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

45–501 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–612

THE STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN AND RECENT

REPORTS BY THE AFGHANISTAN STUDY

GROUP AND THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE

UNITED STATES

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 14, 2008

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

(

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia, 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

RICHARD D. DEBOBES, Staff Director 

MICHAEL V. KOSTIW, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES 

THE STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN AND RECENT REPORTS BY THE AFGHANISTAN

STUDY GROUP AND THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 (A.M. SESSION)

Page

Shinn, Hon. James J., Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific 

Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy ......................... 9

Boucher, Hon. Richard A., Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central 

Asian Affairs ......................................................................................................... 13

CONTINUATION OF THE STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN AND RECENT REPORTS BY THE

AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP AND THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 14, 2008 (P.M. SESSION)

Jones, Gen. James L., USMC (Ret.), President and CEO of the Institute 

for 21st Century Energy, United States Chamber of Commerce, and Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Atlantic Council of the United States ...... 62

Inderfurth, Hon. Karl F., John O. Rankin Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, The George Washington University ....................................... 65

ANNEX A ................................................................................................................. 100

ANNEX B ................................................................................................................. 104

ANNEX C ................................................................................................................. 141

ANNEX D ................................................................................................................. 155

ANNEX E ................................................................................................................. 166

ANNEX F ................................................................................................................. 169

ANNEX G ................................................................................................................. 178

(III) 

(1)

THE STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN AND RECENT REPORTS BY THE AFGHANISTAN 

STUDY GROUP AND THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m. in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Lieberman, Reed, 

Akaka, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Warner, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Collins, Thune, and Martinez. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Evelyn N. Farkas, professional 

staff member; Michael J. McCord, professional staff member; and 

William G.P. Monahan, counsel. 

Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw, Republican 

staff director; William M. Caniano, professional staff member; 

David M. Morriss, minority counsel; Lynn F. Rusten, professional 

staff member; Sean G. Stackley, professional staff member; and 

Dana W. White, professional staff member. 

Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Ali Z. Pasha, and Benjamin L. Rubin. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Sharon L. Waxman, assistant to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. Downey, assistant to 

Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant to Senator Reed; 

Bonni Berge, assistant to Senator Akaka; Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; Tim Becker, assistant to Senator 

Ben Nelson; Jon Davey, assistant to Senator Bayh; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Anthony J. Lazarski, assistant 

to Senator Inhofe; Todd Stiefler, assistant to Senator Sessions; 

Mark J. Winter, assistant to Senator Collins; Jason Van Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Brian W. Walsh, assistant to Senator 

Martinez; and Erskine W. Wells III, assistant to Senator Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good morning, everybody. 

First, let me welcome our witnesses. We very much appreciate 

their being with us today. They’re adjusting their schedules to accommodate ours. There is a memorial service going on for ConVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
2

gressman Tom Lantos, which is the reason that I, at least, had to 

delay this until now. We very much appreciate, as always, the cooperation and advice of Senator Warner as to how to approach 

these delays in the scheduling today. 

Senator WARNER. But, this was very, very well-deserved. Congressman Lantos was an extraordinary member; and you and I, 

throughout our long careers, have intertwined our official duties 

with him many times in many places of the world. 

Chairman LEVIN. Indeed, we’ve traveled with Tom Lantos, and 

know him and Annette well. The eloquent testimony that’s now 

being delivered about his life goes on as we speak here, and we 

shall all miss him, his committee, and his love of this Nation. 

The committee, today, receives testimony on the situation in Afghanistan, including the assessments contained in two recently released reports from the Afghanistan Study Group and The Atlantic 

Council of the United States. 

Our witnesses on this morning’s panel are Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, James Shinn; Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, 

Richard Boucher; and Lieutenant General John Sattler, the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, J–5, of the Joint Staff. 

This afternoon at 2:30, this committee will hear from two experts 

who participated in preparing the independent reports on Afghanistan, Retired General Jim Jones, chairman of the board of directors 

of The Atlantic Council, and Ambassador Rick Inderfurth, professor 

of the Practice of International Affairs at George Washington University. Both General Jones and Ambassador Inderfurth participated in the Afghanistan Study Group, which is established under 

the auspices of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. 

The American people understand the stakes in Afghanistan. Unlike the war in Iraq, the connection between Afghanistan and the 

terrorist threat that manifested itself on September 11 has always 

been clear. American support for the mission in Afghanistan remains strong. 

Last week, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Admiral 

McConnell, reiterated the significance of the threat emanating from 

the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. He told the Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence that al Qaeda’s central leadership based 

in the border area of Pakistan is al Qaeda’s, ‘‘most dangerous component.’’ He added that the safe havens that extremists enjoy in 

the tribal areas along the Pakistan border serve, ‘‘as a staging area 

for al Qaeda’s attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as 

well as a location for training new terrorist operatives for attacks 

in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the United 

States.’’ 

For too long, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan have taken 

a backseat to the war in Iraq, leaving our forces in Afghanistan 

short of what they need. Admiral Mullen acknowledged as much in 

December, calling the Afghanistan mission an, ‘‘economy-of-force 

operation.’’ He added, ‘‘it is simply a matter of resources, of capacity. In Afghanistan, we do what we can; in Iraq, we do what we 

must.’’

Last year, Congress took action to strengthen the focus on Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act included sevVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
3

eral measures to increase transparency and expand congressional 

oversight, including establishing a special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, requiring the President to submit a comprehensive strategy for security and stability in Afghanistan, and 

provide regular updates on the progress of that strategy, and requiring a report on plans for the long-term sustainment of the Afghanistan National Security Forces. The President continues to 

paint a rosy picture of the situation in Afghanistan. Last Friday, 

he said that, in Afghanistan, ‘‘the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their allies are on the run.’’ But, the reports by the Afghanistan Study 

Group and The Atlantic Council provide more sobering assessments 

of the situation on the ground. Among the findings of those reports 

are the following: 

Efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are, quote, ‘‘faltering,’’ according 

to the Afghanistan Study Group report. That report finds that, 

since 2002, ‘‘violence, insecurity, and opium production have risen 

dramatically as Afghan confidence in their government and its 

international partners falls.’’ 

The Atlantic Council report states that, ‘‘Make no mistake, the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan.’’ Instead, the security situation, according to The Atlantic Council report, is ‘‘a strategic stalemate, with NATO and Afghan forces able to win any head-to-head confrontation with the 

Taliban, but not being able to eliminate the insurgency, so long as 

the Taliban enjoys safe haven across the border with Pakistan.’’ 

The antigovernment insurgency threatening Afghanistan ‘‘has 

grown considerably over the last 2 years,’’ according to the Afghanistan Study Group. Last year was the deadliest since 2001 for U.S. 

and international forces. The Taliban are relying increasingly on 

terrorism and ambushes, including over 140 suicide bombings in 

2007. The Afghanistan Study Group report also finds that ‘‘the 

Taliban have been able to infiltrate many areas throughout the 

country,’’ intimidating and coercing the local Afghan people. 

The reports find that more U.S. and international forces are 

needed for Afghanistan. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) currently consisting of more than 43,000 soldiers from 40 countries, remains short of the troops and equipment 

that it needs to meet mission requirements. These shortfalls include maneuver battalions, helicopters, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. 

The United States has announced its intention to deploy an additional 3,200 marines, and other NATO members have upped their 

contributions, including Britain and Poland. Yet, as the Afghanistan Study Group points out, more NATO countries need to share 

the burden and remove national caveats that limit the ability of 

their troops to participate in ISAF operations. 

Opium production continues to be at record levels. The Atlantic 

Council calls drug production ‘‘the most striking sign of the international community’s failure.’’ That report cites World Bank estimates that around 90 percent of the world’s illegal opium comes 

from Afghanistan. A report this month from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime finds that cultivation levels this year are 

likely to be similar to last year’s ‘‘shockingly high level.’’ 

4

The Afghanistan Study Group finds that the need for greater 

international coordination is ‘‘acute,’’ in their word. Contributors to 

Afghanistan reconstruction include over 40 countries, the United 

Nations, the World Bank, the European Union, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Unfortunately, the recent withdrawal of the widely respected Paddy Ashdown from consideration 

for the position of United Nations International Coordinator for Afghanistan, reportedly at the request of the Karzai Government, is 

a real setback. The Atlantic Council report concludes, ‘‘In summary, despite efforts of the Afghan Government and the international community, Afghanistan remains a failing state. It could 

become a failed state.’’ 

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning concerning recommendations for getting Afghanistan on the right 

track. I hope they’ll address the assessments and recommendations 

of the reports of the Afghanistan Study Group and The Atlantic 

Council. These reports highlight the urgent need for the administration to reassess its approach, to ensure that Afghanistan moves 

towards a stable and progressive state, and never again becomes 

a safe haven for terrorists intent on exporting violence and extremism. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

Good morning and welcome to our witnesses. 

Today, the committee receives testimony on the situation in Afghanistan, including the assessments contained in two recently-released reports from the Afghanistan 

Study Group and the Atlantic Council of the United States. 

Our witnesses on this morning’s panel are: Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, James Shinn; Assistant Secretary of State for 

South and Central Asian Affairs, Richard Boucher; and Lieutenant General John 

Sattler, Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, J5, the Joint Staff. 

This afternoon at 2:30 the committee will hear from two experts who participated 

in preparing the independent reports on Afghanistan: retired General Jim Jones, 

Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council; and Ambassador Rick 

Inderfurth, Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, at the George Washington University. Both General Jones and Ambassador Inderfurth participated in 

the Afghanistan Study Group, which is established under the auspices of the Center 

for the Study of the Presidency. 

The American people understand the stakes in Afghanistan. Unlike with the war 

in Iraq, the connection between Afghanistan and the terrorist threat that manifested itself on September 11 has always been clear. American support for the mission in Afghanistan remains strong. 

Last week, Director of National Intelligence Admiral McConnell reiterated the significance of the threat emanating from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region. He 

told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that al Qaeda’s central leadership, 

based in the border area of Pakistan, is al Qaeda’s ‘‘most dangerous component.’’ 

He added that the safe havens that extremists enjoy in the tribal areas along the 

Pakistan border serve ‘‘as a staging area for al Qaeda’s attacks in support of the 

Taliban in Afghanistan as well as a location for training new terrorist operatives, 

for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and the United States.’’

For too long, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan have taken a back seat to 

the war in Iraq, leaving our forces in Afghanistan short of what they need. 

Admiral Mullen acknowledged as much in December, calling the Afghanistan mission an ‘‘economy of force operation.’’ He said, ‘‘It is simply a matter of resources, 

of capacity. In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must.’’

Last year, Congress took action to strengthen the focus on Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act included several measures to increase transparency and expand congressional oversight, including: establishing a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; requiring the President to submit 

a comprehensive strategy for security and stability in Afghanistan and provide regVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
5

ular updates on the progress of that strategy; and requiring a report on plans for 

the long-term sustainment of the Afghanistan National Security Forces. 

The President continues to paint a rosy picture of the situation in Afghanistan. 

Last Friday, he said that in Afghanistan ‘‘The Taliban, al Qaeda, and their allies 

are on the run.’’

But the reports by the Afghanistan Study Group and the Atlantic Council provide 

more sobering assessments of the situation on the ground. 

Among the findings of the reports are the following:

• Efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are ‘‘faltering,’’ according to the Afghanistan Study Group report. That report finds that since 2002 ‘‘violence, insecurity, and opium production have risen dramatically as Afghan confidence 

in their government and its international partners falls.’’

• The Atlantic Council report states, ‘‘Make no mistake, the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan.’’ Instead, the 

security situation is ‘‘a strategic stalemate,’’ with NATO and Afghan forces 

able to win any head-to-head confrontation with the Taliban, but not being 

able to eliminate the insurgency so long as the Taliban enjoys safe haven 

across the border with Pakistan. 

• The anti-government insurgency threatening Afghanistan ‘‘has grown 

considerably over the last 2 years,’’ according to the Afghanistan Study 

Group. Last year was the deadliest since 2001 for U.S. and international 

forces. The Taliban are relying increasingly on terrorism and ambushes, including over 140 suicide bombings in 2007. The Afghanistan Study Group 

report also finds that ‘‘the Taliban have been able to infiltrate many areas 

throughout the country,’’ intimidating and coercing the local Afghan people. 

• The reports find that more U.S. and international forces are needed for 

Afghanistan. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 

currently consisting of more than 43,000 soldiers from 40 countries, remains short of the troops and equipment it needs to meet mission requirements. These shortfalls include maneuver battalions; helicopters; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets. The United States has announced its intention to deploy an additional 3,200 marines and other 

NATO members have upped their contributions, including Britain and Poland. Yet, as the Afghanistan Study Group points out, more NATO countries need to share the burden, and remove national caveats that limit the 

ability of their troops to participate in ISAF operations. 

• Opium production continues to be at record levels. The Atlantic Council 

calls drug production ‘‘the most striking sign of the international community’s failure.’’ That report cites World Bank estimates that around 90 percent of the world’s illegal opium comes from Afghanistan. A report this 

month from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime finds that cultivation levels this year are likely to be similar to last year’s ‘‘shockingly 

high’’ level. 

• The Afghanistan Study Group finds that the need for greater international coordination is ‘‘acute.’’ Contributors to Afghanistan reconstruction 

include over 40 countries, the United Nations, the World Bank, the European Union, and nongovernmental organizations. Unfortunately, the recent 

withdrawal of the widely-respected Paddy Ashdown from consideration for 

the position of United Nations International Coordinator for Afghanistan, 

reportedly at the request of the Karzai Government, is a set back. 

• The Atlantic Council report concludes, ‘‘In summary, despite efforts of the 

Afghan Government and the international community, Afghanistan remains 

a failing state. It could become a failed state.’’

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning concerning recommendations for getting Afghanistan on the right track. I hope they will address 

the assessments and recommendations of the reports of the Afghanistan Study 

Group and the Atlantic Council. These reports highlight the urgent need for the administration to reassess its approach to ensure that Afghanistan moves toward a 

stable and progressive state and never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists intent on exporting violence and extremism.

Chairman LEVIN. I will now submit Senator Byrd’s statement for 

the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Byrd follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

Thank you, Secretary Shinn, Secretary Boucher, and General Sattler, for updating 

us on progress being made in Afghanistan. I am particularly concerned by the continuing reports of a lack of coordination among the international coalition on a plan 

of action for Afghanistan, as well as continuing reports that progress among civilian 

reconstruction efforts and local police security efforts lag so far behind progress in 

fielding an Afghan National Army.

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Warner. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be 

placed in the record this morning. 

Chairman LEVIN. It will be. 

Senator WARNER. Given that we started at a late hour, I’m going 

to abbreviate my comments here. 

But, I’d like, first, to begin by commending Secretary of Defense 

Robert Gates. By the way, we all wish him well with his current 

problem with his arm. But, I want to commend him for his efforts 

over the past few weeks to impress upon our NATO allies the importance of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. He also emphasized 

that militant extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, still 

pose a significant threat. The threat posed by these extremists may 

be greater in Europe than some in Europe may now believe. 

The debate on the importance of the mission in Afghanistan may 

be among the most complicated that the NATO allies have faced 

since the alliance was formed to counter the Soviet Union threats. 

Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to place the entire 

statement of Secretary Gates, on February 10, when he addressed 

the Munich Conference on Security Policy, into the record (see 

Annex A). 

Chairman LEVIN. That will be made part of the record. 

Senator WARNER. In addition to expressing my strong support for 

Secretary Gates’s remarks, I’d like to highlight a few matters concerning Afghanistan. 

First, I concur with those who assert that the credibility of 

NATO, the most successful political and military alliance in contemporary military history—that credibility is at stake as they continue to perform their missions in Afghanistan. 

In Afghanistan today, there’s been no doubt that progress has 

been made since 2001, that the Taliban’s recent resurgence in Afghanistan, the escalating opium economy, and the presence of 

cross-border sanctuaries in Pakistan threatens to challenge positive 

momentum and potentially lead Afghanistan to slip back into the 

pre-September 11 role as a safe haven for terrorists. 

You mentioned General Jones; I’ll overlook that part. 

I also want to point out that we should never forget that the failure of Afghanistan would be a significant boost to militant extremists. Secretary Gates said that the Islamic extremist movement, so 

far, was built on the illusion of success, that all the extremists 

have accomplished recently is the death of thousands of innocent 

Muslims. Secretary Gates went on to say, ‘‘Many Europeans question the relevance of our actions and doubt whether the mission is 

worth the lives of their sons and daughters.’’ Well, the bombings 

in Madrid and London, and the disruption of cells and plots 

7

throughout Europe, should remind all of us that the threat posed 

by the extremism in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe, and 

globally, remains, as Secretary Gates said, ‘‘a steep challenge.’’ 

I’ll put the balance of my statement in the record, so we may get 

started. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN WARNER

Mr Chairman, thank you. 

I join you in welcoming our witnesses here today and I thank you for scheduling 

the two panels for this very important hearing. 

I would like to begin by commending our Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, 

for his efforts over the last few weeks to impress upon our North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) allies the importance of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. He 

also emphasized that militant extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, still 

pose a significant threat and that the threat posed by these extremists may be 

greater in Europe than some in Europe may believe. 

The debate on the importance of the mission in Afghanistan may be among the 

most complicated that the NATO allies have faced since the alliance was formed to 

counter the Soviet threat. 

Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to place the entirety of Secretary 

Gates’ February 10 address to the Munich Conference on Security Policy into the 

record (see Annex A). 

In addition to expressing my strong support for Secretary Gate’s remarks, I would 

like to highlight a few matters concerning Afghanistan. 

First, I concur with those who assert that the credibility of the NATO—the most 

successful political organization and military alliance in recent history—is at stake 

in Afghanistan. 

In Afghanistan today, there has no doubt been progress since 2001: but the 

Taliban’s recent resurgence in Afghanistan; the escalating opium economy; and the 

presence of cross-border sanctuaries in Pakistan threatens to challenge positive momentum and potentially lead Afghanistan to slip back to its pre-September 11 role 

as a safe haven for terrorists. 

General Jim Jones, the former NATO supreme allied commander, and co-chair—

with Ambassador Thomas Pickering—of the Afghanistan Study Group Report which 

was sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Presidency, has said: ‘‘Make no 

mistake; NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.’’ 

In his recent remarks in Munich, Secretary Gates reiterated a warning he made 

last Wednesday in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In that 

testimony, Secretary Gates expressed concern about ‘‘the alliance evolving into a 

two-tiered alliance, in which some are willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and some are not.’’ 

Over the past 6 years NATO forces have grown from 16,000 to 43,000. The ground 

commander is now calling for another 7,500 troops. This is a troop requirement 

NATO should work vigorously to meet. 

All of the nations of NATO should reexamine their contributions to military operations in southern Afghanistan and lift the incapacitating restrictions, known as national caveats, on where, when, and how their forces can fight. 

Second, we should never forget that failure in Afghanistan would be a significant 

boost to militant extremists. 

Secretary Gates said that the Islamic extremist movement so far was ‘‘built on 

the illusion of success’’ and that all the extremists have accomplished recently is 

‘‘the death of thousands of innocent Muslims.’’ Secretary Gates went on to say: 

‘‘Many Europeans question the relevance of our actions and doubt whether the mission is worth the lives of their sons and daughters.’’ 

The bombings in Madrid and London and the disruption of cells and plots 

throughout Europe should remind all of us that the threat posed by global extremism in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe, and globally remains, as Secretary 

Gates said, ‘‘a steep challenge.’’ 

In his Munich speech, Secretary Gates said extremist success in Afghanistan 

would ‘‘beget success on many other fronts as the cancer metastasized further and 

more rapidly than it already has.’’ I fully agree with this assessment by Secretary 

Gates. 

Third, and concomitantly, we should not forget that Afghanistan and Iraq are 

very distinct missions. Failure in either would be disastrous for the other, the region 

8

as a whole, the U.S. and Europe. However, the more we tie the two fronts together 

we may unintentionally be creating false and misleading impressions. 

In very frank comments on Saturday, Secretary Gates said, and I believe correctly, that many Europeans ‘‘have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and 

project that to Afghanistan, and do not understand the very different kind of 

threat.’’ 

Afghanistan has its own strategic importance which should not be confused with 

Iraq’s strategic importance. It is therefore important that we find ways to decouple 

our strategies, policies, and funding for Afghanistan from those for Iraq. 

Next, we must wholly engage Afghanistan’s neighbors and fully enjoin them in 

the plans for the future security and stability of Afghanistan. This specifically includes the development of an effective strategy to dislodge al Qaeda and Taliban 

sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghanistan border. 

Finally, there is little doubt about the strong link between instability in Afghanistan, poppy cultivation and drug trafficking. I do not believe there can be lasting 

stability in Afghanistan until these links are disrupted. 

Afghanistan supplies about 93 percent of the world’s opium supply. While poppy 

cultivation has decreased in the north-central Afghanistan, it has dramatically increased in the southwest. In 2006, the drug trade was estimated to total more than 

$3 billion—money that continues to fund Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents. 

Breaking the nexus between the insurgency and opium production requires a coordinated counternarcotics strategy that must be integrated with our counterinsurgency strategy and linked to the economic revitalization of Afghanistan’s rural 

economy that includes alternative livelihood programs. 

In closing, the United States, our NATO allies, Afghanistan’s neighbors, and 

international organizations all have roles to play. Each, and all, should recommit 

to the development of a comprehensive, urgent, and long-term strategy for Afghanistan. This long-term strategy should be one that integrates political and developmental features that complement the military counterinsurgency strategy. 

This recommitment should, as I have already discussed, include increasing NATO 

forces in southern Afghanistan and suspending national caveats. We should also expand the training and equipping of the Afghan National Army and the police 

through a long-term partnership with NATO to make it professional and multi-ethnic, and deploying significantly more foreign trainers. 

This recommitment must also address deficiencies in judicial reform, reconstruction, governance, and anticorruption efforts, and here the other elements of so-called 

‘soft power’ should be marshaled effectively. The international assistance effort 

should be reenergized and managed efficiently. The efforts to appoint a United Nations High Commissioner should be revived immediately. 

After 6 years of international involvement, Afghanistan may be nearing a defining 

moment. Regretfully, I add, so too may NATO. 

Secretary Gates’ comments this weekend brought these issues to the fore. I vigorously laud his efforts to speak openly to our allies and to make an effort to ensure 

that the troop burden in Afghanistan does not divide the NATO allies. 

The witnesses on this first panel should be prepared to discuss, among other 

issues: the current situation in Afghanistan; our current strategies and policies 

there; the contributions of our partners and allies; the role played by Afghanistan’s 

neighbors to foster stability and security in Afghanistan; and how the drug trade 

has undermined the Government of Afghanistan’s drive to build political stability, 

economic growth, and rule of law. 

This panel of witnesses should also be prepared to respond to questions about 

three reports released last month. These reports conclude that a new effort is required to succeed in Afghanistan. The reports were the Afghanistan Study Group 

report sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Presidency (see Annex B); the 

Atlantic Council report on Afghanistan (see Annex C); and a paper by Dr. Harlan 

Ullman and others titled, ‘‘Winning the Invisible War: An Agricultural Pilot Plan 

for Afghanistan (see Annex D).’’ 

I request unanimous consent that each of these reports be entered into the record. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses 

today.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you very much, Senator Warner. 

By the way, I do concur with your remarks supporting the comments of Secretary Gates. I think they’re very significant and accurate. 

9

Secretary Shinn, I think you are going to go first, followed by 

Secretary Boucher. General Sattler, do you have an opening statement? 

General SATTLER. I’ll just introduce myself, sir; that’s it. 

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. We already know you and appreciate 

your work, but we’ll get to you, then, in that order. 

Secretary Shinn? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. SHINN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE FOR ASIAN AND PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS, 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY 

Dr. SHINN. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Senator Warner, members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss Afghanistan with you today. 

If I may just submit some written remarks for the record, and 

use the time efficiently to respond and build on comments made by 

both you and Senator Warner, so we can leave time for questions. 

Chairman LEVIN. We would appreciate that, and all your comments and statements will be made part of the record. 

Dr. SHINN. Great. 

If I may, with regard to the Afghan Study Group study, as well 

as The Atlantic Council report that you made reference to, we concur with many of the conclusions of those reports. To the degree 

that the reports suggest that our strategy in Afghanistan needs to 

be fundamentally changed, I believe that we would submit to the 

committee that U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is sound. The real 

challenge is execution of that strategy—resourced and done systematically, sustained over time. 

Two weeks ago, Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, 

who’s known to some of you, gave a speech to the NATO ministers, 

and he described the strategy in Afghanistan in terms of clearing, 

holding, and building. I’d like to very briefly touch on those three 

aspects of the strategy. 

With regard to the clearing part of the strategy, we would submit 

to you that we believe we are winning, slowly and painfully. As the 

chairman mentioned, and quoting the report, I believe where the 

Afghan forces together meet the Taliban who stand and fight, we 

always prevail. Much of this is due to the Afghan National Army 

(ANA)—and General Sattler can speak more to how that was 

trained into a disciplined and effective organization—but also by 

U.S. and alliance troops. Currently, we have 27,500 troops in Afghanistan, and another 3,200 marines on the way. 

We would point out that the success in the clear part of the 

strategy has been purchased at a horrible price: 415 Americans 

have been killed in and around Afghanistan, another 1,863 wounded, some of them very seriously. 

Our analysts have concluded that the Taliban usage of assassinations, of terrorism against soft civilian targets, and even, to some 

degree, the use of suicide bombs is really, in part, a reaction to the 

success of the clearing strategy. 

But that brings us to the hold and then to the build part of the 

puzzle. We would submit to you that both of those pieces of the 

strategy are both harder and slower to make progress in. It’s inherVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
10

ently more ambiguous and hard to measure when you’re making 

progress. 

One example, probably known to most of you, of course, is that 

much of the hold part of the puzzle devolves around the Afghan 

National Police (ANP). As an institution, the ANP has a much 

spottier record than the ANA, less credibility with the Afghan citizens, some reputation for corruption in some districts. Again, General Sattler can speak to some of the reforms underway. We are encouraged by efforts by the Ministry of the Interior in Kabul, with 

our assistance, to pay and rank reform of the ANP, to train and 

equip them better, and, in particular, a program called the Focused 

District Development Program, where they go to a district, they 

take out the existing police corps, they put in a trained and vetted 

temporary police force, and they take out the existing police corps, 

and vet them for corruption or involvement in trafficking; they 

train them, equip them, and put them back in, with mentors. We’re 

in phase 1 of this program, and we look forward to the results. 

Moving to the build part of the puzzle, this starts from a very 

tough base. I know many of the Senators on the committee, and 

staff, have been to Afghanistan. When you see it with your own 

eyes, you realize how much of the physical and human capital has 

been destroyed by the three decades of war and civil war. It’s really 

pretty striking. 

The good news is that the GDP is growing now. It’s between $8 

and $9 billion a year now. But, if you divide that by the Afghan 

population of about 32 million, that gives the average Afghan an 

annual income of about $300, less than a dollar a day, which is 

crushing poverty. If, into that mix, you then add the trafficking 

problem, the narcotics problem, you have a seriously corrosive effect on already weak state institutions. 

We have a five-part counternarcotics substrategy to deal with 

that. Secretary Boucher can speak to that, because that’s principally in the State Department lane. It involves both public education, alternative livelihood, eradication, interdiction, and law enforcement, on the back end of that. This is going to take time, patience, and a sustained effort. 

I conclude by just pointing out, again, that this part of the execution puzzle, as well as the other two pieces, is not solely, nor, in 

many cases, is it even primarily, the responsibility of the United 

States, that execution on these three pieces involves us, our NATO 

allies, the Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) partners, certainly 

the United Nations (U.N.), the international community writ large, 

and, of course, most importantly, the Government of Afghanistan 

and its citizens. 

Maybe I could close with another quote from Minister Wardak, 

who said, ‘‘In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan is eminently winnable, but only if the Afghans are enabled to defend their own 

homeland. The enduring solution to this war must be, in the end, 

an Afghan solution.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shinn follows:]

11

1 ICG, Countering Afghanistan’s Insurgency: No Quick Fixes, page ii. 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DR. JAMES SHINN

Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and members of the committee: Thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss Afghanistan. 

You have had heard from a number of witnesses recently who have challenged 

our strategy in Afghanistan. I would submit to you that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is largely sound. The challenge lies in properly executing elements of the strategy. Execution requires the right amount of resources—both military and non-military—and then using these resources in a disciplined, coordinated fashion, over a 

sustained period of time. 

Our basic strategy is to use U.S. and international forces, partnered with Afghan 

units, to counter the insurgency, while building up the capacity of the Afghan Government to govern. As Afghan Minister of Defense Wardak told North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Ministers last week, ‘‘The simple counterinsurgency prescription is to Clear, Hold, and Build.’’ I emphasize the ‘‘build’’ part here. International Crisis Group put it succinctly in their November 2006 report, Countering 

Afghanistan’s Insurgency: No Quick Fixes, when they observed that: ‘‘Fighting the 

insurgency and nation-building are mutually reinforcing.’’ 1

I would emphasize that this isn’t only, or even primarily, a U.S. task. This is a 

task for the international community, our NATO International Security Assistance 

Force (ISAF) partners, the United Nations, and above all the government and people of Afghanistan. Because there are multiple actors, there are some differences 

with regard to the basic strategy; the U.S. and some of our key partners put a higher priority on implementing a traditional counterinsurgency approach. Other partners, however, place a greater emphasis on the ‘‘nation-building’’ aspect of the mission. These differences are an inevitable part of coalition warfare, but there are 

steps we can take to enhance unity of effort. For instance, Secretary Gates is working with his counterparts on an ISAF ‘‘vision statement’’ that lays out what we want 

to achieve collectively in Afghanistan, and how we intend to get there. 

Developing the Afghan National Security Forces is a critical element in this strategy. The Afghan National Army (ANA) is increasingly assuming a leading role in 

the planning and execution of operations. 49,400 personnel are currently assigned 

to the ANA, with a projected increase of between 10,000 and 15,000 personnel per 

year. To date, the U.S. has invested about $8 billion on the Army’s development. 

Secretary Gates has agreed to support an Afghan-proposed expansion of the Army 

by 10,000 personnel, above the previously authorized 70,000 force structure. This increase was recently approved by the Afghanistan Joint Coordination and Monitoring 

Board that met in Tokyo on 4–5 February. 

Further consideration is being given to the Army’s longer-term end strength. I expect it will eventually grow beyond 80,000 as the Afghans assume greater responsibility for the security situation in their own country and both Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) and ISAF troops withdraw over time, though I know of no timetable 

for withdrawal. I don’t know what the likely ‘‘end state’’ number for the ANA will 

be, nor how it would be funded, other than the fact that these security forces are 

likely to exceed the ability of the Afghan Government to pay for itself, thus requiring some kind of sustained international financial assistance. 

In contrast, the Police lag behind the Army in both capability and effectiveness. 

The Police have not been able to hold areas cleared of insurgents by ISAF and the 

ANA—the Hold part of Minister Wardak’s ‘‘clear, hold, build.’’ Furthermore, the Police have a history of corruption that has undermined their credibility. 

The Afghans, with considerable support from the U.S., are taking steps to fix 

these problems. These steps include: better weapons and equipment for the Police, 

leadership changes within the Ministry of Interior, pay and rank reform (including 

pay parity with the Army), integrating Police Mentoring Teams with ANP units, 

and executing the Focused District Development (FDD) plan. The FDD is an initiative to temporarily insert teams of highly proficient Afghan National Civil Order Police into selected districts while the regular ANP are immersed in 8 weeks of intensive refresher training before resuming their positions. 

So far, the U.S. has invested $5 billion in Police development. There are some 

75,000 personnel assigned to the ANP, of a projected 82,000 end strength. I’d like 

to note the sacrifices that the Police have made. Over a 4-week period between December and January, for example, the ANP suffered 54 killed in action, compared 

to 13 ANA soldiers killed in action over the same time. 

ISAF is fighting alongside the ANA and ANP. NATO’s ISAF mission currently includes 44,000 troops from nearly 40 countries, in NATO’s first deployment outside 

the European theater. Some 16,000 U.S. troops are under the ISAF command strucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
12

ture, led by General Dan McNeill. An additional 3,200 U.S. marines will soon deploy 

to Afghanistan, of which about 2,200 will join the fight in the south, while the other 

1,000 will be partnered with Afghan units, primarily the ANP. 

Among the Alliance members, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Romania are engaged in intense combat operations in the 

south, and Poland fights as an integrated member of the CJTF–82 team in RC East. 

But some others have not been willing to deploy their soldiers to Afghanistan’s hot 

spots. Secretary Gates recently expressed his concern about ‘‘the Alliance evolving 

into a two-tiered Alliance, in which you have some Allies willing to fight and die 

to protect people’s security, and others who are not,’’ a concern he has raised with 

his NATO counterparts during the recent NATO ministerial meeting in Vilnius. 

The U.S. currently has about 27,500 troops deployed in Afghanistan. To date, 

1,863 U.S. soldiers have been wounded in action, and 415 of our soldiers have been 

killed. Some 280 of our ISAF and coalition partners have been killed. 

Despite these sacrifices, the Alliance has fallen short of meeting its stated commitments in several areas. Afghanistan needs more maneuver forces, Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), aviation assets, and mentors for the Afghan National 

Security Forces. Some Allies also need to remove restrictive ‘‘caveats’’ on their 

forces, which all too often preclude their troops from taking on certain missions or 

deploying to particular regions. 

Some recent reports, like the Afghanistan Study Group, focus on the command 

and control arrangements of the military and the civilian structures of international 

forces. The reporting structures of ISAF and OEF are complex, and there is no clear 

point where authority for both the military and international reconstruction efforts 

comes together in country. Some military commanders have told me the current arrangement is awkward but it works. It’s my view that having an integrated campaign plan is more important than devising alternative command and control arrangements. Getting Allies to agree to an ISAF vision statement will be the first 

step in enabling us to develop this type of integrated plan—a plan that integrates 

the ‘‘clear, hold, and build’’ parts of the strategy. 

As I noted earlier, military means alone will not prevail in this contest. In fact, 

the overall trend we’ve seen in the preceding years is a transition by the enemy 

from conventional engagements to greater reliance on asymmetric tactics—for example, suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices. They recognize there’s no 

possibility to defeat ISAF and the ANA on the battlefield, so they resort to terror 

to intimidate the population and create the impression that the Afghan Government 

can’t provide security. 

