[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BERGDAHL EXCHANGE: IMPLICATIONS FOR
U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE FIGHT
AGAINST TERRORISM
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 18, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-158
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-387 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania AMI BERA, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
TED POE, Texas, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TOM COTTON, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California
PAUL COOK, California BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
TED S. YOHO, Florida Massachusetts
------
Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
TOM COTTON, Arkansas DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RON DeSANTIS, Florida JUAN VARGAS, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
TED S. YOHO, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Andy Andrews, father of deceased Second Lieutenant, USA,
Darryn Andrews................................................. 12
Spc. Cody Full, USA, Retired (served with Sgt. Bergdahl in
Blackfoot Company, Second Platoon)............................. 17
Mr. Mike Waltz, senior national security fellow, New America
Foundation (commanded a Special Forces' Company in Eastern
Afghanistan in 2009)........................................... 27
Mark Jacobson, Ph.D., senior advisor, Truman National Security
Project........................................................ 38
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Andy Andrews: Prepared statement............................. 14
Spc. Cody Full, USA, Retired: Prepared statement................. 19
Mr. Mike Waltz: Prepared statement............................... 29
Mark Jacobson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................... 40
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 78
Hearing minutes.................................................. 79
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Ted Poe, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and
chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and
Trade.......................................................... 80
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 82
THE BERGDAHL EXCHANGE: IMPLICATIONS
FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade and
Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock p.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ted Poe
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Poe. The subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection all members will have 5 days to submit statements,
questions, and extraneous materials for the record subject to
the length limitation in the rules.
The purpose of this hearing is to hear more about Sergeant
Bowe Bergdahl and his exchange for five terrorist prisoners
from Guantanamo Bay. Let's hope that the Bergdahl negotiators
are not the same ones currently negotiating with Iran over
nuclear weapons.
Be that as it may, releasing five senior Taliban commanders
may put the lives of our senior service members and Americans
around the world at risk. One of the five detainees was a
Deputy Chief of the Taliban's Intelligence Service. One
detainee fought alongside al-Qaeda as a Taliban Military
General. Another was a Senior Commander wanted by the United
Nations for war crimes and worked closely with al-Qaeda and
their affiliates. In fact, he led an attack with al-Qaeda the
day before 9/11. Al-Qaeda called this attack an important part
of the 9/11 total strategy. And still another was a close
confidante of Taliban Leader Mullah Omar.
The terms of the release to Qatar are quite disturbing.
They may help out the Taliban while they are in Qatar, and it's
very likely that all of them will end up fighting alongside the
Taliban in Afghanistan later in the year. That will be about
the time United States forces will be leaving and the Afghans
will be on their own.
It appears that recent law that was signed by the President
was violated in this secret deal. This law, among other things,
requires two things; that the administration must notify
Congress 30 days before releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees.
And, second, the administration has to specifically tell
Congress how releasing each terrorist is in the national
security interest of the United States. The administration did
neither. Plus, it has been the policy of the United States not
to negotiate with terrorists, and this seems to also have been
violated.
The Haqqani Network are the ones who held Sergeant
Bergdahl. It's a designated foreign terrorist organization
according to the United States State Department and has killed
countless Americans and Afghan soldiers. It maintains close
ties with al-Qaeda and it's the most dangerous terrorist group
fighting in Afghanistan.
It doesn't matter that Qatar acted as a go-between the
United States because it did involve negotiating with
terrorists in the Haqqani Network. This raises another concern
close to home in Texas.
One of my constituents, Victor Lovelady, was taken hostage
during the terrorist attack on an Algerian gas facility in
January 2013, an event that many Americans have forgotten. He
was captured after he hid some of his coworkers in a space in
the refinery. The terrorists never found the coworkers and they
eventually escaped alive.
It's been reported that the hostage takers wanted to trade
those three American hostages at the facility, including
Victor, for two convicted terrorists in the United States
custody. Victor's brother, Michael, and his daughter, Erin,
wrote to me recently to say that they were told by our
Government during the attack that the United States does not
negotiate with terrorists. Victor was later killed.
I ask for unanimous consent that the letters be made part
of the record. So ordered.
The Bergdahl release troubled them, and rightly so.
Victor's daughter wrote to me in this letter, ``The question
that continues to come to mind is what makes one American life
more important than another? And if we're going to negotiate
for one, why would we not negotiate for everybody?'' I cannot
answer that question, and I really do not know what the United
States' current policy is on negotiating with terrorists. Maybe
we will find out.
Negotiating with a designated terrorist organization like
we did with the Haqqani Network is unprecedented. Department of
Defense says it will hold Sergeant Bergdahl accountable for his
actions; however, National Security Advisor Susan Rice has said
that Sergeant Bergdahl has served with honor and distinction.
Once again, this hearing will shed more light on that issue.
One of our witnesses today served with Sergeant Bergdahl and he
will discuss Bergdahl's disappearance.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is on record stating that
he was not aware of any United States soldier who lost their
life in search for Sergeant Bergdahl. The family of one of
those brave Americans who gave his life, Lieutenant Darryn
Andrews, is here today to set the record straight. He earned a
Silver Star for his actions which included protecting his
brothers in arms and taking the brunt of the Taliban rocket-
propelled grenade which ultimately took his life. Darryn left
behind a pregnant wife and a young son at the time of his
death.
So, today we have witnesses who can tell us what else
happened in eastern Afghanistan in 2009, those who have
suffered as a result, and what this so called deal may mean for
Afghanistan and the United States going forward.
I yield back my time, and I will now recognize the ranking
member from California, Mr. Sherman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. Mr. Andrews. We know that you are
the father of Darryn Andrews, Second Lieutenant who gave his
life for his country. We cannot thank you enough for your
family's sacrifice. We salute Darryn's courage.
I would also like to thank you, Specialist Full for your
service to our country. Mr. Waltz is a Senior National Security
Fellow at the New America Foundation who commanded Special
Forces in eastern Afghanistan. Thank you for your service. And
Dr. Jacobson, thank you for your 20 years of service in the
military, including your deployment to Afghanistan.
First, as to a preliminary issue on Iraq, let me point out
that we do not have forces in Iraq. We do not have a Status of
Forces Agreement with Iraq. It was President Bush that
installed al-Maliki as Prime Minister of Iraq in 2006, and the
misgovernance of Prime Minister Maliki is directly responsible
for the violence taking place in that country today. It should
not be surprising that Maliki refused to enter a Status of
Forces Agreement with the United States under President Obama.
He refused to enter a long-term Status of Forces Agreement with
President Bush, the man who, in effect, allowed him to take
power.
As to releases from Guantanamo, while we're focusing today
on five Guantanamo prisoners being released, President Bush
released over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo. Most of them were
dangerous. Over 100 of them we know are fighting us on the
battlefield and we know where. Most of the others are fighting
against us, as well. We just can't pinpoint where they are
located. And what did we get for the 500 that President Bush
released? Absolutely nothing except thank you notes from their
native countries.
As to Section 1035 D of the National Defense Authorization
Act, the President has filed a report. Members of this
committee can go read it. It is in depth. It is arguably late
as many reports to Congress are.
Keep in mind that we have to construe Section 1035 D so as
to avoid constitutional questions; therefore, it has been and
should be interpreted not to apply in this circumstance,
particularly in a circumstance involving a prisoner exchange.
Keep in mind that the last Republican Attorney General of
the United States, Michael Mirkasey, stated that ``This code
section is unconstitutional to the extent it acts to prevent a
prisoner exchange.''
Now, I would have preferred if President Obama had, indeed,
conferred with leaders of Congress. I'm glad to see he is
conferring with congressional leaders about what to do in Iraq.
America is strongest when our President views Members of
Congress as a source of counsel and input, not persons to be
notified only when the notification is compelled by a
constitutionally valid statute.
And I will point out that Members of Congress, leaders of
Congress can keep a secret. Some 16 congressional leaders knew
that we had ascertained the hiding place of Osama bin Laden,
and that information did not leak.
As to negotiating with terrorists, it's a nice phrase that
we don't do it. The fact is, we do it all the time. The Bush
administration negotiated with every single terrorist regime in
the world. We identified five state sponsors of terrorism, and
the Bush administration negotiated with Cuba, Iran, Sudan,
Syria, and North Korea. The Bush administration paid an al-
Qaeda affiliate a ransom for the release of Martin and Gracia
Burnham. Secretary of State Colin Powell designated the Afghan
Taliban as an organization authorized for legal authorization.
Now, it is said that because we paid a price for the
release of Bergdahl that this put terrorists around the world
on notice of a fact they somehow didn't know before, and that
is that America cares about those who are detained. A walk
through the halls of this building shows the POW flags from the
Vietnam War. Everyone in the world knows that we care about our
detainees. There are resolutions introduced by Republican
members available to anyone on the Internet that show that we
regard the release of Sergeant Bergdahl as an important
national objective.
