strong? Does 

this release indicate that we are strong, and that we are people—

that they’re going to have to deal with the United States of America in terms of our military strength? No, they’re going to deal with 

people who they think are weak, and are cowards, and they will 

be willing then to kill more Americans, and to capture more Americans in order to cut more deals. 

73

This is a travesty. The President of the United States has maybe 

got himself into a position here that I don’t know if maybe he 

thinks of himself as a peacemaker. I think this will, in the end, 

have just the opposite impact, and I think a rational discussion will 

do that. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ve got 6 seconds, and I actually would like to 

give our witness the chance to retort to that. 

Mr. POE. Quickly. 

Mr. JACOBSON. Respectfully, I disagree, Congressman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Fine, yes. That’s it? Okay. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. JACOBSON. If the chairman—at the chairman’s pleasure I’m 

happy to continue. I was being succint. 

Mr. POE. No, time has expired. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, though. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. This is one 

of the days when everything goes long. Again, I’m Air Force Reserve, I am the chaplain, I served in Iraq. Having been on the unfortunate end of the door that you opened, and understand this all 

too well. 

The issues that come up for me, and some of this may be a little 

bit of follow-up on my colleague who just mentioned—but, Mr. 

Jacobson, I have a question. You keep bringing up, or you brought 

up before the fact that they’re not going back to the same Afghanistan that they left, and that they would not have the probable impact that they could have had. What leads you—what intelligence, 

what information, what would have you to believe that they 

couldn’t get spun up pretty quickly in a country that’s not changed 

a whole lot in 4-, 5-, 6-, 700 years? I mean, what would cause you 

to believe that? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Congressman, in my experience in Afghanistan, 

again both as an intelligence officer, and then later on as a civilian 

advisor where I worked with senior Afghan officials every day, I do 

believe there have been a great number of changes if just in the 

last decade alone. 

For example, I believe that most of the networks that these individuals had when they were a force fighting against the Northern 

Alliance no longer exist. Many of their friends are dead, many of 

the Taliban leadership are dead. And I also believe that the Afghan 

people have changed. 

You have seen just in the recent elections, this open defiance of 

threats to kill people who would go vote, 40 percent of the voters, 

I believe, were women who were told do not do this. 

Mr. COLLINS. Let me stop you right there for a second. We saw 

a great deal of turnout in the Iraqi elections, too, and now we’re 

looking at almost a breakdown to civil war. I mean, pointing to an 

election is a great thing, but also pointing to a change of hearts, 

minds, and attitudes, I’m not sure you’re actually getting there. So, 

I mean, we just might probably, respectfully, just have a difference 

of opinion here. 

I believe that they may not walk back into the same structure 

that they had before, but I do not believe it’s going to take them 

74

very long to build from scratch or to bring in others that—there’s 

a reason they were wanted them. There’s a reason they wanted 

these five. I don’t believe that they just picked out, said give us 

five, we’ll give you him. And I think there’s a reason for that. 

The other situation that I would like maybe some general discussion about is something that keeps coming up here. Well, we’re 

drawing down our action, we’re drawing down this war. And it 

was—I don’t know, Mr. Waltz, if it was you or someone else that 

basically talked about the fact that we’re dealing with the Taliban. 

We’re dealing with terrorist organizations in this global war on terrorism, not the global war on Afghanistan, not the global war on 

a country. And, granted, when we ended World War II there was 

country state versus country state. We had a—we’re not in that situation any more, and I’m just curious to know is, when does the 

fact that we’re fighting—and I don’t believe the Taliban, or alQaeda, or any of these other terrorist networks have changed their 

opinion of the West. Do you believe they changed their opinion of 

the West, or they still have the desire to wreak havoc on the West? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I actually believe our actions in Afghanistan have 

split views amongst the Taliban. I don’t think there’s a single unified view any more. 

Mr. COLLINS. Interesting, but I think among the larger terrorist 

network as a whole, and we can go look at that, I think there is 

still a vast determination there, is we go forward. So, I’m not sure 

what—when we draw the line now with dealing with, negotiating 

with, however we want to do this. It just—Specialist, talk about 

this for a second. 

Given the fact that we traded, and there’s some who will give an 

argument that this was the end of the war. We had to do it, a political outcome at some point. But is this a price that you would ever 

have envisioned paying if—for someone who walked off or didn’t 

walk off? Is this what we are sort of looking at? Not that we give 

up, but the price that we give up? 

Mr. FULL. We’re still at war with the Taliban whether people 

want to admit it or not. And just because we stop fighting them, 

doesn’t mean that they’re going to stop wanting to kill us, and fight 

us. No, when I signed an oath it was an understanding, as Mr. 

Waltz has said, that I knew there would be a certain price up to 

a point that the United States would pay to get me back. And if 

that was me over there, no, you could have left me over there. I 

would not have wanted you to trade five high-level Taliban 

operatives for myself. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, the curious for me at this point is, if five was 

the price this time, what’s the price next time, the President stepping down, cabinet members stepping down, Congress giving them 

more money? What’s the price, because we’re not dealing with a 

nation state here. We’re dealing with thugs, we’re dealing with 

rogues, we’re dealing with now the same ideological bent that is 

going through many of the Middle Eastern countries, and Iraq is 

simply a forum, what I’m fearful is going to Afghanistan. 