In order to defeat the insurgents, the population has to believe that the Afghan 

Government offers the best hope of a brighter future, or at least a better shot at 

basic security for them and their families. That means they need to see improved 

governance and rule of law, accelerated development, a stronger economy, and positive steps to tackle corruption and narcotics trafficking. Where we’ve undertaken a 

concerted effort to tackle these issues, such as in Regional Command East, and with 

the support of strong local leadership, this approach clearly works. 

The Department of Defense and a number of our partners in ISAF play a role 

in the reconstruction activities that have led to kinds of successes we’ve seen in Regional Command East—for instance, the Department of Defense (DOD) is significantly involved in PRTs. However, civilian expertise has to be integrated with the 

military’s capabilities. State, United States Agency for International Development, 

and Department of Agriculture personnel are partnered with U.S. military officers 

in most of our PRTs. I believe the civilian elements of the interagency need to be 

able to deploy more of these experts into conflict zones like Afghanistan. 

Appointing a senior international civilian coordinator would also help us improve 

the effectiveness of our overall effort—and, perhaps even more importantly, help 

make the case for sustained investments by the international community of both 

military and economic assistance to Afghanistan. There is some lack of coherence 

among the various nations and official organizations involved in Afghanistan, which 

a senior coordinator could help fix. 

I am also concerned by signs of questioning of the long-term commitment to Afghanistan by both politicians and citizens in some ISAF-contributing nations. Both 

the Afghan Government and the insurgents follow any signs of wavering commitment with intense interest—as do both the Pakistanis and Iranians. A senior coordinator, especially one with U.N. credentials and credibility among NATO Alliance 

members at home, could help counter this softening of will. 

The narcotics trade is a huge headache with no easy solutions. We have a counternarcotics strategy with five pillars—public information, alternative development, 

eradication, interdiction, and justice reform. These five pieces come together to form 

a comprehensive strategy that presents incentives to Afghans to encourage them to 

13

Note: ISAF consists of both NATO Alliance members and non-NATO contributors. The term 

‘‘Coalition’’ generally refers to those forces deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF).

participate in legal livelihoods while providing disincentives that deter them from 

participating in all aspects and levels of the narcotics industry. Implementing this 

long-term strategy is challenging, particularly in the insecure south of the country 

where poppy cultivation is highest. For example, without an adequate alternative 

livelihood, we risk creating insurgents out of ordinary farmers whose sole source of 

feeding their families has been taken from them. I saw that Senator Hagel zoomed 

in on this problem in his comments at the Foreign Relations Committee January 

31 hearings. 

Another significant challenge is external—namely, the Taliban safe-haven in 

Pakistan, and the willingness of the Iranians to provide weapons and other assistance to the Taliban. Both Senators Biden and Lugar highlighted this concern in 

their comments and questions at the SFRC hearings on January 31. 

Everyone agrees that we—the U.S., the international community, and above all 

the Afghan Government—need to work with the Government of Pakistan to eliminate safe-havens in the border areas. But this is going to take a long time, and—

as in Afghanistan—is not going to be achieved by military force alone. It will require 

helping Pakistan to build up its own capabilities to wage a counterinsurgency. 

As for the Iranians, intercepting and capturing arms convoys to the Taliban may 

be the most effective local tactic for the time being. We need to do this aggressively, 

but we also need to monitor the trends for indications that this is turning into a 

strategic problem. Our international partners, along with the Afghan Government, 

can also play a productive role in convincing Iran that a stable and peaceful Afghanistan is very much in everyone’s interests. 

In conclusion, I would endorse another point made by Minister Wardak in his 

speech to the NATO Ministers, when he said that ‘‘the war in Afghanistan is eminently winnable. But only if the Afghans are enabled to defend their own homeland. 

The enduring solution must be an Afghan solution.’’ 

Thank you. I look forward to your comments, concerns, and questions. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Secretary Shinn. 

Secretary Boucher? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD A. BOUCHER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, and distinguished members of 

the committee, I thank you for having us over today. 

This is a subject of vital national interest to all of us, and, as the 

chairman referred to, I think we all understand the danger of renewed terrorist attacks to the Homeland stemming from this part 

of the world. I think it’s also good to keep in mind the opportunities 

of creating a stable, peaceful, strategic hub in Afghanistan for Central and South Asia, for new routes for energy, trade, ideas, and 

people, and also the opportunity to see to the welfare of some 30 

million people in Afghanistan, who, as my colleague pointed out, 

are suffering from great poverty. Afghanistan, in the 1950s, 1960s, 

and 1970s, was one of the poorest countries in the world, and then 

they’ve gone downhill for 20, 25 years, and it’s no wonder that the 

challenges of development alone are enormous, and development, 

given fighting and the circumstances now, is even a harder task. 

We’re doing this task. We have, I would say, many achievements, 

but not yet success, in this task. The focus is, increasingly, on the 

people of Afghanistan, the people that I said are largely rural, they 

learn to rely on local and traditional structures over the last several decades. They’ve seen too much fighting, and, frankly, too little 

benefit from government. That’s the situation we’re trying to 

14

change. I think, to fundamentally win this war, to stabilize Afghanistan as a peaceful nation, we need to provide those people with security, with justice, with economic opportunity, and with good governance, just what anybody in the world expects from their government. 

So, how are we doing? My summary is that we’re doing what 

works, we’re getting the job done, but we need to do it more broadly, we need to do it better. I’ll talk about that, as well. As Secretary 

Rice said last week, our counterinsurgency effort is having good effect, but the work is not complete. 

We’ve seen, now, more and more police, more and more military 

available to the Afghan population to provide them with security. 

As you travel around Afghanistan—and I’ve been there twice in the 

last month—you see the green police trucks that we’ve provided 

with our supplemental funding from last year, new policemen out 

on the streets, new trucks out on the street. We know the numbers 

are still low, the quality is still not what it should be, but they’re 

getting out there, and they’re more and more visibly providing security for the population. You see new governors and new district 

chiefs. The government is extending itself, including a renewed effort on local governance, on working with local populations in the 

districts, and providing better personnel through the Office of Local 

Governance that has been set up in President Karzai’s office. 

You do see economic growth. Every time I’ve gone, for the last 

6 years, you see different products being sold, you see Internet 

cafes starting up, you see oranges in the market, better quality 

stores, people no longer selling from containers, but selling from 

buildings. There’s economic growth. The legitimate economic 

growth last year was estimated to be 13 percent, really remarkably 

high. You see the other aspects of this—3.5 million cell phones. 

Whereas, 5, 6 years ago there was virtually—a very small phone 

system that really didn’t work. 

There are now 4,000 kilometers of roads, versus 50 in 2002—50 

kilometers of roads, to 4,000. Those roads have a transforming effect. I was up in the district of Kunar, on the Pakistan border, and 

you see there, they’re no longer talking about the number of insurgents in the Konar valley, they’re talking about the number of gas 

stations, the number of Internet cafes along the road that was built 

by the U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) and the local 

governor’s office. 

You see education, healthcare being delivered to the population—

5 million kids in school now, versus about 900,000 in 2001. Health 

care now reaches 80 percent of the population. The real effect of 

this is that there are 85,000 babies and children every year who 

survive in Afghanistan who would not have survived without that 

service. 

All those things said, all those achievements listed and seeing 

them around the country, you can see them have an effect in districts, you can see them have an effect in provinces, where they’ve 

been done in a coordinated and concentrated fashion. But, we still 

have enormous challenges through the country as a whole. 

As my colleague, Mr. Shinn, referred to, we’ve routed the enemy 

from their strongholds, but they’ve now turned more and more to 

tactics of pure terror—to bombs, kidnaping, things that make the 

15

population feel unsafe, and things that we need to prevent. In some 

cases, we’re able to prevent those, because we get tips from local 

populations. I’ve heard that story in districts of Afghanistan. In 

other places, it’s harder to prevent, because we don’t really have 

solid government control, police control and governance, in all the 

areas of the country yet. 

The narcotics problem is still enormous. We’re pleased to see the 

U.N. early assessment for this year that says there’s probably 

going to be a slight decrease, but what it also says is that the high 

levels of poppy production in the south are going to stay that way, 

and that the link between the insurgency and the narcotics production is even more focused, even tighter. 

Where we establish good governance and are able to carry out 

the full scope of antinarcotics programs, we can see a decrease in 

the poppy cultivation; where, because of insecurity, we’re unable to 

do all the things that government would like to do and all the aspects of the narcotics program, we’re still seeing a very high level 

of counterproduction. We not only need to get a hold of these areas, 

but also to carry out this full-scope counternarcotics effort in those 

areas. 

Finally, weak government, and particularly, corruption, remains 

endemic. The reform and training of government ministries, of local 

officials, and of police forces have to be a high priority, because 

what the Afghan people expect from their government, they expect 

basic decent government, they expect government to be on their 

side, and not to try to take advantage of them through corruption 

and other means. 

In 2008, therefore, we’re trying to deal with all of these problems, and attack both the enemy and the problems with all our 

various tools. I’d say there are four main tasks this year. 

One is to concentrate and coordinate our efforts. If you look 

through the reports that you’ve been talking about, a lot of the recommendations have to do with, how do you tighten the coordination in the international community? How do you tighten the coordination between civilian and military activity? How do you 

tighten the coordination between the international effort and the 

Afghan Government? Those are all tasks that we’re concentrating 

on. 

Second is to try to focus our resources, focus police, justice, roads, 

electricity, governance, the things that people want in the most 

troubled area. So, we bring all those things to bear in the district 

of Musa Qala in Helmand, which was a Taliban stronghold, which 

they have been pushed out of in recent weeks and the Afghan Government’s going in with police and local government, we’re going 

in with electric generators, with projects for the local population, 

to try to help stabilize those areas by bringing all our tools to bear. 

Second is that you’ll probably see a dramatic expansion of the 

availability of electricity in Afghanistan this year, dramatic expansion that reaches, still, a minority percentage of the population, but 

people on the grid in Afghanistan—it’s about 6 percent of the population. We have some major projects cutting in this year in Kabul, 

bringing electricity down from countries in the north, getting 

Kajaki Dam in the south back on, that should let us provide a lot 

more electricity to people in Afghanistan. That turns on the lights 

16

for kids to do homework, but it also gives farmers opportunities to 

do things like cold storage and marketing of their products in a 

way that they haven’t been able to do, and, therefore, to increase 

their yields from legitimate crops instead of poppy. 

Third, there’s a real focus on the narcotics problem, I think, especially in two ways. One is stepping up the interdiction of networks 

and traffickers, and, second of all, to go into these denied areas 

where the poppy production is protected by large landowners or 

protected by the insurgency, and to make sure that we can go into 

those areas and demonstrate that we can get the poppy that’s 

grown in those places. 

Fourth, I’d say, there are increasingly good signs of cooperation 

between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we want to work with both 

countries so that, instead of having the insurgents use these territories in Pakistan to push out in two directions, that between 

what’s going on, on the Pakistan side and what’s going on, on the 

Afghan side, we are, in fact, pushing in on them from two directions, and that they have to deal with that situation. 

I think we have, as I said, enormous challenges that remain, but 

we have good programs to deal with them, we have a focused strategy that needs to be concentrated and coordinated better, but that 

we could really have an opportunity here in Afghanistan this year 

to put the government in the ascendancy. 

The Taliban no longer control territory, but they’re able to operate very widely throughout the country, and I think this has to be 

the year where the government is able to implant itself and bring 

stability to the key areas of Afghanistan. I think we have the programs to do that, if we do them properly, if we do them well. 

That’s about all I’d like to say at the beginning. I’d be glad to 

take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Boucher follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR RICHARD A. BOUCHER

Chairman Levin and members of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to address you today on progress and strategy in carrying out U.S. policy toward 

Afghanistan. I am just back from a trip to Kabul and Kandahar and look forward 

to sharing my impressions. 

Let me begin by posing two very fundamental thoughts about our involvement in 

Afghanistan: What is our objective and what strategy are we pursuing to get there? 

After September 11, the United States helped Afghan partners topple the Taliban 

regime and joined with international partners to ensure that Afghanistan would 

never again become a sanctuary for terrorists. We remain committed to the goal of 

building long-term stability based on Afghan national sovereignty, democratic principles, economic development, and respect for human rights. Afghanistan has 

achieved many successes in their fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda—establishing infrastructure, securing territory, providing education, health care, and 

training, but we have not won yet. Our shared goal of stability requires a large commitment from us and our Allies, and will continue to require this for a considerable 

time. 

When we speak of our commitment, we are speaking of an investment in the future. Afghanistan is not just a battle theater to fight enemies, but a place of strategic opportunity. Afghanistan represents an opportunity to have a close, democratic 

ally in the heart of a continent with unmatched political and economic capital and 

potential. Afghanistan has the potential of becoming the linchpin for regional integration in south and central Asia. The past 6 years have showed us that it has the 

potential for transformation from a broken, failing state that harbored terrorists 

into a democratic, prosperous land bridge between the south and central Asian regions—regions that were virtually disconnected until 2001. A free and secure AfVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
17

ghanistan provides new opportunities for growth in trade and security, for the benefit of the region and the world. 

Comparing Afghanistan to what it was under the Taliban regime just 61⁄2 years 

ago, we have made serious progress on a broad range of fronts. Sustained successes 

on the battlefield have deprived the Taliban of their ability to move freely about the 

country and spread their extremist writ. Thanks to economic growth and strengthened local institutions, we are seeing support for the insurgency decline and support 

for the Afghan Government increase in most areas of Afghanistan. The recent visit 

of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Kandahar, which was once the insurgent 

groups’ home base, indicates the progress we have made and our continued commitment to support Afghanistan in completing its transition from tyranny to stability 

and a constitutional government. 

At the same time we must recognize that important challenges remain. The recent 

reports by the Afghanistan Study Group and the Atlantic Council of the United 

States are accurate in their assessments that narcotics production and trade, widespread corruption, cross-border flow of insurgents from Pakistan, and lack of international donor coordination require our full attention. Many of the reports’ recommendations for the way ahead are already being implemented: A resolute and 

comprehensive approach to counternarcotics; an economic and social development 

plan for Pakistan’s border regions; diplomatic efforts to strengthen North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization’s (NATO) involvement in Afghanistan; and support for a United 

Nations Special Representative with a strong mandate. 

SECURITY

As Secretary Rice said during her trip to Afghanistan last week, our counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan ‘‘is having good effect, but the work is not complete.’’ We have made considerable progress against the Taliban and other insurgents. U.S.-led NATO forces in the East have successfully linked security operations 

with governance and reconstruction initiatives in a full-spectrum counterinsurgency 

campaign. Afghan army, police, governors, tribal leaders and citizens are standing 

against the Taliban. In the south, Afghan and Allied forces have taken the fight to 

the Taliban, recently recapturing the restive district of Musa Qala in Helmand province and helping establish Afghan Government presence. We and our NATO and Afghan partners continue to work together to consolidate and extend those gains by 

bringing in governance and development. 

Due to their inability to win on the battlefield, the Taliban have resorted to terrorist tactics such as improvised explosive devices, suicide bombs, kidnapping, and 

direct targeting of foreign civilians. The attack on the Serena Hotel in Kabul on 

January 14 is but the most recent example. Of course, these indirect tactics can be 

deadlier than open combat for our troops. We are also battling a cynical but effective 

Taliban communications strategy. 

The United States, our Allies, and Afghan officials share the desire to see the Afghan Government assume greater responsibility for its own security. Our training 

and equipping programs for the Afghan National Security Forces are showing results: We have trained and equipped more than 49,400 Afghan National Army personnel. The Afghan National Army is now a respected institution amongst Afghans 

and is increasingly taking the lead in planning and executing operations. 

We have a comprehensive program in place to develop the Afghan police and to 

increase policing capacity at the district level called the Focused District Development Plan. Through better training and leadership, improved pay and electronic distribution of salaries, and provision of better equipment, we are working to ensure 

that the police are ready and motivated to do their jobs. But it takes time to transform a system of militias loyal to local commanders and warlords to a professionally 

led force acting on behalf of the Government of Afghanistan that respects and enforces rule of law and human rights. 

We are committed to NATO’s mission and are increasing American support to the 

NATO-led International Security Assistance Force with more troops and resources. 

The United States will deploy an additional 3,200 marines to Afghanistan this 

spring. 2,200 marines will be deployed to Regional Command South. The remaining 

1,000 marines will train and develop Afghan National Security Forces. 

Without doubt, success is possible but not assured. Therefore, the international 

community needs to continue and expand its efforts. The greatest threat to Afghanistan’s future is abandonment by the international community. As Secretary Gates 

has made clear in testimony here and in other public comments, meeting the requirements identified by NATO commanders remains a challenge. The mission in 

Afghanistan needs more forces, equipment (such as helicopters), and trainers for the 

Afghan army and police. We have promised the Afghan people to assist in stabiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
18

lizing their country and NATO needs to provide the personnel and the tools to make 

good on that promise. As we look to the upcoming NATO Summit in Bucharest in 

April, we will continue to work with our 25 NATO Allies and other International 

Security Assistance Force (ISAF) partners in Afghanistan to meet the requirements 

needed to succeed in the NATO ISAF mission. 

GOVERNANCE

Lasting stability will only come when the Afghan Government can step in to fill 

the void that is left when an area is cleared from insurgents. We must, therefore, 

focus on the less tangible but equally critical goal of extending the government’s influence nationwide. In order to persuade Afghan citizens to side with their government against the insurgents, Afghans must see that their government has the ability to deliver basic services, provide the rule of law, uphold human rights, and extend economic opportunities effectively, transparently, and responsibly throughout 

the country. Our foreign assistance programs help achieve the objective of visible 

and viable Afghan governance at the local level. We are funding local projects developed by community and provincial councils that play an increasing role in responding to the people’s needs. We are also helping the Ministry of Education create a 

network of public service academies and the Ministry of Justice to promote rule of 

law at the local level. 

We support honest and competent governors that respond to the needs of the people and respect human rights. In this context, we welcome the establishment of the 

Independent Directorate for Local Governance that has already achieved encouraging results. We hope that this institution will continue to be instrumental in 

building public confidence in the Government of Afghanistan. 

RECONSTRUCTION

Reconstruction and development work remains on track in much of the country 

and the Afghan economy continues to grow at impressive rates, with licit Gross Domestic Product more than doubling since 2002. The lives of millions of Afghans have 

improved considerably: Up from 8 percent of Afghans in 2001, more than 80 percent 

of the population now has access to medical care. Almost 11,000 medical professionals have been trained. More than 680 hospitals and clinics have been built and 

outfitted. For the first time in 10 years, the grain harvest was sufficient to meet 

consumption needs inside Afghanistan. In 2001, 900,000 children—almost exclusively boys—were enrolled in school. Now, there are more than 5 million and more 

than 1.5 million of these (34 percent) are girls and young women. Since 2001, there 

has been a 22 percent decline in mortality rates for infants and children under 5 

years of age—we are saving 85,000 more young lives every year. More than 70 percent of the population—including 7 million children—has been inoculated against 

the Polio virus. In 2001, there was a dysfunctional banking system. Now, Afghanistan has a functioning Central Bank with more than 30 regional branches and an 

internationally-traded currency. There are now 3 mobile telephone companies serving more than 3.5 million subscribers—this is almost 11 percent of the population. 

In 2001, there were 50 kilometers of paved roadway in the country, now there are 

more than 4000 kilometers of paved roads. We plan to allocate close to $600 million of our fiscal year 2008 base foreign assistance budget to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, which will support programs ranging from education, health, agriculture, infrastructure, and the activities 

of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. In the fiscal year 2008 supplemental, we have 

also requested about $500 million to build roads and power infrastructure and another $50 million to expand our successful health and education programs. These 

initiatives are connecting the Afghan people to their government and are creating 

an environment in which they have the basic services and infrastructure necessary 

to prosper. 

We are not alone. Our programs are part of a broad international assistance effort. The Government of France has indicated its willingness to host an international conference this summer that will provide an opportunity for significant new 

pledges of international assistance for Afghanistan over the coming years. We are 

confident that this conference will demonstrate once again the depth of international support for Afghanistan. 

DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Our support for democratic stability and constitutional government in Afghanistan is also yielding positive results. The Afghan Parliament is assuming its appropriate role as a deliberative body and Presidential and Parliamentary elections are 

due in the next 2 years. Given that voter registration will take about a year to comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
19

plete, it needs to begin soon. The Afghans will have to make key decisions on election dates and the electoral system. In the fiscal year 2008 supplemental, the President requested $100 million for critically needed election-support programs. 

A transparent and fair justice system is critical to ensuring that the people of Afghanistan respect the authority of the central government and to ensuring that the 

rights of Afghan citizens are protected. We have established a public-private partnership with American law firms and schools to help advance rule of law and establish a strong core of legal professionals. 

The development of an independent, active Afghan media has been remarkable. 

However, there is still room for improvement. We are concerned about the deterioration of media freedom over the last year, including an increase in detention of journalists and government interference in media coverage over the past year. Also troubling were the deaths of two female journalists last summer and the recent death 

sentence of a young Afghan journalist. We are working with the Afghan Government and the Afghan Parliament to emphasize the importance of the new media law 

currently in the legislative process meeting international standards regarding, in 

particular, the legal protection of journalists and removing vague content restrictions, establishing a fair, independent licensing system and an independent body to 

govern Radio Television Afghanistan. 

A peaceful and stable Afghanistan cannot be secured without the active political 

and economic involvement of women. Although women’s political participation has 

gained a degree of acceptance, women who are active in public life continue to face 

disproportionate threats and violence. Furthermore, women and girls continue to 

face severe discrimination and both formal and customary justice mechanisms that 

fail to protect their rights. The United States is firmly committed to support for Afghan women and integrates women’s issues into virtually all of its programs, aiming 

to increase female political participation, education, economic opportunities, and 

their role in civil society. 

COUNTERNARCOTICS

Although the number of poppy-free provinces more than doubled in 2007, total 

opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan grew significantly. The Afghan Government, 

the United States, and the international community are alarmed about this development. Afghanistan’s poppy production fuels corruption and narcotics addiction, and 

is a significant source of financing for criminal and insurgent groups. In order to 

prosper, Afghanistan must rid itself of the opium poppy. President Karzai and his 

top leaders recognize this. 

Countering poppy growth requires a multi-faceted approach. We are pursuing precisely such an approach with our comprehensive five-pillar strategy involving public 

information, alternative development, law enforcement, interdiction, and eradication: We are reinforcing the message that poppy cultivation is immoral, illegal, 

and un-Islamic. We are helping farmers gain access to other means to feed and 

clothe their families—access to alternative crops and other means of livelihood, to 

roads that will allow them to move their crops to market, to advice concerning markets for their new crops and to legitimate sources of credit. We are also helping the 

Afghan Government to increasingly provide credible law enforcement, interdiction, 

and eradication. The disincentives for poppy cultivation must be bigger than the potential profit. The credibility of our counternarcotics efforts depends upon making 

the risks of growing poppy unacceptable. 

Local governance structures and counternarcotics are closely interconnected. 

Where government has control and has placed good administrators, poppy production is down. Where the insurgency rages, poppy production is up. This trend is likely to deepen in 2008. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime projects an 

increase in poppy cultivation in several southern and western provinces and sustained decreases in the East and the North. Overall cultivation is expected to decrease slightly. Given the record cultivation numbers last year, a slight decrease is 

clearly not satisfactory. We will continue our efforts to counter the narcotics cultivation and trade. 

RELATIONS WITH PAKISTAN

A strong, cooperative bilateral relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan is 

a crucial precondition if we are to see a decline in the cross-border flow of insurgents and progress toward security on both sides of the Durand Line. Afghanistan’s 

relations with Pakistan moved forward in 2007 with several summits, the productive August bilateral peace jirga in Kabul, and President Karzai’s successful visit 

to Islamabad in late December. Both sides agreed at the August peace jirga to hold 

routine mini-jirgas. Pakistan has offered 1000 scholarships to Afghans in a good 

20

step toward increasing positive connections. Despite recent political events in Pakistan, its security forces continue to combat extremism, as demonstrated by their operations to flush out militants in the Swat Valley. Close cooperation with Pakistan 

remains key to the success of U.S. strategic goals in the region and we continue to 

explore ways to help the Pakistani military and local security forces improve their 

counterinsurgency and counterterrorism skills. 

We are and have been encouraging the Government of Pakistan to take sustained 

and aggressive actions against violent extremists. At the same time we recognize 

that a purely military solution is unlikely to succeed. We therefore strongly support 

the Government of Pakistan’s efforts to implement a comprehensive and long-term 

strategy to combat terrorism in the border regions, which include the federally Administered Tribal Areas, parts of the Northwest Frontier Province, and Baluchistan. 

We are committed to supporting this initiative to bring economic and social development and effective governance, making these remote areas less hospitable to violent 

extremists. We are also looking forward to working with Pakistan’s new civilian government on this important initiative after the February 18 parliamentary elections. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In conclusion, let me repeat my earlier observation that in Afghanistan we have 

had a lot of successes, but we are far from success. We should not lose sight of the 

progress that has been made and that we continue to make year by year. Broad 

swaths of Afghanistan—especially in the north, the west and even the east—are 

hardly recognizable by comparison with where they were 7 years ago. We do no-one 

a service by ignoring this progress. 

Nonetheless, there remain daunting challenges—especially with respect to security, counternarcotics, and governance. For millions of Afghans, life remains bitterly 

difficult—especially during this exceptionally cold winter. 

We and our international and Afghan partners have our work cut out for us, but 

we have a solid foundation of progress on which to build. I am convinced we have 

no choice but to meet the remaining challenges head on. With a sustained investment of resources and effort, we have every prospect of securing a stable, democratic 

and lasting ally in Afghanistan, and an important lynchpin for regional stability and 

economic integration. 

I would be pleased to respond to your questions.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you so much, Secretary Boucher. 

General Sattler, would you like to add anything? 

General SATTLER. No, Mr. Chairman. I’m ready for questions, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

We’ll try a 7-minute round, if that’s all right. 

Senator Warner made reference to Secretary Gates’s comments 

about NATO and the need for NATO to step up and provide a 

greater share in their commitments. Secretary Shinn, is NATO at 

risk of failing if alliance members do not come forward with the resources to meet the requirements of the ISAF mission? 

Dr. SHINN. I believe that’s something very close to what the Secretary mentioned in his comments to the NATO ministers, week 

before last. My understanding is that he was talking about the future, and that it hadn’t happened yet, but that there was a real 

risk to the alliance if, as he said, it evolved into one set of members 

who will fight, and others who will not put their troops in harm’s 

way. 

Chairman LEVIN. Would you agree, Secretary Boucher, with Secretary Gates, that NATO is at risk of being a two-tiered alliance, 

for the reason that Secretary Shinn just gave? Is that a real risk? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. It is, sir. I think we have to remember 

that there are difficult tasks throughout Afghanistan, and we have 

to value the contribution that everybody’s making. But, one of the 

things our commanders keep telling us is, they need the flexibility 

to use the different forces in different parts of the country——

Chairman LEVIN. They don’t have that——

21

Ambassador BOUCHER.—and they don’t have that flexibility, both 

through caveats, people who put their troops in a certain place and 

want them to stay there, and just through the overall manning levels that haven’t been reached yet. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Chairman Mullen, said that the coalition forces are facing a classic growing insurgency. DNI, Admiral Michael McConnell, testified on February 5, that ‘‘The security situation has deteriorated in the south, 

and Taliban forces have expanded operation into previously peaceful areas of the west and around Kabul.’’ Do you agree with that? 

Secretary Boucher, do you agree with that? That’s the DNI saying 

that. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I’ll always agree with DNI, but I think 

we——

Chairman LEVIN. You don’t have to agree with him. I’m just asking, do you agree with him? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think the answer is ‘‘yes and no.’’ What 

we’ve found is, the Taliban set out last year to take territory. They 

set out to put a ring around Kandahar and see if they could take 

Kandahar. They set out to strengthen their hold on particular 

strongholds. What we showed last year is, they were unable to 

achieve those goals. They failed in their goals, as they stated them 

for last year. The spring offensive never happened. 

So, we have, last year, pushed them out of strongholds—the 

Panjwayi district, near Kandahar, Musa Qala district, in northern 

Helmand, the Sanguin district, in northern Helmand. Those were 

strongholds. Those are heartland for Taliban. They’ve been unable 

to hold them. 

On the other hand, they have been able to change their tactics, 

adjust their mode of operations, and they’ve adopted tactics of 

bombings and kidnapings and intimidation of villagers. They have 

been able to do that more broadly. 

Chairman LEVIN. Have the Taliban forces expanded operations 

into previously peaceful areas of the west and around Kabul, as 

Admiral McConnell said? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. They’ve been able to carry out attacks in 

those areas, yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. General Sattler, do you believe the 

antigovernment insurgency in Afghanistan has been contained? 

General SATTLER. Mr. Chairman, it goes back to your previous 

question. NATO has expanded their operations, doing more distributive operations outside major bases, which means you obviously encounter more enemy forces in locations they may have declared safe havens previously, but now you’re there. So, our engagement with the enemy, as was already articulated, sir, each and 

every time we do encounter the enemy, mano-a-mano, that they 

come out on the short end. So, I would say, contact with the 

Taliban and the insurgent forces has been greater over the course 

of the last year. But, once again, I cannot confirm, sir, that either 

they may have been there and now we’re operating in areas which 

were previously perceived as safe havens, or if, in fact, they’ve 

grown, sir. 

22

Chairman LEVIN. So, you’re not able to tell us that, as of now, 

antigovernment insurgency in Afghanistan has been yet contained. 

You cannot tell us that. 

General SATTLER. Mr. Chairman, in the areas where we have 

forces, it is contained. Where we have been able to do the clear and 

the hold, it is contained. In other areas, I cannot comment on, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. You can’t comment, or you can’t tell us that it 

has been? 

General SATTLER. I can’t tell you that it has been contained, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Now, The Atlantic Council report says that the 

future of Afghanistan is going to be determined by progress or failure in the civil sector. I think a number of our witnesses have confirmed the importance of that. The reconstruction effort has been 

criticized for the lack of international coordination among contributors, which include over 40 countries, the U.N., the European 

Union, NATO, and a number of NGOs. Both the Afghanistan Study 

Group and The Atlantic Council reports recommend the appointment of a high-level U.N. international coordinator. Paddy 

Ashdown, former high representative for Bosnia, was considered for 

this position, but, apparently, the Karzai Government nixed it. Do 

we know, Secretary Boucher, why that appointment was nixed? 

Does that represent a setback? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. First of all, I think it’s regrettable that 

the Karzai Government didn’t accept Paddy Ashdown as the international senior civilian. We very much looked forward to having 

him in that role. 

We’ve heard a lot of explanations and discussions, mostly having 

to do with the domestic political environment. But, ultimately, I 

think it’s for them to try to explain, rather than me. 

But, at the same time, we’ve sat down with them, subsequently, 

both in the Secretary’s talks last week and in my subsequent follow-up with the Foreign Minister. They tell us they do agree on the 

need for a strong international coordinator, they will look forward 

to working with an appointment by the U.N. Secretary General, 

and we’re now engaged in the process of identifying the proper person. 

Chairman LEVIN. The Atlantic Council report finds that less than 

10 cents of every dollar of aid for Afghanistan goes to the Afghan 

people directly. One program that has worked, we believe, successfully to establish community development councils to identify local 

priorities and implement approved sub-projects, that has been the 

National Solidarity Program. Now, according to a press release 

from December, the National Solidarity Program has provided $400 

million in payments disbursed to 16,000 community development 

councils in Afghanistan. These payments have financed more than 

30,000 community development sub-projects to improve access to 

infrastructure, markets, and services. The program draws resources from the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which is 

administered by the World Bank, by distributing funds directly to 

districts at the lowest level, which are the villages. By bypassing 

the central or provincial governments, the National Solidarity Program reduces corruption and misappropriation, and avoids unnecessary contractual layers. 

23

I’m wondering, Secretary Boucher, whether or not you are familiar with the National Solidarity Program, and would you comment 

on it? If it is successful, can you tell us if the Afghan Government 

supports the program and their use of community development 

councils? Do we support the program? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The answer is: yes, yes, yes, and yes. This 

is one of the more successful programs in Afghanistan. Ten days 

ago, when I was out there, I met with the Minister for Rural Rehabilitation and Development, who runs this program. His updated 

numbers are 35,000 projects in 25,000 villages around the country. 

These are mostly small projects. They’re wells, they’re roads, 

they’re retaining walls—schools, sometimes—things that are done 

in consultation with local people, with local villagers, through the 

community development councils. That’s a mechanism that we 

think works. We think the projects are done well. It delivers what 

people need and what people want from their government, which 

is, as I said in my opening statement, really the nub of the matter. 

So, we have put money in this program, ourselves. I think we’ve 

put about $10 million in. But, we have another $50 million for this 

program in our budgets this year. I think much of it’s in the supplemental funding that hasn’t been passed yet, but we would hope 

to get that money and be able to expand our contribution. 

Chairman LEVIN. I’m glad to hear that because apparently it 

does not have the problems of corruption and bureaucratic layers 

that these other programs have, and I’m glad to hear there is support for it. We will continue to look for that money to be flowing 

in that direction. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Yes. There are a number of ministries in 

Afghanistan that have gone through the reform process, that have 

improved their capabilities, and that are really able to deliver 

projects at a local, provincial, and district level. This is one of 

them. Education’s another one. Health’s another one, and one of 

the things we’re trying to do this year is concentrate international 

and Afghanistan resources, so that all those programs can work to 

stabilize an area. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe has asked that 

he take my spot in the rotation. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Warner, thank you very much for allowing me to do this, and I won’t take all of my time, here. 

When OEF begain in October 2001, all the journalists were buzzing around, and then all of a sudden it seemed to have lost its sex 

appeal and they all went to Iraq. Now they have talked about rediscovering Afghanistan; it’s the forgotten war. Having made several trips to both Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t think that’s the 

case. Let me just share a few memories, here. 

Early on, I was there when they turned over the training of the 

ANA to the ANA. It was very meaningful to me, I say, Senator 

Warner, because it was the Oklahoma 45th that was in charge of 

the training. I’ve talked to these kids, they’re very much impressed 

with the type of warriors these guys are. Then I was honored to 

be with General Jones on his last trip that he took. 