Bringing our prisoners home is important to America. The
enemy already knows that, and we know it, as well. And I yield
back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. For the information of
the committees, we are in a series of votes. The Chair plans to
hear the opening statements of all the members and then come
back for the testimony after the vote.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Middle
East Subcommittee, chairman. You're not the ranking member,
although----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. It's good enough. Thank you.
Mr. Poe [continuing]. Mr. Sherman thinks you should be.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Poe. For 5 minutes, thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you. I thank the witnesses for
being with us, especially Mr. Andrews whose son Darryn Deen was
killed in Afghanistan in 2009, and Mr. Full, and Mr. Waltz,
thank you for your service. Mr. Andrews, I cannot imagine what
it would feel like to lose a child in the service of our
nation, but as a stepmother of a U.S. Marine Aviator who served
in Iraq, and a mother-in-law to another Marine Aviator who
served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, I know the sleepless
nights and the constant worry that parents face when their
child or loved ones are constantly in harm's way.
Our country owes our brave men and women who have served
and who have earned our gratitude a debt that can never be
repaid, but it must start with being completely forthcoming
with them.
In late 2011, while I was chair of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, the administration gathered the chairmen and
the ranking members of the pertinent national security
committees, as well as congressional leaderships to brief us on
a potential prisoner swap of Taliban terrorists for Sergeant
Bowe Bergdahl. And although the meeting was classified, news
reports from just earlier this month indicate that the
administration had a team of officials from the National
Security Council, Pentagon, State Department, CIA, Director of
National Intelligence present the administration's plan to us.
At the time of the briefing, using all available
information given to me, I was adamantly opposed to the
proposed swap, I said so at the meeting as did many of our
colleagues. My opinion has not changed as more information has
been revealed.
I opposed the swap not because I did not want to bring Bowe
home. It's important to have him home and out of the hands of
the Taliban. I opposed the swap because the proposal would have
resulted in a huge coup for the Taliban, would have benefitted
them, jeopardized the safety and security of our brave men and
women in uniform, and compromised our national security
interest.
With so many of our colleagues expressing our disapproval
of the swap, the administration seemed to have gotten the
message and dropped its exchange plan, or so we thought. Then
earlier this month, I like the rest of my congressional
colleagues and the American public read the news that the
administration had swapped five Taliban commanders for the
Sergeant. Despite his promises to notify Congress, not to
mention its legal authority to do so, the administration kept
the deal secret and acted unilaterally. The deal is precisely
the reason for the legal mandate that Congress be given 30 days
notice because the administration has a proven track record of
overstepping and abusing its authority.
As we've already seen, the Taliban used this to its benefit
using the video tape of the exchange as propaganda, and as a
recruitment video. And it has only emboldened them further. Not
only that, but despite the agreement with the Government of
Qatar, which by the way is only for 1 year, to supervise these
five Taliban high-level operatives, there are no assurances
that they won't be back in the fight in short order and
orchestrating attacks from their lavish new headquarters in
Doha.
The fact that we are placing our hopes in Qatar, a country
that has been full throated in its support for the Muslim
Brotherhood, especially in Egypt where Qatar's support for the
Brotherhood actively worked against our interest in seeing a
Democratic transition there, will likely further or strain our
already damaged ties with our traditional partners in the Gulf.
This may have serious implications for our national
security objectives, especially as it relates to our efforts in
Iran. But this swap is more than just Bowe Bergdahl or the
Taliban, it's about U.S. national security, the safety of our
men and women in uniform, and it's about the administration's
disregard for the law and the contempt it holds for its
obligations to Congress.
The administration's deal to swap five senior Taliban
officials for the Sergeant has far-reaching implications.
Negotiating and ultimately forging a deal with Taliban
terrorists unnecessarily endangers all of the service men and
women who are operating in war zones right now that these five
senior Taliban operatives are likely to rejoin the fight. And
it also inspires the Taliban and other terrorist groups to
conduct abductions of our armed forces personnel, as we have
already seen one Taliban commander admit that the Taliban is
now encouraged by the results of the Bergdahl trade.
Then, of course, there are questions of the legality of the
administration's unilateral decision, and the frustration level
and lack of trust that Congress has with the administration as
a result of this swap. There are many, many unanswered
questions, Mr. Chairman, the administration still needs to
answer, but for today it's important that we have the
opportunity to hear from some of the people and how this
decision has impacted them personally, those who served in
Afghanistan fighting side by side with a fellow soldier, those
service men and women who may have been placed even further in
harm's way as a result of this exchange, and those who lost a
loved one in Afghanistan, they deserve to be heard, and they
deserve the truth.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Mr. Poe. Thank the gentle lady for yielding back her time.
The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the Middle East
Subcommittee, Mr. Deutch, from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Chairman Poe and Ranking Member
Sherman.
To our witnesses, thanks for appearing today. Mr. Andrews,
I join with my colleagues in telling you that words will never
be enough to express our gratitude for your son, your family
for making the ultimate sacrifice for this country. I
appreciate your being here today, and will forever be grateful
to Darryn for his courageous service to our nation.
Mr. Full, we're deeply grateful for your honorable service
to this country. And Mr. Waltz, Mr. Jacobson, thank you for
being here and for your years of service.
We all know that there are substantial questions
surrounding the disappearance of Sergeant Bergdahl and the
subsequent decision to exchange the Taliban Five for his
release. It may take months before we know for sure what
transpired in the days and weeks leading up to the
disappearance of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. Was he suffering
from psychological trauma? Was he AWOL? Was he a deserter? The
Army investigation has begun and rest assured answers to these
questions will come to light and the Army will take whatever
action it deems appropriate.
I'm a bit perplexed when some Members of Congress have
already decided the facts of this case. We have a solemn
obligation to leave no American soldier behind. And when the
opportunity to get an American soldier back from the enemy
presents itself, we take it. This country has a long history of
getting American servicemen back through prisoner exchanges
because we promised the men and women, when they signed up
bravely to serve their country, that we would do everything
that we can to protect them and to ensure that they return
home.
Some of my colleagues have apparently concluded now how
Sergeant Bergdahl's status should be treated, how the facts
should be resolved. And that perhaps one concludes that he be
left with the Taliban. So, I would ask what kind of military
court is it, what kind of military court of justice do we have
where Members of Congress play the role of judge and jury, find
someone guilty, and leave it to the Taliban to carry out the
punishment?
We have every right to question why Congress wasn't
consulted and notified of this deal. I believe that was a
mistake, but I would simply caution against prejudging the
facts of this case. What message are we sending our troops if
we don't do everything that we can to retrieve an American
soldier that the Army has officially declared missing and
captured? You can have a debate over whether the price for
Sergeant Bergdahl was too high, and it's an appropriate debate
to have, but we should also be reminded of the 532 Guantanamo
Bay detainees who were transferred before this President came
to office. Where was the outrage then?
There are those who have suggested that the administration
has politicized this deal. I would simply point out that many
members of this Congress who are now saying that they oppose
this deal supported the very idea of a prisoner exchange and
were urging the administration to do more to secure the release
of Sergeant Bergdahl.
Turning back to our witness, Mr. Andrews, there is nothing
that we can say to take away the pain of losing a child, and
I'd like again to offer my sincerest gratitude for Darryn's
honorable service to his country. I thank you, Mr. Full, I
thank you for your service, and all of the witnesses for your
commitment to protecting this nation. I appreciate the
opportunity to hear from all of you today, and I yield back.
Mr. Poe. I appreciate the gentleman yielding back some of
his time.
The Chair will now recognize the individual members for 1
minute of their opening statements. Mr. Chabot from Ohio is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Like many of my colleagues and most
constituents I talk with, I'm very troubled with the
administration's insistence that the deal made to free five
Taliban leaders in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl was the best
deal we could get.
The Washington Post reports that among the Taliban Five are
the former Taliban Interior Minister who was known to have
close ties to Osama Bin Laden, a former Taliban Army Chief of
Staff who along with another of the freed Taliban is thought to
have been present when CIA Officer Johnny Spam was killed back
in 2001, and two Taliban operatives who work closely with al-
Qaeda, notably Mohammad Nabi Omari, whose case file says is
``one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained''
at Guantanamo Bay.
Now, I don't know how many of my colleagues have had the
opportunity to visit our facility in Guantanamo Bay and look
into the eyes of those who were involved in the killing of so
many. I've been there three times. As much as I'd like to think
that they've learned the error of their ways and want nothing
more than to spend a quiet life with their families in Doha,
I'm afraid you'd have to put me down in the skeptical, very
skeptical column. I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will hear the
testimony or the opening statement of one more member, and then
we'll hear the rest of them after the vote.
