Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - U.S. Strategy and Operations in Afghanistan and the Way Ahead

Statement

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General Barno, I want to focus in on two of the three points you had there -- leadership and resources.

And I guess as we were just talking about a little bit, I think one of the major struggles right now, aside from the just inherent difficulties in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is getting the rest of the world or at least our allies to sort of see the issue the same way, get on the same page, and, you know, well -- or have us get on the same page; I'm not implying they need to come our way -- but get broader agreement amongst our allies so that we can maximize the resources that are available to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan as well and all of the elements that we've talked about -- diplomacy, infrastructure, the need for troops -- because there just seems to be, as was, you know, mentioned in the testimony about how only two of the countries that are present in Afghanistan currently have popular support for that presence.

And there's a lot of different reasons for this. You know, when I was over there, one of the focuses was, you know, well, it's okay if we're doing counterinsurgency with Afghanistan, but we don't want to get -- I believe one of the quotes I received from someone from another country was "dragged into the global war on terror," you know. And our perspective is, well, whether you want in or not, you're in.

But somewhere along the way we've sort of lost a message that everyone can say yes, this is clearly what we're fighting, we're with you, let's work together. I've had a number of conversations with folks in Great Britain. As they've re-examined this issue, they want to dump the whole global war on terror phrase -- they don't think it's helpful; they don't think it works -- and sort of re-examine how we fight what it is that we say we're fighting in the person of al Qaeda.

And certainly whatever disagreements may exist about Iraq, you know, if you look at the situation clearly, al Qaeda, the Taliban, that is what threatens not just the U.S. but much of the civilized world, and yet we can't get that, you know, civilized world, if you will, sort of on the same page.

So I'm curious what your thoughts are in terms of how we exercise that leadership. Certainly, you know, a new president shuffles the deck, gives us an opportunity, but when we move into that phase, how do we take that opportunity? What's the way to get at least our NATO allies, but preferably a lot of moderate Muslim states as well, more on board? So take a stab at that.

And then I'll just throw a quick comment out on resources and if any of you want to comment on this, I think it's fair to say that our resources in Afghanistan, whether diplomatic or military, are not going up significantly as long as we're spending 150, 160 billion dollars a year in Iraq and have 130,000-plus troops there. And that's the plan for the foreseeable future. I'm curious about your comments on that, if I'm right about that, or if not, where do we find the resources.

So in the tiny time, the amount you have, you take a stab at the leadership and resources issues along those lines, I'd appreciate it.

MR. BARNO: I think I'd start by saying I'm less optimistic that any change of administration, be it Republican or Democrats coming in in '09, are going to suddenly change the calculus for our allies in Europe.

As I travel around and I talk to militaries in various countries in Europe and I talk to some of the civilian leadership, I sense that their reluctance to get more involved in Afghanistan has less to do with the current administration than it has to do with just tremendous aversion to being involved in combat operations of a type that don't directly, in their view, in the population's view, affect their countries.

And I think they're very extraordinarily sensitive to casualties. I was at one defense college in Europe last year, and I had two of their officers in uniform get up. One asked me the question: How can you Americans send your soldiers out on an operation knowing that some of them might not come back? And another one asked me the question or made the comment that the first thing in our mission statement for our nation -- and he was talking about Afghanistan -- was that we will bring everyone back from this operation. Everyone has to come back from the operation; in other words, no casualties.

And so as I listened to two officers in uniform make those comments to me, I became very unsettled about what the prospects for this country and some of the others that it represents were for prosecuting further operations in Afghanistan.

So I think that there's an underlying thematic in Europe that I seem to detect that views Afghanistan much differently than we in the United States view Afghanistan. We're there -- at least we originally came there -- because of 9/11. We're remaining there because of that, because of the threat that still represents out there.

But somehow that doesn't, from my experience, doesn't seem to resonate nearly as well in Europe, so I'm concerned about that. And how you either energize or re-energize their view of this in a different way is something I don't have a good answer for right now.

REP. SMITH: Thank you.

Quickly, Ambassador.

MR. INDERFURTH: Well, in terms of the resources, I'd just call attention to a statement that the Iraq Study Group made in its report where it said 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.

I mean, this committee knows much better than I do the difficulties of funding all of these objectives that we have right now with two wars, but I think that there is a consensus that people looking at this say we need to do more, including as we draw down some of our commitment in Iraq, and hopefully we'll be able to do that.

REP. SMITH: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Source