24

One of the things that I haven’t heard much in the testimony 

here, that was a problem in those early years, and apparently still 

is, or at least it was, according to General Dan McNeil on December 1, is that there’s a unique problem of corruption at the local 

level, that there’s not really a central authority that you can get 

in there and try to address the corruption problem, because it’s the 

mayors and those—is this a problem? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. It is endemic in Afghanistan, and when 

people look to their government for fairness and decency and services, that corruption is really one of the things that separates people from their government, instead of pulling them together. There 

are a lot of efforts made to improve the quality of government services, the audits and the accounting, the insulation of the government against corruption. It’s an active program that we have with 

the Ministry of Finance to try to track money better, keep it from 

being stolen. 

We have a lot of support for the attorney general and the prosecutors, who have started going after corruption. But, it is deeply 

rooted, it’s longstanding, and it’s something that we need to get at. 

One of the features of the current police program, I think, is to 

really go into the district and, as we pull out the current police, 

they’re then not only retrained, but reformed and vetted, so that 

when they go back, they will behave differently than they did before. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, and that’s essentially what General 

Eikenberry said in this report that we’re looking at today. 

General Sattler, I know what your answer is, but I have to get 

it on the record, so, here it comes. My favorite programs, as I’ve 

gotten from the commanders in the field, are 1206, 1207, 1208, and 

train and equip, and then, of course, the Commanders’ Emergency 

Response Program (CERP). We tried to get these programs expanded during this last go-around, but the 1206, –7, and –8 will 

expire at the end of this year. I’d like to know, from your perspective, how significant this is, that we get these, not just reauthorized, but also expanded. 

Then I would ask the same thing about the CERP, because right 

now, while it is only good for Afghanistan and Iraq, we were trying 

to make it global, and this really came from the commanders in the 

field. Could you respond to that? 

General SATTLER. Yes, Senator Inhofe. Thanks for the opportunity. 

The 1206 is the global train and equip, which the Armed Services 

Committees have given us the authority, but not appropriations, to 

reprogram up to $300 million, globally, to go ahead and take a look 

at problems, to home in, along with the chief of mission—it’s a 

combination program that is actually executed by the Secretary of 

State and the Secretary of Defense. The two secretariats gives us 

the flexibility for the combatant commander to get with the country 

team and the ambassador and look at a problem that might exist, 

either a problem that’s sliding towards becoming a crisis, or to take 

advantage of an opportunity. Because the budgeting cycle takes a 

period of time, you can’t really get in and fix, train, and equip local 

forces on a normal budget cycle. So, this is that malleable tool, that 

25

flexibility, that permits the two Secretaries to help a troubled spot 

anywhere in the world. 

Senator INHOFE. Okay. I’d ask, since we have both State and the 

Department of Defense represented on this panel. I think it was 

put together in such a way so that the commander in the field 

makes a recommendation, then it goes, and it’s a real fast track, 

just a matter of a very short period of time. Yet, it ensures the cooperation of both State and Defense. Any comments from either 

State or Defense on this? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Sir, if I can echo everything General 

Sattler said, the 1206 in particular, is really important to us in 

fighting terrorism around the world and really being able to bring 

some resources to bear fairly quickly on particular problems that 

confront us. So I think there’s excellent interagency cooperation in 

targeting and focusing those funds. 

I want to just praise, as much as I can, the CERP. We decided, 

last year at the beginning of the year, that we really needed to expand the money that we spend through PRTs, to help extend the 

government and help the Afghan Government do things on the 

ground in key areas. CERP has come through. I’ve been out to 

these PRTs. They’re building dams, they’re building schools, they’re 

building bridges, they’re building roads, they’re changing the environment, really transforming the situation. It’s a combination of 

the reservists in the U.S. Army, the people who know how to build 

bridges and plan cities and conduct—plus the CERP. 

Senator INHOFE. What about the idea of making it global so it’s 

not confined to just those areas? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think the more, the better. It’s money 

well spent. Some of the best-spent money in Afghanistan is CERP 

money. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s good. I appreciate that very much. 

Do you agree with those comments? 

Dr. SHINN. Yes, Senator, I’d agree with that and point out, to the 

earlier question about the alliance, the CERP has all the merits 

that you described, but it’s largely limited to the 12 PRTs that the 

U.S. manages. We’ve been pressing our NATO allies, those who run 

the other 13 PRTs, to come up with something similar to that, that 

would have the same positive effects without all the central bureaucracy and within the short decision cycle that CERP does. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Ben Nelson. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for convening the hearing. 

I’d like to thank and welcome the witnesses today. 

I think it’s helpful for us to hear what you are telling us about 

Afghanistan in relationship to that part of the world, and as well 

as what we can expect with respect to NATO’s participation. It appears to me that the strategy, thus far, has left us a path with insufficient military force and inconsistent strategy to combat the 

Taliban and al Qaeda, and, as a result of that, they are reconstituting themselves, both in the area and on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. 

26

The challenge we have is, we’ve either been unwilling or unable 

to get the expansion of the capabilities of NATO, over the last several decades, at the level that we’ve needed it in order to be able 

to deal with an issue like we have in Afghanistan. I don’t know 

whether we’ve kidded ourselves or whether we’ve known this; but, 

I can tell you, I don’t think the American people have realized how 

inadequate NATO may have been. 

Fortunately, and thankfully, Secretary Gates has spoken out on 

this. As he said, nobody’s united the NATO forces more than he 

has with his remarks in the last several weeks. But, thank goodness somebody has spoken out to at least get the subject out before 

us so we can begin to deal with it. 

Now, my question, to begin with, is, as we look at the strategy 

in Afghanistan today, do we have an inverted triangle that we’re 

building, the base being very unstable, a base that continues to 

have an agrarian economy that is structured on poppy, as opposed 

to a true agricultural base that is sustainable in the long term? Either we’re going to have to wipe out their poppy crop or we’re going 

to have to see them change to a different kind of agricultural system. I’ve been worried about getting a farm bill over here. Maybe 

we ought to be worrying about getting a farm bill over there, to be 

able to restructure their agricultural base, because if we don’t do 

that, all that we’re doing over there is fundamentally based on agriculture that is not sustainable, by any imagination, if it’s based 

on narcotics and if that is what is sustaining Taliban and al Qaeda 

and other terrorist activity as the fundamental source of the funding. 

So, I guess I’m going to start with you, Secretary Shinn. What 

are your thoughts, do we have a base being built over there, or is 

it all on the wrong premise? 

Dr. SHINN. You’re certainly right, Senator, on your two major 

points, that it’s an agricultural economy, and——

Senator BEN NELSON. Sort of. 

Dr. SHINN. It has a narrow base, and much of that base is narcotics, it’s growing poppy. There is no easy solution to that problem, other than widening out the bottom of that triangle with the 

Alternative Livelihood Program. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Do we have a farm bill over there? 

Dr. SHINN. I’m not sure we have the equivalent of a farm bill, 

but——

Senator BEN NELSON. We’ll let Secretary Boucher speak to that. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I guess I’d have to say I’m not familiar 

enough with a farm bill to tell you exactly——

Senator BEN NELSON. A farm bill. Do we have an agricultural 

plan there to change the base of the agriculture from narcoticsdriven production agriculture to something that is sustainable into 

the future? Because we cannot permit them to sustain this form of 

agriculture. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Yes. I think you’ve put your finger on it. 

But, it’s broader than just agriculture. There’s probably no single 

crop that’s as easy to grow and as lucrative to a farmer as growing 

opium poppy. But, what we’ve seen in the experience of other countries—if you take Turkey, Thailand, or Pakistan, places that had 

been, at one point in time, the major suppliers of opium or heroin 

27

to the world, what you see there is, the transformation of the rural 

economy has been a key factor. So the effort of bringing in roads, 

electricity, irrigation programs, and fruit trees, transforms the 

rural economy, so you get a better market for the vegetables and 

fruit that you grow. Your brother-in-law drives a truck, makes 

some money; your sister-in-law, she has a handicraft store, where 

she is able to supply things to the local area, or even the export 

market. The whole rural economy changes, and that’s how people 

get out of poppy production. 

Unfortunately, what we’ve seen is the concentration of poppy in 

the insurgency areas in the south. This new U.N. drug estimate report has some very interesting statistics. We’re actually doing a lot 

of assistance in the areas that have now become the major producing areas for poppy: there are alternative livelihoods available, 

there is assistance, there are education programs. But, nonetheless, 

some of these surveys show 70 percent of the villages that have received some kind of assistance are still growing poppy in the south. 

That’s different from the whole rest of the country. You have to, 

essentially, establish government control, and build a different 

economy. 

Senator BEN NELSON. But, if you look at the economics of it, isn’t 

it true that the money to be made in poppy production is not at 

the agricultural level at the base for the farmer. They’re told what 

they’re going to get. They have to do it. But, the money is to be 

made by the narcotics ring, Taliban and the others that are generating great sums of money for their own evildoing. 

So, wouldn’t it be wise for us to have a broadbased agriculture 

plan within the area? I heard the President, the other evening, 

speaking about agriculture. Unfortunately, it wasn’t about American agriculture, it was about agriculture in other parts of the 

world. Perhaps we ought to have a plan there that we can articulate, that we can facilitate, and we can measure, after the fact. Because, what it seems to me is, we’re fiddling, and Rome is burning 

internally there as we see the enemy regenerate itself from right 

in the midst of what we’re watching, as we try to continue to put 

bandages and Band-Aids on hemorrhaging arteries. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I agree with you, Senator, on what we 

have to do. I think there is a broadbased agricultural and rural development plan for the country, and including for those areas 

where the poppy is most prevalent. 

Senator BEN NELSON. But, how soon and how long? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. In order to apply it, and apply it thoroughly, you need to get security, and you need to get the government in there. That’s where this nexus between insurgency and 

narcotics—it’s areas of insecurity, where the government is—where 

there’s lack of governance, that we’ve not been able to bring the 

poppy problem under control. 

Senator BEN NELSON. Even if we don’t require the NATO countries to put up guns, can we help them get involved with helping 

the Afghans with butter, in terms of supporting that level? That’s 

some of the soft power that I’ve heard Secretary Gates talk about 

in dealing with the challenge we have in the world today with 

asymmetrical warfare, that it has to be a much broader base. So, 

maybe we don’t have to ask them to send guns, maybe we can have 

28

them come and help us with the Afghans so they can create their 

own butter. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time’s up. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Nelson. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. I’m to, again, yield to my colleague Senator 

Sessions, in that you have to go to the 12:30 meeting with General 

Cartwright, as you are the ranking member on our subcommittee 

on that subject. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Warner. 

I want to ask some questions that concern me. I truly believe 

that it would be a tragedy of monumental proportions if we were 

to somehow allow Afghanistan to sink into the chaos it was in before. It would be bad for the world and for the 30 million people 

there, and bad for the United States. 

I want us to be successful. We’ve been at it quite a while. I think, 

one thing that’s clear, that creating an operating, efficient government in an area of the world that’s never had one before is very, 

very difficult. It’s just hard. We can place blame anywhere we want 

to place it, but it’s not easy. Corruption is not something we can 

just pass a law and have it end; it’s part of the cultural history 

that’s risen from the oppression and so forth that they’ve suffered. 

But, I guess I’m looking at The Atlantic Council report that indicates on the security side, that a stalemate has taken place, and 

then they say, ‘‘However, civil sector reform is in serious trouble. 

Little coordination exists among the many disparate international 

organizations, agencies active in Afghanistan. To add insult to injury, of every dollar of aid spent on Afghanistan, less than 10 percent goes directly to Afghans, further compounding reform and reconstruction problems.’’ 

Now, the three of you have talked about that, and our two secretaries, mostly, have discussed it. Secretary Boucher, who is in 

charge of this, from the United States side, on the civil responsibilities in Iraq? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I guess I’d say the chief people are myself, in Washington, and our ambassador, in the field. 

Senator SESSIONS. What other responsibilities do you have, in 

addition to Afghanistan, in your portfolio? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I have India to Kazakhstan, but I also 

have an Afghan coordinator, working in my front office, who spends 

all his time on Afghanistan. 

Senator SESSIONS. If a decision has to be made about how to distribute our assets or set priorities, who makes that decision? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Primarily our ambassador in Kabul. They 

get the funding, and they try to allocate it where it’s most needed. 

Senator SESSIONS. But, ambassadors are, on the scheme of 

things, pretty far down the line, are they not, in terms of requesting the resources and reprogramming monies? Are they able to effectively make the decisions, and does our ambassador understand 

that he has that authority? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. He very much understands he has that 

authority. I think, if you look back at the funding requests that 

we’ve made to Congress, and Congress has funded, most of those 

29

originated at our Embassy in Kabul, and our ambassadors very 

much understand and put their requests directly to us and at a 

high level. Our job is to get the money that the people on the 

ground need to do their job. 

Senator SESSIONS. You indicated, I believe, or maybe Secretary 

Shinn, that tightening coordination, focus resources in troubled 

areas, increasing electricity, poppy eradication, and better cooperation with Pakistan are priorities in Afghanistan. Who is in charge 

of executing that, and what name do they have? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The people I just talked about, I guess, 

would be in charge of executing that: the Embassy in Kabul, Ambassador Wood, out there, myself, and our Afghan coordinator, Pat 

Moon. 

Senator SESSIONS. It’s my observation that our American public 

is a little bit confused. We look to our military to take care of Afghanistan. We are looking to our military to take care of Iraq. But, 

large parts of the effort that’s necessary to success depends on the 

civil infrastructure. So you acknowledge that that is the State Department’s, primarily, responsibility. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Yes, our primary responsibility—we work 

with people from all the agencies. 

I have to say, the coordination on the ground between the U.S. 

military, U.S. agencies, U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) programs, handled by the Ambassador and General 

McNeil and the other generals out there, is very, very good. I think 

the key problems of coordination involve getting all the international community together to focus on some of these goals and 

do things in a standardized and focused way. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let me ask you, these four goals that you 

mentioned, I guess that’s a plan, although it is not particularly specific. I sense that it’s an objective report that I’m getting here from 

you, Secretary Boucher and Secretary Shinn, we’re sitting back, 

and you’re discussing all of this, with wisdom and observation from 

afar, but I’m interested in who is in charge of fixing it, who has 

direct responsibility, who understands it’s their responsibility, who 

understands, if we fail, civilly, we place our soldiers at greater risk 

to be killed, or our allies to be murdered. It furthers the progress 

of the Taliban if we’re unsuccessful. Do we clearly understand 

that? I guess, again, our ambassador, you say, is the primary point 

person on the ground, but how long does an ambassador serve 

there, and when do you expect a change in that office? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the 

President. It has generally been 2 years in Afghanistan. Ambassador Wood started earlier in 2007, late spring, if I remember correctly. 

I think we all understand, whatever department, whatever agency, whatever job we have in Washington or in Afghanistan, the 

stakes involved and the need for success and the way that we have 

to operate in order to achieve success. Any problems that come up 

in that process are the responsibility of me and the ambassador 

and others involved in the chain, to make sure they get fixed. 

Senator SESSIONS. A little while ago you said, ‘‘I guess,’’ in referring to responsibility, and you began listing a group of people with 

vague responsibilities. I would just suggest one of the weaknesses 

30

we have is, we don’t have a clear chain of command, that there’s 

one person that we can look to, by name, and who’s responsible for 

the constant adjustments and changes and reallocation of resources 

necessary to be successful in a difficult situation like this. My only 

other question would be, how would the role of someone like Paddy 

Ashdown, the international coordinator, be able to focus our resources more effectively? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Sir, this is a complex problem, and there 

are a lot of moving pieces to it, there are a lot of people involved 

in trying to solve it. If anybody’s going to be held responsible in 

Washington, it ought to be me, and that’s why I’m here talking to 

you. So, I’m happy to have my name attached to any success or 

failure that we achieve out there. 

I’d say, we do think that having a senior international civilian 

would help with that broader effort to coordinate the international 

community, coordinate the civil and military operations, and to coordinate between the internationals and the Afghans. Ultimately, 

our job, his job, is to support the Afghan Government in building 

and extending its capabilities. 

So, that, we think, would be a boon, not only to us, but also to 

the Afghans and the international community, as a whole, and 

that’s why we’re working on getting somebody who’s a strong figure 

to perform that job. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Senator Levin, let 

me, first, thank you for convening the hearing. 

It strikes me, as I listen to our colleagues ask questions, Mr. 

Chairman and Senator Warner, that the situation on the committee and in Congress with regard to Afghanistan is quite different from with regard to Iraq. These two conflicts are different, 

although, I think, part of a larger war that we’re in with Islamist 

extremism and terrorism. But, what I’m saying, in brief, is that, 

while we have had a lot of division of opinion on Iraq—unfortunately, too much of it on partisan lines—there does seem to be a 

kind of unanimity of purpose here with regard to Afghanistan, 

about how critical it is for us to get it right, and how we all know 

how harmful it will be if we fail. I do want to, in that spirit, thank 

you for convening these two hearings today, and to express the 

hope that, under the leadership of the two of you, this committee 

can play a very proactive role with regard to Afghanistan, in support of the work that these three gentlemen, and all the many who 

work under you, both here and in Afghanistan, are doing on our 

behalf. 

I was in Afghanistan about a month ago. Just to state an impression briefly, there are a lot of people worried about where this is 

going in Afghanistan. My own conclusion was that this is nowhere 

near as on the edge as, for instance, Iraq was in 2006, that our 

forces and the coalition forces, NATO forces, are holding our own, 

but we’re facing an insurgency that is revived, we’re operating in 

an unbelievably poor country, which has a proud history, but not 

so much of a governmental history, so it gives us great challenges. 

I think what we want to see happen—I know, we do and you do—

31

is to see us begin to turn the tide toward more success in Afghanistan, as we’ve begun to see in Iraq. 

So, I want to begin with a question to Secretary Shinn. In your 

prepared testimony, you state, and I quote, ‘‘that the simple 

counterinsurgency prescription is clear, hold, and build.’’ It’s my observation, based on a couple of visits there and, just, what I hear 

and read, that in the south of Afghanistan, in fact, coalition forces 

are clearing, but they’re not really holding and building. I wanted 

to ask you—which is to say that they clear a district, withdraw, the 

Taliban retakes it, and obviously there’s no opportunity for us to 

build. I wanted to ask you if my impression is correct. If so, why 

is it so, and what can we do to change it? 

Dr. SHINN. Senator, I think your impression is correct. It is exactly the clear, hold, and build problem, particularly the hold part 

of it, that we agree with you, is what constitutes much of the problem in the south. Shortly, we’re going to have a test case of this 

in Musa Qala, where, essentially, it was, for a period of time, under 

Taliban control; they were cleared out; we have backfilled, now, 

with ANP, for the hold part. Perhaps Secretary Boucher could expand on this. We’re starting to, with the Afghans, flow in the resources for the build, the third piece of the equation, but the jury 

is out on how hard it’s going to be for the reformed, or, in the process of being reformed, ANP, along with elements of the ANA, to 

hold Musa Qala long enough, and at a big enough of a scale, so 

that the rebuilding and the governance part can take place. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Secretary Boucher, do you want to add a quick word? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think, Senator, for a variety of reasons, 

the training of the police has lagged behind the training of the 

military. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think we have it right, both in numbers 

and quality. There’s still the national apparatus that we’ve built 

with the military—the payroll systems, communication systems, 

command systems—that is still weak on the side of the police; and 

that’s an essential part to being able to coordinate and use police 

well. Perhaps the job of building police is inherently more difficult, 

because you have a lot of people with some very bad habits who 

need to be reformed, retrained, weeded out, et cetera. But, I do 

think we have formulas, now, for really doing the job of the police 

training right. We’ve already seen some signs of success with this 

Focused Development District concept, and it’s going forward in a 

big way this year. So, proof of the concept will be seen this year 

on the ground. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. General Sattler, let me ask you a related 

question, which really goes to the clear, hold, and build. It’s my impression that the comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that 

our forces are employing so successfully in Iraq is being employed 

successfully also in Regional Command (RC) East by American 

forces. But—and which is to say, they have a campaign plan, and 

they are executing it, and they’re executing it successfully—it’s also 

my impression that there’s no comparable campaign plan for the 

contested provinces of southern Afghanistan, where NATO forces 

are in the lead. I want to ask you to talk a little bit about whether 

32

that impression of mine is correct. What’s prevented that from happening, and what can we do to get the south heading in the right 

direction—south of Afghanistan? 

General SATTLER. Senator Lieberman, when ISAF took over, they 

have an operational plan, which has, basically, the same three 

lines of operation—security, reconstruction, and governance—as 

they move forward. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General SATTLER. When they came onboard 18 months ago, when 

ISAF took control of all Afghanistan, at that point most of the 

countries, when they signed up, they believed they were coming in 

for security and stability operations, or stability and reconstruction 

operations. Over a period of time, especially in RC South, the RC 

South countries have realized that it is a counterinsurgency in the 

south. They use the term ‘‘comprehensive approach to the challenge’’ in the south. The Canadians, the Brits, the Dutch, and the 

Danes have all stepped up to the plate and are doing more counterinsurgency-like operations. 

Secretary Gates just submitted a paper to the RC South countries, which is a counterinsurgency-type strategy that takes credit 

for what’s being done, talks about what is going on right now in 

RC South, and also looks towards the future. That paper was submitted by the secretary to the RC South countries at the same time 

that the NATO, the North Atlantic Council (NAC), and the Secretary General have come forward with a campaign architecture to 

now take all the international instruments of national power, and 

the lines from security to economic to governance, to come up with 

a comprehensive approach across the country. So, right now, NATO 

is taking a hard look at that comprehensive approach, sir. 

So, we feel very comfortable that the RC South countries are 

doing what needs to be done, but what we need to do is get a more 

coherent—it was already articulated a more coherent approach to 

use all the resources—U.S., NATO, partnership countries, and 

international organizations—to come together. That’s being worked 

on right now, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. So, and just a final quick question, 

you think we’re in reach in time of seeing—having a campaign plan 

by NATO in the south of Afghanistan that’s comparable to the one 

we’re executing in the east of Afghanistan? 

General SATTLER. Sir, I believe it’ll be—it’ll go beyond RC South. 

It’ll be a comprehensive plan for the country of Afghanistan, of 

which RC South and East, sir, are components, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. That would be good. That’s certainly what 

we need. Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to start with Mr. Boucher, to be followed by Secretary 

Shinn. Using, as an example, the steps that are being taken by our 

government in Iraq to establish written and agreed-upon documents between the two governments—namely—you saw that, I 

hope, editorial by the Secretaries of State and Defense outlining 

how they’re going to write two documents, one being a status-offorce agreement (SOFA). Would you recount for us exactly the legal 

33

authority by which NATO is now operating in a sovereign nation 

of Afghanistan, and the United States is operating as a part of 

NATO, as well as conducting its own separate operations of a security and antiterrorist nature? 

Dr. SHINN. To be as precise as you are requiring us to respond, 

has to do with some of the technicalities of the U.N. Security Council strategy. 

Senator WARNER. That’s what I want to sort through. 

Dr. SHINN. Right. 

Senator WARNER. We’re engaged in active combat operations in 

a sovereign nation. What is the basis on which that is being done? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The basis is U.N. resolutions and, of 

course, the consent, of the Afghan Government for those kind of operations and that kind of support. But, actually, to get to a precise 

legal answer, I’d probably have to go back to my lawyers and go 

through it once again. 

Senator WARNER. I think it’s important that the record, Mr. 

Chairman, have that in as a part of our deliberations here today. 

So, I recognize that there are some U.N. resolutions. What are 

the expiration dates on this, given that the operations in Iraq are 

dependent on a resolution which is going to expire at the end of 

this calendar year? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The U.N. mandate has generally been, I 

think, a 1-year resolution, comes up for renewal about March-April 

of every year, and we’ll look at renewal every year, again this year, 

with whatever extensions or revisions it might need for this operation over the year to come. 

Senator WARNER. Are we contemplating a status-of-forces agreement? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Again, that’s something I’d have to check 

with the lawyers on. 

Senator WARNER. Mr. Shinn, do you have any comments? 

Dr. SHINN. Yes, sir. One of the core points you’re making is a 

valid one, and it’s an important one, which is that we are going to 

have to regularize and scale up the legal foundation for activities 

in Afghanistan, similar to the way that we’re doing it in Iraq. It’s 

our intention to use some of the same models; for example, a 

SOFA. It’s all the more important because, as you implied, we have 

the NATO piece of the puzzle that we also have to factor into the 

equation. 

Senator WARNER. I think it’s essential that we put that together, 

because our forces are fighting, taking casualties, and, I must say, 

regrettably, it happens in all conflicts, inflicting casualties on the 

civilian population, destruction of civilian property, which, unfortunately, is in the path of the combatants. I think we’d better be all 

signed up and—to the dotted line on this, to protect not only the 

credibility of our Nation, but also the military individuals, the civilians, and others from our government who are, really, in a courageous way, taking their own risks and sacrifice to make this a successful operation in Afghanistan. I think we owe them no less than 

to have complete clarity and openness on this issue. 

So, you will provide that, in due course, for the record. 

Dr. SHINN. Yes, sir. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Yes, sir. 

34

[The information referred to follows:]

[Deleted.]

Senator WARNER. Good. 

General Sattler, I asked this question of Secretary Gates recently, and he was very forthright in the answer, and that is that 

Congress and the general public here in this country have been informed that we’re going to send in two augmented marine battalions to become a part of the force-structure contribution by the 

United States in Afghanistan. I understand part of that force will 

be utilized to augment our current level of force structure within 

NATO. Is that correct? 

General SATTLER. That’s correct, Senator. Of the 3,200 soldiers 

in the Marine Expeditionary Unit, about 2,200 of them will be 

under ISAF command and control to be part of the ground forces, 

correct, sir. 

Senator WARNER. The balance will augment the existing force 

structure that we have, that are performing various security and 

antiterrorist operations. Is that correct? 

General SATTLER. The remaining 1,000 will work under Admiral 

Fallon, under OEF. They will be tasked under the train-and-equip 

mission, working for General Cone. So, for their period of time, 

they will be enablers and facilitators, coaches, mentors, and security, to take the police, which we’ve already talked about, to permit 

them to get out into some of the areas where it’s not safe and secure now. So, the marines will have police trainers and mentors 

with them. The preponderance of their mission will be security. 

But, because of their ability to handle and teach weapons, tactics, 

et cetera, they will probably be dual-use, sir. 

Senator WARNER. Now, Secretary Gates, in consultation with the 

NAC and others, recognized the need for these forces. Is that correct? 

General SATTLER. That’s correct, sir. This is fully coordinated 

with the NAC. 

Senator WARNER. Right. But, the fact that the United States has 

to completely fulfill this requirement by NATO, and also our own 

separate command, it was because the NATO forces have not lived 

up to their commitments. Isn’t that the blunt truth? 

General SATTLER. Sir, part of the requirement for the train-andequip, the coaching and mentoring piece, it is a requirement that 

has come forward from Admiral Fallon to the U.S. side; but, the 

Marine Expeditionary Unit—even though the 3,200 went together, 

the Marine Expeditionary Unit was Secretary Gates’s contribution, 

to ensure that the proper firepower, et cetera, would be in place in 

RC South or wherever the ISAF commander wants to use it, sir. 

So, it was a unilateral placement of those forces by Secretary 

Gates. That’s a correct statement, sir. 

Senator WARNER. But, again, it’s because of the shortfall of earlier commitments made by our NATO partners, am I not correct? 

General SATTLER. Sir, there is a requirement on the books, for 

approximately three battalions, that is unfilled. But, this is not 

being placed against that requirement, no. It’s going into an area 

where ISAF wants to place it. So, I guess the answer to your question, Senator, to be straight, would be not directly correlated; but, 

35

if the other units were there, would the Secretary have had to come 

forward? Sir, I would only be speculating. So, this is not being 

placed against the three-short battalions on the NATO requirements, sir. 

Senator WARNER. I’ll go back and get exactly what he said, but 

his answer was fairly crisp and to the point, ‘‘Yes, Senator, that is 

the reason we’re sending those forces in, to make up for the shortfalls.’’ 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Sir, if I could make one comment. Last 

year, our experience was, the U.S. increased its forces by about 

3,500, and, in turn, then other NATO allies, other allies, Australia 

included, stepped up and matched that pledge, if you want to say 

that, and we ended up with an increase, last year, of about 7,000 

in the overall force levels. We are now actively engaged in the diplomacy, particularly leading up to the NATO summit in Bucharest 

in April, to try to leverage this contribution of 3,200 marines with 

the other allies to get them to step up and both follow on and meet 

some of these other requirements. 

Senator WARNER. We may be working on that, and leveraging 

that, but the plain, blunt fact is, the troops were needed, and the 

U.S. was the one that came forward and made that contribution. 

It’s as simple as that. 

Do you wish to add anything, Secretary Shinn? We have an obligation to the American people, when we make additional force commitments, to say precisely why we’re doing it. 

Dr. SHINN. We do. 

Senator WARNER. We’re doing it, because it’s the judgment of the 

military commanders, (a) they need forces, and (b) no other nation 

was willing, in a timely way, to come forward with that force structure, and force structure that has no national caveat. The U.S. 

structure does not have a national caveat, and they can be employed by that NATO commander to meet all the contingencies, a 

full spectrum of contingencies facing NATO. Am I correct in that? 

Dr. SHINN. You are, sir. 

General SATTLER. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SHINN. It’s a clear fact that there are shortfalls in resourcing 

the military side of Afghanistan. It’s also, I think, true that the 

Secretary committed those incremental troops in the expectations 

that our NATO allies would be more forthcoming. I would also 

point out that the NATO resourcing story is not over yet. As Secretary Boucher mentioned, this is part of the long negotiations that 

will, hopefully, produce incremental results at the Bucharest summit, which is in April. 

Senator WARNER. Okay. Let the record note you’re struggling 

with a response, but I think we got it all out. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Let the record also show that the Secretary of 

Defense was very direct. As Senator Warner says, when asked 

whether or not the reason we had to send the 3,200 troops is because the allies didn’t come forward with their part of the deal and 

what they committed to and need to supply. He was very direct. 

Senator Warner is correct. I don’t know why you’re dancing around 

something which the Secretary of Defense was very clear on. 

36

By the way, this is all being done, filling in the gap left by our 

NATO allies, at a time when we’re overstretched in Iraq, which everyone acknowledges. 

So, Senator Warner’s right, we will get the record on that, and 

put that right at this spot in the record (see Annex E). 

It’s very important that the American people know. As Senator 

Lieberman says, there is support for doing this. This is not an area 

where there’s great division. I think there’s kind of a need to fill 

in where our NATO allies failed, but there’s no use mincing words 

on it. They have failed, and we should put maximum pressure on 

them to come through with what they need to come through with. 

So, I just want to support what Senator Warner has said. 

Senator WARNER. I thank the Chair. 

Chairman LEVIN. Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Shinn, Secretary Boucher, and General Sattler, welcome to the committee today, and thank you for your service. Up 

here, sometimes we don’t always agree, but there is certainly bipartisan agreement on one thing, and I think that is how important 

it is that we win in Afghanistan. I think there’s also consensus in 

the international community about how important it is that we 

succeed there. 

One of the questions that I think has been touched on a little bit 

already today, that seems to be right at the heart of getting a private economy going in Afghanistan and helping our efforts succeed, 

has to do with the whole question of counternarcotics and the direct correlation between the narcotics trade and financing for terrorist activity. I guess I’d like to direct a question to Secretary Boucher, if I might, because there is some question about whether or 

not there ought to be use of military when it comes to eradication 

efforts, and some contradictory-type, I guess, opinions on that 

issue. 

From The Atlantic Council report, on page 10, it says, and I 

quote, ‘‘Some have suggested that ISAF take on an aggressive drug 

eradication role. This is not a good fit for ISAF. Armed forces 

should not be used as an eradication force,’’ end quote. 

The Afghan Study report, however, makes what seems to be a 

contradicting conclusion on page 32. There again, it says, ‘‘The concept of integrating counternarcotics and counterinsurgency by 

using international military forces to assist interdiction is welcome 

and overdue.’’ 

So, I guess, I understand the need for military forces to take extreme care during these eradication/interdiction types of operations, and the need for integration with Afghan forces, but, in 

terms of how you would respond to these two conflicting or contradictory reports, do you think we should use our forces for eradication purposes, or not? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think there’s actually a subtle language 

difference between the two things you quoted, and therein lies the 

answer to the question. No, I don’t think we should use NATO or 

U.S. forces to eradicate, but I do think there’s an appropriate role, 

and it’s actually part of the NATO mandate, for our forces or 

NATO forces to provide a secure environment in which the Afghans 

can go in and eradicate, so that the Afghans have about a 500-man 

37

Afghan eradication force. They’re prepared to go out in the field 

and eradicate poppy. If they are provided with the appropriate security environment, they can do that in denied areas, areas where 

the Taliban operate or where there are local drug lords. So as we’ve 

seen the increasing nexus between poppy-growing and insurgency, 

it’s become even more important that we have a secure environment for the eradicators to go into those tough areas, and that’s 

where NATO can play a role, that’s where the Afghan army can 

play a role, but the actual eradication would be done by the Afghan 

eradication force. 

Senator THUNE. I think this question was touched on earlier, 

maybe by Senator Nelson, but I posed a question a while back to 

Eric Edelman, who, at that time, was Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy, about this transition of getting the Afghan economy, particularly the agricultural economy, transitioned from poppy production to some other types of things that we can grow in this country. 

The climatic conditions are very similar there. I guess the question 

is, is enough effort being made on that level to start making that 

transition so that we don’t have to have as much of the hard 

power, the military, even if it’s the Afghan military, involved? Is 

there enough effort on that front? My impression was, the last time 

I asked this question, that the answer was no, and I’m just wondering if that’s changed? Are we making an aggressive effort to try 

and transition their agricultural economy to more legitimate types 

of production? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. There is an aggressive effort on the rural 

economy. First and foremost, you have to get in roads, you have to 

get in electricity, you have to build the irrigation systems, in addition to providing agricultural extension crops and other industries—cold storage, things like that—that can operate in those 

areas. 

We’re in the process now of trying to beef up our State Department, USAID, and Department of Agriculture personnel at the 

PRTs, at the provincial level, so that they can do more of that. It 

also rests on being able to bring that stuff in, along with military 

activity, the hold part, so that we can—you can’t always build a 

road or start a new economy or clear the irrigation ditches if there 

is an insurgency raging in that district, so you have to be able to 

do these things in a very coordinated fashion, that’s sequenced, but 

very, very close together. So, the answer is yes, there is an aggressive effort, but no, it’s not being done everywhere, because it’s not 

able to be done everywhere, at this moment. 