Mr. Cicilline from Rhode Island is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and
Ranking Members Deutch and Sherman for holding today's hearing.
I want to thank all of the witnesses, especially Mr. Andrews
and Specialist Full for their services and for your willingness
to share your very personal stories with us today. Words can
never adequately provide comfort to you, Mr. Andrews, and to
your family, nor can words convey the deep gratitude of our
entire nation for the service of your son.
It's important that we take time today and in the weeks and
months ahead to diligently, and thoroughly, and dispassionately
examine the details surrounding the exchange of several high-
value prisoners from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay
for the return of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.
We should never lose sight of the long-held American
tradition that we'll do everything possible to secure the
release of an American service member. I'm hopeful that today's
hearing will highlight ways in which the administration and
Congress can work together to protect the safety of our armed
forces and insure the security of our country.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses and gaining
greater clarity regarding the circumstances surrounding the
exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl.
And, finally, I hope this hearing will serve as a reminder
to all of us that we must stay focused on ending American
involvement in Afghanistan, and insuring the safe return of our
fellow Americans serving there.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman from Rhode Island yields back. The
Chair will be in recess for 15 minutes, and we'll continue with
opening statements, then testimony of our witnesses.
[Recess.]
Mr. Poe. The subcommittee will come to order. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 1
minute.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's fun listening
to I think the strategy session across the aisle was hey, what
are going to do? Well, let's blame Bush. It seemed to have
worked for the last 6 years, so it's going to be an interesting
hearing.
I just want to say first off, thank you to the witnesses
for being here. You know, when I went through survival training
I was told your country will never leave you behind. I think
it's very important to note that there was kind of a mutual
understanding that your country will never leave you behind, if
you never leave your country behind. And then, secondly, there
was a mutual understanding that there can be a cost that is too
great to pay. Your country promised to always search for you,
they promised to move Heaven and Earth to come get you, but I
was never in survival training promised that my country would
release some of the five biggest enemies of the United States
and the people that we've tried to bring freedom to in
exchange. So, I'm interested to hear what everybody's thoughts
is on why this happened, and some of the things surrounding
this. I only have a minute, so I want to thank the chairman and
yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, for 1 minute. I know
you ran back.
Ms. Frankel. Catch my breath. Well, thank you, and thank
you, gentlemen for all being here. Mr. Andrews, my heart breaks
for you, and to the gentlemen, I thank you for your service.
I want to give a little different--my own personal
perspective. My own son has served both in Iraq and Afghanistan
as a United States Marine. I'm very proud of that. He is home.
But I will tell you this, when he went off to war I, of course,
like probably most parents not only feared he would not come
home alive, or that he would come home very maimed; but for me,
my biggest worry was that he would be taken as a prisoner of
war, tortured, put in a cage. It was just unimaginable. And
that's why I believe so strongly in the U.S. military principle
that we should leave no man or woman behind. It maintains
confidence, it maintains order.
When we send our young men and women off to war, they
should know we have their backs. We will do everything possible
to bring them home. Thank you, again, for your service and,
sir, for your loss.
Mr. Poe. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton, for 1
minute.
Mr. Cotton. Five years ago today I was a captain in the
United States Army in Laughman Province so I think I will take
the prerogative to speak on behalf of the soldiers who served
in Afghanistan. I find it offensive and insulting that this
administration, up to and including the President, would cite
the principle of leaving no man behind to justify this action.
Every day in Ranger School we recited the Ranger Creed,
that I will never leave a fallen comrade. You know who didn't
leave a fallen comrade, Cody Full, Darryn Andrews, or all of
the soldiers who went after him in the weeks and the months
after his disappearance knowing that he had deserted.
When we made those promises to each other, we didn't
promise that we would exchange five stone-cold Taliban killers
for each other, nor would any soldier want that to happen.
Would we exchange Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Deputy National
Security Advisor Tony Blinken said directly to me that we would
not.
Finally, I want to say something to the anonymous sources
in the President's administration for disparaging the service
of the 2nd Platoon and Blackfoot Company. Show yourself, speak
your own name, have the courage of your convictions. And if you
don't, shut up and stand back and thank these men for their
service.
Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. DeSantis, for 1 minute.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm hearing my colleagues on the other side talking about
oh, don't politicize this, but then blame Bush or whatever. It
seems to me that, you know, the President politicized this when
he had a White House Rose Garden ceremony for Mr. Bergdahl's
parents.
I'm going to ask Mr. Andrews, and I'd like to know whether
any of the people who served honorably and were killed in
action were given the courtesy of a Rose Garden ceremony at the
White House? I think the answer to that is probably no.
The bottom line here is either what the President did
benefitted the security of the United States, or it did not. I
believe it did not, and I think that this was something that
the American people disagree with. And I see that many of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are looking to
essentially run interference for the administration by blaming
previous Presidents. That doesn't cut it. Let's deal with this
issue as its own, and I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Connolly, for 1 minute.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Andrews, my
deepest sympathy to you and your family. That may be your wife
behind you? There aren't any words to express the terrible
sense of loss you must experience. And I've had friends have
similar losses and my heart goes out to you. Thank you for
being here today.
We're here today to examine the decision to exchange
Sergeant Bergdahl, a soldier held in captivity for 5 years, for
five detainees in Guantanamo. Now, it's easy to yield to the
temptation to decide that Mr. Bergdahl did not serve his
country. I would caution my colleagues, this isn't a partisan
affair. This is about somebody's service, and we should
withhold judgment on the quality and nature of that service
until the facts are known. The benefit of the doubt belongs to
Mr. Bergdahl pending that. It is not for Congress in advance to
decide somebody's status before we justify leaving no one
behind. So, I'm interested in this hearing. I'm interested in
the facts, and I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle this one time to let us resist the temptation of
partisanship. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for 1 minute.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recently returned
from Guantanamo, and got to look in the eyes of many of the
detainees that are there. Make no mistake, the ones that we
released, are in no comparison to the 400 or 500 that have been
released prior. These men were a danger to the ones who guarded
them, so dangerous that we can't even identify those who do
guard them for their own protection.
They are not choir boys, but I will assure you they are
singing a song. It is a death march for those men and women who
will come in their way in the future, and the cost in my
opinion was way too high to release the Taliban Five in
exchange for this. And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Weber, for 1 minute.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague is
correct, this is not a partisan affair. This is the Committee
of Foreign Affairs, and that it is, it is a foreign affair. And
the President is charged with negotiating on our behalf,
unfortunately. I hope that we come to the conclusion to implore
this President, Mr. President, stop negotiating on our behalf,
please.
Some would say that in military terms what the President
did, we got one conventional weapon, some would say a dud. They
got five nuclear weapons. Maybe we need to come to the
conclusion to send a letter to the President, please, Mr.
President, stop negotiating for us.
As to the Andrews, as Abraham Lincoln said in a letter to
Mrs. Bixby, ``There's no words that we can express to you but
to generally relate our sincere appreciation for your
sacrifice.''
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, for 1 minute.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. President Obama has
put American military personnel, U.S. diplomatic personnel, and
yes, even American businessmen and tourists at risk by
releasing five terrorist leaders in exchange for a captured
American. We have given terrorists the incentive to capture and
hold hostages more and more.
I would say that what we have to realize is that our
President has just made a decision that will result in our
country and our people being less safe than had he not made
that decision. And, yes, President Bush released 500 Taliban
that had been held in GITMO, but let me note, he did not make a
deal for them. He did a survey to find out if they were the
least threatening of those people who were being held. Had he
done a deal for them, we would be condemning him, as well.
The fact is, this was an exchange, a specific exchange, a
quid pro quo that will do nothing but encourage terrorists
around the world to seek other hostages to make similar deals.
Our President has done a great disservice to those who
defend us, as well as to the people of the United States. He's
put us at risk.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for 1
minute.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. and Mrs.
Andrews, thank you so much for your family's service.
Specialist Full, thank you for your service. It's very personal
to me. My two older sons served in Iraq, my third son served in
Egypt, and my fourth son just returned from his service in
Afghanistan, so I truly have a great appreciation of the
commitment of military families, service members, or veterans.
And the President has disrespected all of them by releasing
five Taliban. The response was mass murder in Pakistan. There
were two attacks on the airport there in Karachi, dozens of
people were murdered. Also, Shiite pilgrims were murdered just
last week. The response is very, very clear.
And, in fact, we found out that one of the Taliban leaders
said how much he appreciated the release, the pardon of one of
the particular Taliban Five who is the equivalent of 10,000
Taliban fighters. This is serious. The President has put the
American people at risk. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Poe. Does any other member wish to be recognized for
opening statement? Seeing none, the Chair will go into the
statements of the witnesses. Without objection, all the
witnesses' prepared statements will be made part of the record.