I appreciate you being here. This is just very much of a concern 

for many folks because they do not understand why this happened 

the way it did, given the fact that most believe that this war is not 

over, and that we will see these guys again one way or the other. 

75

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will recognize 

the ranking member for one additional question, and recognize 

itself for an additional question. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I’ll note that in 1944 when we did a 

prisoner exchange it was with the Nazis. And, of course, that war 

continued for another year. 

Mr. POE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, I’ll yield. 

Mr. COLLINS. Would the gentleman also recognize that the Nazi 

Government at that time represented Germany as a nation state? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, but if you think——

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. But al-Qaeda never represented anyone as 

a nation state. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Al-Qaeda did control and govern, with the acquiescence of the United States, the vast majority of Afghanistan until 

9/11. But, more importantly, if you want to create groups that are 

anathema to the United States, I put the Nazis right at the top. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I think they also——

Mr. SHERMAN. In any case, I have not yielded any further. 

Mr. Jacobson, only an investigation is going to disclose the real 

facts behind Sergeant Bergdahl’s disappearance and his capture, 

but we’ve heard substantial evidence that Sergeant Bergdahl acted 

in an inappropriate and inexplicable manner. 

Can you describe the kinds of stresses that somebody, and Sergeant Bergdahl would have faced in Afghanistan, and whether that 

would cause someone, not everyone, but some to act in an inexplicable manner? I realize that the vast majority of our soldiers, 

Marines, et cetera, are subjected to those pressures and do not act 

inexplicably. 

Mr. FULL. Can I have permission to speak? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. FULL. Well, you’re asking Dr. Jacobson what situation 

Bergdahl was in over there. I was with Bergdahl at the same location. I could give you a firsthand account of exactly what Bergdahl 

was going through because I went through the exact same conditions. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, then I’ll ask you then to respond to the 

question first, and then Dr. Jacobson to respond second. I was asking more in a general sphere as to what you face in Afghanistan 

but, obviously, you know the specifics. 

Mr. FULL. We were at an observation post. It was very primitive, 

we had to eat Meals Ready to Eat which are heated up with water. 

It was very hot, very dirty, went without showers for certain days, 

didn’t get phone calls or any comforts of home, but it didn’t affect 

anybody else there. We all continued the mission and upheld our 

oath. 

Everybody deals with mental issues in some form or another if 

they deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq. Everybody else still came back 

from that same platoon. Nobody else deserted on their own, so 

there’s nothing in my opinion that was so bad that forced him to 

walk off on his own accord caused by anything going on over there. 

He walked off on his own accord. 

76

Mr. SHERMAN. Dr. Jacobson, obviously, the vast majority of those 

in his unit were not affected to the point where they engaged in 

inappropriate behavior, and, obviously, anyone in Afghanistan is 

subject to being shelled, or subject to an IED at just about any 

time. Can you describe the pressures that people are under, and 

whether that could explain the inexplicable? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Well, Congressman, I won’t make a claim to be 

able to explain the unexplicable or inexplicable, but what I will say 

is that the stresses of combat are tremendous. From my own experience, which was not nearly as far forward in either deployment 

as either of my colleagues to the right, you still have fear, fear of 

being kidnapped, fear of being shot at, fear of being shelled, mortared, what have you. There is tremendous sleep deprivation for 

being on long combat patrols or being woken in the night to enemy 

action. 

I do agree that you’ve raised perhaps one of the most important 

points, and that is that just because there is combat stress doesn’t 

excuse actions such as walking away from one’s post, but this is 

exactly why you have to have the full investigation to determine 

what happened, and why it happened in the hopes that we can prevent that from happening again, and hold those individuals who 

need to be held accountable, accountable in the Military Justice 

System. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. And just to correct the record, I once 

said al-Qaeda when I meant to say the Taliban. I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The Chair has one additional question for all four of 

you. The way I understand the law is that before people are released from Guantanamo Bay, prisoners there, that the Secretary 

of Defense must explain why it is in the national security interest 

of the United States to release that specific prisoner. 

Assume that is the law, and from your point of view, what was 

the national security interest, or do you believe there was a national security interest of the United States in releasing those five 

individuals? Dr. Jacobson, do you believe there was a national security interest of the United States? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Yes, I do, Congressman. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Waltz? 

Mr. WALTZ. Congressman, I believe America is less safe and the 

world is more dangerous with the release of those individuals. 

Mr. POE. Sergeant Full? 

Mr. FULL. I believe America is less safe, and the world is also 

in more danger. 

Mr. POE. And, Mr. Andrews, I’ll give you the last word. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you. I believe America is less safe. I believe 

these five guys are going to come after us. I believe that it was a 

mistake to release them, and that that did not serve our national 

interest in any way. 

Mr. POE. I want to thank you all for being here. Ms. Andrews, 

I want to thank you for being here, as well. 

The committee is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

78

f


88387n.eps
79

f


88387m.eps
80

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE TED POE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE


88387f.eps
81

f


88387g.eps
82


88387e-1.eps
83

Æ


88387e-2.eps