Dr. SHINN. Senator Thune, could I just amplify a little bit? It depends where you are. If you’re in Nangahar, for example, in the 

eastern side of the map, where the security situation is stable 

enough so that we could succeed in putting in the roads and the 

infrastructure, so you could begin the conversion from poppy to real 

agriculture, you’ll see that the poppy production, when the data 

comes out, has gone way down. But, conversely, we’ll see the poppy 

production in Helmand, in particular—in Helmand, and in 

Kandahar, to some degree, going up, for just this reason. Yes, you 

can’t get in there, because of the security situation, to begin that 

conversion. So, no matter how many resources you throw at roads 

38

and cold storage, if you can’t actually deliver them to the population, it won’t have the desired effect. 

Senator THUNE. Have you seen the connection between this narcotics—the poppy production and insurgent funding and all that 

sort of thing going up? I know there’s always been a fairly established connection there, but what’s the trend line with regard to 

the illegitimate activity, in terms of that industry, and a lot of the 

other issues that we’re fighting with regard to the insurgents? 

Dr. SHINN. It’s a pretty murky picture. There’s not enough evidence—first of all, we don’t know very much about how they actually fund the Taliban insurgency, either as an aggregate or in the 

groups. It’s not clear whether the trend is up or down, in terms of 

cash flow. My personal inference is that that nexus is growing; 

then, it’s probably becoming increasingly important to them to fund 

the insurgency. But, I don’t have a lot of intelligence information 

to support that. 

Senator THUNE. That’s my impression, too, just from observation 

of media reports and that there seems to be a growing connection, 

or relationship, between that narcotics trade and the insurgency. 

Dr. SHINN. Yes. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think it may actually be the other way 

around, that we’ve always known that the narcotics trade and the 

insurgency would feed off each other. That’s been especially true in 

the south. What we’ve seen is, where we’ve been able to establish 

good governance and establish policemen and establish an overall 

climate of development, the poppy has gone way down. So, if you 

start looking at it on a map, you have more and more poppy-free 

provinces and poppy reductions in the east and the north of the 

country; and, in the south, where the insurgency is, you’re left with 

the poppy and the insurgency feeding off each other. So, whether 

that’s actually grown or that’s been the case, it’s just we’ve been 

able to eliminate it on these areas, and we haven’t eliminated here 

yet, I think, is probably hard to say. But, yes, the connection between the two is increasingly clear. 

Senator THUNE. Do you think that there is sufficient support 

from the government there? I was there a while back, and again, 

my impression was that they know this is a problem, and they’re 

at least verbally committed to fixing it. But, do the actions follow 

that? Are they taking the steps that are necessary to help deal 

with that? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. In a general sense, yes. I think it’s especially true in the provinces, where we’ve seen big reductions and 

that have gone poppy-free last year. One of the biggest factors have 

been the governors and the people on the ground. There is even, 

now, a good-performers fund, so the governors that achieve a decrease can get some money to spend on local projects. 

So I think that remains one of the key factors, including the lack 

of good governance, in addition to the lack of security in the provinces where poppy is still a big problem. So, it’s something we’re 

still working on. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I think my time has expired. Thank you. 

Thank you, all. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

39

Let’s try a 4-minute second round. 

As I mentioned, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, before the House Armed Services Committee a few 

months ago, described the war in Afghanistan as ‘‘an economy-offorce operation,’’ and said that, ‘‘It’s simply a matter of resources, 

of capacity. In Afghanistan, we do what we can; in Iraq, we do 

what we must.’’ 

General Sattler, can you tell us what Admiral Mullen meant 

when he said the war in Afghanistan is an ‘‘economy-of-force operation’’? What does that mean in military terms? 

General SATTLER. Sir, an ‘‘economy-of-force’’ would mean that 

you would have two challenges, and you would put a priority of effort on one of the two. In this particular case, as Admiral Mullen 

alluded, that the priority now for resources is going towards Iraq, 

at this time. But, sir, I would also like to stress that the resources 

that are in Afghanistan, that there is no man or woman, no warrior, who goes forward on an operation where they are not fully 

resourced to accomplish the mission at hand. But, that being said, 

sir, as you’re alluding, there are some things we could do, and, as 

Admiral Mullen said, we would like to do that we can’t take those 

on now, until the resource balance shifts, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. The Afghanistan Study Group recommends a 

number of diplomatic steps to be taken to strengthen a stable and 

a peaceful Afghanistan, including the following. This is for you, 

Secretary Boucher. This is what they recommend: reducing antagonism between Pakistan and Afghanistan, including by having Afghanistan accept the internationally recognized border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, the so-called Durand Line, as the official 

border; next, getting Pakistan to remove restrictions that burden 

the transportation of goods through Pakistan to and from Afghanistan, including from India; and, third, having the United States 

and its allies develop a strategy to convince Iran to play a constructive role with respect to Afghanistan, including the possibility of resuming direct discussions with Iran on the stabilization of Afghanistan. 

I’m wondering, Secretary Boucher, whether you would support 

those, or whether the administration would support the diplomatic 

initiatives outlined in the Afghanistan Study Group report that I’ve 

just quoted. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Generally, yes, but not exactly the way 

that they recommended, I have to say. We’ve put a lot of effort into 

reducing tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We all remember last year, March and April, when things really flared up, 

and not only was there shooting across the border, but one of our 

U.S. officers got killed at a flag meeting that was held to try to reduce that shooting. It has been a very dangerous situation. I’m 

happy to report that the situation seems to have turned around 

quite a bit. Last fall, there was a jirga of the tribes from both sides 

of the border, where peaceful people on both sides stood up together and said, ‘‘We don’t want the insurgency, we don’t want the 

extremists in our midst, and we’re going to work to accomplish 

that.’’ That’s a process that we’re confident will continue to go forward between the two countries. President Karzai and President 

Musharraf met at the end of December, the day after Christmas, 

40

had a very good meeting, and there have been subsequent followup 

meetings and cooperation between the two sides. 

We’ve also promoted border cooperation, economic cooperation, 

and other areas, so we see things going, I’d say, a lot better between the two countries, both starting to realize, and starting to 

act upon the realization, that these people are enemies of both nations, and these people need to be dealt with from both sides, by 

both countries. 

Frankly, we haven’t taken on the issue of the Durand Line. It’s 

a problem that goes back to 1893, to the colonial period. I think 

both sides do operate with that as the border. They shoot across 

it to protect it. They operate border posts on it. Our goal has been: 

try to reduce those tensions and get them to work in a cooperative 

manner across that line. 

Pakistan’s restrictions on transit trade from India, truck transit 

from India, is an issue that we have taken up, and we continue to 

take it up, because, frankly, we think it’s in Pakistan’s overall economic interest to capture that transit trade and to have it go 

through Pakistan and not have it go through Iran. It was something we continue to raise. Pakistani government keeps telling us 

it’s really a matter that’s determined by their bilateral relationship 

with India, and not even by the broader global interest, but it’s 

something we do continue to push, because we think it would be 

not only helpful to us and allies and others who operate in Pakistan, but it would be helpful to Pakistan itself. 

The strategy for Iran, we certainly keep in very close touch with 

the Afghans on their relationship with Iran. We see Iran doing a 

lot of different, and sometimes contradictory, things. They do participate in support for the Afghan Government. They participate in 

the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board of donor countries 

that are trying to support Afghanistan. But, they’re also undermining the politics, and, in some cases, even supplying arms to the 

Taliban. So, we’ve had, I think, a comprehensive response to that. 

At this point, I think, the issue of whether we sit down and talk 

to Iran about it is more one that needs to be looked at in the broader context of our relations with Iran. We have had such discussions 

in the past. But, really, Iran needs to cooperate with the international community and with the Afghan Government, not just 

with the United States, and that’s where we think the pressure 

ought to be on Iran. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. General Sattler, I’ve had the privilege of visiting with you in your own office in the Pentagon of recent, and we 

had some lengthy discussions about my grave concern about the 

drug problem, and the fact that the continuously rising revenues 

from this drug problem are, in part, filtering their way back into 

the hands of the Taliban, enabling them to have greater purchasing power for weapons and other pieces of equipment to engage, not only the NATO forces, but our forces within NATO and 

our forces that are not a part of NATO, and that, therefore, it’s incumbent upon the United States to really sit down with our NATO 

partners, in particular, and work out some sort of an arrangement 

to begin to curtail this flow of funds from the poppy trade. 

41

We keep going around in a circle on this issue. Originally, it was 

going to be Great Britain, ‘‘This is your problem.’’ I think they still 

have some portfolio investment in trying to solve it, but I’m not 

here to point fingers, they’ve just not been successful. 

What are we going to do? Because we’re putting at risk the loss 

of life and limb of our own American GIs as a consequence of the 

funds flowing from the poppy trade. 

General SATTLER. You’re absolutely correct, Senator Warner. The 

United States has come up with a five-pillar comprehensive strategy to go in and take on the counternarcotics challenge inside of 

Afghanistan. It goes back to Senator Lieberman’s point—we can 

have a strategy, but it needs to be executed by all elements that 

are on the ground inside of Afghanistan. The sovereign country of 

Afghanistan obviously has to buy into it, sir. Then our NATO partner countries, too, who are on the ground beside us. It has an 

eradication piece to it. It has an interdiction piece to it. It has a 

rule-of-law and justice piece to it. It has a public information piece, 

to illuminate the Afghan public as to why this must be undertaken. 

The last thing it has, which has already been discussed here, an 

alternate-livelihood piece—What other crop do I grow? How do I 

get it to a market? 

Senator WARNER. Those are the pieces, but your operative phrase 

is that the Afghan Government has to ‘‘buy in’’ into this program. 

So, I would turn, now, to Secretary Boucher. Where are we, in 

terms of their ‘‘buying in’’ to begin to lessen this risk to our forces? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think the Afghan Government has basically bought into the strategy. The strategy evolved from their program, which they say has eight pillars. We talk about five pillars. 

But, essentially, it’s a common strategy between us and the Afghans to get at the narcotics problem, both through all the tools 

mentioned, but also just the basic security and government—governance activity. As I said, it is Afghans who go out and destroy 

the poppy in the fields. We’re a long way from reducing it, but it 

at least seems to have peaked out this year. But there is also an 

effort, a diplomatic effort, underway with other governments to go 

after the funding and to get at the money that the traffickers use, 

move around, and sometimes supply to the Taliban. 

Senator WARNER. I’m not trying to put you on report. You’re a 

fine public servant, doing the best you can. But we don’t see any 

results. What’s the increase this year over last year? About 20 percent, isn’t it? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Last year’s increase was 34 percent. Half 

of that was yield, and half of that was hectarage. The early estimates for this year are that it’ll be a slight decrease overall, including stabilization in Helmand, in the south. But, obviously it’s still 

at a very high level that needs to be, not just capped, but reduced. 

Senator WARNER. So, we’ll have some, although, unfortunately, 

not as large, an increase as the year before, but, at some point we 

have to see a reversal and a beginning of a decrease. 

Now, can you add anything, Secretary Shinn? Because it is your 

Department that’s taken the casualties. 

Dr. SHINN. It is, and I don’t have very optimistic things to say 

about this. 

42

Senator WARNER. What can Congress do? What can anybody do? 

We can’t just throw up our hands. 

Dr. SHINN. This is a tough one. Part of it is just the basic math. The Afghan central government budget is about $600 to $700 million a year from their domestic revenue, most of it from customs. 

The street value of 1 year’s production of opium is between $3 and 

$3.5 billion a year. So, the out-of-scale between the amount of 

money that can flow in to corruption and undermine the public institutions in Afghanistan is so big, compared to the fragile base of 

the government itself, that we are really walking up a steep hill. 

Senator WARNER. We may be walking up a steep hill, but when 

General Sattler puts into effect the orders for these 3,000 marines, 

it’s incumbent upon the Congress of the United States to assure 

their families and the marines that we’re doing everything we can 

to limit the risk that they’re going to face over there. Among those 

risks are weapons that are being purchased by this drug money. 

So, I’m going to unrelentlessly continue to press on this issue, because I feel a strong obligation to those marines. 

General SATTLER. Sir, I absolutely agree with you on that. I do 

think this is an issue that deserves unrelenting pressure. We know 

what works in Afghanistan. We’ve seen provinces go poppy-free, 

we’ve seen provinces with significant reductions, including places 

like Nangahar, which was way up, came down, went back, and has 

now gone down again. It’s a combination of military force, police, 

good governance, and economic opportunity, in addition to the 

counterdrug programs. The most important thing is that we pursue 

the overall stability in provinces, we get better government down 

there, and we pursue these narcotics programs with unrelenting 

vigor. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I thank the Chair. It’s been a very good hearing. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I was thinking that before I ask a few questions, I just want to 

say a word about the American forces over there and say what I 

heard from the Afghanis when I was there a month ago. It’s quite 

remarkable. They have the greatest appreciation and admiration 

for the American troops that are there—their courage, what they 

bring to the fight, and their involvement in the fight. But, beyond 

that, it’s encapsulated in this sentence that one of the Afghanis 

said, ‘‘We appreciate all soldiers and troops from outside Afghanistan that are here. The American soldiers are the only ones that 

share their canteens with us.’’ Now, that is a simple statement that 

says a lot, which is that, ‘‘The American soldiers treat us like 

equals, they treat us, in fact, like fellow soldiers, they treat us like 

brothers in this conflict.’’ I was so moved by that, that I wanted 

to put it on the record here, because these troops of ours are the 

best. They’re the best of America. What that said to me is that they 

are bringing American values to this battlefield, which is far from 

the United States, but has so much to do with our own future security. That pride, of course, doesn’t mean that we don’t need, as my 

colleagues have said, to get more NATO forces in there. They, 

frankly, have to be more involved, as our troops have been. 

43

I want to come to the other part of what I think we need, militarily, which is, just as in Iraq, we need to train more of the Afghans to be an effective ANA. 

I want to ask two questions about that. Among the most perplexing things that I heard was that, when I was there, General 

Cone is actually about 3,000 people short of what he needs to carry 

out the mission we’ve given—that is, American short or coalition 

forces short—to train the Afghan army. Did I get that right? If so, 

General or Secretary, what are we going to do to—that’s the longterm hope here: they get skilled enough, trained enough, to protect 

themselves from the Taliban. 

General, do you want to start that? 

General SATTLER. Yes, Senator Lieberman. You are correct, sir. 

General Cone has, through Admiral Fallon, put a request in for approximately 3,400 additional U.S. men and women to go and assist 

in the train-and-equip mission for the Afghan National Security 

Forces, both the army and the police. We have not been able to resource that requirement, sir—what General Cone has been able to 

do is to stretch the forces he has; and, through some very creative 

management of the assets he had, he’s been able to cover the gap, 

up to approximately this point. But, we are at a point now—which 

is why the Secretary is sending 1,000 marines in—to go work for, 

eventually, General Cone in the train-and-equip mission. So, that 

time on the ground, they will be able to fill his shortfall. But, as 

has already been clearly stated, that is for a finite period of time. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General SATTLER. That is for 7 months. We will then need to find 

the resources to come in behind, to continue that coaching and 

mentoring and providing security for Afghan National Security 

Forces. So, you’re correct, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate the answer, and I hope we, in 

Congress, can help, in any way we can, to provide those additional 

personnel, because that seems to be fundamental to the success of 

our mission. 

Second point is, I was also struck by the fact that we are training 

the ANA up to a number that is remarkably below what we’re 

training the Iraqi Army up to, notwithstanding the fact—and this 

would probably surprise most Americans, based on our focus—that 

Afghanistan is larger, both in terms of land area and population, 

than Iraq is. So, I wonder whether there’s any thinking, within the 

Pentagon and within NATO, that we ought to increase the goal for 

training the ANA. 

General SATTLER. Sir, I’ll go and take that first, Senator. As the 

base forces, what we describe the end state, this is the objective 

force that the Afghan Government has described what they need 

for military. It was originally 70,000, sir. They have just come in 

with a proposition to take that up to 80,000——

Senator LIEBERMAN. 80,000, right? 

General SATTLER.—80,000—from 70,000 to 80,000. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Compare it to Iraq, just for a moment, in 

terms of the army, as opposed to the local security forces in Iraq. 

Aren’t we going for over 300,000 there? 

44

General SATTLER. I don’t think it’s quite 300,000, Senator. The 

overall force in Iraq—police, border guards, and the army—will be 

somewhere close to about 600,000, total. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. 

General SATTLER. In this particular case, the objective force for 

the police is 80,000. So, even if they went to 80,000 for the army, 

they’d have approximately 160,000. So, it is a much smaller force. 

But, once again, we are in conversation with the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Defense to go ahead and come up with 

what they feel, based on the enemy threat, their objective force 

should be, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate that. 

Secretary Boucher, did you want to add something? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Yes, if I can just say one thing. That new 

target, of 82,000—or 80,000 for the army—was approved, about a 

week ago in Tokyo by the international community doing the coordination monitoring. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Good. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. There is serious look now at what’s the 

overall force total that they need? We came through last year with 

$8 billion to step up the training, both in the pace, the quantity, 

the quality. As we look, now, to being able to achieve those initial 

targets, we have to look where the ultimate end goal is, and that’s 

a serious study that’s going on right now. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks. 

My time is up. I just want to put a thought on the table, Mr. 

Chairman, and that is, one of the things that the future of Afghanistan depends on is an understanding that we are committed to a 

long-term relationship with them. I’m not talking about permanent 

bases or any of that, and I just hope that as we announce that 

we’re going to begin to negotiate some kind of bilateral agreement, 

strategic partnership with the Government of Iraq, that we ought 

to be thinking about doing the same, for some period of time, with 

the government in Afghanistan, because I think that that will give 

them the confidence, including in the army, the Afghan army, to 

go forward. So I hope that we’re thinking about that. 

General SATTLER. Senator Lieberman, I know you’re out of time, 

sir, so I——

Senator LIEBERMAN. But, you’re not out of time, so you can talk 

as long as you want. [Laughter.] 

General SATTLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir. 

If I could just baseline how we’ve gone from when we started—

you mentioned you’ve been involved in this all the way along, as 

everyone in this room has, sir. But if you went back to 2003, when 

then-Lieutenant General McNeil—three-star General McNeil commanded the forces in Afghanistan, at that point in time, sir, he had 

about 10,000 U.S. warriors under his command and about 2,000 coalition warriors. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

General SATTLER. We had one prototype PRT we were just experimenting with. The Afghan National Security Forces, based on 

the brutality of the Taliban rule, did not exist. There were no Afghan units that—there were warriors, they had the warrior culture, but no units, sir. So that’s 2003. 

45

If you move forward to today now, where General McNeil commands all ISAF, now what he has under his command, sir—he has 

approximately 27,000 U.S. forces on the ground in Afghanistan, he 

has 31,000 coalition and NATO forces on the ground. The PRTs 

now have grown to 25 PRTs, of which 12 are U.S. and 13 are international PRTs. The Afghan National Security Forces, which are 

growing in capacity and capability, today there’s approximately 

75,000 police at some stage of training and effectiveness and efficiency, sir, and 49,000 ANA, for a total of approximately 124–

125,000. 

So, I know we use terms, and I read them in the paper, ‘‘the forgotten war,’’ sir, ‘‘the unresourced war,’’ and as someone who’s been 

involved with it, myself, for the past 7 years—I apologize if I’m a 

little emotional on it, but I just wanted to make sure that we did 

show that there has been tremendous growth in capacity and capability, and the hold piece, as Secretary Shinn alluded to, we need 

to get that Afghan National Security Force to have the ability to 

fill in and do that hold, where they’re respected and they’re appreciated by the Afghan national people, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I appreciate your emotion and the truth of 

what you’ve said, which is that we’ve come a long way. Of course, 

I think we all agree, we have a ways to go yet until we get to 

where we want to be. 

General SATTLER. I certainly agree with ‘‘we have a ways to go,’’ 

sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Lieberman. It’s Senator 

Akaka’s turn, but just on this particular subject, if Senator Akaka 

would not mind just for a moment. 

Your figures were 49,000, currently, ANA, and 74,000 ANP personnel. That’s the figures we have. But we have something added 

to that, which is, there’s a training completion date, for those two 

groups, of March 2011. Is that right? Are my notes right on that? 

General SATTLER. Senator, I’ll have to check, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Information regarding the current status of the Afghan National Security Forces 

(ANSF), compiled monthly by the Joint Staff, includes a ‘‘completion date’’ on one 

slide. This date depicts a month/year in which a specific category in the ANSF is 

projected to reach Capability Milestone 1 (CM1) for manning, training, and equipment. 

In its broadest sense, CM1 is attained when a unit, agency, staff function, or installation is capable of conducting its primary operational mission (or missions) and 

has reached full operational capability (FOC). In terms of manning and equipment, 

CM1 is attained when at least 85 percent of its authorized strength is fielded. In 

terms of training, basic military training for soldiers, noncommissioned officers, and 

officers is provided at the military training centers. Manned and equipped units are 

then fielded with embedded trainers and mentors that assist, mentor, and assess 

the unit in training and combat operations as it progresses toward FOC.

General SATTLER. There’s 8,000 army in training right now, and 

we’re at approximately 49,000. So when they graduate, you’re looking to actually hit the goal of the current objective force of 70,000. 

Sir, I wouldn’t want to take a guess at that, Senator, I’ll——

Chairman LEVIN. How long does it take to train an Afghan police 

unit, approximately? Do you know offhand? 

General SATTLER. Sir——

Chairman LEVIN. Okay. It’s all right. 

46

General SATTLER.—I’ll get back to you, rather than guess, Senator, about——

Chairman LEVIN. The same with the——

Ambassador BOUCHER. Senator, the——

Chairman LEVIN.—how long it takes to train the army unit. I 

don’t quite understand that figure, in my own notes. We’d appreciate for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

Basic training for Afghan National Police (ANP) is approximately 8 weeks; advanced training for specialty police such as border or counternarcotics averages 2 

to 3 weeks more. For the Afghan National Civil Order Police (ANCOP), training consists of a 16-week program followed by a dedicated mentoring program. 

Our primary program for development of the ANP is the Focused District Development (FDD) plan. Targeted for district uniform police, and eventually incorporating the border police, this program includes the wholesale removal of police 

units (temporarily backfilled by ANCOP) and provides an intensive 8-week training 

period at regional training centers that include instruction on individual and unitlevel requirements. After this training period, units are then redeployed to their 

home districts where they undergo a focused mentoring and validation period followed by period of oversight and sustainment. Depending on the size, location, and 

ability of the FDD-trained units, the post-training mentoring and oversight periods 

are projected to last approximately 5 to 7 months. 

The basic building block of the Afghan National Army (ANA) is the infantry battalion or kandak. The standard training model for developing a kandak with a fully 

manned training and mentoring team is approximately 15 months. This model includes a series of condition-based phases that covers unit progression from initial 

formation to full operational capability or CM1. The validation period from fielding 

to CM1 can vary depending on the availability of mentoring teams and the unit’s 

participation and performance in combat operations. Other noncombat units in the 

ANA, such as combat support, medical, and intelligence, will have different training 

and validation timelines associated with the specific skill sets required to reach 

CM1.

Ambassador BOUCHER. Sir, the Focused District Development 

Plan that pulls the police out, puts in temporary police, and then 

moves them back, it’s an 8-week training program that they go out 

on, and then they go back. But, they go back with mentors, and the 

mentoring is actually probably the key part to how they operate 

when they get back here. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’ll get into the mentoring later. 

Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me add my welcome to Secretary Shinn and Secretary Boucher and General Sattler for being here and to continue to inform 

us about what’s happening there. 

Six and a half years ago, our country went to war in Afghanistan 

to drive out al Qaeda and Taliban. Now, because we did not finish 

the job as we should have, we are still fighting the Taliban. Recent 

developments in neighboring Pakistan have also added to the concern that we must increase our efforts to ensure stability in this 

region of the world. So I’d look forward to hearing your responses 

on the recommendations of the Afghanistan Study Group and Atlantic Council and how we can best proceed on this important mission. 

Secretary Boucher, it has been reported by the Afghanistan 

Study Group that the United States and its allies lack a strategy 

to—and I’m quoting—‘‘fill the power vacuum outside Kabul and to 

counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and al 

Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium econVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
47

omy, and the poverty faced by most Afghans.’’ In your opinion, Secretary, is there a clear political end state for Afghanistan that is 

agreed upon by both the NATO alliance and within U.S. Government agencies? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Sir, I think there is. If you listen to what 

military colleagues, Defense Department colleagues, other colleagues in the government, and even other governments, talk 

about, you’ll find that we’re all focused on the same issues: beating 

the Taliban on the battlefield, providing the safety and security 

that Afghan people need, and providing them with economic opportunity and good governance throughout the country. The goals are 

there, the strategy to do that in a comprehensive approach is there. 

Frankly, we need to make sure that the execution matches the 

strategy, and that’s where a lot of the focus is to improve the concentration and the coordination of all those elements. What you 

might call the ‘‘campaign plan’’ for any given period is where we’re 

very much focused right now. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you think that there needs to be a change in 

our strategy in order to achieve that end state? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. We are, indeed, looking at the overall 

strategy, preparing, with our NATO allies, strategy documents for 

the Bucharest summit in April, for example, as well as more detailed discussions of the countries of the south, on how we actually 

implement that strategy in the south this year. 

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Shinn, some of the lessons learned in 

Iraq include the importance of using existing social and political 

structures within the country in order to more effectively establish 

a government perceived as legitimate by the people. The extent of 

de-Ba’athification that was imposed after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime increased many problems in that country that we are 

still trying to overcome. Given the tribal and decentralized nature 

of Afghanistan, what do you believe are the best steps forward to 

establish a more centralized government, particularly given the 

country’s long history of tribal-centric leadership and politics? 

Dr. SHINN. That’s a good and important question, Senator Akaka. 

I think, probably the most important two areas that we can work 

with the Afghan Government to strengthen the hand of the central 

authorities are, first of all, the general capacity-building of their 

ministries or their institutions, things that Secretary Boucher referred to, some, earlier in this meeting—in particular, building national institutions, like the ANA, which is distributed in four corps 

around the country, but is essentially managed by the Ministry of 

Defense out of Kabul. 

The other piece of this puzzle to which there’s not a clear answer 

is what advice we would provide to the authorities in Kabul, and 

particularly to President Karzai, who is attempting to simultaneously manage the tribal network out in the provinces and out on 

the ground, some of which are in areas that are actually contested 

by the Taliban, at the same time as he tries to grow these national 

institutions out of Kabul. That second question is a much more difficult row to hoe. We are being very cautious about the degree to 

which lessons from Iraq—for example, the concerned citizens organizations that have worked in Anbar—whether or not they are applicable to Afghanistan. 

48

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Shinn, in a recent combined ABC/BBC 

poll, 67 percent of Afghanis said they supported the NATO presence, while 13 percent support the Taliban. To what extent do you 

believe that this poll represents an accurate portrayal of NATO’s 

effectiveness in winning the popular support of the Afghani people? 

Dr. SHINN. I might defer that to Secretary Boucher, who knows 

more about some of the polling data in Afghanistan than I do, 

while I try to think it through. 

Senator AKAKA. Secretary Boucher? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I don’t like it when people say ‘‘That’s a 

tough one, let him answer it.’’ Let me give a try at it. [Laughter] 

Chairman LEVIN. Unless you do that, right, Secretary? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I’m allowed to do that occasionally, sir, I 

think. 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes, right. We all do that, at times. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. If anything, it might reflect even a lower 

level of support for the NATO forces than actually exists. We find 

story after story, place after place, the strong support for the 

United States forces, in particular, but NATO forces, in general. 

They have, unfortunately, experienced the Taliban. They don’t 

want to be whipped in the marketplace, they want their girls to go 

to school, they don’t really want to grow opium poppy, even if they 

still do, for economic or other reasons. So I think there’s a very 

open attitude towards accepting NATO, U.S., Afghan Government 

security, Afghan Government structures, if those structures perform, if they deliver what people want, which is safety, justice, economic opportunity, and governance. That’s where the concentration 

is: making a government strong enough to deliver those things 

throughout the country. 

One of our former commanders used to say, ‘‘It’s not that the 

Taliban is strong, it’s that the government is weak.’’ Strengthening 

government remains, I think, the strongest effort, because that’s 

what people want. They have expectations that need to be met. 

Senator AKAKA. I’m just interested in this. Do you believe that 

this informational success is an aspect of the war that NATO is 

winning and that it is mainly lack of force coverage and presence 

of insurgent sanctuaries that has enabled and encouraged the recent increase in Taliban activity? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think it’s not so much the sanctuaries, 

because we’ve managed to take away, at least in Afghanistan, 

much of the strongholds, and we’ve been able to interdict or otherwise decrease the level of cross-border activity in many places. I 

think it’s the fact that they’re adjusting their tactics, they’re picking up new tactics, they’re picking up on bombs and kidnaping and 

things like that. We have to adjust, as well. 

General SATTLER. Senator, if I might just add to that, I believe 

that some may perceive that they are in these safe havens, but, 

due to, now, getting out and about more, better intelligence collection, sharing information with the population, and all the things 

that are critical in a counterinsurgency operation, that, as Secretary Boucher just indicated, we are able to precisionally take 

away those safe havens. But, ‘‘Are we getting them all?’’ is the 

question that we were asked earlier, and at that point, we answered that we don’t believe we’re getting them all, sir, but, when 

49

we do find them, we do have the resources and capacity to take 

those out. 

Senator AKAKA. My final question, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Shinn, it has recently been advocated by both General 

Petraeus and Secretary Gates that further troop withdrawals from 

Iraq this summer should be put on hold for an indeterminate period for a security evaluation at the reduced levels. Admiral Mullen 

has also recently testified as to the development strain facing U.S. 

forces that must be alleviated sooner rather than later. Given the 

findings of the Afghanistan Study Group that indicate too few 

troops have been used to fight the war in that country, what do you 

make of the ability of the U.S. forces to endure what essentially 

will amount to a shift from Iraq to Afghanistan rather than a reduction that will ease the operations tempo? 

Dr. SHINN. It strikes me that one of the most important responses to that question is an observation, made a little bit earlier 

here by General Sattler, which is, for the forces that we have in 

Afghanistan, under no circumstances have they engaged in missions for which they were under-resourced—is the first point. The 

second point is the broader one, which is, on the military clear side 

of the strategy in Afghanistan, we believe that we’re winning—

slowly, surely, but winning. 

So, the sourcing level is not, to me, the principal concern about 

Afghanistan. It has to do more with the execution on the hold and 

the build side of the strategy. 

I’d defer to General Sattler to comment on the Iraq side of that. 

General SATTLER. I would just say that the Secretary of Defense 

has that tough call. We talked earlier, Mr. Chairman, about resources and where the resources go. He has the challenges of Iraq, 

he has to balance against Afghanistan, against, as you just articulated, the health of the force, the opportunity to be home and reset 

and retrain the force, and then the global challenges of the long 

war. As you mentioned, we will come down by the end of July. 

We’ll have reduced approximately five brigades of combat power 

out of Iraq. Then, the Secretary has clearly stated that he wants 

to take a pause at that point, in conjunction with Admiral Fallon 

and General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, and take a look at 

what that has done. Then, the Secretary, when the time is correct, 

based on input from his commanders and advice from the Chairman, sir, I believe he will make a decision, at that point, what the 

next move is. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

You’ve talked a little bit about the use of the military, in terms 

of drug interdiction. I may have missed this testimony, in which 

case I am apologetic for that, but when, I think, you were asked, 

I believe, Secretary Shinn, but I’m not sure, it may have been Secretary Boucher, about the use of the military, in terms of eradication, were you also saying that we should not be using the military, in terms of interdiction? Who addressed that issue? 

Dr. SHINN. Actually, it was him, but I could answer for him. 

Chairman LEVIN. Either one. Point the finger at yourself on this. 

Go on, Secretary Shinn. 

50

Dr. SHINN. Yes, I think the response was that our military is not 

directly involved in either eradication or interdiction, that we believe it should have an Afghan face to it, but we do provide indirect 

support, in terms of training and equipping, for some parts of the 

counternarcotics strategy, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN. Right, why can’t we join with the Afghan forces 

in the interdiction side, and leave the farmers alone, don’t get involved in the eradication, but, when it comes to dealing with heroin 

laboratories and smuggling convoys and going after the precursor 

chemicals, why not use our military jointly with the Afghans—not 

on the fields, not on the eradication, but on the big guys? 

Dr. SHINN. Sometimes, we do, actually. There is some crossover 

between the Taliban and nacrotraffickers. 

Chairman LEVIN. Even when there’s not a crossover——

Dr. SHINN. When that occurs, we go after them. 

Chairman LEVIN.—even when there’s not a crossover, why not go 

after the big guys militarily? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Part of it’s theology, but, I think, it’s 

more effectiveness. 

Chairman LEVIN. Part of it’s what? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Theology. Sort of the—these things get 

discussed in the NATO mandate——

Chairman LEVIN. I think there’s enough theology, as it is, in Afghanistan. Could you use a different word, perhaps? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Part of it’s a theoretical decision that was 

made by NATO on how the NATO forces should be used. Part of 

it’s the practical aspect of—you want to take down drug lords in 

a way that can be done through law enforcement means, so that 

they can be prosecuted and punished. Therefore, if it’s going to be 

done in the Afghan justice system, it’s better for the Afghans to do 

it. We have extensive Drug Enforcement Administration presence 

that we’re in the process of beefing up to work with the Afghans, 

but they need to be able to do these operations, by and large, in 

a manner that allows them to continue, not just to take down the 

guy, but to go into prosecution and law enforcement. 

That said, NATO is quite aware, because of the nexus, that there 

are drug lords aligned with the Taliban. I think, both in 

counterinsurgency terms and counternarcotics terms, they’re prepared to go after some of these guys. 

Chairman LEVIN. Is the Afghan police and Afghan army effective 

against the drug lords and the heroin labs? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The Afghan police and army tend to provide the—as I had said, the overall security of the perimeter for the 

Afghan eradication force, but the——

Chairman LEVIN. No, not eradication. I’m talking about the——

Ambassador BOUCHER. The Afghan drug police and the Afghan 

eradication force——

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. 

Ambassador BOUCHER.—who are more directly charged with that 

mission. 

Chairman LEVIN. Are they effective in interdicting heroin in the 

poppy? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. They’ve had some success with small and 

medium traffickers, but not a lot of success at the bigger levels. 