I ask that each witness please keep your presentation to no
more than 5 minutes. When you see the red light come on that
means stop.
You're welcome to summarize your prepared statements if you
need to. Witnesses are also advised that, as usual, testimony
provided to the subcommittee is subject to the False Statements
Act under 18 USC Section 1001; and, thus, any deliberate
misrepresentation or concealment of material information is
punishable by law.
I'll introduce each of the witnesses, and then we'll allow
them to testify in the order that they are seated. Mr. Andy
Andrews is the father of the fallen Second Lieutenant Darryn
Andrews who was reportedly killed while on mission to look for
Sergeant Bergdahl. He is joined by his wife, Sandra Andrews,
who is seated directly behind him, and she is wearing the dog
tags of her son.
Mr. Andrews, I know your time is limited because you have
to catch a plane to go back to Houston for chemotherapy, and we
appreciate you and your wife making the trip all the way to
Washington, and wish you both a quick recovery.
Specialist Cody Full was a Specialist in Sergeant
Bergdahl's squad at the time he disappeared, and they were
previously roommates together.
Mr. Mike Waltz is the Senior National Security Fellow at
the New America Foundation. Mr. Waltz commanded a Special
Forces Company in eastern Afghanistan at the time Sergeant
Bergdahl was captured. He was previously a Senior Defense
Department Coordinator for Afghanistan and Vice President
Cheney's Counterterrorism Advisor.
And then Dr. Mark Davidson is the Senior Advisor at the
Truman National Security Project, Adjunct Professor at George
Washington University. He previously advised both General
Stanley McChrystal and General David Petraeus, and has served
on the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
We will start with Mr. Andrews. You have 5 minutes, sir.
You will need to turn on the microphone. It's that little
button in front of you.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANDY ANDREWS, FATHER OF DECEASED SECOND
LIEUTENANT, USA, DARRYN ANDREWS
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ranking members and
members of the subcommittee. I am Andy Andrews, father of
Second Lieutenant Darryn Deen Andrews who was killed in
Afghanistan during the process for searching for Bowe Bergdahl.
Darryn's first tour in Afghanistan was in 2004 as an
enlisted soldier. He developed a medical condition that
required surgery so he was sent to Germany, and then back to
the States. He applied to the Green to Gold program and was
accepted into it. He enrolled in 2006 at Texas State University
in San Marcos, Texas to complete his Master's degree while
enrolled in ROTC.
He was commissioned to Second Lieutenant of the U.S. Army.
He was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, then briefly at Fort
Richardson, Alaska before being sent to Afghanistan in April
2009.
We were able to talk to Darryn by telephone whenever he got
the chance to call. We conversed with him around July 1st or
3rd. His birthday is on the 3rd. He told us they had been out
looking for the last 24 hours for this soldier who had walked
away. I asked if the soldier had been captured while on guard
duty. Darryn said he didn't think so because all of his gear
was found neatly stacked, so he thought the soldier had just
left. The soldier's name was not mentioned, so all we knew was
that a soldier had left.
Darryn could not tell us where he was, or what they were
doing. When we would talk to him in the next few months, we
would occasionally ask if they had found the soldier, and he
would say no, they were still looking. No name or specifics
were ever mentioned.
Darryn was killed on September 4th, 2009 which
coincidentally, was our 41st wedding anniversary. Second
Lieutenant Darryn Deen Andrews distinguished himself by
extraordinary heroism in combat as the Platoon Leader of the
3rd Platoon Blackfoot Company, First Battalion, 501st Infantry
Airborne in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Darryn's
wife and son, his twin brother Jarrett and his family were in
Cameron, Texas to celebrate Daylan's, which is Darryn's son,
second birthday on September 7th. My wife and I had been on the
coast to celebrate our anniversary. We had just pulled into our
driveway and started to unload the truck. Jarrett had come over
and told us that Darryn's wife's neighbor had called to tell
her that the Army was looking for her. This was approximately
15:30 hours. We told him that we would call her and tell her to
be back at the house at 18:30 hours. I unhooked the boat, and
we all went to New Braunfels.
The Army notification team arrived at approximately 19:00
hours. The Sergeant told us that Darryn had been killed on
September 4th, and he would probably still be alive if he had
remained in the truck like most officers would have instead of
getting out of the truck to help get it out of the hole the IED
had made. We were told he had saved soldiers lives when he
spotted enemy combatant fire, an RPG, shoved others out of the
way and alerted other soldiers. Darryn took a direct hit from
the RPG.
When we attended a memorial service for Darryn and other
soldiers killed in Afghanistan, Lieutenant Colonel Baker's wife
hosted a luncheon for us. At that luncheon, Captain Silvino
Silvino Sandoval told us exactly how Darryn was killed. He
stated they were on a mission to locate high interest Taliban
and were passing through a village. The road had walls on each
side and room to maneuver was limited. The lead vehicle hit an
IED and was disabled, because of the walls were on each side
around the vehicle was not possible. They got out to assess the
damage. Darryn had Staff Sergeant Zavodny and PFC Martinec with
him. Darryn saw the enemy combatant step from behind the wall
and fire an RPG. Darryn yelled RPG and pushed Zavodny and
Martinec to the ground, and then Darryn took a direct hit from
the RPG. Staff Sergeant Zavodny received some damage to his
ears, and Private Martinec survived the airlift to Germany, but
died a few days later.
On February 12th, 2010, Second Lieutenant Darryn Deen
Andrews was posthumously awarded the Silver Star for his heroic
actions. At no time during this was it mentioned that he was
searching for Bergdahl, only searching for a high interest
Taliban.
When Bergdahl was portrayed on television as serving with
honor and distinction by State by Susan Rice. The soldiers who
were there contacted my wife to make sure we knew, we
understood what a hero was, and was not, and Bergdahl's walking
away was a contributing factor in Darryn's death.
I saw the Lieutenant Colonel on the television state, ``If
you want to know what happened ask the enlisted people, don't
ask the officers because the enlisted people can tell you
exactly what happened.'' We received testimony from six
different soldiers, the same testimony that Bergdahl walked
away and was not captured, and that Darryn was killed while
searching for him. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. The committee now will
hear from Specialist Full.
STATEMENT OF SPC. CODY FULL, USA, RETIRED (SERVED WITH SGT.
BERGDAHL IN BLACKFOOT COMPANY, SECOND PLATOON)
Mr. Full. Chairman, ranking members and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to share my firsthand
account of my experiences serving in Afghanistan.
One of the first things I noticed about Bergdahl when he
arrived in our unit, he was always asking questions. He seemed
focused, he was well read, intelligent, blended in as he needed
to be, always at the right place, right time, right uniform.
In November I got deployed to the National Training Center
to train for an upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. During this
time, myself, or anybody I've spoken with can't remember
Bergdahl walking off the base and abandoning his team. This
story seems to be repeated over and over again. I have no idea
why. We would have at least heard about that or known it was
happening. It did not happen.
In March 2009, our brigade deployed to Afghanistan but
Bergdahl did not make the deployment with us. He had gotten a
staph infection and would not make it until May 2009.
Soon after arriving in Afghanistan, we were tasked with
building an overview called Observation Post MEST. While there
we were on the front lines digging holes for bunkers, filling
sandbags, driving T posts, hanging wire, all grilling tasks in
themselves in 100 degree weather, go ahead and add your
equipment, it's very tough. We were told we could take some
items of clothing off to keep us from having a heat stroke.
Security was always set in place. Nobody was ever in jeopardy.
This has been used against us saying that we were a band of
outlaws or misfits, not the case. Leaders were reprimanded for
that by somebody higher up. We in the platoon felt that it was
without merit.
After arriving in Afghanistan, it didn't take long for
Bergdahl to start voicing his disagreements with the way our
missions were being led. He didn't understand why we were doing
more humanitarian missions instead of hunting the Taliban. Our
Team Leader and Squad Leader both told Bergdahl that those were
our orders and we will follow them.
Before we went out to OP MEST the day of June 30, 2009,
about a week before we were told this is the last time we would
ever go out to this observation post. During this time,
Bergdahl mailed his items home or to a family friend. He mailed
them back to the States. We didn't know this until after we got
back, after he deserted, and we found that his equipment had
been mailed home.
On the night of June 30th, excuse me, the morning of June
30th, 100 percent accountability was held around 6 a.m.
Everyone was given the proper number of men and equipment
except for 3rd Squad Alpha Team, which was my team, the squad
that Bergdahl was in. Platoon members immediately started
searching the tiny observation post for missing items. We
looked under cots, the latrine, under trucks, everywhere we
could think. Bergdahl was nowhere to be found. In a single man
tent Bergdahl been sleeping in we found his gun, ammo and plate
carrier.
Patrols were immediately kicked out to the surrounding area
to look for Bergdahl. According to some small children we spoke
to they had seen a single American matching Bergdahl's
description crawling low on the ground through the reeds
earlier that day on their way to school. The story was also
confirmed by a cleric and a teacher that saw the same thing.
A few days later we heard from our interpreter that the
American that was walking around in the Afghan village looking
for somebody that spoke English and water also wanted to seek
out the Taliban. That was from the interpreter speaking it
directly to us.
After Bergdahl was found that he walked off, DUSTWAN was
called up that his duty status and whereabouts unknown. Every
asset in Afghanistan was pushed to this effort. After Bergdahl
shipping his items home, local accounts of seeing him crawling
and asking for the Taliban, the false stories he emailed his
father and odd questions all helped us connect the dots later,
but at the time of the unfolding of the events it seemed like
normal off-the-wall jargon common when the infantry is
deployed.
The facts tell me that Bergdahl's desertion was
premeditated. He had a plan and was trying to justify it in his
head. How long he had planned this I do not know, but it is
clear to me that he had a plan and executed it. Countless
people looked for him when he went missing putting their own
lives on the line for his.
Combat is difficult. The only thing you can count on in
combat is the commitment of your fellow Americans. Knowing that
someone you needed to trust deserted you in war and did so of
his own free will is the ultimate betrayal.
Now that Bergdahl is back in the United States an
investigation needs to take place as to why he left us. All the
documents, including the intelligence known on Bergdahl now
need to come to the public view. Americans need to also see the
original investigation on Bergdahl's desertion. You should not
be able to desert your fellow Americans without consequences.
Bowe Bergdahl should not be characterized as having served with
honor and distinction. Any armed service member who violates
UCMJ is punished. Bergdahl should not be an exception. If
Bergdahl hadn't deserted us, he would never been held in
captivity.
In my opinion, Bowe Bergdahl needs to be charged with
desertion, missing movement, disrespect for a superior
commissioned officer, insubordinate conduct toward non-
commissioned officer, failure to obey order or regulation,
misbehavior before the enemy, and misconduct as prisoner. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Full follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
________
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Full. Mr. Waltz, your testimony for
5 minutes, please.
STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE WALTZ, SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY FELLOW,
NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION (COMMANDED A SPECIAL FORCES' COMPANY IN
EASTERN AFGHANISTAN IN 2009)
Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, ranking members,
thank you for holding this hearing today on a subject of vital
national importance.
I, too, want to take just a moment to pay tribute to the
family members of the thousands who served their country in
this conflict, particularly the Andrews family that are here
with us today. At the end of the day, we volunteered, we
volunteered to go but the families have to deal with the
consequences of our service.
On June 30th, 2009, I commanded a U.S. Army Special Forces
Company with responsibility for operations in Afghanistan,
particularly Paktika Province where then Private Bergdahl went
missing. That evening two of my special forces teams boarded
helicopters on a mission to search an Afghan compound where we
had indication that Bergdahl may be held. This marked the
beginning of several weeks worth of missions into some of the
most hostile areas of Afghanistan and the Pakistan border to
find him.
Within days we received orders to halt all other ongoing
missions and initiatives; notably, including preparations for
the 2009 Afghan National Elections. We were ordered to devote
all resources and energy to the search for Bergdahl. It soon
became apparent, however, that the Taliban knew we were
conducting an all-out search for him and they began feeding
false information to our informant network in order to lure our
forces into a trap.
On several occasions, my men were lured into ambushes,
including an Afghan home rigged with explosives, a car bomb
that was primed to explode, and other types of deadly traps.
Fortunately, the bombs failed to explode in those situations,
but they were too close for comfort. Other soldiers, as we
know, were not so fortunate.
All of us commonly understood at the time that Bergdahl had
walked off his post after a guard shift into a local Afghan
village. We knew, though, that we had to do whatever it took to
find him, and that was fine. But I have to tell you, all of my
men, me included, were absolutely furious and resentful,
frankly, that a fellow American soldier had put us into this
position. It violated the most fundamental and basic ethos of
being a soldier and a soldier's creed.
I'll leave further speculation regarding his state of mind
of his motives to my fellow witnesses who knew him personally,
but I am confident in saying Sergeant Bergdahl endangered the
lives of thousands of men and women sent to search for him. He
diverted scarce and valuable resources such as predator drones,
helicopters, IED clearing teams from other units that
desperately needed those assets.
Wittingly or unwittingly, he handed our enemies a
significant propaganda tool that they repeatedly used in videos
to denounce the United States and recruit for their cause.
And, finally, we all know that he handed the Taliban's
leadership a strategic bargaining tool that they effectively
used to free five of their most senior leaders, what I call the
Taliban war cabinet.
I just want to take a moment, I think it's important to put
the release of these men in the broader context of our policy
toward Afghanistan. As I'm sure you are aware, millions of
Afghans voted in the runoff election this past Saturday. They
are in the midst of one of the most sensitive and unprecedented
political transitions in their history. In my view, there are
still significant questions whether they will succeed.
Every Afghan that I've spoken to from civilian society, to
government officials are stunned that we would release these
individuals back into their society. We have to keep in mind,
these men were household names, particularly they're household
names of the worst kind, particularly the women and minorities
that were slaughtered at their hands.
It's the timing, though, of this release that has some of
these groups particularly perplexed. We spent the last year
dueling and cajoling President Karzai to sign a long-term
security agreement with us, the Bilateral Security Agreement.
Both of the final candidates to replace Karzai have indicated
they would sign it, yet weeks before the Presidential election,
the administration announces a full withdrawal of all U.S.
forces by the end of '16, essentially a zero option, and then
we have restocked the Taliban war cabinet. So, even if the
Government of Qatar is able to prevent these men from returning
to their own ways, what's going to happen a year from now? You
know, a year in that part of the world is a blink of an eye to
people who have long memories and a long view toward their
objectives.
You know, one can understand the confusion and
transparency, and trepidation, excuse me, of even the most
ardent supporters of a strong Afghan-U.S. relationship, so
where does that leave our policy going forward? In my view,
it's one of hope and assumption. We're assuming the Afghan army
can hold its ground, we're assuming there will be no ethnic
violence as part of the transition. We're assuming
reconciliation talks will resume in our favor. And, most
importantly, we're assuming that al-Qaeda can't reconstitute
like it has in Iraq and as in Syria.
And I would just leave you with a word of caution. If that
scares us, and what's going on right now with ISIS, and Iraq,
and Syria should, what's going to happen when we're dealing
with a nuclear arsenal in Pakistan? I have other views, but I'm
happy to answer a question on AUMF and on future GITMO release,
but I am out of time, and with that I will stop, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. Dr. Jacobson, 5 minutes,
please.
STATEMENT OF MARK JACOBSON, PH.D., SENIOR ADVISOR, TRUMAN
NATIONAL SECURITY PROJECT
Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman, Ranking Members
Sherman and Deutch, and distinguished members of the joint
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
I should first note that I, too, extend my gratitude to the
Andrews family for the sacrifice they have made. I would like
to have known their son. From what I have read and from what I
have heard, he's a true hero.
I'm also honored to be sitting beside my friend, Mike
Waltz, who is also a true patriot and a hero, and has served
his nation bravely in Afghanistan. And thank you, Specialist
Full, for your service, as well.
As someone who served in the Pentagon on September 11th,
2001, the threat posed by terrorism is not lost on me. While I
had made the decision years before to devote myself to my
nation, that day changed all of our lives forever. As a result,
I spent several years in Afghanistan as a Naval Intelligence
Officer, and later as a civilian advisor.
I am acutely aware of the danger that remains today in
Afghanistan. For the four of us at the table, this conflict is
personal and we all feel the impact of this war in a way most
Americans do not.
One of the greatest commitments an American can make to
their nation is to put on a uniform and take an oath to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States. By taking
this oath, these men and women make the selfless decision to
put their country first. They do so knowing that they may be
one day called to give that last full measure of devotion, to
give their lives for their comrades, their families, and their
nation. In exchange for that, the military makes its own
promise, a promise to keep faith with those who have been
captured. The commitment is simple, leave no man or woman
behind, no exceptions. This commitment is unequivocal
regardless of the circumstances of capture. This is something
we owe to all those who have served, do serve, and will serve.
In short, this is why I believe that securing Sergeant
Bergdahl's release was absolutely the right thing to do, and
was worth the potential risks. Indeed, if Bergdahl did act
improperly, then it is even more important that he brought home
and held accountable in the military system for his actions.