51

Chairman LEVIN. Do they want to succeed at the higher level? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I think they do. The people that we’ve 

worked with and——

Chairman LEVIN. No, I’m talking about the police, themselves, or 

is it just so much corruption in the police or the army that you 

can’t rely on them to go after the big guys? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The counterdrug police seem to have the 

determination to do so. We’re trying to build up their capability. 

Chairman LEVIN. You mentioned a shortfall in the number of 

trainers, I guess a significant shortfall. General, you’ve talked 

about commanders being about 2,500 trainers short—900 short in 

the army, and about 1,500 short in the police. I think those were 

your numbers. A thousand of the marines that are going to be deployed to Afghanistan in the next few months are going to support 

that training mission, but we’re way, way short. Our allies have 

not carried through on the commitments that they’ve made for 

training teams. I guess the operation is called Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLTs); shorthand being ‘‘omelets,’’ I 

gather. What’s the resistance in our NATO allies to doing that? It’s 

not a direct combat role, it’s a training mission. Why have they 

fallen short on the training mission? 

General SATTLER. Mr. Chairman, it really becomes a combat mission. When you become an OMLT, you’re paired with an Afghani 

battalion or brigade. When you go to that brigade, as do our embedded trainers, you eat with, sleep with, you mentor by your mere 

presence, and you teach and train as you move along. 

Chairman LEVIN. These are embeds. 

General SATTLER. These are embeds, and OMLTs do the same, 

sir. When the OMLTs go with that unit, when that unit—if that 

unit moves into combat, or when that unit moves into combat, the 

OMLT goes with. The OMLT provides—they call for fire, they provide medevac, they control artillery, so they become a critical enabler to that unit. 

Right now, sir, there’s 34 international OMLTs that are in the 

field inside Afghanistan. Of that 34, 24 have been certified. There 

is a certification process, because of the responsibility that the 

OMLT, with the enablers, that they bring to the fight, sir—so, obviously, they’re certified by ISAF in conjunction with General Cone 

and Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan. There’s 

six more OMLTs that are in the pipeline that should be fielded 

later this year. So that’ll be approximately a total of 40 international OMLTs on the ground. 

Chairman LEVIN. Of the 72 that are needed? Is that——

General SATTLER. Sir, I’ll have to get the exact end—the objective number. 

[The information referred to follows:]

As of 5 March (latest information available to the Joint Staff), 34 Operational 

Mentoring and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are fielded in Afghanistan, 31 have been 

certified as operational. The current requirement for OMLTs, as outlined in the 

NATO Combined Joint Statement of Requirements is 81. This requirement grows 

to 103 by January 2009.

General SATTLER. But, they are substantially short of the ultimate goal. Correct, sir 

52

Chairman LEVIN. Which gets back to the question of our NATO 

allies not being willing—too many of them—because a number of 

them are, and I don’t think we ought to generalize about NATO allies——

General SATTLER. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEVIN.—because we have NATO allies that have had, 

I think, greater proportion of losses, even, than we’ve had in Afghanistan, including the Canadians. So, we shouldn’t be generalizing about this. But, too many of our NATO allies have not come 

through. One of the reasons, apparently, is because of the public 

opposition in their countries to the Afghanistan mission. Is one of 

the reasons for that, Secretary Boucher, that, in the minds of many 

Europeans, the Iraq mission and the Afghan mission are linked? 

We have a report, the Afghanistan Study Group recommended that 

there be decoupling of the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as a 

way of improving our overall approach to the war on terrorism, 

that if we delink them, it may be helpful, in terms of attracting 

greater support for the one, and that wouldn’t be colored or diminished by opposition to the other. Is there some truth to that? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. I guess there’s some truth to that. I don’t 

find it, extensively. As I’ve gone to Europe and I’ve talked to parliamentarians and party leaders and people like that about the Afghan mission, Iraq is not usually thrown up at us. 

Chairman LEVIN. How about their publics? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. To some extent, you see it in the public 

commentary. But, a lot of the restrictions on forces are either parliamentary restrictions or promises that they’ve made to parliament that, ‘‘We’re going in for peacekeeping and stabilization, 

and, therefore, we will do these things and not those things.’’ 

That’s where a lot of the caveats come from. It, basically, I think, 

has to do with the image that they have of their forces, the kinds 

of things they think they should be doing, and they’re there to be 

nice to people and give them a happier life. When it comes to fighting, not everybody else is as committed as we are, but many are, 

as you mentioned—the Canadians and the Brits and the Dutch and 

some of the others that are with us in the south. So, I think part 

of it’s lack of understanding of the full breadth of the mission that 

you have to do. In order to give people a hospital, you have to be 

able to give them police, and you have to be able to give them a 

secure environment, as well. Our forces, and several others, are 

fully committed to the whole breadth of that; whereas, others have 

gone under the assumption that they would only be doing part of 

that. 

Chairman LEVIN. To the extent that the public linkage in some 

of the countries that have put restrictions on their troops is a cause 

for those parliamentary restrictions or government restrictions, to 

that extent, would it be useful to decouple these two missions? 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Sir, we’ve been looking at that recommendation. I guess the answer is yes, in general, but what it 

means in practical terms is not quite clear to me, frankly. 

Chairman LEVIN. Let me give you an example. The Afghan mission could be put in our regular budget, keeping the Iraqi mission 

in a supplemental budget. 

53

Ambassador BOUCHER. The only place that these two seem to go 

together is in the supplemental budgets. A lot of our funding goes 

into the regular budget, but there are supplemental needs, and the 

vehicle for getting that is a combined supplemental. But, at least 

when we talk about it, when we go out and lobby for it, we’re talking about the situation in Afghanistan and what we all need to do 

to accomplish our goals there. 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes, but I think those two missions are linked 

both in the rhetoric in Washington and in the budgets. It’s the 

global war, and we talk about Iraq and Afghanistan. I think you 

ought to give a lot more thought to this question. To the extent 

that the European publics, in those countries that have not come 

through with what they’ve committed, link these two efforts, it 

seems to me that is a diminution of the support that you’re likely 

to get from their representatives in their parliaments. Here, many 

of us have delinked them. Many of us who have opposed the effort 

in Iraq, including me—been a critic of it and opposed going in—

nonetheless, very much supported going into Afghanistan, which, 

by the way, I think was a unanimous vote in the Senate, to go into 

Afghanistan, go after the folks who attacked us, and who are still 

there, at least on the border, and Taliban, who supported those 

folks. So I think many of us have delinked it, and I guess you, in 

your positions, have delinked them. 

But, I’m just urging that if there is truth to the perception and 

to the point that, in those countries, there’s been a linkage in the 

public minds, and if that is one of the reasons why there’s been a 

shortfall on the part of many NATO countries in stepping up to 

what’s needed in Afghanistan, it may be wiser that the administration, in its rhetoric, talk—and in its budget request—separate 

these two missions. They can argue they’re both valid, and you can 

talk about where there ought to be more troops than the other. You 

have to do that, obviously. But, in the rhetoric and in the budget, 

I think it would be useful. It would reflect the public mood here, 

where the public, I think, sees very differently the challenges in 

Iraq and Afghanistan—and has, consistently—and it may be true 

in the NATO—some of the NATO countries, as well. 

Thank you, gentlemen, and your staffs, for rearranging your 

schedules today to accommodate ours. 

We will stand adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SUPPORT FOR AFGHANISTAN MISSION

1. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Shinn and Secretary Boucher, in early February Secretary Gates told the committee that he is worried that the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) is evolving into a ‘‘two-tiered alliance’’ composed of ‘‘some allies willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and others who are not.’’ 

Secretary Gates has also said that some European publics are confused over the difference between the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this has resulted in a 

loss of support for the Afghanistan mission, according to news reports. The Afghanistan Study Group (ASG) recommended that the administration decouple the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as a way of improving the overall U.S. approach to 

the global war on terrorism. Do you agree with Secretary Gates that NATO is at 

risk of becoming a ‘‘two-tiered alliance’’ with some willing to fight and die and others not? 

54

Dr. SHINN. I share Secretary Gates’ concern about NATO becoming a two-tiered 

alliance. A number of allies, particularly those engaging in combat operations in the 

volatile south and east, shoulder the majority of the burden of kinetic military action against the insurgency. Others, especially those deployed in the more permissive north and west, focus more on reconstruction and humanitarian efforts. While 

the latter are crucial to Afghanistan’s long-term development, all allies must be willing to contribute to all lines of operation, both kinetic and nonkinetic. Simultaneously, however, we must remain mindful of the political realities many of our allies face—in some instances they are severely constrained by prevailing public opinion and the structure of their governments. Recognizing this reality, Secretary Gates 

has worked closely with his ministerial counterparts to develop a strategic vision 

for the NATO mission in Afghanistan, which explains what the alliance has 

achieved, what remains to done, and how we intend to get there. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. NATO is united in a common commitment to support the 

Government of Afghanistan in the establishment of a safe and secure environment 

in order to extend reconstruction and good governance. All 26 allies—and 13 nonNATO partners—have forces in Afghanistan. Their deployments all fulfill NATO requirements established by the NATO Supreme Allied Commander and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Commander. 

We realize, however, that there is a concern about NATO becoming a two-tiered 

alliance. Allies in the south and east feel that they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the combat burden, while others in the west and north are mostly 

engaged in reconstruction and humanitarian assistance efforts. Nonetheless, all of 

these efforts are critical to the overall mission, and allies recognize that we are 

fighting the same fight. We will continue to engage allies to emphasize the need to 

meet force requirements, share the burden more equitably, and provide commanders 

in the field with the flexibility to succeed in their mission. We will also continue 

to help allies explain the nature and importance of the entire NATO mission in Afghanistan to their publics. To that end, allies and partners are endorsing an ISAF 

Strategic Vision statement for the NATO Summit in Bucharest.

2. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Shinn and Secretary Boucher, do you agree with the 

ASG’s recommendation that the administration and Congress decouple Iraq and Afghanistan? 

Dr. SHINN. In the late 2007/early 2008 reorganization of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy, Afghanistan and Iraq were decoupled—both portfolios 

had previously rested under the management of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for International Security Affairs. A key component of the policy reorganization 

shifted responsibility for the Afghanistan regional portfolio to a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs. Thus, from a management 

perspective, the two countries have been largely decoupled within the Department. 

I do not believe that Afghanistan would stand to gain by decoupling it from Iraq 

in the defense budget process. Requirements for funding Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan are developed and approved independent of those funding requirements for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the Department has consistently received the levels of funding it has requested for the mission in Afghanistan. 

In so far as decoupling Afghanistan and Iraq in the interest of public opinion, I 

believe that the Vision Statement, currently being drafted by NATO in preparation 

for the April 2008 Bucharest Summit, will play a key role in reminding publics 

about the importance of the Afghanistan mission. The goal of this document is to 

articulate what we have achieved in Afghanistan, what remains to be done, and how 

we intend to get there. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The Study Group’s second overarching recommendation is 

to decouple Iraq and Afghanistan. We would note that with the exception of our supplemental funding requests, the two conflicts have been effectively decoupled all 

along, with U.S. strategy in each country moving on markedly different paths that 

reflect differing local realities. We are not confident that decoupling supplemental 

funding requests would in fact result in increased resources for Afghanistan. The 

Afghanistan funding record before and after the start of the Iraq war suggests otherwise.

NATIONAL SOLIDARITY PROGRAM

3. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Shinn and Secretary Boucher, the Atlantic Council 

report states that ‘‘the future of Afghanistan will be determined by progress or failure in the civil sector.’’ The report also finds that less than 10 cents of every dollar 

of aid for Afghanistan goes directly to the Afghan people. One program that appears 

55

to be succeeding in directing funds to the local level is the National Solidarity Program (NSP). According to the Afghanistan Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, which established the NSP, the NSP has worked with over 19,000 Community Development Councils to finance more than 32,000 subprojects for development and reconstruction. What is being done to eliminate the inefficiencies and 

waste in the delivery of reconstruction assistance for the Afghan people? 

Dr. SHINN. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are best suited to respond to questions related to the financing of 

development and reconstruction projects. The National Defense Authorization Act of 

2008 requires the administration to identify a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), ‘‘to provide for the independent and objective conduct 

and supervision of audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations 

funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made available for the reconstruction of Afghanistan.’’ I believe that, once in place, the SIGAR will play a crucial role 

in ensuring that U.S. resources are not misused. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Through our capacity building programs with Afghan ministries and provincial governments, the United States is working to eliminate inefficiencies and corruption in the delivery of assistance to the Afghan people. U.S. foreign assistance programs work with ministries—focusing on the most important 

service providers, like the ministries of health, education, finance, and agriculture—

to put more responsibility for service delivery at the local levels. We do this to ensure funds reach the provinces. This will also allow ministry representatives working at the provincial levels to do planning, decisionmaking, delivery, and monitoring 

activities, ensuring assistance reaches the Afghan people. Advisors will mentor and 

support capacity building for Afghan Government employees in areas such as financial management, budgeting, procurement, human resources management, strategic 

planning, project planning, project implementation, and information and communications systems. 

In addition, the U.S. Government has made a great deal of progress over the past 

7 years streamlining our disbursement of funds to program implementers. The U.S. 

Government has disbursed 69 percent of the $26.3 billion in U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2008 (this is not including the fiscal 

year 2008 supplemental), which is higher than the Ministry of Finance’s reported 

international average of 62 percent, and almost 20 percent higher than where the 

U.S. Government was 2 years ago. Our efforts to put more control of funding decisions in the hands of Provincial Reconstruction Teams has improved our ability to 

quickly follow security gains with development efforts that address locally-identified 

priorities. 

As U.S. Agency for International Development Acting Deputy Administrator Jim 

Kunder noted in his testimony on oversight on January 24, the Office of the Inspector General in Afghanistan has spent $2.7 million on oversight. As of December 

2007, they had completed 18 performance and 23 financial audits. Not a single one 

of these audits revealed significant findings of waste, fraud, and abuse.

4. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Shinn and Secretary Boucher, do you support the 

NSP as a way of promoting development and reconstruction at the local level, reducing corruption and waste, and promoting support for the Afghan Government? 

Dr. SHINN. I believe the NSP is a positive example of how the Afghan Government, with the assistance of international and nongovernmental organizations, can 

work to deliver development resources to Afghan communities. The NSP was created by the Afghan Government to develop the ability of Afghan communities to 

identify, plan, manage, and monitor their own development projects. NSP builds the 

capacity of local communities to manage projects, develop and execute budgets, and 

perform program oversight. I would defer to the State Department and USAID to 

the address details related to this program. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. The NSP is one of the most effective programs in Afghanistan in that it empowers the Afghan Government to fulfill basic needs identified by 

Afghan communities. It is also a tool by which we can make progress on all three 

elements of our counter insurgency strategy. By empowering communities through 

their participation in Community Development Councils, it builds ties between the 

people and the government and reduces the influence of insurgents, warlords, and 

drug barons. The NSP also transforms the environment by providing block grants 

for infrastructure projects chosen by the communities themselves. The program has 

funded over 20,000 projects for water, sanitation, roads and bridges, irrigation, 

power, and education. The projects also have been proven to be at far less risk of 

being attacked or destroyed than non-NSP projects. Putting the recipients in the 

driver seat with a role in identifying and planning the project also helps reduce corruption. With the World Bank working directly with the Ministry of Rural RehabiliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
56

tation and development to manage the funds, there is clear oversight of the program’s funds. The United States has funded the NSP generously and we have urged 

other donors to do the same.

5. Senator LEVIN. Secretary Shinn and Secretary Boucher, would you support an 

expansion of and increased funding for the NSP in Afghanistan? 

Dr. SHINN. The NSP is a positive example of how the Afghan Government and 

international and nongovernmental organizations can work together to deliver development resources to Afghan communities. I defer to the State Department and 

USAID to address issues related to expansion of the program’s size and funding. 

Ambassador BOUCHER. Yes, the NSP is one of the most effective programs in Afghanistan, as well as one of the most popular among Afghans. The United States 

has provided $50 million of the $349 million that the international community has 

contributed to the NSP through fiscal year 2007. The U.S. Agency for International 

Development plans to allocate $10 million to the NSP from the fiscal year 2008 

base, and we are asking for another $40 million in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental to fund the program. This would be our largest contribution in a single fiscal 

year to the NSP. The requested funds will support the crucial third phase of the 

program, which provides $300 million in follow-on grants to solidify the impressive 

accomplishments NSP has made over the past few years in empowering communities. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE FORCE IN AFGHANISTAN

6. Senator BYRD. Secretary Shinn, I am disappointed to learn that Secretary 

Gates is only now working on an ISAF in Afghanistan ‘‘vision statement’’ to lay out 

with our coalition partners what we want to achieve collectively in Afghanistan and 

how we intend to get there. We have been in Afghanistan since 2001. Would you 

not agree that 6 years is too long to wait before attempting to come up with a plan 

for what we want to achieve there? 

Dr. SHINN. The ‘‘vision statement’’ is not a plan. It is a document that articulates 

what the alliance has achieved, what more remains to be done, and how we intend 

to get there. It was written in terms that are easily understood by allied publics. 

The situation in Afghanistan has changed markedly since 2001. While the international community and the Afghan Government have made notable strides in the 

past 6 years, we continue to face a number of challenges: a resilient insurgency, corruption, weak governance, and narcotics. At the same time, many of our allies are 

undergoing intensive debates about the future of their contribution to the mission. 

It is highly appropriate, therefore, that allies agree on a ‘‘vision statement’’ now, so 

that this document can inform the public, and bolster more widespread support for 

a sustained commitment to the alliance’s undertaking in Afghanistan.

AFGHANISTAN POLICE FORCE

7. Senator BYRD. Secretary Shinn, your testimony notes that we have invested $5 

billion in developing the Afghan police force, but it remains ineffective and its history of corruption undermines its credibility. Although you point out additional steps 

being taken to provide more training and more pay, on what timeline do you anticipate the police force to be able to operate effectively and independently? 

Dr. SHINN. As I noted in my written statement, the Combined Security Transition 

Command Afghanistan has begun implementing, in close coordination with the Afghan Government, a Focused District Development Plan (FDD). The goal of FDD 

is to concentrate training, equipment, mentoring, and Afghan leadership in priority 

districts in an effort to rapidly improve the Afghan National Police (ANP). FDD is 

divided into four phases, which include assessing the status of the police, withdrawing all the police from specific districts for training and equipping, replacing 

incompetent and corrupt leaders, and then returning the police to the district with 

intense monitoring and mentoring. As we assess the effectiveness of FDD, we will 

be able to better estimate when the ANP will be able to achieve higher degrees of 

effectiveness and independence.

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the committee adjourned.] 

(57)

CONTINUATION OF THE STRATEGY IN AFGHANISTAN AND RECENT REPORTS BY THE 

AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP AND THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m. in room SD–

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin (chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Reed, 

Bill Nelson, Pryor, McCaskill, Warner, Inhofe, Sessions, Dole, and 

Thune. 

Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff director; and Leah C. Brewer, nominations and hearings clerk. 

Majority staff members present: Evelyn N. Farkas, professional 

staff member; and William G.P. Monahan, counsel. 

Minority staff members present: Michael V. Kostiw, Republican 

staff director; William M. Caniano, professional staff member; and 

Lynn F. Rusten, professional staff member. 

Staff assistants present: Kevin A. Cronin, Ali Z. Pasha, and Benjamin L. Rubin. 

Committee members’ assistants present: Bethany Bassett and 

Sharon L. Waxman, assistants to Senator Kennedy; Frederick M. 

Downey, assistant to Senator Lieberman; Elizabeth King, assistant 

to Senator Reed; Christopher Caple, assistant to Senator Bill Nelson; M. Bradford Foley, assistant to Senator Pryor; Gordon I. Peterson, assistant to Senator Webb; Stephen C. Hedger and Jason 

D. Rauch, assistants to Senator McCaskill; Anthony J. Lazarski, 

assistant to Senator Inhofe; Lenwood Landrum, assistant to Senator Sessions; Lindsey Neas, assistant to Senator Dole; Jason Van 

Beek, assistant to Senator Thune; Brian W. Walsh, assistant to 

Senator Martinez; and Erskine W. Wells III, assistant to Senator 

Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman LEVIN. Good afternoon, everybody. This afternoon’s 

session is the second panel of the committee’s hearing on the strategy in Afghanistan and on the independent reports of the Afghanistan Study Group (ASG) and The Atlantic Council of the United 

States. 

58

This morning, we heard from administration witnesses from the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the Department of State. This afternoon, we will hear from two experts who 

participated in the preparation of the independent reports: Retired 

General Jim Jones, chairman of the board of directors of The Atlantic Council, and Ambassador Rick Inderfurth, professor of the 

practice of international affairs at George Washington University. 

Both General Jones and Ambassador Inderfurth were principal 

members of the ASG, and that group was established under the 

auspices of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. 

We greatly appreciate the work of your groups that you are representing. It is a subject which is of extraordinary importance to 

the future of this planet and this country’s well-being, and we 

heard a lot this morning which—I don’t know if you were present 

or whether you had any representatives present, but, in any event, 

we expect, this afternoon, we’ll get, at least from the reports that 

we’ve read, something of a different slant than we got this morning, because the independent reports provide a very sobering assessment of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. I quoted 

from your reports this morning, at least some of the outstanding 

comments that stick out, including, according to the ASG report, efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are ‘‘faltering,’’ and that report finds 

that, since 2002, that violence and insecurity have risen dramatically as Afghan confidence in their government and its international partners falls. The Atlantic Council report that I quoted 

this morning said that, ‘‘Make no mistake, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan.’’ There’s a 

‘‘strategic stalemate’’ in the security situation. There’s no ability to 

eliminate the insurgency, so long as Taliban enjoys safe haven 

across the border with Pakistan. 

A comment that I quoted this morning, the antigovernment insurgency threatening Afghanistan ‘‘has grown considerably in the 

last 2 years.’’ The Study Group also finds that ‘‘the Taliban has 

been able to infiltrate many areas throughout the country,’’ which 

gives them the power to intimidate and coerce the local Afghan 

people. 

The reports find that more U.S. and international forces are 

needed for Afghanistan. At the same time, the ASG points out that 

more NATO countries need to share the burden and remove national caveats that limit the ability of their troops to participate in 

the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations. 

There was a great deal of agreement on that point this morning. 

The Atlantic Council report concludes that, ‘‘despite efforts of the 

Afghan Government and the international community, Afghanistan 

remains a failing state’’ and ‘‘could become a failed state.’’ 

As The Atlantic Council report says, we cannot afford for Afghanistan to continue to be ‘‘the neglected war.’’ 

As the ASG says, ‘‘Afghanistan stands today at a crossroads.’’ 

The United States and the international community must ensure 

that efforts to move Afghanistan towards a stable, secure, and progressive state succeed. That’s everybody’s goal here. 

We made a number of points this morning about the difference, 

in terms of attention being paid to the situation in Afghanistan, 

59

compared to the situation in Iraq, and a number of other points, 

which I’m sure will come out this afternoon. 

Before I turn this over to Senator Warner, let me again thank 

you, our witnesses, and your groups and the efforts of your groups, 

the studies that you’ve produced. You have volunteered, and, as 

volunteers, you have contributed to some very, very important reports, and we all look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR CARL LEVIN

Welcome. 

This afternoon’s session is the second panel of the committee’s hearing on the 

strategy in Afghanistan and the independent reports of the Afghanistan Study 

Group and the Atlantic Council of the United States. This morning we heard from 

administration witnesses from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, 

and the Department of State. We will now hear from two experts who participated 

in the preparation of the independent reports: retired General Jim Jones, Chairman 

of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council; and Ambassador Rick Inderfurth, 

Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, at the George Washington University. Both General Jones and Ambassador Inderfurth were principal members in the 

Afghanistan Study Group. The Afghanistan Study Group was established under the 

auspices of the Center for the Study of the Presidency. 

The independent reports provide a sobering assessment of the situation on the 

ground in Afghanistan: 

• Efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are ‘‘faltering,’’ according to the Afghanistan Study Group report. That report finds that since 2002 ‘‘violence, insecurity, and opium production have risen dramatically as Afghan confidence 

in their government and its international partners falls.’’

• The Atlantic Council report states, ‘‘Make no mistake, the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan.’’ Instead, the 

security situation is ‘‘a strategic stalemate,’’ with NATO and Afghan forces 

able to win any head-to-head confrontation with the Taliban, but not being 

able to eliminate the insurgency so long as the Taliban enjoys safe haven 

across the border with Pakistan. 

• The anti-government insurgency threatening Afghanistan ‘‘has grown 

considerably over the last 2 years,’’ according to the Afghanistan Study 

Group. The Afghanistan Study Group report also finds that ‘‘the Taliban 

have been able to infiltrate many areas throughout the country,’’ intimidating and coercing the local Afghan people. 

• The reports find that more U.S. and international forces are needed for 

Afghanistan. At the same time, the Afghanistan Study Group points out 

that more NATO countries need to share the burden, and remove national 

caveats that limit the ability of their troops to participate in International 

Security Assistance Force operations. 

• The Atlantic Council report concludes, ‘‘In summary, despite efforts of the 

Afghan Government and the international community, Afghanistan remains 

a failing state. It could become a failed state.’’

We cannot afford for Afghanistan to continue to be ‘‘the Neglected War’’ as the 

Atlantic Council report calls it. As the Afghanistan Study Group says ‘‘Afghanistan 

stands today at a crossroads.’’ The United States and the international community 

need to ensure that their efforts move Afghanistan toward being a stable, secure, 

and progressive state. 

I want to thank our witnesses for volunteering to contribute to these important 

reports, and look forward to their testimony.

Senator Warner. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ll just put a brief opening statement into the record and commend each of these witnesses. 

I was so interested in these reports that I actually attended the 

unveiling of the reports in the spaces occupied by the Foreign RelaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
60

tions Committee, and it was a very well-attended session. I look 

forward to hearing it again. 

I want to thank you again, General Jones, for all the various activities that you’re undertaking. They’re quasi, or not totally, pro 

bono publico. You certainly deserve to take on the career you wish, 

but you certainly evaded a lot of invitations to take on this type 

of responsibility, and you bring to it a remarkable background of 

experience and knowledge. 

To you, Mr. Inderfurth, I remember you well when you were with 

ABC. We’re glad to have you back in a very friendly spirit before 

the committee. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JOHN WARNER

Mr Chairman, thank you. 

I join you in welcoming our witnesses here today and I thank you for scheduling 

the two panels for this very important hearing. 

I would like to begin by commending our Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, 

for his efforts over the last few weeks to impress upon our North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization (NATO) allies the importance of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. He 

also emphasized that militant extremists, either in Afghanistan or elsewhere, still 

pose a significant threat and that the threat posed by these extremists may be 

greater in Europe than some in Europe may believe. 

The debate on the importance of the mission in Afghanistan may be among the 

most complicated that the NATO allies have faced since the alliance was formed to 

counter the Soviet threat. 

Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to place the entirety of Secretary 

Gates’ February 10 address to the Munich Conference on Security Policy into the 

record (see Annex A). 

In addition to expressing my strong support for Secretary Gate’s remarks, I would 

like to highlight a few matters concerning Afghanistan. 

First, I concur with those who assert that the credibility of NATO—the most successful political organization and military alliance in recent history—is at stake in 

Afghanistan. 

In Afghanistan today, there has no doubt been progress since 2001: but the 

Taliban’s recent resurgence in Afghanistan; the escalating opium economy; and the 

presence of cross-border sanctuaries in Pakistan threaten to challenge positive momentum and potentially lead Afghanistan to slip back to its pre-September 11 role 

as a safe haven for terrorists. 

General Jim Jones, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, and co-chair—

with Ambassador Thomas Pickering—of the Afghanistan Study Group Report which 

was sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Presidency, has said: ‘‘Make no 

mistake; NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.’’ 

In his recent remarks in Munich, Secretary Gates reiterated a warning he made 

last Wednesday in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In that 

testimony, Secretary Gates expressed concern about ‘‘the alliance evolving into a 

two-tiered alliance, in which some are willing to fight and die to protect people’s security, and some are not.’’ 

Over the past 6 years, NATO forces have grown from 16,000 to 43,000. The 

ground commander is now calling for another 7,500 troops. This is a troop requirement NATO should work vigorously to meet. 

All of the nations of NATO should reexamine their contributions to military operations in southern Afghanistan and lift the incapacitating restrictions, known as national caveats, on where, when, and how their forces can fight. 

Second, we should never forget that failure in Afghanistan would be a significant 

boost to militant extremists. 

Secretary Gates said that the Islamic extremist movement so far was ‘‘built on 

the illusion of success’’ and that all the extremists have accomplished recently is 

‘‘the death of thousands of innocent Muslims.’’ Secretary Gates went on to say: 

‘‘Many Europeans question the relevance of our actions and doubt whether the mission is worth the lives of their sons and daughters.’’ 

The bombings in Madrid and London and the disruption of cells and plots 

throughout Europe should remind all of us that the threat posed by global extreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
61

mism in Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe, and globally remains, as Secretary 

Gates said: ‘‘a steep challenge.’’ 

In his Munich speech, Secretary Gates said extremist success in Afghanistan 

would ‘‘beget success on many other fronts as the cancer metastasized further and 

more rapidly than it already has.’’ I fully agree with this assessment by Secretary 

Gates. 

Third, and concomitantly, we should not forget that Afghanistan and Iraq are 

very distinct missions. Failure in either would be disastrous for the other, the region 

as a whole, the United States, and Europe. However, the more we tie the two fronts 

together we may unintentionally be creating false and misleading impressions. 

In very frank comments on Saturday, Secretary Gates said, and I believe correctly, that many Europeans ‘‘have a problem with our involvement in Iraq and 

project that to Afghanistan, and do not understand the very different kind of 

threat.’’ 

Afghanistan has its own strategic importance which should not be confused with 

Iraq’s strategic importance. It is therefore important that we find ways to decouple 

our strategies, policies, and funding for Afghanistan from those for Iraq. 

Next, we must wholly engage Afghanistan’s neighbors and fully enjoin them in 

the plans for the future security and stability of Afghanistan. This specifically includes the development of an effective strategy to dislodge al Qaeda and Taliban 

sanctuaries in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the Afghanistan border. 

Finally, there is little doubt about the strong link between instability in Afghanistan, poppy cultivation, and drug trafficking. I do not believe there can be lasting 

stability in Afghanistan until these links are disrupted. 

Afghanistan supplies about 93 percent of the world’s opium supply. While poppy 

cultivation has decreased in north-central Afghanistan, it has dramatically increased in the southwest. In 2006, the drug trade was estimated to total more than 

$3 billion—money that continues to fund Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents. 

Breaking the nexus between the insurgency and opium production requires a coordinated counternarcotics strategy that must be integrated with our counterinsurgency strategy and linked to the economic revitalization of Afghanistan’s rural 

economy that includes alternative livelihood programs. 

In closing, the United States, our NATO allies, Afghanistan’s neighbors, and 

international organizations all have roles to play. Each, and all, should recommit 

to the development of a comprehensive, urgent, and long-term strategy for Afghanistan. This long-term strategy should be one that integrates political and developmental features that complement the military counterinsurgency strategy. 

This recommitment should, as I have already discussed, include increasing NATO 

forces in southern Afghanistan and suspending national caveats. We should also expand the training and equipping of the Afghan National Army and the police 

through a long-term partnership with NATO to make it professional and multi-ethnic, and deploying significantly more foreign trainers. 

This recommitment must also address deficiencies in judicial reform, reconstruction, governance, and anticorruption efforts, and here the other elements of so-called 

‘soft power’ should be marshaled effectively. The international assistance effort 

should be reenergized and managed efficiently. The efforts to appoint a United Nations High Commissioner should be revived immediately. 

After 6 years of international involvement, Afghanistan may be nearing a defining 

moment. Regretfully, I add, so too may NATO. 

Secretary Gates’ comments this weekend brought these issues to the fore. I vigorously laud his efforts to speak openly to our allies and to make an effort to ensure 

that the troop burden in Afghanistan does not divide the NATO allies. 

The witnesses on this first panel should be prepared to discuss, among other 

issues: the current situation in Afghanistan; our current strategies and policies 

there; the contributions of our partners and allies; the role played by Afghanistan’s 

neighbors to foster stability and security in Afghanistan; and how the drug trade 

has undermined the Government of Afghanistan’s drive to build political stability, 

economic growth, and rule of law. 

This panel of witnesses should also be prepared to respond to questions about 

three reports released last month. These reports conclude that a new effort is required to succeed in Afghanistan. The reports were the Afghanistan Study Group 

report sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Presidency (see Annex B); the 

Atlantic Council report on Afghanistan (see Annex C); and a paper by Dr. Harlan 

Ullman and others titled, ‘‘Winning the Invisible War: An Agricultural Pilot Plan 

for Afghanistan’’ (see Annex D). 

I request unanimous consent that each of these reports be entered into the record. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses 

today.

62

Chairman LEVIN. General Jones? 

STATEMENT OF GEN. JAMES L. JONES, USMC (RET.), PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE INSTITUTE FOR 21ST CENTURY ENERGY, UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND 

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE ATLANTIC 

COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES 

General JONES. Mr. Chairman, Senator Warner, distinguished 

members of the committee, it is, as always, a very special honor to 

be able to appear before you on any matter, but particularly on the 

matter at hand which relates to Afghanistan. 

Just by way of summary, my experience in Afghanistan stems 

from my assignment as Supreme Allied Commander of Operational 

Forces of NATO. My initial attention to Afghanistan was drawn by 

ambassadors of the alliance in 2003, when they asked the military 

component of NATO to start developing plans that would eventually result in NATO going to Afghanistan. We did that, and, as you 

recall, those plans were approved in February 2004, and we began 

a rather slow, but methodical, foray into Afghanistan, starting with 

Kabul itself, then to the north, then to the west, to the south, and 

finally, in 2006, we assimilated the entire responsibility for security and stability under Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the 

U.S.-led coalition, and ISAF, which is the NATO equivalent. 

I think we can be very proud of the difference that NATO has 

made, despite the fact that there is consistent stories about national caveats and inadequate resourcing of the combined joint 

statement of requirements, which commanders have repeatedly and 

without any change, have always been up front, I think, in asking 

for what they felt they needed. 

I spent a portion of every month for about 31⁄2 years in Afghanistan, and I watched the evolution, not only of the military buildup, 

but also the international network that grew up alongside it, and 

it’s quite impressive. 

Afghanistan has all of the international legitimacy that one could 

want, beginning with United Nations Security Council resolutions. 

It has, on the ground, not only the U.N. as the overarching agency 

that’s responsible for coordination of the international effort, it has 

NATO, the European Union, the G8, the World Bank, International 

Monetary Fund, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), all 

operating within the countryside of Afghanistan. 

The contributions that allies have made have, in many cases, 

made a difference in many parts of that country. I will call your 

attention to Operation Medusa, in the late summer 2006, when between 8,000 and 9,000 NATO troops accepted the responsibility of 

taking over the southern region in Afghanistan. This was a region 

that had never had many troops permanently present. Half a dozen 

countries or more accepted the responsibility of that region, went 

into that region, and very quickly got into almost conventional 

warfighting, and together with our forces and OEF, dealt a very severe military blow to the Taliban as a result of about a month and 

a half of very intense fighting, the result of which was a crippling 

blow, at least to the military capability of the Taliban, so much so 

that the spring offensive of 2007, that was always heralded after 

the winter, was really a whimper compared to other years. 

63

So, I mention this story because I want to state, up front, that 

the NATO nations have provided serious combat capabilities, in 

some respects, and many, many humanitarian reconstruction missions, the administrations of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams 

(PRTs). So I think we should start on a positive note in saying that 

where we were in 2003, and where we are now, there certainly 

have been some positive things on the ground. NATO should be 

evaluated in terms of its own mandate. It is not responsible for the 

entire trend of things in Afghanistan, either favorable or unfavorable, because there are just too many other organizations that are 

participating in various efforts. 

At the end of my watch, in December 2006, I left there with certain conclusions, and I will summarize them very briefly. I think 

they’re, unfortunately, still valid. My findings and my opinions are 

reflected in both studies, and I’ll just summarize them very briefly. 

What I fear is going on in Afghanistan could be best characterized as a loss of momentum, primarily by the inability of the international communities to come together and to tackle the top four 

or five things that absolutely have to be done, in my opinion, if Afghanistan is going to continue on the path of progress. 

A couple of years ago, you didn’t hear the word al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It was almost a footnote. The Taliban was considered to 

be pretty much on the ropes. We didn’t have car bombs and suicide 

bombers in the capital. The border was worrisome, but certainly 

was not headed, at least in those days, to where it is today. But, 

what was consistent in all of my visits to Afghanistan was the fact 

that the narcotics problem was getting worse and worse each year. 

Narcotics are responsible for 50 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Afghanistan today. I guess at 50 percent you can say 

it is a narco-economy. But, when 50 percent of a country’s GDP is 

tied up in narcotics, you have a problem. 

Second, it corrupts the entire society. It’s corrupting the next 

generation of young Afghans. It is an irresistible source of income. 

The income that is derived from the sales of those drugs, 90 percent of which are sold in the capitals in Europe, is funding the insurgency, and therefore, the renewed capacity of the opposition. 

I think this must be addressed comprehensively. One hears 

about single solutions—eradication, buy the crop, do certain other 

things. The truth is, it has to be a holistic, comprehensive campaign plan that’s agreed to by the international community. As a 

matter of fact, some years ago the G8 did assign the responsibility 

for the strategic lead in the war on drugs to the United Kingdom. 

Unfortunately, the rest of the international community left the 

United Kingdom to try to sort that out by itself, and it’s beyond the 

capacity of any one country to do that. 

Similarly, the second thing that I think absolutely has to be resolved is judicial reform in the country. If you can’t have a judicial 

system that is working, you cannot win the war on drugs. If a drug 

conviction is obtained in a court, and 6 months later, that same 

person is back out in the field, again involved in the drug business, 

that’s not a system that is going to inspire confidence. Corruption 

is one of the big problems in Afghanistan, and it’s one of the things 

that the man on the street consistently talks about in any part of 

64

the country that one visits. So, reform of the judicial system is absolutely essential if you’re going to fight narcotics. 

Even more basic is the absence of adequately trained, adequately 

equipped, and adequately educated police force. Much of the countryside is left to decide whether they’re going to side with the government by day and with the Taliban by night, because the security structure is simply not adequate. 

Again, under the G8 agreements, Italy accepted the strategic 

lead for judicial reform, and Germany accepted the strategic lead 

for police reform. Neither of those three pillars—the narcotics, judicial, or police reform—has met the standard of making the impact 

that needs to be made in order to turn the country into a better 

direction. 

Fourth, I think that what’s clear on the border between Pakistan—is that now Afghanistan has become a regional problem that 

is inseparable from discussing Pakistan. Regional problems require 

regional solutions, and perhaps it’s time to engage more countries 

in the region to have serious dialogue about mutual concerns with 

regard to the very worrisome trends in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, 

and along the seam where the tribes don’t recognize borders, but 

where the ideology of taking over or replacing the systems of government that are veering towards democracy, and having them try 

to challenge that successfully. 

Lastly, I was very disappointed—and I’ll just speak for myself—

that a true international servant, Lord Paddy Ashdown, in the 

midst of a recognized need for an international coordinator to begin 

to channel the resources of the international community toward a 

cohesive and organized end state was turned down by the Government of Afghanistan. I think that the requirement is obviously critical, that Lord Ashdown be replaced with somebody close to his capacities. There was an article, written by him in the Financial 

Times, which appeared yesterday, in which he gave his solution set 

of what he would do, had he been approved for that job. If you read 

that, you will find that the similarity between the three reports 

that we rolled out and his short thesis in the Financial Times are 

virtually a mirror image of one another. 

So, there is great consensus, I think, about what needs to be 

done. The question is, how do you do it? From my standpoint, it’s 

a failure of the international community, under the current organizational structures, to bring focus to the four or five things that absolutely have to be done. I think that the Government of Afghanistan, under President Karzai, should be held to some stronger 

metrics than previously have been asked of them. I see no reason 

whatsoever that about 4 or 5 years later the government can’t 

make any significant headroads in combating corruption, for example, or failing to reform the judicial system. The help is there, the 

international community is there in abundance, and I think that 

the future progress of Afghanistan hinges on a better cohesion of 

that international effort. 

Afghanistan is not a military problem. I think the commanders 

should be supported. I believe the troop strengths that they’re asking for is modest by comparison to the capabilities existing within 

the 40-some nations that are on the ground there. But, if we don’t 

improve the coordination of the international effort, then I’m afraid 

65

that we could backslide into a situation where the military will become more and more important. Then that will really signal a return to the ‘‘bad old days,’’ which all of us want to avoid. 

I’ll close simply by saying that I’m optimistic, because of the capacity that is there. I would be thrilled if that capacity was more 

focused and better coordinated and better led in the internationalcommunity level. I’m very disappointed that Lord Ashdown was not 

the man that is going to do this very, very difficult job, because, 

at the final analysis, I think it must be done. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for these opening remarks. 

Chairman LEVIN. General, thank you so much. 

Ambassador Inderfurth? 

STATEMENT OF HON. KARL F. INDERFURTH, JOHN O. RANKIN 

PROFESSOR OF THE PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Warner, members of the committee. It’s an honor to be here today. 

It’s an honor to be here with General Jones. I feel great comfort 

that he is going to be a part of this panel, given his vast experience 

dealing with Afghanistan. 

My experience dealing with that country was largely when I was 

Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, from 1997 

through 2001. I had many dealings with the then-Taliban that was 

in control—met with them on many occasions, met with others, including Hamid Karzai, who was then an expatriate. He would come 

to Washington, and we would talk about life after the Taliban; I 

also got involved with the U.N. ‘‘Six Plus Two’’ process. So, I had 

a great deal of experience during those 4 years dealing with this 

country. 

But, I do want to relate—Senator Warner mentioned our previous occasions of being together when I was an ABC news correspondent—I want to mention one Afghan-related experience, because it’s highly relevant for this discussion. 

In 1989, I was a Moscow correspondent for ABC News, and they 

sent me to the border with Afghanistan in February 1989, when 

the Soviet troop withdrawal took place, the final military withdrawal across the Amu Darya River and across the Friendship 

Bridge. The international press corps was on the Uzbek side, and 

coming across the bridge was the final Soviet military contingent, 

led by General Gromov. The armored personnel carriers came 

across. That marked the end of a 10-year war of occupation, a savage war that took place in that country. I remember reporting on 

that great moment of hope for Afghanistan, because this was the 

end of all of that bloodshed and destruction. 

It wasn’t, because, soon after that, the United States and the 

international community departed Afghanistan, decided that we 

had done our job, done it well. If you see ‘‘Charlie Wilson’s War,’’ 

you’ll see that story—it tells that story at the end. But then, attention turned away. A lot of other things were taking place in the 

world at that time, but attention turned away, and that left Afghanistan to pick up the pieces—and the seven mujaheddin factions that were then involved in the civil war went at each other—

also, by the way, it also left Pakistan to pick up the pieces. You 

66

cannot think about a solution for Afghanistan today without also 

thinking about a solution for Pakistan. These two are joined at the 

hip. 

So we left, and you can do a connecting of the dots between our 

departure and what took place on September 11. It is not hard to 

figure out that leaving that country to fend for itself, leaving that 

country to fall into the chaos that it did, gave rise to the Taliban, 

which imposed draconian law and order, gave rise to the return of 

Osama bin Laden in 1996, gave rise to the creation of terrorist networks in that country, and eventually led, after the assassination 

of Commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, who I also met in Tashkent 

at one point, that gave rise to September 11. 

So, we have a second chance to get Afghanistan right. A second 

chance. You don’t get many second chances in life. We have one 

with Afghanistan. 

This discussion now about the direction that Afghanistan is 

going today, which we’re all concerned about—and these reports all 

have a common theme: the situation is getting worse, it is dire, but 

still doable, in Afghanistan. So, I just implore the committee to 

give Afghanistan its full attention. Those of us outside of government will make whatever contribution we can in that direction. 

Let me say a few words, if I can, about the report, which I was 

asked to present briefly. 

Many of you know Ambassador David Abshire, NATO ambassador under President Reagan, founder of the Center for Strategic 

and International Studies. He was involved with the Iraq Study 

Group. His new organization, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, was involved in that. So he was involved in the Iraq Study 

Group in 2006. During that time of listening to the witnesses and 

the participants, that group became concerned about Afghanistan 

becoming ‘‘the forgotten war.’’ There was great concern that the 

war in Iraq had drained away military resources, intelligence resources, time and attention of senior officials, economic assistance, 

and that that had diverted attention away from Afghanistan. 

So, Ambassador Abshire decided last year to establish a smallscale version, if you will, of the Iraq Study Group: the ASG. We 

have General Jones and somebody else that you’re well familiar 

with—Ambassador Tom Pickering, with the co-chairs, and a number of us that have either served in government or have expertise 

in Afghanistan joined that study group. 

So, the product that you have before you today—and I’ve put excerpts in my written testimony, which I have submitted, and we 

have the full report for you—is a reflection of the work of all of us 

in looking at where Afghanistan is today and what can be done 

about it, the challenge it’s facing. 

Let me just give you the briefest of summaries of what our evaluation of Afghanistan is today. The country is standing at a crossroads. The progress achieved after 6 years of international engagement is under serious threat from resurgent violence, some of 

which has migrated from Iraq, weakening international resolve, 

which is shown, by the way, in polls that show only two countries 

in the world today favor keeping military forces in Afghanistan—

the U.S. and the U.K. This was a Pew poll during the summer. 

Two countries. The others, the majority, say, ‘‘Bring them out now.’’ 

67

Mounting regional challenges—Pakistan and Iran are two cases in 

point. A growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about the future direction of their country; they were euphoric 

at the beginning of this process. They are more concerned today 

that things are heading in the right direction. They are, by the 

way, still with us. They do not want us to be the next foreign occupier, like the British or the Soviets. They still want us there, but 

they are concerned. Things like civilian casualties are undermining 

that support. 

The United States and the international community have tried 

to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too few military forces, and 

insufficient economic aid, and without a clear and consistent, comprehensive strategy to fill the power vacuum outside Kabul, and to 

counter the combined challenges of a reconstituted Taliban. You all 

know the reconstitution of the al Qaeda and Taliban that was mentioned in the July National Intelligence Estimate, which said that 

the al Qaeda has reconstituted its attack capability against the 

homeland—and to counter the combined challenges that were presented by a runaway opium economy, which General Jones has referred to, and the stark poverty faced by Afghanistan. It is the second poorest country in the world. It is in desperate need. 

Success in Afghanistan remains a critical national security imperative for the U.S. and the international community. Achieving 

that success will require a sustained multiyear commitment from 

the United States and the willingness to make the war in Afghanistan and the rebuilding of that country a higher U.S. foreign policy 

priority. 

Allowing the Taliban to reestablish its influence in Afghanistan, 

as well as failure to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed 

state, would not only undermine the development of the country, 

it would constitute a major victory—a major victory—for al Qaeda 

in its global efforts to spread violence and extremism. 

Many of us feel that Afghanistan and Pakistan are truly the central front in the war on terrorism and there is no doubt in my mind 

that Osama bin Laden, who sees this as one great achievement, the 

defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, which we were working 

toward that end, as well, but he wants to see the defeat of the 

United States, the other great superpower, and he wants to see it 

done in Afghanistan. So, I think that this is high on our national 

security priority list. 

We conclude by saying, the light footprint of the United States 

and its allies in Afghanistan needs to be replaced with the right 

footprint, and that it obviously leads into our recommendations. 

We have 34 recommendations. I will not go through all of them 

with you right now. But, we do talk about establishing an eminent 

persons group that would develop a long-term coherent international strategy for Afghanistan and a strategic communications 

plan to garner strong public support. Right now, we’re losing the 

public relations battle there. The European countries, their citizens 

are saying, ‘‘Bring out the troops.’’ Something’s not working, in 

terms of convincing them of the need for them to be directly involved and that they have stakes here. So, an eminent persons 

group be established. 

68

We also believe that Iraq and Afghanistan should be decoupled. 

We have joined the two in our funding requests. We’ve joined the 

two in making the case for the war on terrorism. The fact that the 

two are coupled together in the minds of Europeans, an unpopular 

war in Iraq is dragging down what may be support for Afghanistan. So, we think that these ought to be decoupled. Both dealt 

with on their own merits—we did not make any recommendations 

about Iraq in this report, but start dealing with both on their own 

merits. 

We also believe that the U.S. Government needs to have a special envoy for Afghanistan, and have a higher level of authority. 

General Douglas E. Lute was appointed to work at the National 

Security Council (NSC) on Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that was 

a major task that probably was impossible to achieve without more 

authority and more visibility. So, we believe a special envoy is 

needed, including on the reconstruction and assistance side. 

So, those were the three overarching recommendations. We then 

had various recommendations, including an international coordinator. I, too, am very disappointed that Lord Paddy Ashdown did 

not take that. We have to get our act together in Afghanistan on 

the civilian side. We have over 40 countries, major organizations, 

U.N., European Union, NATO, scores of NGOs, all doing good 

work, but nobody coordinating anything. We owe it to President 

Karzai to get our act together to work with him to achieve these 

things. 

We also talk about security—we’ll go into that, I’m sure—including on the Afghan Security Forces. Governance and the rule of law. 

Corruption—Transparency International just issued their latest report. Afghanistan has gone down on their list. It is now one of the 

eighth most corrupt countries in the world. That’s worse than it 

was last year. 

General Karl Eikenberry, who I’m sure you have heard from with 

this committee, said that the greatest long-term threat to success 

in Afghanistan is not the resurgence of the Taliban, but the irretrievable loss of legitimacy of the Government of Afghanistan, and 

he cited corruption, justice, and law enforcement. 

Counternarcotics. General Jones has already discussed that. 

Economic development and reconstruction. So much more is 

needed to be done there, including on infrastructure, roads, electricity, power, water systems. There ought to be a construction 

surge in Afghanistan, and a surge that would provide jobs, because 

over a third of the Afghans are out of work. If we don’t address 

that, the Karzai government will fall further, in terms of public 

support. 

Let me just finish on Afghanistan and its neighbors. 

Pakistan. As I said, these two countries are joined at the hip. 

There will be no successful outcome for Afghanistan if Pakistan is 

not part of the solution. The future stability of both countries depends on the development of an effective strategy to counter and 

uproot the Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuary in Pakistan’s tribal border areas. Easier said than done. These areas have never been 

under the control of any government, including of Pakistan. It certainly is not going to be done by sending U.S. military forces, en 

masse, into those tribal areas. That would be a disaster for PakiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
69

stan, it would be a sinkhole for us. But, there are ways that we 

can work with the Pakistani government, there are ways and channels through which that can be done. 

We do see successes at times, including recently a missile strike 

that took out an al Qaeda leader, al-Libi. We can work with the 

Pakistani government on that. Admiral Mullen was recently meeting with the Pakistani chief of staff, General Kayani. There are 

channels to do this thing. But, it is not a military solution, by 

itself. Those areas need to be brought into the political mainstream 

in Pakistan. 

As the Pakistani Ambassador, Mahmud Durrani, said recently, 

what is needed in the tribal areas is a multipronged strategy that 

is military force, development, and empowerment. Using force 

alone, he said, is not the answer. I agree with that. 

So, Pakistan is key, and also is Iran. Now, I know the committee 

has heard testimony about covert interference by Iran in Afghanistan. That may well be taking place. But, I will tell you that my 

experience working in the so-called ‘‘Six Plus Two’’ process was 

that Iran was a helpful partner in that ‘‘Six Plus Two’’—six neighbors and the United States and Russia, that’s the ‘‘Six Plus Two,’’ 

led by Ambassador Brahimi. We were on the same page with them 

about our opposition to the Taliban, and strongly on the same page 

on narcotics and what that was doing. The Iranians were fighting 

the drug traders coming across their border. 

During the Bonn process, Ambassador Jim Dobbins has reported 

that they were very helpful in bringing about the removal of the 

Taliban and the installation of a new transition government under 

President Karzai. The Bonn process ended, and, a few weeks later, 

President Bush called it part of the ‘‘Axis of Evil.’’ They couldn’t 

understand why they didn’t get at least a pat on the back for being 

cooperative with us to stabilize Afghanistan. I think that that opportunity still exists. It’s gotten more difficult. But, I think that, 

and the report calls for, us to develop a strategy to engage Iran. 

Right now, we’re not talking to them in Afghanistan. I think that 

is not only losing an opportunity, but probably making things more 

difficult for us in achieving our goals in that country. 

So, I actually have in my written statement a few upbeat final 

notes, but I think I’ll just wait to throw those in at the appropriate 

time, because, as I said, I do see the situation in Afghanistan as 

dire, but it is still doable, if we can get, as I said, our act together. 

We need to do it sooner rather than later. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Inderfurth follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR KARL F. INDERFURTH

Chairman Levin, Ranking Member McCain, and members of the committee: 

Thank you very much for your invitation to discuss the security, political and economic challenges facing Afghanistan today and the recommendations contained in 

the recently released report of the Afghanistan Study Group (ASG) addressing those 

challenges. 

AFGHANISTAN STUDY GROUP

First, by way of introduction, a word about the ASG. 

The Center for the Study of the Presidency, led by former U.S. Ambassador to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) David Abshire, was closely engaged 

in the work of the 2006 Iraq Study Group. During the deliberations of that group, 

70

it became more and more evident that Afghanistan was at great risk of becoming 

‘‘the forgotten war.’’ It was also evident that one of the principal reasons for this 

was the war in Iraq. According to the study group (in its final report): ‘‘The huge 

focus of U.S. political, military and economic support on Iraq has necessarily diverted attention from Afghanistan.’’

I should add that Afghanistan is still being overshadowed by the Iraq war. As the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, told the House 

Armed Services Committee in December: ‘‘It is simply a matter of resources, of capacity. In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must.’’

Participants and witnesses before the Iraq Study Group also pointed to the danger 

of losing the war in Afghanistan unless a reassessment took place of the effort being 

undertaken by the United States, NATO, and the international community. In its 

final report, the study group reached this conclusion: ‘‘It is critical for the United 

States to provide additional political, economic, and military support for Afghanistan, including resources that might become available as combat forces are moved 

from Iraq.’’

In the spring of 2007, concerned about the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, Ambassador Abshire decided to establish a smaller scale study group. Co-chaired by 

Ambassador Thomas Pickering and General James Jones (ret.), it included 19 

former government officials and experts on Afghanistan and the region, including 

former Senator Charles Robb, Ambassador James Dobbins, and Dr. Barnett Rubin 

among others, including myself. The goal of the ASG was to provide policymakers 

with key recommendations that will contribute to revitalizing our efforts and rethinking our strategies for a successful long-term outcome in Afghanistan. 

OVERALL EVALUATION

Before highlighting the recommendations contained in the study group’s report, 

let me share with you this overall evaluation of the situation in Afghanistan, as provided by our co-chairs:

Afghanistan stands today at a crossroads. The progress achieved after 6 

years of international engagement is under serious threat from resurgent 

violence, weakening international resolve, mounting regional challenges 

and a growing lack of confidence on the part of the Afghan people about 

the future direction of their country. The United States and the international community have tried to win the struggle in Afghanistan with too 

few military forces and insufficient economic aid, and without a clear and 

consistent comprehensive strategy to fill the power vacuum outside Kabul 

and to counter the combined challenges of reconstituted Taliban and al 

Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a runaway opium economy, and 

the stark poverty faced by most Afghans. 

Success in Afghanistan remains a critical national security imperative for 

the United States and the international community. Achieving that success 

will require a sustained, multi-year commitment from the U.S. and a willingness to make the war in Afghanistan—and the rebuilding of that country—a higher U.S. foreign policy priority. Although the obstacles there remain substantial, the strategic consequences of failure in Afghanistan 

would be severe for long-term U.S. interests in the region and for security 

at home. Allowing the Taliban to re-establish its influence in Afghanistan, 

as well as failure to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed state, 

would not only undermine the development of the country, it would constitute a major victory for al Qaeda and its global efforts to spread violence 

and extremism. 

The ‘light footprint’ of the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan needs to be 

replaced with the ‘right footprint.’ It is time to re-double our efforts toward 

stabilizing Afghanistan and re-think our economic and military strategies 

to ensure that the level of our commitment is commensurate with the 

threat posed by possible failure in Afghanistan. 

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Attached to this written statement is a summary of the 34 recommendations contained in the report of the ASG (see Annex F). For more focused work, the group 

decided to center its analysis on several issues that its members identified as both 

urgent and crucial for future success, beginning with three overarching recommendations. 

First, the study group proposes to establish an Eminent Persons Group to develop 

a long-term, coherent international strategy for Afghanistan and a strategic communications plan to garner strong public support for that strategy. 

71

Second, the study group calls for decoupling Iraq and Afghanistan, including in 

the funding and budget process. Doing so would enable more coherence and focus 

on the increasingly important Afghanistan (and I would add Pakistan) issues, both 

for Congress and the executive branch as well as in dealing with other governments 

and international organizations. 

Third, the study group recommends that a Special Envoy for Afghanistan position 

be established within the U.S. Government, charged with coordinating and orchestrating all aspects of U.S. policies towards Afghanistan, including the direction of 

U.S assistance programs and relations with European and Asian counterparts and 

Afghan Government officials. 

The remainder of the study group’s recommendations fell into the following six 

specific subject areas:

On International Coordination: 

appoint a high-level coordinator with a U.N.-mandate to advise all parties 

to the mission in Afghanistan (over 40 countries, 3 major international organizations, and scores of other agencies and nongovernmental organizations) on needed changes to their policies, funding, and actions and also to 

ensure that all international assistance programs (now fragmented among 

62 donors) have a coordinated strategy that aims to bolster the central government’s authority throughout the country and is closely coordinated with 

the Afghan Government. As Secretary Rice has noted: ‘‘There are alot of 

cooks in the kitchen. We owe it to President Karzai to have an effective 

international coordinator.’’ In short, the international community must get 

its act together in Afghanistan. 

General Jones will address the need for greater international coordination on the military side. 

On Security: 

increase the number of NATO troops and military equipment in Afghanistan to the levels requested by the commanders and ensure that the increase in quantity of forces is matched with the quality of the forces that 

are needed for the mission they are sent to perform. Also, the study group 

welcomes the significant increases in congressional funding for the Afghan 

National Army and Afghan National Police as well as Defense Secretary 

Gates’ recent announcement that the U.S. will support the expansion of the 

army to 80,000, beyond its current goal of 70,000 by next year. A further 

expansion may be required, but any such consideration must take into account affordability, sustainability and the proper balance between police 

and military forces. 

On Governance and the Rule of Law: 

a coherent and resourced strategy to increase the reach, capacity, and the 

legitimacy of the Afghan Government must be a top priority. Lt. Gen. Karl 

Eikenberry, the former U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, has said 

the greatest long-term threat to success in Afghanistan is not the resurgence of the Taliban, but ‘‘the irretrievable loss of legitimacy of the Government of Afghanistan,’’ citing specifically corruption, justice, and law enforcement. Afghanistan has slipped sharply in Transparency International’s 

annual corruption index and now ranks among the worst eight countries in 

the world. 

On Counternarcotics: 

the study group cautions that proposals to increase eradication immediately—especially the use of herbicides whether sprayed from the air or 

the ground—could prove extremely dangerous for Afghanistan, further undermining support for the government of President Karzai and providing 

new recruits for the Taliban. Instead, the study group proposes much larger 

alternative livelihood programs and greater interdiction efforts, including 

the use of international military forces to assist the Afghan police to destroy heroin labs and the removal of high officials benefiting from the drug 

trade. 

On Economic Development and Reconstruction: 

rebuilding and development assistance must flow into a region immediately after it is cleared of Taliban presence. Infrastructure development—

especially outlays on roads, power and water systems—should be accelerated. These efforts should utilize the Afghan labor force and contractors as 

much as possible. In short, a construction ‘‘surge’’ is needed in Afghanistan, 

72

as are jobs. Very high unemployment in Afghanistan is a major factor in 

undermining the legitimacy of the Karzai government and adding to instability. 

On Afghanistan and its Neighbors: 

the study group makes several recommendations, especially about Pakistan.

Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked. It is clear there can be no successful outcome for Afghanistan if Pakistan is not a part of the solution. The future 

stability of both depends on the development of an effective strategy to counter and 

uproot the Taliban/al Qaeda sanctuary in Pakistan’s tribal border areas. Indeed Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that radical elements in these areas are now a threat to the survival of the Pakistan state. 

The study group recommends that the U.S. and its allies develop a regional plan 

to effectively target the risks coming out of the border region area with Pakistan, 

involving the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other regional powers and 

including better combined intelligence, operations and non-military efforts. 

Countering cross border infiltration is critical. The Trilateral Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO Military Commission is an important mechanism in this regard. So is 

the strengthening of the U.S. military presence along the Afghan side of the border, 

which the latest U.S. marine contingent arriving in April will assist. Washington 

also needs to work more closely with Pakistan in joint counterterrorism operations 

that can bring U.S. resources (including intelligence) and military assets to bear in 

the borders areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That possibility exists, if pursued 

in appropriate channels. JSC Chairman Mullen’s recent visit to Islamabad to meet 

with his counterpart, Army chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, was the right step in this regard. The January 31 missile strike in North Waziristan that killed senior al Qaeda 

operative Abu Laith al-Libi is an example of the right kind of counterterrorism operation. 

But the study group cautions that a large-scale U.S. military intervention in Pakistan’s tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and for U.S. interests 

and would not provide a lasting solution to the problem. Rather than trying to insert U.S. influence directly into the region, Washington should strongly encourage 

systemic political and economic effort that incorporates the Federally-Administered 

Tribal Areas into the administrative, legal and political systems of Pakistan. This 

involves improving overall governance and law and order in the region as well as 

facilitating economic development. As Pakistan’s Ambassador, Mahmud Duranni, 

says, what is needed in the tribal areas is a ‘‘multi pronged strategy. That is, military force, development and empowerment of the people. Using force alone is not 

the answer.’’

In addition to pursuing these steps with Pakistan, the study group recommends 

that the U.S. develop a strategy toward Iran—Afghanistan’s other key neighbor—

that includes the possibility of resuming discussions with Iran to engender greater 

cooperation to help stabilize Afghanistan, beginning with the issue of counter-narcotics where common ground already exists. 

The present U.S stance of not speaking with Teheran about Afghanistan risks increasing the likelihood that Iran will step up its covert interference as a way of undermining U.S. interests and the international effort in Afghanistan. 

CLOSING REMARKS

In closing, let me end on a more upbeat note. As I mentioned at the beginning 

of my testimony, the genesis for the ASG was the growing concern that Afghanistan 

was becoming ‘‘the forgotten war’’ and that it had been pushed to the side by the 

requirements of the war in Iraq. In recent months, however, there are some encouraging signs that the U.S. and its international partners in Afghanistan have recognized the hard truth that defeat in Afghanistan is a possibility—and are beginning 

to rethink and adjust strategy and resources accordingly. 

Several world leaders have recently traveled to Kabul to meet with President 

Karzai and their national contingents in the country, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (who said U.K. troops will have to remain in Afghanistan for 

more than a decade), French President Nicolas Sarkozy (the first French head of 

state to travel to Afghanistan), newly elected Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd 

(who announced his country will stay for the ‘‘long haul’’), and Italy’s Prime Minister Romano Prodi (his first visit to Afghanistan). There was also a high level international donors conference on Afghan reconstruction in Tokyo. 

73

Just last week Secretary Rice and British Foreign Secretary Miliband traveled to 

Kandahar. Secretary Gates was in Vilnius to meet with his NATO counterparts and 

gave a major address on Afghanistan in Munich. All of these visits and meetings 

are pointing toward the critical NATO summit that will be held in early April in 

Bucharest, where the alliance will have the opportunity to demonstrate the strength 

of its resolve and its long-term commitment to a stable and secure Afghanistan. 

Hopefully the reports you have before you today by the ASG (‘‘Revitalizing Our Efforts—Rethinking Our Strategies’’) and the Atlantic Council (‘‘Saving Afghanistan: 

An Appeal and Plan for Urgent Action’’) will contribute to U.S. and NATO deliberations. 

So, working closely with the Afghan Government and its people, I am optimistic 

we can succeed in Afghanistan. In many respects the situation there is dire, but still 

doable, and terribly important. As the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, 

correctly points out: ‘‘If we can get it right in the Hindu Kush, we will also be 

stronger the next time we are called to defend our security and values so far from 

home.’’

Chairman LEVIN. Ambassador, thank you. 

Here’s the situation now. We have about 5 minutes left, I believe, 

plus the extra 5 in the first vote, then there’s apparently a second 

vote immediately thereafter. I think everybody—hopefully we can 

continue this without interruption, but I’m not sure we can. It’s 

going to depend on everybody’s speed and how quickly people can 

move and their own schedules and everything else. 

Let’s start with a 5-minute round. I’ll go 5 minutes, and then, if 

anyone’s here, I will turn it over immediately to them. 

Let me start with a question to both of you. Your reports are 

pretty sobering. The Study Group says that the efforts to stabilize 

Afghanistan were faltering. Atlantic Council says NATO is not winning. The ASG says that the antigovernment insurgency has grown 

considerably over the last 2 years. Is it safe to say that neither one 

of you believes that the Taliban and al Qaeda and their allies are 

on the run in Afghanistan? Is that fair? Ambassador, do you believe that the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their allies are on the run in 

Afghanistan? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Today, no, they’re not on the run. 

They were on the run. There was a moment, soon after the U.S. 

military action after September 11, and into the Tora Bora area. 

But, around 2003, you can start to see a shift, in terms of reconstituting the Taliban, including in these tribal areas of Pakistan. 

They basically dispersed. They were not going to take on the U.S. 

military. They dispersed, and they basically said—their leaders 

said, ‘‘We’ll be in touch. Stay around. We’ll be in touch.’’ They went 

to various places, some in Afghanistan, some in Pakistan—and 

they have reconstituted. They have reconstituted, in part, because 

they have seen the difficulties of the Karzai government; in part, 

because they have gotten foreign assistance, and there has been a 

migration of things from Iraq into Afghanistan that we never saw 

before. Even during the Soviet times, you didn’t see improvised explosive devices, you didn’t see assassinations, you didn’t see suicide 

bombers. All this is new to Afghanistan, as it is becoming new to 

Pakistan. 

So, I do not believe they are on the run. 

Chairman LEVIN. General? 

General JONES. Sir, I would agree with that. I think there are 

some contributing factors. One is that there are safe havens that 

they can withdraw to. Two is, as I mentioned, the economic viability of the narcotics trade, I think, fuels at least part of the insurVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
74

gency. So, they’re well paid. I think they have the ability to pay 

their forces, perhaps, competitive wages with the government’s 

wages. Three is the fact that the Government of Afghanistan has 

not been able to materially increase its span of control over what 

it was a couple of years ago. So, it’s possible to win every single 

skirmish, as we have been doing, and still lose the war, as we’ve 

learned in the past. 

Chairman LEVIN. I thought the President’s statement the other 

day, that the Taliban, al Qaeda, and their allies are on the run in 

Afghanistan, was just rose-colored glasses to an extreme. 

Let me ask you a question about the need to do a lot of the work 

in the villages. There’s a national solidarity program in Afghanistan, and one of the efforts there was their provision of $400 million in payments that were disbursed to 16,000 community development councils in Afghanistan. These payments, these funds, have 

financed over 30,000 community development subprojects, which 

have improved access to markets and infrastructure and services. 

The program has drawn resources from the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which is administered by the World Bank. 

By distributing funds directly to districts at the lowest level, by bypassing, in other words, the central and provincial governments, 

the solidarity program has, according to the information we have, 

significantly reduced corruption and misappropriation, and it 

avoids that layering of bureaucracies, as well. 

This morning, we asked about this. This morning, it was, I believe, Secretary Boucher who gave a very strong statement of support for that program. Are either of you familiar with that program, and can you comment on it? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I’m not familiar, directly, with that 

program. I’ve read testimony, which that has been called attention 

to. I have no doubt at all we have some programs that are working 

in Afghanistan. 

Chairman LEVIN. You’re not familiar, though, with that specifically? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. No, I’m not familiar with that, and it 

could be taking place in these areas. The south is where the security problems are. 

Chairman LEVIN. All right. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. That’s where it’s difficult to do programs. But, we’re doing a lot of useful programs in other parts of 

the country. 

Chairman LEVIN. General? 

General JONES. I’m not familiar with the specifics of that program, but I do believe that there is something that I observed, in 

the few years that I was there, that, where you have a governor 

of a province that is not corrupt, where you have a police chief who 

is not corrupt, and you have the presence of the Afghan army and 

PRTs, and you have direct flow of assistance funds, things turn 

around very quickly. I agree with the Ambassador, that the overwhelming mentality of the people is to want to live in a democracy 

and live in freedom. 