While there is always risk when releasing detainees, those
risks must be seen within a broader context. Indeed, the
potential risks for the administration are no greater today
than they were during the previous administration when 532
detainees were released from Guantanamo Bay. But there are
reasons why given the situation today we should temper our
concerns.
First, as outlined by Secretary of Defense Hagel, the
Qatari government has committed to specific risk mitigation
measures, including travel restrictions, monitoring, and other
limitations. Second, there is not a consensus that these five
individuals will inevitably return to the battlefield. And, if
they do, the Afghanistan of 2014 is simply not the Afghanistan
of 2001.
As Mike Waltz mentioned, the Afghan people have just gone
through elections, 14 million ballots cast in two separate
elections in open defiance of the Taliban. The strength of the
insurgency will not regenerate because of the presence of five
more individuals on the battlefield, especially since they've
been off the battlefield for over a decade.
Some have questioned whether the recent prisoner exchange
created new precedents that will endanger the lives of U.S.
personnel. While the exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl took place
before the end of the war in Afghanistan, in the past we have
conducted prisoner exchanges before the end of hostilities,
World War II and the Korean War, for example.
Likewise, the threat of kidnaping U.S. members of the armed
forces by terrorists and insurgents has long been the case in
Afghanistan. It was my own number one threat while I served in
uniform. There is no reason to think that this calculus will be
changed by the recent exchange.
Finally, the United States has been negotiating with the
Taliban for some time now, a recognition that the war in
Afghanistan cannot end without a political settlement. I
understand the disappointment we feel in the stories coming out
about Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, and I understand the anger felt
by some of his comrades who feel that he deliberately left his
post. If I were them, I might feel the same way, but the truth
is we do not yet know the whole truth.
In our nation of laws, the presumption of innocence is
sacrosanct. People are innocent until proven guilty; thus,
before passing judgment there must a thorough investigation. It
must be allowed to take place without politics or partisanship.
Without that we are unlikely to ever have accountability.
We may not like it, but in the end foreign affairs and
national security policy are often about juggling bad options
and finding the least worst approach. There are rarely simple
solutions. The decision to exchange Sergeant Bergdahl may be
imperfect, but it was the right decision. We never leave our
soldiers behind.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, for
inviting me to testify. I am pleased to stand ready for your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Poe. Thank all of you all for your testimony. We'll now
go to questions by the individual members. I recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
There are several issues that have come to light during
this hearing, the first one is Sergeant Bergdahl, why did he
leave his post, and what's going to happen to him in the
future? The second would be those that looked for him, what
happened to some of them, and what did the government, the U.S.
Army tell those who lost sons looking for him?
There is the issue of do we negotiate with terrorists or do
we not negotiate with terrorists? What is the foreign policy of
the United States? Maybe one of you could come up with the
answer to that question.
And then there's the Taliban Five, or as Mr. Waltz has
called them, the Taliban war cabinet, I believe is what the
term was. Who are the folks, and why were they in GITMO in the
first place, and what are they going to do in the future? So,
those are the four issues that I want to address.
Let's start with you, Mr. Andrews. What did the Army tell
you about the way your son was killed?
Mr. Andrews. They said that they were searching for a high-
ranking Taliban, and had gone to this bazaar to search for him.
And because of--this was actually in the Silver Star
commendation, but because they had so many problems with IEDs
on the road, that instead of coming in from the south, they
sent them around to come in from the north.
Mr. Poe. Excuse me for interrupting, but they told you they
were--your son was looking for a Taliban commander of some
type?
Mr. Andrews. Bergdahl was never mentioned.
Mr. Poe. All right. When did you learn that that was not
true?
Mr. Andrews. Last Saturday.
Mr. Poe. Were you ever instructed, or asked, or told by the
U.S. Army to sign a confidentiality agreement not to tell
anybody about what you were told by the Army?
Mr. Andrews. I was not, but the soldiers who contacted my
wife were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, they said.
Mr. Poe. All right. Sergeant Full, you obviously are very
passionate about your testimony. Were members of the United
States military killed looking for Bergdahl?
Mr. Full. I don't know. What I do know is we were told that
we wouldn't be in certain areas before he went and deserted us.
So, if he wouldn't have deserted us we, probably--those people
wouldn't have been in those places where they were killed on
that day. They would have been somewhere else, they would have
been in a different section of Afghanistan.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Waltz, do you want to weigh in on that
specific question?
Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I can't draw, and I don't know of
anyone that can draw a direct line, but I can tell you to the
best of my knowledge every unit, particularly in Paktika
Province where Specialist Full was located, but also mine, and
Khost, and the Zorani Provinces in Ghazni were dedicated to
that search. If someone was killed during that specific amount
of time, unless they tripped and hit their head on the way to
the mess hall, they were out looking for Sergeant Bergdahl.
Mr. Poe. The Taliban war cabinet, Mr. Waltz, you indicated
a lot of concern about who these guys are. One of them, even
the United Nations has indicted one of them for war crimes. Who
are these people? Americans are really not sure, they don't
know who these type folks are.
Mr. Waltz. Well, Mr. Chairman, we have--we've released now
the Taliban's Deputy Minister of Defense, a senior operative in
their intelligence service that was responsible for migrating
al-Qaeda intelligence tactics over the Taliban. We have
released the former Taliban governor of Herat, which is the
westernmost province on the border with Iran and was
responsible for liaising with the Iranian Government on behalf
of the Taliban. And we released gentlemen that were wanted for
war crimes for literally massacring thousands of the ethnic
minority that are Shia. We look at the sectarian violence going
on across the Middle East, I wouldn't call that necessarily a
wise move.
These gentlemen--the question I can't get anyone to ask
that was involved with this, and I've talked to a number, is
why did the Taliban pick those five? Out of all of the spectrum
of folks they could have chosen out of Guantanamo, why did we
give them essentially their top five draft picks?
Mr. Poe. And one follow-up question on that. Understanding
the agreement, Qatar is supposed to supervise them, but the
supervision or house arrest, if you will, is for just 1 year.
Is that your understanding of the deal that was made?
Mr. Waltz. That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman. And,
frankly, I think some of the details of what they can or can't
do in the next year are almost moot. The fact is it's only for
a year.
Mr. Poe. Last question. Dr. Jacobson, we've heard this
through the media. The Lovelady family in Texas was told that
the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. Their son
was later killed in the Algerian attack. Does the United States
have a policy that we don't negotiate with terrorists, or we
don't have a policy?
Mr. Jacobson. What I can tell you is that I don't believe
that the Bergdahl exchange is an example of negotiating with
terrorists. I believe it is an exchange of prisoners, something
that we've seen historically toward the end of war.
Mr. Poe. Thank you very much. The Chair will now recognize
the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Let me first put to rest this absurd argument
that these five Taliban prisoners would have to have been
released under the laws of war when we concluded combat
operations in 2014, or when we were down to a couple of hundred
trainers in 2016. I'm pleased to note for our record that just
last week the General Counsel of the Department of Defense,
Steve Preston, testified there that we would continue to have a
legal right to hold Taliban prisoners, not just with the
conclusion of war in Afghanistan, but until the broader battle
defined under the AUMF was concluded.
We're going to continue to have American trainers in
Afghanistan for many, many years. The Taliban soldiers will try
to kill those trainers. The laws of war do not require us to
augment the forces trying to wage war against our trainers or
against the Afghan Government. We are at war with the Taliban
for as long as they are allied with terrorist organizations
waging war against the United States, or as long as the Taliban
is waging war against the government in Afghanistan.
Mr. Jacobson, I've got a number of questions. I'm hoping
you'll be able to answer them very succinctly in some cases
with a yes or no. We're told that some of these five released
are ``wanted by the U.N. for war crimes.'' Does the U.N. have a
process by which anyone can be wanted by the U.N. for war
crimes? Have they ever indicted anybody? Do they have a process
to indict anybody?
Mr. Jacobson. I'm unaware of that, and I understand that
there is some debate over how that came in some of the DoD
documents, and where that came from.
Mr. Sherman. There are many urban legends in foreign
policy. Are any of these five under indictment from the
International Criminal Court or any other recognized body that
focuses on war crimes?
Mr. Jacobson. You would have to ask the Department of
State, or you'd have to ask the International----
Mr. Sherman. Are you aware----
Mr. Jacobson. I'm not aware, no.
Mr. Sherman. And I did ask you to research this, didn't I?
Mr. Jacobson. What I think is important, Congressman, is
understanding, again, this context. These individuals are
dangerous but they are simply not going back to that same
battlefield from which they were captured.