Chairman LEVIN. The ability of 16,000 local community development councils in Afghanistan to directly fund these small projects, 

it seems to me—and, more importantly, the people who know, inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
75

cluding Secretary Boucher this morning—it really gives us an opportunity to cut through layers of bureaucracy, as well as corruption. By the way, according to Secretary Boucher this morning, the 

request of the administration in the supplemental is for $50 million 

instead of the $10 million last year. Those are numbers—if my 

memory is correct—which means there would be a significant increase in that. What I’m going to do for both of you, just to get your 

reactions, even though I know your reports are filed, I’d like to 

send you the information on that program to get your reaction to 

it. 

Now we’re going to have to recess, or I’m going to miss a vote, 

and there’s no one else here to pick up the gavel. So, hopefully 

within 10 minutes, we will resume. 

Thank you for your patience. [Recess.] 

Our apologies, everybody. Both of you have been around the Hill 

long enough to know that these things happen too regularly, but—

this afternoon was one of them. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General Jones and Ambassador Inderfurth, thank you, not only 

for your very cogent and, I think, accurate testimony, but for your 

devotion and service to the country. So, thanks very much. 

One issue I’d like to raise. I was here this morning, but I had 

to leave before I asked questions, and I kept hearing all the witnesses refer to, as sort of a metric or a benchmark for success, the 

fact that that we are prevailing in all of our tactical engagements. 

General Jones, I just wonder, your comments about whether, 

frankly, that’s encouraging, but I don’t think that tells us much 

about the ultimate struggle, since it’s more political than tactical. 

Your comments on that? 

General JONES. I think that we should be careful to celebrate 

tactics over strategy. In the Financial Times yesterday, Lord 

Ashdown has an article about what he would have done, and he 

starts out with a fairly well-known quote by Sun Tzu, who said 

that, ‘‘Strategy without tactics is the slow road to defeat, but tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.’’ Certainly in one 

of my lessons from Vietnam was the fact that you could win all of 

your tactical engagements and still not prevail. So I’d be very careful about signing up to that ideology as a benchmark for success. 

Senator REED. Mr. Ambassador, further comments or do you concur? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I totally concur. Coincidentally, 2 

weeks ago I was in Hanoi, my first trip to Vietnam, and it was on 

the 40th anniversary of the Tet Offensive. There were a few articles there. Of course, the Vietnamese have turned the page, they 

want Americans back there to do business. They like us. But, it did 

raise the question of a military defeat, but a propaganda victory. 

So, the Taliban—they can suffer losses, they can’t have a set battle with the forces there, but they can create a climate of insecurity 

and fear in the country that will stop reconstruction in the south. 

Recently, there was the bombing of the Serena Hotel in Kabul. 

This was an oasis of western secure life. Everybody went to the 

Serena, and suicide bombers got in there. 

76

So, the psychological dimension of this is important to deal with 

and to counter. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

General Jones and Mr. Ambassador, your report talks about integrating counternarcotics and counterinsurgency operations using 

international military forces to assist Afghan National Police (ANP) 

in the interdiction, including supporting the ANP in its effort to destroy heroin labs. We’re told that there’s a reluctance by Central 

Command to have an explicit counterdrug mission, which would 

seem to undercut this explicit recognition that these two missions 

are both necessary and should be explicitly embraced. Again, can 

you comment on that, sir? 

General JONES. Sir, it’s not just the Central Command. There is 

a reluctance, in most militaries, to take on drug operations, preferring to leave it up to equivalents of drug enforcement administrations and officials and capabilities that are specifically suited for 

that challenge. 

In Afghanistan, the challenge is clearly there. The good news 

about Afghanistan is, you can see the size of the problem every 

year. All you have to do is go up in a helicopter at the right time, 

and you can see it. There’s no jungle. Everybody knows where it 

is, and you can really measure it with great accuracy. 

I think that whatever the solution is, it has to have an Afghan 

face to it. I think the international community has to figure out 

ways to support it. NATO does not have that mandate. I was on 

the receiving end of what NATO would and would not do. We were 

able to have a passive role—that is to say, we could provide security for forces that were going in to do a counterdrug operation—

but we would not actively send NATO troops to participate in it. 

So, it’s fairly consistent among the militaries that that is not 

part of the mission. Somebody’s going to have to do it. 

Senator REED. It would seem to me, following up, that these laboratories are owned and operated by the traffickers, the real bad 

guys, and there would seem to be less political objection to knocking those out than trying to eradicate the poppy fields, et cetera. 

So, it might be—they’ll quickly compensate for that, but that might 

be the most logical target, if you wanted to ramp up the pressure. 

Is that sensible, in your regard? 

General JONES. I think that’s certainly part of it. I’d like to underscore a point made by the Ambassador, that this is a regional 

problem, and, with regard to narcotics, every country that touches 

Afghanistan is concerned about the trafficking. It would seem to 

me that, at least on that score, we can come to some agreements 

with the neighbors in the region, that we should do more, comprehensively, to halt the flow of drugs across the borders. There 

are only so many crossings. More specifically, since 90 percent of 

the crop is destined for Europe, and we know the routes through 

the Black Sea and how it gets there, it seems to me a more coordinated international outcry in response would be warranted, as well. 

Senator REED. Let me shift to the regional aspects of, specifically, Pakistan, and ask you a question, General Jones, but feel 

free to elaborate on just your impressions about Pakistan, and 

then, Mr. Ambassador, your comments, too. We are effectively denied a physical presence in these tribal areas, American military 

77

personnel. Mr. Ambassador, you made the point very strongly that 

that might even be counterproductive. But, with technology, particularly UAVs, Predators, platforms that can pick up signals and 

that are a least not-so-overt presence, would seem to be the way 

to go, but there’s a real concern, I think, given the demands in Iraq 

for force protection. Are there sufficient platforms available in the 

region—Pakistan, Afghanistan? Or, another way to say it is, if we 

surge there, with the ISR, UAVs, et cetera, could that give us an 

advantage now that we don’t have? 

General JONES. Senator, I’d have to defer to Admiral Fallon at 

CENTCOM for that. I don’t think NATO has the kind of capacity 

there to go beyond or, use that kind of technology to go beyond 

what it’s capable of doing today, though. It has mostly been focused 

on Afghanistan, itself. 

Senator REED. Mr. Ambassador, that question, and also any 

other elaboration about Pakistan that you’d like to make. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Senator, I think that the question of 

any U.S. presence in those tribal areas—right now, the—I hate to 

keep talking about polls, but it does give you something to get your 

head around—the latest poll of favorable/unfavorable views of the 

United States in Pakistan is 16 percent favorable; 69 percent—call 

it 70 percent—unfavorable. I guarantee you, if those polls were 

taken in the tribal areas, it wouldn’t even go to 16 percent. 

So, if we have a military presence there, any type of U.S. presence there, I’d suggest that they would quickly grow a beard and 

dress in the native garb, and do their work quietly, because they 

will only generate a reaction of these tribes that have resisted any 

kind of authority, including from Islamabad, as well. But, that 

doesn’t mean that there aren’t opportunities to have some discreet 

forces involved there. Obviously, I’m not privy to any kind of classified information, so I can’t say what we’re doing there and what 

we’re not, but I do know that there have been missile strikes there, 

so we’re doing something, and I think that we need to go in that 

direction. 

But, there are other mechanisms to deal with this. There is a 

Trilateral Commission—Afghanistan, Pakistan, and NATO—that 

has been meeting to try to get these two countries to work with 

NATO in a cooperative way to try to deal with the cross-border 

interdiction. They are getting better at this. Some of our military 

commanders have been commending this. 

It’s also intelligence-sharing. Intelligence-sharing is very important, not only on this question of the interdiction across border, but 

also on the narcotics side. Even if our forces do not want to become 

actively engaged in counternarcotics operations, we can sure be 

sharing intelligence to let the ANP know what we have found on 

a timely basis. 

So, I think that there is a lot that can be done there, but, again, 

if we have a heavy hand there, I think we’re only going to make 

our goals, objectives that much more distant to achieve. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Reed. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

78

Forgive us, gentlemen, for departing for the vote, but that’s a 

necessary part of life. 

I must just ask a question and go upstairs; I’m on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, right above here. We have the Director of National Intelligence. 

But, I want to return to this subject that I delved into deeply this 

morning with our first panel, and that is to follow-on what Senator 

Reed was talking about—the drug problem. What haunts me is 

that we had Secretary Gates before us here a few days ago, I asked 

him directly—with two marine battalions going on, that’s a consequence of the inability of NATO to meet its requirements—and 

his answer was very cryptic and to the point, ‘‘Yes, they’re going, 

because the other countries won’t step up to their prior commitments or the need for additional forces.’’ What do we tell the wives 

and the families of these marines as they go over there, that this 

drug money is buying the arms that’ll be used against them? 

As much as you’ve both expressed here the reluctance of the military to take on the narcotics, it’s almost in the realm of force protection to take it on, to help dry up this source of income, which 

is going to the Taliban and being recycled into weaponry and 

brought to bear against these young men and women going over in 

these two battalions, and the ones that are there now. 

I just find it difficult how we’re doing our responsibility here in 

Congress by sending these battalions over, at the same time we’re 

not doing something—and I don’t know what it is that we could 

do—we do not wish to appear foolish or rash; the executive branch 

has really got the responsibility, not the legislative branch—but to 

be doing everything we possibly can to begin to energize some activity against this drug trade. 

This morning it was explained to us, it was a 30-some-percent increase last year; this year, the projection is considerably less, but, 

nevertheless, a measure of increase in the drug trade. So, I just say 

we have to do something. I’ve gone through your reports. This is 

my second time to have the privilege to be with you on these reports. You do address the various point plans and so forth. But, is 

there a sledgehammer out here that somebody could use? I’d be 

willing to take the responsibility for it in this institution. 

General JONES. Sir, I’ve said all along that I think it’s a question 

of a comprehensive strategy that nations can agree on, but that absolutely has to have an Afghan face to it. I believe it would be a 

sign of leadership on the part of President Karzai if he launched 

a national campaign that would be buttressed by judicial reform 

and the establishment of a police force that can do its job, supported by the international community. I think it is so critical to 

his own success as a leader, that even if he has to use his own 

fledgling army to take this on to make sure that it works, that he 

should do that. But, it has to be competitive. I don’t think there’s 

one solution to this. 

The international community can help by taking measures, such 

as providing alternate means of livelihood, encouraging farmers not 

to grow the crop, providing economic support, where necessary. 

But, the harder part of the fight, I think, in order to avoid chaos, 

has to be done by the Afghans themselves, and it’s going to have 

to be done over time. It was a ramp-up that took several years, and 

79

it’s going to be several years to come down. You have to be careful 

that you don’t tilt it too much in, because you could create conditions of a civil war, when food stocks dry up and the little economy 

that they have just disappears. 

But, I think it’s doable. It takes that strong international leader 

to be able to convene the international community, the drug enforcement agencies from many nations, the Afghan statement of 

purpose that this is definitely with the highest national priority, 

and the repair work that has to be done and the supporting infrastructure that are essential, the judicial system and the police. I 

think President Karzai would do himself a lot of good if he did that 

internally in his country and stayed on it. 

Senator WARNER. Ambassador Inderfurth, do you care to comment? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I would, Senator Warner. 

I think that the drug problem may be more susceptible to a agricultural solution than a military solution. There is not a sledgehammer. I wish there were. 

We’ve been talking about our two reports from The Atlantic 

Council and the ASG. There was a third report that was released 

at the same time by the National Defense University. 

Senator WARNER. Yes. Mr. Ullman? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Exactly. 

Senator WARNER. Yes. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Harlan Ullman—which is titled ‘‘Winning the Invisible War: An Agricultural Pilot Plan for Afghanistan.’’ I’d like to read you the one paragraph that they say, about 

the issue of eradication and what to do. They say, ‘‘The stark alternative of elimination and eradication of poppy growth will backfire. 

Destruction of poppies throughout the country, even if sustainable, 

would create massive economic disruption and hardship and, no 

doubt, recruit many more volunteers for the insurgency,’’ meaning 

the Taliban. Then they say, ‘‘As we suggest, a pilot program for 

licit—licit—legal sales of poppies, or, indeed, temporary and massive increases in payments to farmers for cultivating nonnarcotics 

crops, in addition to other counternarcotic measures, may be the 

only way to prevent expanding opium production.’’ We may have to 

buy them out. That’s not something that we like the idea of doing. 

Senator WARNER. I think it would be relatively inexpensive to 

pay the farmer. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. It would be relatively inexpensive. 

Senator WARNER. He gets a very small amount of this. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. The farmers don’t get anything. It’s 

the drug dealers that get the money. 

Senator WARNER. Sure. That’s where the money is. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. So, it may be that we have to think 

out of the box. I know that there’s been a lot of studies about licit 

sales and, is that going to encourage others to go into poppy production? But, right now the current strategy is not working, and 

using the sledgehammer of aerial spraying with herbicides, every 

independent report I’ve seen says it will backfire. 

Senator WARNER. Chaos. That would bring me to my last observation point. I remember Charlie Wilson very well. I was on the Intelligence Committee at that time, and somewhat involved in the 

80

stinger decisions that we made here. Matter of fact, I was deeply 

involved in. Charlie Wilson urged me to go several times. I’m not 

going to put it in the record why, but I was a relatively young Senator, and I wasn’t going to risk my career on some of his operations, which were unrelated to the main mission. So much for my 

good friend Charlie, and I really like him. 

But, in the context of doing that work way back then, I undertook my own study of the history of Afghanistan, and one of the 

most remarkable chapters is in the late 1800s, when the British 

army were there for, I think, a period of about 15 years, and they 

suffered enormous losses. 

I say to myself, they failed in the 1800s to bring about stability 

in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union poured enormous sums of money 

in, and they failed. What is it that we have as an opportunity to 

fail, in the wake of those two historical chapters of absolute failure? 

General JONES. Senator, for my money, it’s the ability that we 

bring—not just the United States, but the international community—potentially, if done correctly, to make people’s lives better in 

the villages and to offer them an alternative to a return to the draconian days of the Taliban. 

This isn’t a scientific observation, but, in my 40 years in uniform, 

I’ve been to Vietnam, I’ve worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I’ve 

worked in northern Iraq, and I’ve been to Afghanistan, and I’m always amazed at—when I go into these missions, and I see the horrific violence that’s going on, the ethnic cleansing of the Bosnias, 

the horror of the brutality of Saddam Hussein against the Kurds, 

and so on and so forth. But, even in Bosnia, where I thought, in 

1993–1994 when I was there, regularly and deeply involved in 

what was going on, I thought to myself, there is no way that these 

people are ever going to live side by side again, given all that’s 

going on. Yet, they do. They do. 

My lesson here is that, when you go through these periods—we’ll 

call them civil wars, if you want, or insurgencies. Eventually, people tire themselves out. They just go through a certain phase, and 

they get to the end of it, and they’re exhausted. They need some 

outside help to say, ‘‘Okay, here’s a better way.’’ 

My sense of the Afghan people, in my 31⁄2 years of going all over 

the country, is that they are tired of the long history of fighting, 

and they want an alternative. That was clearly demonstrated in 

the elections. The national elections and the parliamentary elections—hundreds of thousands of voters turned out, and some great 

stories about incredible treks across the mountains to get to a polling station. Things that would warm the heart of anybody who 

loves democracy and freedom. They voted with the expectation that 

their lives are going to be changed for the better. 

For a brief while, there was that moment in time when the momentum seemed to be rapidly going that way, and then, because 

of the failure to sustain the momentum, and, I think, the failure 

of the international community to find the leadership that could 

harmonize and make more cohesive the effort to be felt in the four 

or five main areas, including governmental reform and the assistance that’s required to help that government succeed, and the 

metrics that that government should be meeting, have just simply 

81

not been met in the critical areas. So as a result, the momentum 

has stalled, and we could be in the danger of backsliding. I think 

that’s what the Ambassador and I are concerned about. 

The fact that these three studies really do say the same thing, 

but in different ways, and most people that you talk to behind the 

scenes, even at NATO, they generally agree with that, but nobody 

has figured out what to do with it. That’s why I’m so concerned 

that the turndown of Paddy Ashdown——

Senator WARNER. He’s going to take on the drug portfolio. 

General JONES. He would have been the senior coordinator of the 

international effort—economic, judicial, social, all the nonmilitary 

missions, which I would think would have included the narcotics 

business. 

Senator WARNER. That’s maybe one of the reasons they turned 

him down, then. 

General JONES. Whatever the reason, I think it was a big mistake, and I hope we can find somebody of that stature to take his 

place. This time I hope that the international community will be 

more insistent, to make sure that the government doesn’t turn him 

down. 

Senator WARNER. Yes. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I think that he was turned down, in 

part, because of that British Colonial history that you referred to. 

Senator WARNER. Yes. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. They still have recollections of that. It 

just appeared for Karzai’s own domestic reasons. To have a British 

proconsul come in, as they were describing, probably was more 

than he could do. I think it was a mistake that he turned it down. 

Can I just mention, in terms of your discussion——

Chairman LEVIN. We’ll have to make it short, if you would, because we’re running way over on time. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Very quickly. The history of Afghanistan has to be understood—the British and then the Soviets. But, 

we are not the successors to those two. The successor to the British 

and the Soviets is al Qaeda and Taliban. They hijacked the country. We are seen as going in to assist the Afghan people so that 

they won’t return to those days. So, that’s the progression. 

General JONES. That’s a good point. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Therefore, we are still wanted there. 

We’re not seen as occupiers. But, we have to be very careful that 

we do things with them, so that we don’t become—I mentioned civilian casualties—that, over time, we don’t lose their support, because if we do, then that is time to leave. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you. I have to go upstairs. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. Enormously valuable 

and helpful hearing. 

Just to relate some of the issues that we heard earlier today to 

some of the things that you’ve said. One, Secretary Shinn told the 

committee that our policy is sound and that implementation is the 

question. In terms of our ability to clear areas of insurgents, he 

said we’re winning, but it’s happening slowly and painfully. This is 

82

at odds, obviously, with—the Afghan Study Group and The Atlantic 

Council suggest otherwise. What is your opinion? Is there convincing evidence, as the Secretary suggests, that we’re winning, 

even if slowly and painfully? 

General JONES. I think it depends on how you categorize the 

term ‘‘winning.’’ If clearing an area of the Taliban, which I’m sure 

we can do, doesn’t result in some stability and some security and 

some reconstruction that accompanies that clearing in a way that 

either Afghan forces or Afghan officials or international forces can 

hold the area, then it’s—we’re just going to keep on going around 

in that circumstance. 

I don’t think that the military alone is going to win this, if it’s 

not accompanied by reconstruction and a change in the security 

that most Afghan families experience in the countryside. 

Senator KENNEDY. On this, Secretary Boucher said that to stabilize Afghanistan we need to provide the security, justice, economic opportunity, good governance. He said we are doing what 

works, and getting the job done. So, it appears that his reference 

are to those other items: economic opportunity, governance, and the 

security. The Atlantic Council points out that the civil sector reform is in serious trouble. I’m just trying to figure out where you 

all——

General JONES. I think there are a lot of individual things that 

are going on well. One of the things that characterizes the international effort—and this, Senator, is not necessarily a U.S. problem, this is a—kind of—how the whole thing is set up—most countries, when they arrive in Afghanistan, arrive with a fixed contribution that they’re going to make, and they decide that, largely, 

on a national basis, ‘‘We’re going to’’—a country is going to do a 

PRT or they’re going to a certain project. I think that’s all very 

helpful. In the aggregate, does it make change, does it move things 

generally in the direction? Yes. But, on the big issues of tackling 

what is fundamentally keeping the country from moving in the 

right direction—narcotics, judicial reform, adequate police and security, and more focus in the international effort—I don’t see that 

happening. 

So, I would agree with what the witnesses talked about, in terms 

of the words they used, but I don’t think they can make the case—

I don’t think the case can be made that, on the four or five big 

things that have to be done, that the international community is 

doing enough. 

Senator KENNEDY. Ambassador? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Senator, Richard Boucher has the job 

I once had. I know, coming up on the Hill, that you want to present 

your best case. I think that a great deal of what’s being said—as 

I mentioned, there are other parts of Afghanistan where there are 

some important things taking place, but, because this is not a coherent strategy, because we do not have a Paddy Ashdown, someone to pull this together, a lot of these efforts are not going well. 

They need greater coordination, they need more attention. 

If you take, for instance, the Afghan National Army, there’s no 

question that this is a bright spot on the security front for Afghanistan. They’re working up towards a 70,000-person limit. Secretary 

Rumsfeld, when he was in office, wanted to go down from that tarVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
83

get to 50,000. Fortunately, that got turned around. Now, Secretary 

Gates has said up to 80,000. That’s a good step in the right direction. But the Afghan Defense Minister says they may need 150,000. 

If they need more, who’s going to pay for them? The Afghan Government cannot pay their Afghan army personnel, so sustainability, affordability is going to have to be taken into account. 

So, yes, we can paint a good picture of increases in the Afghan 

National Army capacity, numbers, training, putting more of an Afghan face on operations, but then you ask, ‘‘But how far is that 

going to go, and who’s going to pay for it, and are we going to have 

the resources to do it?’’ So, you have to take it to the next step. 

Senator KENNEDY. Let me just finally ask you about the contributions of these other countries, the other NATO countries. We 

went through the polls, the Pew Foundation polls of European 

countries, and—how are we going to—and, Secretary Gates talked 

about how these countries are getting confused, or at least he expressed some opinion that there may be some confusion. Part of the 

reason may be because some of these countries are confused between Iraq and Afghanistan. I mentioned it’s the issue of casualties, as well. But, what’s your own assessment about—one, how do 

you reverse that? How do you change that? What’s your sense as 

a former NATO commander, about what the trend line is going to 

be? What are we facing down there, and how can it be altered and 

shifted and changed? What recommendations do you have to do it? 

General JONES. Sir, Secretary Gates, at the Munich Security 

Conference last weekend, gave really, I think, a very sobering and 

accurate speech, where he basically characterized the fact that in 

the United States an attack on the World Trade Center was a defining moment akin to Pearl Harbor; in Europe, when you have a 

similar event—for instance, the attack in Madrid on the train system—Europeans react with saying, ‘‘I sure hope the Spanish can 

solve that problem.’’ It’s not seen as an attack against all. Therefore, the degree of importance that we’ve put to this battle against 

ideologies and—sponsored by terrorism—assumes a different metric. 

In 2002, the alliance at the Prague summit decided that they 

were going to expand the alliance by seven nations, going from 19 

to 26, that gentleman’s agreement was that 2 percent of the GDP 

would be a floor for national investment for all nations in security. 

In 2008, we now have 26 members, the average investment in national security in the alliance is about 1.7 percent. So, we’ve actually lost ground. 

I think the alliance is going to have to decide whether it’s going 

to continue to expand and add new members and celebrate the expansion of the alliance, and the tremendous potential the alliance 

has, measured against an equally offsetting will to resource the 

missions that they take on. 

This is a fundamental moment in time for the alliance to develop 

a new strategic vision for the 21st century that takes into account 

the asymmetric nature of the world, and we understand that the 

conventional threats of the 20th century have faded into the rearview mirror of history, only to be replaced by these asymmetric 

threats that we’re fighting. 

84

So, I don’t know how we turn that corner. I know that’s a corner 

that has to be turned, and I hope that the summit in Bucharest 

that’s coming up in April will address some of that. I think Afghanistan will clearly be on the table. But, we definitely have a lot of 

work to do—the family of nations—to convince our publics, mostly 

European, that this struggle is really very important, and it’s important to them. So far, I don’t think we’ve made the case in an 

effective way. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. More has to be done to make that 

case, and I think that you’re seeing some of the leaders of Europe 

beginning to recognize that they have to do that. Gordon Brown, 

the Prime Minister, has traveled to Kabul. President Sarkozy has 

traveled there, the first time a French president has been there—

this is in December; the new Prime Minister of Australia, and the 

Italian Prime Minister Prodi, their first visits. There is more attention. Right now, it’s fair to say that Afghanistan is not the forgotten war. People are talking about it, it is front and center—hearings such as these, reports being written. 

But, there’s no question that something has to be done to deal 

with the millstone that Iraq is on Afghanistan, in terms of public 

perceptions, in terms of funding, in terms of dealing with Afghanistan on its own merits. That’s why the ASG calls for a delinking 

of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a recommitment to the importance of 

this for the alliance. 

There was a great quote that I used in my testimony from Victoria Nuland, our very capable ambassador to Brussels, to NATO. 

She said that, ‘‘If we can get it right in the Hindu Kush, we will 

also be stronger the next time we are called to defend our security 

and values so far away from home.’’ Well, we are going to be called 

far away from home again, so we’d best get this one right so that 

we can demonstrate that we are competent and able to defend our 

values in this fashion. If we can’t do it with a country that wants 

us and the international community is with us and NATO is beside 

us, where can we do it? 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Dole. 

Senator DOLE. Yes. General Jones, I think the most compelling 

way to convey the gravity of the situation in Afghanistan is to 

speak, not only in terms of what must be done, but what are the 

implications if we fail to commit sufficient personnel or resources 

in a unified manner to Afghanistan. I believe, while I was over voting, this did come up. But, let me ask you to be explicit and to spell 

out, if you would, what are the implications of failure, for the 

United States, for the region, and for our European allies? If we 

could spell that out and be specific. 

General JONES. Senator, thank you. On page 5 of our report, 

there is a paragraph called ‘‘The Consequences of Failure,’’ but I’ll 

just sum it up very briefly. 

I think that, given the enormous investment of the global international community in the institutions that are represented on the 

ground—the United Nations, NATO, European Union, the G8, the 

banking institutions—everything that we need to succeed in AfVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
85

ghanistan is represented in Kabul. If, in fact, we are not successful, 

then I think that will be a signal victory for the ideology that we’re 

fighting—the radical fundamentalism—and it will only mean that 

we will have to redouble our efforts in other areas, because this 

will be a signal victory, and I don’t think there’s—that we can—

that the international community can stand and let that happen—

aside from the regional impacts of, perhaps, even a spread beyond 

Afghanistan and Pakistan. So, I think the consequences are fairly 

serious. I think they’re serious for the United States, as the most 

powerful nation on Earth. To absorb even a perceived failure would 

have longstanding consequences, whether it’s here or in Iraq. 

Senator DOLE. Mr. Ambassador, anything you’d want to add to 

that? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Senator, I cannot improve on that 

statement. I think those are exactly the right stakes that are involved. 

Senator DOLE. General Jones, let me ask you about this. We understand that there are over 40 countries and over 300 NGOs 

working in Afghanistan, as we’ve heard today, without any means 

of effectively coordinating among their actions. This is the most 

compelling argument that I’ve heard for structural and institutional change within our own government in the area of interagency reform. In your professional opinion, I’d like to hear from 

both of you what you feel are the greatest obstacles, within our 

own departments and agencies, to bringing about needed reforms. 

General JONES. I think the very concept of what constitutes national security in the 21st century is undergoing dramatic change. 

In the 20 century, it was fairly clear. National security threats 

were handled by the Department of Defense (DOD), NSC, and part 

of the State Department. In the 21st century, I think all elements 

of the interagency have to be brought together in a much more cohesive way to make the changes required. There is in Afghanistan, 

for example, a strong element that argues for judicial reform, that 

argues for more policemen, that argues for a successful war on 

drugs. These are not traditional military tasks. 

Now, if it’s the national will, we can restructure our militaries 

to do whatever the country wants, but this is not the way things 

are supposed to play out. 

So, I think, within the interagency, we need to have much more 

agility, we need to be able to take on more issues, more rapidly, 

as they develop around the world, because the world in the 21st 

century is cycling around at a much faster pace as a result of 

globalization. We have to worry about energy security, the security 

of our critical infrastructures, the weapons proliferation. God forbid 

that a weapon of mass destruction falls into the Taliban’s hands or 

al Qaeda’s hands. These are asymmetric threats. I think even 

international narcotics, which clearly is supporting insurgencies 

and bad things that are happening around the world, have to be 

dealt with, and the only way to do that, I think, is to get more agility and more empowerment out to the people in the field who are 

actually doing the job. Speaking as a former unified commander, I 

had all the responsibility in the world that I could have wanted, 

but I had very, very little authority to do anything without always 

coming back and asking for permission through the interagency. As 

86

a result—the world goes around faster, and we’re still not reacting 

in real time to the circumstances that evade us. I don’t want to get 

into a 30-minute answer to your question, but there is lots more 

to be said about things that we can do to be more efficient, competitively, in this new world of the 21st century. 

Senator DOLE. Right. Yes, there is. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I would only add that Secretary Robert 

Gates gave a excellent speech recently in Kansas, the Alf Landon 

speech. 

Senator DOLE. Kansas. Yes. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. The disparities between our resourcing 

and funding for our military side versus our civilian side. I urge 

you all to read that and to think through what this means, in 

terms of our ability to engage abroad. Clearly, we can do it with 

our military. We can take Baghdad. But then what happens the 

day after? The ability for us to do effective work for post-conflict 

stabilization and reconstruction, we’re not very good at it. USAID 

is not working. The components of that need more attention. 

So, this is a big problem, and I was very glad that my former 

colleague on the NSC, Bob Gates—when we were both much 

younger—I’m glad he’s addressing that issue now, because it’s fairly rare for a Defense Secretary to speak in favor of greater funding 

for State. There ought to be more of that. If you look at the budgets 

now, half a trillion dollars for the military and, what, smaller number—I don’t have the exact number in front of me—for State and 

foreign operations. Somehow, we have to get this in better alignment. The disparities are making it impossible for us to address 

‘‘the day after’’ in these countries. 

Senator DOLE. Yes. I agree with you about that speech. In fact, 

when we were talking with Secretary Gates last week, I utilized 

that speech to get him to elaborate further. It’s a very important 

subject. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Dole. 

Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me say hello, General. It’s my understanding you were 

born in Kansas City, MO. Is that true? 

General JONES. That’s correct. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, hello from the friendliest big city in 

America. Thank you both for your service. 

I have a bad habit of focusing on one area. I’m very focused on 

accountability of the money that we’ve spent. I noticed, in The Atlantic Council report, General, that even though we have spent $21 

billion on reconstruction and security institutions in Afghanistan, 

that less that 10 percent of that has directly gone to the Afghans. 

Where’s the other 90 percent gone? 

General JONES. I think that’s a good question. I think that part 

of it has been consumed by—corruption is a big problem, so I think 

it’s been, possibly, diverted. I think that we have not always put 

in the right control mechanisms to make sure that the international money that’s provided is, in fact, spent in the ways that 

we would like to see happen. But, also, internationally, we need to 

tighten up our auditing mechanisms to make sure that the GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
87

ment of Afghanistan spends the money in the ways intended. Because this is not clearly evident, there are efforts to set up alternate mechanisms by which a more direct infusion of money, that’s 

better controlled, directly to the people is going on by major organizations now, absent the reforms that are necessary within the government itself. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The PRTs that are working now in Afghanistan, obviously those represent people from various countries and 

under various authorities with various accountability, or lack 

thereof. It doesn’t appear to me that the DOD has any kind of metric whatsoever for measuring the effectiveness of these PRTs. Are 

you aware of any kind of performance metric that’s in place that 

we can even judge how these various PRTs are accomplishing any 

of the goals that we’re giving them this money to accomplish? 

General JONES. Senator, I think the PRTs that are under U.S. 

auspices and control are probably very well monitored. I visited 

them, and their leaders are very responsible. The international 

PRTs that are under the auspices of sovereign nations, it’s hard to 

say, there, because that’s sovereign-nation business. But, what is 

true, even though to me, the PRTs are very important, and, unfortunately, they remain very important today, because the government has not moved out to replace the PRTs. The idea was to establish a PRT so that it would give people hope that, soon, help 

would be coming, more massive help, and the PRTs would then be 

replaced. Unfortunately, the PRTs are still very, very important. 

But, I think our national PRTs are probably well-funded, and I 

think the auditing is probably quite good. 

Where I think we have a problem is, when we go into the general 

fund for international contributions and, at that point, when you 

factor in the salaries, you factor in construction costs and contracts 

and things of that nature, and I think that’s where, probably, the 

abuses are found. 

Senator MCCASKILL. As you both are probably aware, we included a new Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in the Defense Reauthorization last year. I 

would like, briefly, both of you to comment on advice you would 

give—succinctly, if you would—the new SIGAR as to where they 

would get the most bang for our buck, in terms of spending time 

in the initial phases of their work, in terms of looking at how the 

money is being spend and how we are utilizing American dollars 

in Afghanistan. 

General JONES. Within the G8 Accords, the primary responsibility of the United States is to train the Afghan army. I consider—

and I think that of the five pillars that the G8 agreed to, that’s 

probably the pillar that is—has been the best administered. I don’t 

know whether it’ll be a national decision that the United States is 

going to take over some other international responsibilities to, for 

example, dramatically increase the training for the police or take 

on more focus on the drug battle or champion judicial reform. I do 

know that we can’t do it all; and I don’t think, with the number 

of wealthy nations that we have there, that we should have to do 

it all. 

But, I’ll let Ambassador Inderfurth give his viewpoint. 

88

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Annually, we have been spending about $1.5 billion on economic reconstruction and development programs. I would suggest that that funding stream be looked at very 

closely by the new SIGAR. I testified recently, on the House side, 

before the House Armed Services Committee, endorsed that idea. 

I’m very pleased that it’s going to be a part of the Senate’s endorsement, because, as we saw with Afghanistan, having somebody that 

is dedicated to that subject can tell us, are we getting our money’s 

worth? I think that that has been a valuable addition to looking 

at the contributions being made on reconstruction in Iraq. Unfortunately, a lot of that money is not going to the intended purposes. 

I don’t know the programs well enough to say which ones, specifically, but, again, the reconstruction money, I think, needs to be 

looked at carefully. 

There is a Catch-22 here, as well. A lot of the money bypasses 

the Government of Afghanistan because of corruption, but, by bypassing the central government, the Karzai Government does not 

get credit for the decisions made about where that money will be 

spent. So, the undermining of the central government support is 

partly a product of the fact that so much money is coming in the 

country, and they have no clue where it’s going, and have no say 

about where it’s going. So, there is a Catch-22 here. That also has 

to be worked out. 

Again, we don’t want to make the Super Envoy into Superman 

here, but that person needs to look at the kind of funding that goes 

through the government and around the government, to try to give 

the central authority more credit for the work being done in the 

country, because, as General Eikenberry says, ‘‘The loss of legitimacy by the Karzai government is the gravest threat to Afghanistan.’’ 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, we can’t trust them with the money, but 

we have to give them the credit. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. We have to find mechanisms to be able 

to trust them better with the money, and then give them credit 

General JONES. I might just piggyback on that one, because I 

think this is central to the point of what’s going on, largely, in the 

government. 

I think it’s incumbent upon the international community to 

embed people of competence to help these struggling young ministries understand how things work in a democracy. So, I think it’s 

not enough to simply say, ‘‘You’ve had your election, you’ve formed 

your government, you’re on your own, you’re a sovereign nation,’’ 

without, at the same time, providing the expertise and the wherewithal of helping them write an economic recovery plan, better administer the Justice Department, and so on and so forth. But, it 

seems to me that if we did have a super—or a senior coordinator, 

that he or she would want to make sure that the international 

community is represented, as much as possible, to help the new 

Government of Afghanistan function effectively. That takes mentoring and teaching, and it’s not going to be done over the years. 

But, the worst thing you can do, in my view, is just to treat them 

as though they intuitively know what to do, now that they’ve had 

an election, when the case is clear that there isn’t that depth at 

the ministerial levels. There are some very good people at the senVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:25 Nov 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\45501.TXT SARMSER2 PsN: JUNEB
89

ior levels in the Afghan Government, people of high education, high 

quality; but, unfortunately, the numbers are not there. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. 

Senator Thune. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

General, Ambassador, welcome, and thank you for being here 

today. 

I want to pick up on this issue of the PRTs and their effect on 

that process. The Atlantic Council report noted that the PRTs, 

‘‘come from the various nations and report back to the nations’ capitals; hence, most are not under central command and coordination, 

and integration of planning has been modest, at best.’’ I can understand why the capitals would want to hear what they are doing, 

and why they would still want command, but it seems to me at 

least that they’re very difficult to accomplish what we’re trying to 

accomplish there if they can’t be centrally coordinated to avoid 

some of the duplication of effort. So, I guess I would be interested 

in your thought on that and what, perhaps, a better solution would 

be. 

General JONES. Senator, when I was in NATO, we relied heavily 

on the missions of the PRTs, and we worked with the various nations to try to, to a certain point, standardize what the Afghans 

could expect to find in a PRT. There is wide discrepancy between 

what one PRT of one nation does versus another. 

While I was there, there was also a security aspect that was worrisome. I was very concerned that a PRT could have been overrun 

with many captives and public executions, and so on and so forth, 

so we spent a lot of time assuring the security of the PRTs. 

But, my overall conclusion was that, where you had a governor 

who was not corrupt and was working in the right direction, where 

you had a police chief that could aid in reforming the structure of 

the police department, and where you had a good PRT that was 

supported with the resources necessary, the people in that province 

turned, almost immediately, in a positive direction—building roads, 

opening schools, bringing water, bringing electricity where there 

was none. It’s very easy to make a huge difference in people’s lives 

in some of the areas of that country. 

So, I think, unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, that the PRTs 

still remain an important tool, because we haven’t had the sustained momentum of the government being able to gain more and 

more control over their countryside. Until those governmental reforms kick in, and until the metrics on that government are demanded by the international community, I’m afraid that the PRTs 

are still going to play a very important role for the foreseeable future. 

Senator THUNE. But just the notion that there are all these independent operating parts or pieces out there, and oftentimes, probably, duplicating the activities of others, that there—as was noted 

by the report—couldn’t be some sort of central command or coordination that makes sense, that the countries, the nations that are 

involved with that, could subscribe to? 

General JONES. I think it would be very good if we could achieve 

that. We have not been able to achieve the international accords 

90

that are necessary, with the exception of the security concept of 

how we protect the PRTs and how you rapidly reinforce them or 

how you evacuate them in a moment of stress, because nations will 

need help there. But, nations guard, fairly jealously, the investment that they’re making. It’s definitely focused from the capital 

direct to their national effort. It’s important, I think, that we work 

towards greater harmonization and coordination. But, so far, nations have been reluctant to pool their resources and to add or subtract based on the need. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Could I just add——

Senator THUNE. Yes. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I just want to give one additional point 

about the PRTs. The expression ‘‘hearts and minds’’ are at play 

here. It’s hard to win hearts and minds in counterterrorist operations, counterinsurgency operations, air power being used. PRTs 

are one way to extend the reach, not only of the central government, but also the international community throughout the country. Focusing on reconstruction, governance issues, security, they 

are a way to help with the hearts-and-minds part of this. Only 5 

percent of the U.S. funds go into PRTs. It’s not a big amount of 

money. It needs better coordination, all of those things, but the 

idea of PRTs is a helpful way. It’s kind of Peace Corps on steroids. 

Get them out there, let them see that we do things to help people. 

So therefore, it’s a viable and, I think, legitimate concept. But, it 

needs, as we have pointed out with so many other programs, more 

attention and coordination. 

Senator THUNE. According to the report, there are only 25 such 

teams. Are more needed? Is that sufficient? 

General JONES. I think the answer to that is probably yes. If the 

government is not going to be able to expand its reach, unfortunately, it becomes more important. The whole concept was that the 

government would, in fact, move and be able to assert more control 

over the provinces, but, since that hasn’t happened, the PRTs continue to be very important, and I don’t want to speak for the commanders or the alliance, but I would imagine that people would say 

yes, probably more PRTs would be beneficial. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. But they cannot expand until certain 

parts of the country, the south and eastern part, are better secured, so there is a wall that they’re running up against, in terms 

of expansion. 

Senator THUNE. You talked about the amount of money that our 

government is putting into the PRT effort. Of the other nations, the 

international community, that are involved, what kind of investment are they making relative to what the United States is putting 

into that? Is it like the military component, where we underwrite 

the biggest share, proportionally? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I don’t have PRT figures. 

Senator THUNE. Okay, that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect you to have 

those at your fingertips. 

Just one last question, General Jones. This comes back, maybe 

just drawn on your past experience—but, there have been concerns 

about the military command-and-control structure in Afghanistan, 

and I’m wondering what your thoughts are about how that might 

be better organized to ensure that there is unity of command. 

91

General JONES. This is always an interesting discussion, because 

the metric should not be to try to compare a 26-nation alliance 

with the unified command structure of a single country; and yet, 

that seems to what, sometimes, we try to do. 

I was one of the ones responsible, along with General Abizaid, for 

creating the command structure that exists. It was designed and 

proposed to 26 sovereign nations, and 26 sovereign nations and all 

chiefs of defense of those nations voted to adopt that command 

structure. It has a lot of challenges. It has the challenges of merging the more kinetic operations of OEF with the less kinetic operations of ISAF, the NATO operation. At every level, there are instruments in the chain of command that deconflict those two missions, that provide for command-and-control mechanisms to ramp 

up operations in certain parts of the country, as need be; that allows for special forces to operate in certain protected zones, or earmark zones, if need be; it provides for allies to come to the aid of 

one another. It is, on paper, relatively easy to diagram and to explain. 

In actuality, what it takes is the goodwill and the cooperation of 

all commanders. The more senior you get, the more cooperation 

there is to make sure that this works. 

The proof of the pudding, in my book, that it’s a viable structure 

happened in August 2006, during Operation Medusa, when we had 

near conventional combat operations in the southern part of Afghanistan shortly after the arrival of almost 9,000 NATO soldiers. 

The Taliban evidently had been reading European newspapers and 

decided that this force wasn’t going to fight, and they made the 

mistake of engaging us very symmetrically. OEF had to come in to 

reinforce. The Afghan Army was involved in it—the Canadians, the 

Dutch, the U.K., and a number of other countries—and really 

achieved a rather stunning victory. If that command-and-control 

structure was not going to work, the warts of that command-andcontrol structure would have been revealed. 

So, I think it’s a question of not setting the expectation too high, 

recognizing that 26 nations agreeing on how to command and control the troops is a very, very delicate issue. Trying to apply the 

principles that one would find in a national command structure to 

an alliance is very hard to do. 

I think it’s workable. I think it was agreed to. Can you make improvements on it? Sure, and do things change, and should you 

change the command structure to go along with that change? Absolutely. But, I don’t think there’s too much—I think the evidence is 

that the command structure works, let’s put it that way, and that 

it takes the goodwill of people who are within it to make it work. 

Senator THUNE. General, Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your 

service. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Thune. 

A second vote is on. I want to take just a couple of minutes, 

though, to ask a few additional questions. 

At least one of the reports suggest that there be an increase in 

the size of the Afghan National Army. The question is, where 

would the cost come from on that? I figured out here what the cost 

would be. My math, if we double the size of it from 80,000 to 

92

160,000, it would be something like $400 million a year. I think my 

math is correct. That’s assuming, by the way, that the soldier be 

paid $5,000 a year, which I assume is way more than a soldier 

would be paid in the Afghan National Army, is that true? Do you 

have any idea what a soldier is paid? It wouldn’t be $5,000 a year, 

would it? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. No. No. 

Chairman LEVIN. It might be a couple of thousand a year. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I understand the point. As our report 

points out, if you’re going to expand it, who’s going to pay for it? 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes, but that’s a pretty small amount of 

money, compared to——

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Small amount, and you know what I 

would suggest? For our NATO allies who have decided that, for 

their own political reasons, they can’t go south to fight? Send the 

Afghan army. 

Train them, supply them, fund——

Chairman LEVIN. Pay for them. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Pay for them. 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes. That’s where I was going with this. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. That seems to be a nice offset to provide security for Afghanistan. 

Chairman LEVIN. Yes, that’s where I was going. That may be a very conservative amount—so, if they’re $2,500 a year as an average pay—I’m just taking a number, here—it would be about $200 

million a year, which is pretty tiny percentage of what we pay in 

Afghanistan, but, more importantly, if our NATO allies are not 

going to do what they should do, relative to putting their own 

troops in harm’s way, that kind of funding to train the Afghan 

army surely could be expected from them. 

Now, General, you had to deal with our NATO allies for many 

years. What would be the likely response? We apparently have 

failed to get Germany, for instance, to agree to put their troops in 

combat. Would they, you think, be open to an idea that, for a couple of hundred million dollars a year, if my math is right, that they 

could double the size by at least the pay of 79,000 or 80,000 additional Afghan army members? 

General JONES. I wouldn’t want to speak for any particular country. The logic appears sound. But, if you look at what hasn’t been 

done already—for example, take the case of Germany, which has 

the responsibility of training the police force, yet we still lack size, 

capacity, resources, and everything else. 

So, I think the financial condition of many of our allies in Europe 

has gotten much better over the years; their GDP has grown, and 

everything else. But there is great reluctance to not only provide 

manpower, but also to provide the resources. So, all we can do is 

continue to try. I have no idea whether they would agree to do 

that. I would hope they would. 

Chairman LEVIN. The Study Group has recommended that the 

administration decouple the missions in Afghanistan and Iraq as a 

way of improving the overall U.S. approach to the global war on 

terrorism. I think you mentioned that the way to do this is both 

in terms of our budgeting; put the Afghanistan war in our regular 

budget, keep the Iraq war in a supplemental budget, for instance. 

93

The rhetoric, surely we ought to separate them. I think it was your 

suggestion that the European populations might be more willing to 

support Afghanistan if they didn’t link, in their minds, the two efforts together. Is that a fair comment? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Secretary Gates said that, just the 

other day. 

Chairman LEVIN. He did. Is that a fair statement about your report? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. It is a fair statement and it’s supported by the administration’s Defense Secretary. 

Chairman LEVIN. We’ll press him on that one when he gets up 

here on that. We had this morning General Sattler; we asked him 

about the reference that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral 

Mullen, made about troops in Iraq versus troops in Afghanistan, 

and he said, ‘‘It’s simply a matter of resources, of capacity. In Afghanistan, we do what we can; in Iraq, we do what we must.’’ In 

other words, Iraq is our first priority, and that means Afghanistan 

is a lesser priority. Would it be helpful in that analysis if we continue to reduce our presence in Iraq, in your judgment, so that 

those forces at least would be available to go to Afghanistan? 

Whether they would go there or not would be a different decision, 

but at least would that be helpful? Are they related, in that sense? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. The Iraq Study Group made that recommendation, as combat forces are withdrawn from Iraq, that 

some be sent to Afghanistan. The ASG endorsed that recommendation. So, I think that that’s the answer to that question. 

Chairman LEVIN. They are linked, in that sense, aren’t they? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. They are linked. There’s only finite resources, and the Army and our military is stretched thin. So, you 

can’t make up out of whole cloth. But, the statement that Admiral 

Mullen made, ‘‘do what we must, do what we can,’’ I think my 

major point this afternoon is that we have to put Afghanistan into 

the ‘‘do what we must’’ category. It should be there, too. It’s not 

just a ‘‘can,’’ ‘‘want to do,’’ ‘‘like to do,’’ it’s a ‘‘must.’’ 

Chairman LEVIN. On that note—I think, General, you probably 

would agree with that, but I don’t want to put words in your 

mouth, but I have to run and catch a vote. 

General JONES. No, I do agree with that. 

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you both. I’m just going to run. I won’t 

even have a chance to come personally to thank you. It’s been very, 

very helpful. This was actually a significant turnout of Senators 

under a very difficult afternoon. That’s how much interest there is 

in Afghanistan. 

Thank you. The committee stands adjourned. 

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT BYRD

AL QAEDA SAFE HAVEN

1. Senator BYRD. Ambassador Inderfurth, both reports (the Afghanistan Study 

Group and the Atlantic Council of the United States) suggest that if immediate action is not taken by as early as this spring to turn around world attention and involvement in the rebuilding of Afghanistan, it stands in danger of becoming a failed 

state—a safe haven for al Qaeda, run by the Taliban, with an economy based primarily on the cultivation of the opium poppy. This, you argue, would be catastrophic 

for regional stability and U.S. and western security. Without suggesting that this 

94

would be an acceptable outcome, how would a failed Afghanistan differ from the Afghanistan of 2000, except that we are now aware of and prepared to take preemptive action against a resurgent al Qaeda? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. The Afghanistan Study Group estimated that the prospect of again losing significant parts of Afghanistan to the forces of Islamist extremists has become possible, and that an effort has to be in place to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed state. In addition to the consequences in Afghanistan 

itself, including the implications on poppy trafficking, al Qaeda activity, et cetera, 

the regional and international implications should also be taken into account. Failure in Afghanistan will also enhance instability and insecurity in the neighboring 

Pakistan, where local Taliban and other extremist groups would be inspired to step 

up their effort to stabilize the regime, and would be able to use Afghanistan as their 

base for doing so. Also, were Afghanistan to slip into a ‘‘failed state’’ status despite 

the resources and commitment by the international community, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) specifically, it would severely discredit the ability of the United States and its allies on the international level.

RESOURCES AND FUNDING

2. Senator BYRD. General Jones, the ambitious agenda laid out in these two reports will require concerted international effort and coordination, as well as substantial resources. Please describe in more detail the military and economic resources that you believe would be required to achieve your prescribed outcome, both 

from the international community as a whole and from the United States. From 

where would you reallocate these resources? 

General JONES. 

Military Resources 

It is my understanding that NATO military commanders have asked allies, including the United States, for several additional maneuver battalions, as well as 

heavy and medium lift helicopters and airborne intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. The alliance has those resources in its inventory. It is a lack of political 

will, whether due to force overstretch, financial costs to deploy, or domestic politics, 

that keeps these gaps from being filled. Given the large numbers of U.S. forces already deployed to Afghanistan, these resources should come from our allies. 

Economic Resources 

Success in Afghanistan will not come without a revamped civilian effort to convert 

tactical military success into large scale strategic gains. This means that the international community must provide more aid to help build a functioning and competent civilian government in Afghanistan. For instance, the European Union (EU) 

could provide more police trainers in Afghanistan to help create a society based on 

the rule of law. Those allies who cannot provide forces to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) can provide civil reconstruction assistance, whether in terms 

of money or people. For example, those allies could stand up another Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). Ideally new U.N. envoy Kai Eide will be able to marshal 

these resources into a more efficient and focused effort to affect real change in the 

country. Increased activity and coordination of PRTs will be necessary to achieve 

lasting success in Afghanistan as well. 

Specifically, more development resources should be directed to infrastructure development, especially outlays on roads, power, and water systems. These will be crucial in the overall improvement in security, governance, and economic growth in Afghanistan. Afghan workers and resources should be used whenever possible to create job growth.

3. Senator BYRD. General Jones, your report describes corruption in Afghanistan 

that has reached a level where only $1 in aid out of every $10 goes directly to Afghans, compounding already difficult reform and reconstruction problems. Until this 

situation is corrected, how can you expect the American public to support further 

expenditure of already scarce tax dollars toward Afghan reconstruction? 

General JONES. The estimate that only $1 of every $10 distributed in aid goes to 

the Afghan people is an indication of how inefficient (and costly) the distribution 

of assistance is in Afghanistan. The long-term hopes of Afghanistan lie in enhanced 

and better coordinated civilian aid to the Afghan people. Numerous allied and international officials have commented on the lack of human capital in Afghanistan in 

the public and private sectors. The good news is that the mandate of Kai Eide as 

U.N. High Representative is to ensure that international assistance (including U.S. 

assistance) goes towards meeting a common strategic vision and goal. 

95

Still, despite the fact that poverty remains one of the major problems in Afghanistan, there are a number of economic indicators that should reassure the American 

taxpayer that progress is being made with their aid dollars. Since the fall of the 

Taliban in 2001, economic growth has averaged 8.7 percent annually, resulting in 

a doubling of per capita gross domestic product since 2002. Inflation remains low, 

the Afghan national currency is stable, and currency reserves are stable and sit at 

$5 billion. Agricultural output continues to rise and the country is presently experiencing a construction boom thanks to foreign aid, refugee return, and a growth in 

trade.

4. Senator BYRD. General Jones, is it reasonable to expect that Afghan security 

forces and judicial systems can be established and be effective quickly enough to 

make a difference? 

General JONES. Generally, success in Afghanistan will not come quickly, particularly in the civil reconstruction side. 

Afghan Security Forces 

In terms of the Afghan National Army (ANA), they are beginning to make a difference and are growing in numbers. There are nearly 57,000 personnel in the ANA 

today, and we are seeing signs that the Afghan security forces are able to lead operations with just NATO advisors and support. They are close to being able to take 

responsibility for security in certain sectors, such as in Kabul. 

The Focused District Development plan has been put in place now to reduce corruption and improve competence in the police force. Specifically, officers are taken 

out of the force, rescreened, and then given remedial training before being put back 

into the force. This plan is starting to take hold and officers are already graduating 

and being put back into the police force. 

Judicial System (including the Afghan National Police (ANP)) 

The Afghan judicial system has much work to do to become a credible, respected 

institution with reach throughout Afghanistan. Especially needing improvement is 

the ANP, but a renewed effort there to retrain forces and improve corruption indices 

is making progress. 

Fortunately, the Europeans offered in 2007 to provide $777 million over the next 

4 years to improve governance, with over 40 percent of that money dedicated to judicial system reform. In particular, the system has faced a problem with poorly 

trained and corrupt officials. 

In 2006, President Karzai appointed a fresh team of judges and made a series of 

reforms that will hopefully begin to bear fruit in the future. As part of Karzai’s reforms, the new Supreme Court justices are given the responsibility to monitor judicial activity in the district to which they are assigned. To prevent nepotism and corruption in the process of selecting justices, committees were created to screen and 

select potential judges based on applicants’ education and background, and each 

committee must include a member of the Supreme Court. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA

AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY

5. Senator AKAKA. General Jones, looking ahead, it seems that one of the most 

critical challenges to long-lasting stability in Afghanistan is a shortfall in the number of trainers capable of mentoring the ANA so that it is eventually capable of defending its own borders from Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan. Without NATO assistance with providing language-skilled trainers, is the 

United States capable of fulfilling this shortfall in developing effective Afghani 

forces? 

General JONES. Training and mentoring of Afghan national forces is one of the 

most important tasks facing the alliance and its partners today in Afghanistan. 

While I must defer to the U.S. Government on whether the United States is capable 

of fulfilling this mission without NATO assistance, it is important to point out that 

NATO and the international community is assisting in the training of Afghan forces 

and is increasing their effort. We have seen a number of our allies increase their 

training contributions—including the French—following the NATO Defense ministers meeting in the Netherlands. 

In addition, for nations that cannot provide combat forces to Afghanistan, providing trainers, especially police trainers, will go far in assisting the Afghan Government to build a nation. Providing personnel for an Operational Mentor and Liaison 

96

Team is an excellent way to play a major role in the training and mentoring of the 

Afghan army. 

Frankly speaking, the ANA is one of the real successes of a post-Taliban Afghanistan. There was no ANA just several years ago, and already the force is at 57,000 

with the goal of reaching 70,000 by March 2008. 

Finally, as mentioned before, problems in Afghanistan are part of a larger regional problem that will require creative thinking for the U.S. Government, NATO, 

and the international community. Pakistan itself seems unwilling or unable to secure the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and eliminate radicalism in its frontier provinces. It is time for the United States and NATO to develop a regional 

strategy for the problems in Afghanistan, and that would include a reassessment 

of the aid and assistance programs in place for Pakistani security forces as well. 

After all, controlling the Pakistani-Afghan border will be most effective if both countries are actively participating in the effort.

LONG-TERM AFGHANISTAN STRATEGY

6. Senator AKAKA. Ambassador Inderfurth, one of your overarching recommendations was to propose an Eminent Persons Group to ‘‘develop a long-term, coherent 

international strategy for Afghanistan’’. I am very concerned that in 61⁄2 years of 

combat operations and international aid efforts, we are still hearing calls for the 

big-picture strategy. What has been the major problem with developing this coherent strategy for achieving long-term success in Afghanistan up to this point, and 

how can it be overcome? 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. Many factors have contributed to the inability to create 

a coherent strategy for achieving long-term success in Afghanistan up to this point. 

In the United States, there has been a lack of coherence driven by both the focus 

on Iraq (which at least partly came on the expense of strategic resources being devoted to Afghanistan), coupled by the more systemic difficulty to coordinate policy 

effectively within the executive branch. This is why the Afghanistan Study Group 

has also recommended to decouple Iraq and Afghanistan and appoint a special 

envoy to Afghanistan within the executive branch. On the international level, the 

United States has been successful in rallying allies to the mission in Afghanistan, 

after initially turning down NATO’s offer of assistance in the aftermath of September 11. However, this also presents a challenge when there is a need to coordinate on a strategic level. The problem is compounded by the multitude of private 

contractors and NGOs that work in Afghanistan. The issue of international coordination has been identified as one of the key issues that require urgent attention. 

More than 6 years after the beginning of the international intervention in Afghanistan, we believe that now is a critical moment to rethink our strategies, and that 

is why we suggested a concrete effort to develop a new strategy on an international 

level through an eminent persons group. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK PRYOR

TRAINING

7. Senator PRYOR. General Jones, one of your overarching recommendations is to 

decouple Afghanistan in the legislative process and in the management of these conflicts in the executive branch. In your report you state that tying together Afghanistan and Iraq also creates the false impression that they consist of the same mission. Yet, you identify issues such as a coherent and resourced strategy to increase 

the reach, capacity, and the legitimacy of the Afghan Government, fighting terrorism from al Qaeda insurgents, a reconstruction effort aimed at infrastructure, 

roads, power, and water systems, the resurrection of an integrated and effective justice system, and a focused effort and resources on training and standing up the ANA 

and recruiting, training, and providing adequate pay and equipment to the ANP to 

maintain security in an area once coalition forces depart. Besides enhances in poppy 

crop eradication and interdiction initiatives of a counternarcotics policy, can you explain what you found to be the differences in philosophy and strategic vision between the two conflicts that warrant such a ‘‘decoupling’’ of the budget process for 

authorizations, appropriations, and supplemental requests? 

General JONES. I would argue that although these two conflicts face a number of 

commonalities, the differences between them are greater than you implied. One of 

the problems that we face is that lumping the two together sometime result in creating a false image of similarity between the conflicts. 

97

First, the Afghan war is one in which we are engaged with all of our 26 NATO 

allies and coalition partners under the alliance umbrella. The war in Iraq has enjoyed a not insignificant level of coalition support, but it has never been fought 

under the NATO umbrella with such sustained international engagement. This implies that in dealing with the challenges in Afghanistan the United States faces different opportunities, but also challenges, with regard to joint efforts with our allies. 

Second, Afghanistan is a tribal country where the divisions between groups are 

not based on religious affiliations. While one of the major challenges in Iraq is to 

create a shared power between different religious groups, in Afghanistan the challenges are different and are less based on the issue of power sharing among different ethnic or religious groups. 

Third, the poppy problem is more significant than you imply. The poppy issue affects governance, security, economic, and societal issues in Afghanistan. It is intimately linked with the resurgence of the insurgency in Afghanistan and is a major 

factor in the corruption and poor governance in the country. The United States will 

be hard pressed to succeed in achieving its political goals in Afghanistan without 

creating a non-drug-based economy. 

Fourth, the Afghan war is intimately linked to the political and security struggles 

of Pakistan. The Iraq conflict is tied into regional dynamics as well, with the questionable intent of neighboring countries such as Syria and Iran affecting coalition 

efforts in a negative fashion. The ability, or lack thereof, of Pakistan to secure the 

border with Afghanistan is a crucial factor in the ability of the alliance to win the 

battle against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It is for this region that 

NATO needs to approach the Afghan mission in a regional context to achieve success. If the border remains porous and Afghanistan cannot prevent the militants 

from gaining sanctuary, the alliance will not defeat the Afghan insurgency. 

Lastly, perhaps the most substantial difference is the opportunity to create different coalitions for these two conflicts. Decoupling can help both domestically and 

internationally in that regard. Also, delinking the funding processes for these two 

conflicts can assist in more balanced approach to funding priorities in each conflict 

on the basis of its own merits. 

As stated in the Afghanistan Study Group Report, decoupling the two conflicts 

within the executive and legislative branch would ‘‘enable more coherence and focus 

and on the increasingly important Afghanistan (and related Pakistan) issues [and] 

will likely improve the overall U.S. approach to fighting global terrorism.’’

8. Senator PRYOR. General Jones, what is your recommended policy roadmap as 

to how to organize, implement, and administer this recommendation? 

General JONES. I would argue that unfortunately, our allies already see the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as inextricably linked because the U.S. Government 

has been rhetorically linking the conflicts for the last 5 years. Despite that, the 

United States should immediately cease referring to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan together as ‘the war on terror.’ Yes, the United States is fighting terrorists in 

Iraq, as in Afghanistan. However, this rhetoric is fundamentally unhelpful in dealing with our allies and building support for enhanced engagement in Afghanistan. 

In fact, according to experts in the region, it is even undermining public support 

for NATO amongst countries seeking to join the alliance in the Balkans, as they believe that by joining NATO they will be obligated to send forces to Iraq. I would 

argue as well that NATO needs a regional strategy and approach to the Afghan conflict. The United States and a few of its allies are aware that the Afghan conflict 

cannot be decoupled from what is happening in Pakistan. The United States needs 

to work to create a framework or mechanism in which NATO itself can be engaged 

with Pakistan to better address the border issues that are hampering efforts to secure Afghanistan. 

The Afghanistan Study Group called for the decoupling to take place in both the 

executive branch and the legislative branch. On the legislative side, appropriations, 

especially defense appropriation, need to be delinked. On the executive side, the 

ASG called for the appointment of a Special Envoy to Afghanistan that would be 

charged with coordinating and orchestrating all aspects of U.S. policies towards Afghanistan, to ensure a more comprehensive, strategic approach to managing that 

conflict in the interagency level. The challenge of coordinating the missions in Afghanistan is compounded by the need to coordinate with NATO as well as multiple 

different agencies and NGOs on the ground. Without a designated official it is hard 

to envision a necessarily effective strategic approach to Afghanistan that is not overinfluenced by day-to-day events in Iraq. As the ASG report stated, ‘‘while potentially 

challenging and possible contentious within the U.S. bureaucracy, higher level of coordination in Washington is necessary to increase our chances of success in Afghanistan.’’

98

NATO COOPERATION

9. Senator PRYOR. General Jones, your report indicates that NATO faces a lack 

of a common strategic vision and has struggled to increase the number of combat 

troops and military equipment in Afghanistan, particularly in Kandahar Province. 

While Canada is the third largest contributor to the military effort in Afghanistan 

next to the United States and United Kingdom and has been engaged in the region 

since early 2002, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has warned that Canada may withdraw its troops from the ISAF if NATO fails to station additional coalition troops in the southern part of Afghanistan. What have you concluded about the 

cooperative fashion among those entities representing NATO, the U.N., and the EU? 

General JONES. While all three organizations are cooperating to some degree in 

Afghanistan, there is clearly not the close, daily coordination between these three 

major international actors. In part, institutional blockages limit cooperation on 

these matters. Namely, the Turkey-Cyprus diplomatic conflict limits the development of formal dialogue and consultations between top NATO and EU leadership. 

Furthermore, the EU defense ministers rarely—if ever—discuss the issue of Afghanistan when they meet as a group. 

Achieving long-term systemic EU–NATO cooperation in theory is a major diplomatic task that will require sustained effort and cooperation. However, improved 

practical cooperation is possible, particularly if new U.N. High Representative Kai 

Eide receives the mandate and authority needed to improve coordination in Afghanistan among the major international actors. The U.N., NATO, and the EU need to 

work with the Karzai Government to develop a comprehensive strategic plan that 

they all can implement to provide assistance efficiently.

10. Senator PRYOR. General Jones, how can we bring about a more unified strategy for operations? 

General JONES. There are a number of ways we can bring about a more unified 

strategy for operations. 

First, the alliance is presently working to create a common strategic vision and 

5 year plan for Afghanistan to be released at the NATO Summit in Bucharest. This 

document will articulate to NATO member publics the rationale for being in Afghanistan and the need to achieve the goals outlined in this strategic vision. It will call 

on NATO allies to pledge to share the burden together and to commit to achieving 

long-term alliance goals. 

Unfortunately, a document won’t fix the problems of coordination in Afghanistan. 

A more sustained diplomatic effort is required. One major issue facing the allied effort is a lack of PRT coordination among the nations involved. Until now, national 

PRTs have coordinated with their country capitals rather than working with other 

PRTs in the region to target their efforts for maximal effect. Unfortunately NATO–

EU cooperation is lacking, and not just in Afghanistan. The Atlantic Council, of 

which I am Chairman, is working to propose ideas on how to improve the NATO–

EU relationship, but unfortunately, bureaucratic blockages and diplomatic differences make improved coordination between these two organizations exceedingly 

difficult. Ultimately, improving NATO–EU cooperation will require a more sustained and long-term diplomatic effort among the United States and its allies than 

a simple NATO summit meeting. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROGER WICKER

AFGHAN POLICE FORCE

11. Senator WICKER. General Jones and Ambassador Inderfurth, in your testimony you discuss the problems surrounding the Afghan police force. Specifically, 

you detail reports of corruption throughout. As we assist in the development of a 

reliable and effective Afghan police force, what steps are being taken to weed out 

vulnerable police recruits during the training process? 

General JONES. The ANP force is a weak link in the effort to provide security in 

Afghanistan and corruption is a particular problem in the police. Therefore, NATO 

has undertaken a review of the current police force to attempt to weed out corrupt 

officers, ensure that they have proper training, and better determine where they 

come from. This process is called Focused District Development, an initiative developed by the Afghan Ministry of Interior. ISAF works with the Afghans to identify 

regions particularly affected by corruption and then takes the officers in that district offline for 8 weeks to provide them with remedial training, make sure that they 

are the right people for the job, and ensure that they are capable of providing the 

level of service the job requires. It is our hope and intent that this type of training 

99

will help instill a culture of service necessary to create a more effective Afghan police force. The first class graduated in late February 2008. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I concur with General Jones’ response.

12. Senator WICKER. General Jones and Ambassador Inderfurth, are police candidates screened prior to training? 

General JONES. Police candidates are screened prior to training, and over the last 

year and a half, efforts have been made to improve screening of police recruits to 

ensure that they do not have ties to extremism or criminal backgrounds. 

However, it should be remembered that good recruits with clean backgrounds can 

be pushed into corruption by circumstances. It is for this reason that proper training, improved morale, and timely pay of decent wages be seen as a priority for reducing corruption among the Afghan police forces. 

Ambassador INDERFURTH. I concur with General Jones’ response. 

100

[Annexes A through G follow:] 

ANNEX A 


214ful67.eps
101


214ful68.eps
102


214ful69.eps
103


214ful70.eps
104

ANNEX B 


214ful15.eps
105


214ful16.eps
106


214ful17.eps
107


214ful18.eps
108


214ful19.eps
109


214ful20.eps
110


214ful21.eps
111


214ful22.eps
112


214ful23.eps
113


214ful24.eps
114


214ful25.eps
115


214ful26.eps
116


214ful27.eps
117


214ful28.eps
118


214ful29.eps
119


214ful30.eps
120


214ful31.eps
121


214ful32.eps
122


214ful33.eps
123


214ful34.eps
124


214ful35.eps
125


214ful36.eps
126


214ful37.eps
127


214ful38.eps
128


214ful39.eps
129


214ful40.eps
130


214ful41.eps
131


214ful42.eps
132


214ful43.eps
133


214ful44.eps
134


214ful45.eps
135


214ful46.eps
136


214ful47.eps
137


214ful48.eps
138


214ful49.eps
139


214ful50.eps
140


214ful51.eps
141

ANNEX C


214ful52.eps
142


214ful53.eps
143


214ful54.eps
144


214ful55.eps
145


214ful56.eps
146


214ful57.eps
147


214ful58.eps
148


214ful59.eps
149


214ful60.eps
150


214ful61.eps
151


214ful62.eps
152


214ful63.eps
153


214ful64.eps
154


214ful65.eps
155

ANNEX D 


214ful75.eps
156


214ful76.eps
157


214ful77.eps
158


214ful78.eps
159


214ful79.eps
160


214ful80.eps
161


214ful81.eps
162


214ful82.eps
163


214ful83.eps
164


214ful84.eps
165


214ful85.eps
166

ANNEX E 


214ful71.eps
167


214ful72.eps
168


214ful73.eps 214ful74.eps
169

ANNEX F 


214ful1.eps
170


214ful2.eps
171


214ful3.eps
172


214ful4.eps
173


214ful5.eps
174


214ful6.eps
175


214ful7.eps
176


214ful8.eps
177


214ful9.eps
178

ANNEX G 


214ful66.eps
179

[Whereupon, at 4:47 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

Æ