Mr. Sherman. I've got very limited time. I want to go on to
something else. The question arises whether continued patrols
should have been made to try to retrieve Sergeant Bergdahl. I
should note for the record here that Senators Toomey, Burr, and
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, along with eight
Republican members of the House, at a time when we already knew
the mysterious circumstances of Bergdahl's departure, and that
this was widely published put forward a resolution stating that
``abandoning the search efforts for members of the armed forces
who are missing or captured is unacceptable.'' At the time,
there was only one member of our armed services missing or
captured, and these fine Members of Congress, House, and Senate
knew full well that those additional patrols that they were
demanding would be dangerous for our armed forces.
I should also point out that as to whether this deal was a
good deal, it was Senator McCain who knew exactly the
parameters of this deal, except for the details, that it was
these five for one named Bergdahl because the possible outlines
of this deal were published on the front page of the Washington
Post on February 17th, and in that context on February 18th
Senator McCain said he was for the deal if the details were
correct. Now, maybe the details don't meet his specifications,
but it is, indeed, a close call whether this five for one deal
was or was not in the national security interest of the United
States.
We are told that it is somehow news that we've revealed to
the Taliban that we care about our prisoners. The only other
democracy to have soldiers captured in the Middle East to my
knowledge is Israel. Dr. Jacobson, what were the Israelis
willing to do to get back Sergeant Major Gilad Shalit?
Mr. Jacobson. I don't want to mistake the details of that
particular case, but what I am aware of is at times the
Israelis have exchanged over 1,000 prisoners for one
individual, and also they've exchanged prisoners for the
remains of their fallen.
Mr. Sherman. So, anyone observing the practices of
democracies doing battle in the Middle East would reach the
conclusion that if you could capture somebody, democracies have
a particular need to try to get that person back and are
willing to make extraordinary concessions, as you pointed out,
sometimes 1,000 to 1.
Mr. Jacobson. I don't think anyone would disagree with the
point that our democracy has shown that it cares a great deal
about our men and women who have been left behind and captured.
Mr. Sherman. And, finally, as to these five released
Taliban, their battlefield experience is from 2001. Were the
tactics that they're familiar with near as good as the tactics
used by the Taliban today?
Mr. Jacobson. Unfortunately, in my opinion the insurgents
in Afghanistan have evolved tremendously since that period in
2001 in terms of their tactics.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Sherman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank
you all for being here. I just, you know, again we're going to
the idea of let's point out everybody that ever said anything
about releasing this one person and, therefore, the
administration made the right decision because others said it.
I'd be remiss if I didn't make a bigger point here on the
Afghanistan issue, which is the President has announced that in
January 2017, all American troops will be out of Afghanistan.
And, you know, that's fine for him to make that decision, but I
would just point people to what's happening in Iraq today as a
precursor of what's going to happen in Afghanistan if that
occurs. But, again, we're here for the specific issues. And,
again, I want to thank all of you for being here.
Let me ask a question to the Specialist. What do you
think--when you were in training and you heard this idea of
your country will never leave you behind, and it's something
that as members of the armed forces we take very seriously, and
something that we take a great deal of comfort in. When you
heard that, what is your understanding of your country will
never leave you behind mean? What does that guarantee in your
mind, and is that an idea that they will release five or 1,000
terrorists to get you back? What is it that that meant to you,
Specialist?
Mr.Full. Well, what it means to me is, you know, I put my
nation first when I volunteered to serve the United States Army
in the time of war. So, by putting them first, they would put
me first to a certain extent. But I keep hearing, you know, we
shall leave no man behind because we can trade with another
nation, and it's done in all these previous wars, but Taliban
is not a nation. They're a terrorist organization, so is the
Haqqani Network who helped Bowe Bergdahl. From what I gathered
from it, it was always leave no honorable man behind, not leave
no man behind.
Mr. Kinzinger. And do you believe--so, you may be in touch
with folks that are still in Afghanistan or, obviously, people
you served with. And I'll ask the four of you, and you can
expand on this, Specialist, because we want--the other three
I'll ask to keep fairly short.
Do you believe that the release of Bergdahl from the
Taliban and the subsequent video they put out, obviously, has
to have some meaning showing, i.e., the American helicopter
leaving and, in essence, withdrawing from the area. Do you
believe that was a propaganda victory or a propaganda defeat
for the Taliban, this exchange? And what do you think that does
to the heart of the soldier that saw this happen, Specialist?
Mr. Full. I think it's a propaganda victory for the Taliban
on account of now we're kind of a direct--only traded one for
five. It's simple math.
Mr. Kinzinger. And do you sense that this will help or hurt
the Taliban's recruiting effort to recruit people to kill
Americans, and to kill Afghans who have put their lives on the
line to build a strong and stable country?
Mr. Full. I would assume it would help them, and not hurt
them.
Mr. Kinzinger. Mr. Andrews, what's your thought on that
question?
Mr. Andrews. From what I can see, it is a victory
propaganda-wise for the Taliban. They won, you know, it is the
way it looks like when you see the footage, so I think it
benefitted the Taliban greatly. I think it also put soldiers
more in danger of being captured because the rewards are more
for getting one and trading them rather than----
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you. Mr. Waltz, and Mr. Jacobson,
please, very quickly if you guys could just respond either yes
or no, basically.
Mr. Waltz. Just very quickly, Mullah Omar, the leader of
the Taliban, considered it a victory and stated so as soon as
he received his five top commanders back.
Mr. Jacobson. I don't trust Mullah Omar, so I would say it
pales by comparison to the video that could have taken place
with one of our soldiers being beheaded like we saw with Nick
Berg or with Daniel Pearl.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, that's an interesting twist. So, your
twist is you don't trust this guy; therefore, him saying that
it was a victory for his organization is probably a lie. And, I
mean, that's kind of surprising to me, because I think if it
was not a victory for them, they probably wouldn't have said
anything. They released a video and they probably would have
sat back and been very quiet about it, so that's an interesting
spin. You have a right to your opinion, but I think that was an
interesting take that the other three do not share.
And do you believe, Specialist, do you believe he
intentionally left his post? And do you have a sense as to why
he might have intentionally left?
Mr. Full. Yes, I do believe he left without a doubt. We
knew within 1 hour, 2 hours that he had deserted. I don't know
why he did it. He, obviously, had a plan. It was premeditated.
Why would you ship all your items home in the middle of a
deployment? So, with the emails and other questions he asked
us, connecting the dots later, yes, he deserted without a
doubt.
Mr. Kinzinger. So, I get--and thank you. And while I get,
you know, some folks saying well, we need to wait to have this
adjudicated in courts, and I understand the idea of that. The
reality is, we know that Sergeant Bergdahl left his post. We
know it.
Now, was he in full mental state? I guess that can be
determined, but there are a lot of people that have had mental
challenges with dealing with what happened in Afghanistan and
Iraq that still do not leave their brothers and sisters behind
in combat. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank the witnesses,
and I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Waltz, Sergeant Bergdahl was designated missing and
captured, right, at the time?
Mr. Waltz. My understanding, sir, is he was designated
missing and a prisoner of war, and that's why he was since
promoted in absentia. That confers a number of benefits.
Mr. Deutch. And, Dr. Jacobson, how is that determination
made?
Mr. Jacobson. Well, that determination was made by the
Department of Defense. I don't know the specific details, what
they would have to go through, but I would agree with--my
understanding is the same as Mike's.
Mr. Deutch. For both of you, what process--I understand, as
I said in my opening comments, and now it has been confirmed by
some of the comments by my colleagues, some of them know what
happened. They have reached a conclusion. It was obvious, we're
told. But what does the military actually do to reach the same
conclusion? What steps does the military take in determining
whether someone who is determined to be missing is actually--
has actually deserted? Mr. Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, if I--I think the key point here is
that what the military has done to date has been initial and,
therefore, incomplete. They have not done a full investigation
and, therefore, I'm not sure how one would draw a full
conclusion as to what they think--what we think happened.
Mr. Deutch. But how do they--do you have any further
insight? It seems very easy from what a lot of elected
officials said, it's not that hard to figure out. He's a
deserter and, apparently, we shouldn't have made this deal.
Well, what's the military done to reach that same conclusion?
Mr. Waltz. Sir, my understanding of the deal at the time
was that a 15-6 or some type of investigation under UCMJ was
conducted. A number of the folks that were on site were
interviewed, and the reason that investigation was not closed
was they needed to interview the subject at hand, who was
obviously missing.
Mr. Deutch. And if that investigation continues, what might
they learn, Dr. Jacobson? What could they learn during that
investigation?
Mr. Jacobson. From what I have seen in the press so far, a
great deal has come out. For example, we have seen information
come out that perhaps Sergeant Bergdahl tried to escape several
times, which forced his captors to put him into isolation.
We've now seen reports about Sergeant Bergdahl's prior
enlistment in the Coast Guard.
I walk away with more questions from what I've seen come
out so far. We've even seen today in testimony, what type of
person, was Sergeant Bergdahl? So, again, more questions, which
is exactly why there needs to be a full investigation of the
circumstances surrounding his capture.
Mr. Deutch. Dr. Jacobson, Mr. Waltz, what happens if my
colleagues are wrong? What happens if the military completes
its investigation and determines any one of a thousand
different things happened, and that Sergeant Bergdahl was, in
fact, missing and a prisoner of war, not a deserter? Can you
speak to that?
Mr. Jacobson. Let me speak to it. Mike might have some
other comments, but my concern is if we look back at what
happened to many of our prisoners of war during the Korean War
and during the Vietnam War, many were accused of collaboration,
not acting properly. In fact, Senator McCain was at the
forefront of insuring that many of those records were sealed
until proper investigations could be done, because our enemies
want us to think that certain things happened. And I'm not
suggesting one way or another that this happened during the
Bergdahl case, but that's why we have to be careful so we don't
impugn those who didn't do wrong.
Mr. Deutch. I have a minute left, let me just cut to the
chase. If the military conducts its full investigation and
determines that Sergeant Bergdahl is a deserter, what's the
penalty for that?
Mr. Waltz. Sir, in wartime, and there's some debate whether
this has been officially declared as a war. In wartime, that
could be punishable up to death. There are various forms of
UCMJ punishment obviously less than that. But to your point,
sir, there's been a lot of discussion of rush to judgment, and
I would postulate at least I would have reacted very
differently. I know Specialist Full would have reacted very
differently if this had been handled appropriately in the first
few days after his release with the accusations of hero and
served with distinction and what have you.
Mr. Deutch. Mr. Waltz, I'm grateful for the distinction in
your approach. In all sincerity, I'm glad you made that
comment. I would just finish with this last question. As you
pointed out, there are a whole range of punishments from--under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Is one of those
punishments subcontracted out to the Taliban to decide how to
punish someone? I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Poe. You may answer the question yes or no, if you can.
Mr. Waltz. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understand the
question.
Mr. Poe. Okay. The gentleman does yield back his time. The
Chair will recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Cotton,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cotton. Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, I am deeply sorry for
your loss. Nothing will bring back your son, Darryn, but
hopefully the truth, which I'd like to get at in the next 5
minutes, will help salve the wounds that no doubt are still
with you.
For the record, I'd like to corroborate what Specialist
Full and Mr. Waltz have said that impact our missions across
Afghanistan. I was in Laughman Province which is part of a
thing called N2KL, Nuristan and Kunar, through Laughman
Province. We saw the diversion of air assets to search for
Private Bergdahl.
Second, I'd also like to stipulate for the record that if
there were no doubt that Private Bergdahl had been captured
heroically on the field of battle trying to save his fellow
Americans, I would still think trading five senior Taliban
commanders was a bad idea.
Likewise, even though all evidence points toward his
desertion, it would still be the right thing to do to try to
rescue him as Specialist Full and Lieutenant Andrews did. And,
of course, he deserves his day in court according to this chain
of command, or now unlawful command influence of this
President, or any civilian leaders or general officers in the
Pentagon.
Now, Mr. Jacobson, would you trade Khalid Sheik Mohammed
for Private Bergdahl?
Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I mean, that was----
Mr. Cotton. Reclaiming my time, it's a simple yes or no
question.
Mr. Jacobson. I don't think that there are simple yes or no
questions like that in war.
Mr. Cotton. Reclaiming my time, I gather by your
unwillingness to answer the question you realize that you
cannot answer it. Tony Blinken, the present Senior Deputy
Security Advisor said that he would not. So, I guess that means
under those circumstances the President would have been leaving
Private Bergdahl behind.
Now, moving to Specialist Full, you say in your statement
that you are part of Alpha Team. Were you on the same team as
Private Bergdahl?
Mr. Full. Same platoon, same squad, same team.
Mr. Cotton. Okay. So, down to the lowest level, those of
you don't know, that's a four-man fire team.
Mr. Full. We were one man short, so it was just----
Mr. Cotton. Were you his team leader at the time?
Mr. Full. No, I was not.
Mr. Cotton. Okay. So, you are among the one or two people
on the team who had been working most closely with him and seen
him in action day, after day, after day.
Mr. Full. Yes.
Mr. Cotton. Okay. I've heard numerous reports that Private
Bergdahl sought out and had civilian Afghanistan friends,
something I saw commonly in Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers
engaging in conversation, oftentimes innocent with children,
maybe dining on base with Afghan security officers. Is that an
accurate report, that he had these civilian friends in and
around OP MEST?
Mr. Full. Yes.
Mr. Cotton. Okay. You testified, or you stated in your
testimony a cleric and teacher saw him looking, roaming as to
the children, and you heard over the radio the interpreter that
an American was looking for someone in the village who spoke
English, and wanted to talk to the Taliban. If he had numerous
civilian Afghan friends, is it curious to you that he would ask
them where the Taliban is rather than simply hide out with him?
Mr. Full. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Mr. Cotton. So, if Private Bergdahl left his post and
attempted, as you say, to wander across the mountains perhaps
to India, do you think it's curious that he wouldn't be asking
his friends in Afghanistan where the Taliban is rather than
just hanging out in a hideout with his friends?
Mr. Full. Yes.
Mr. Cotton. Tactics, techniques and procedures, TTPs, that
describes how we conduct operations, what is the established
order for conducting any particular task or operation in the
Army. Is that correct?
Mr. Full. Yes.
Mr. Cotton. In the missions after Private Bergdahl's
disappearance did it appear that the Afghan enemy had greater
knowledge of your unit's TTPs, such as where you park after an
IED, or how you react in ambush?
Mr. Full. I don't know if they had greater knowledge after
he did disappear. I don't know if another player moved into the
area or whatnot, but after he did disappear, yes, the ambushes
picked up, cover and concealment was used. They hit us hard
after he left. IEDs were moved in different directions, and
they were, instead of taking a tire or a front end off a
vehicle, they were hitting direct hits on the vehicles.
Mr. Cotton. And that would be consistent with Private
Bergdahl being held in captivity by the Taliban, Haqqani
Network and breaking under interrogation and sharing those
TTPs. Correct?
Mr. Full. I don't know. I wasn't there while he was held
under captivity. I don't know what he told them. I wasn't
there.
Mr. Cotton. It could also be consistent with the fact that
he willingly shared those TTPs with the Taliban and Haqqani
Network. Correct?
Mr. Full. Like I said, I don't know what he told them, what
he didn't tell them. I wasn't there.
Mr. Cotton. When you were conducting missions in the days
and weeks after his disappearance did any of your NCOs or your
team leader or company commander raise the possibility that
Private Bergdahl might be a security risk himself if you were
to find him on the battlefield?
Mr. Full. Our main focus at that point was just trying to
find him and get him back. It didn't matter how, who, or when,
but that was our main focus from the time he left until about
2\1/2\ months later, every day trying to find this guy.
Mr. Cotton. Were you asked to sign a non-disclosure
agreement as part of your Article 15-6 investigation?
Mr. Full. I was asked to sign a media gag order. There was
other people in my platoon that were asked to sign an official
NDA with, you know, a field grade officer present to witness
them signing.
Mr. Cotton. Mr. Waltz----
Mr. Poe. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair will
recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jacobson, obviously we've heard testimony today and
there have been some reports of some unusual behavior
attributed to Sergeant Bergdahl. And, obviously, our great
American soldiers overwhelmingly are able to sustain the
stresses and difficulties of combat without exhibiting unusual
behavior that had been described both during this hearing and
in the media. And is there a system or process in place to
evaluate the behavior of a soldier to make a determination as
to whether or not it's related to the combat operations, or
related to his or her service?
Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, speaking from my own experience
there were--the first line of defense when you have a soldier
who's a problem or not doing things right is his chain of
command. That would include their NCOs and the officers above
them. There are also--during my time in Afghanistan there were
a great--there was a great deal of effort expended to make sure
that there were preventive mental health clinics and places
where soldiers could go. I cannot speak to the specifics of any
of this with regards to Bergdahl, though.
Mr. Cicilline. But there's a system in place to monitor
members of the armed forces to insure that we're understanding
the impact of being in combat and the stresses of their
service.
Mr. Jacobson. That's my understanding, especially over the
last decade.
Mr. Cicilline. And in addition to that, one of the reasons
we--there's a process to conduct a hearing and an
investigation, and a review of those facts to make a
determination as to whether or not someone has deserted, or
something else is going on. Is that right?
Mr. Jacobson. Absolutely.
Mr. Cicilline. And there is a process that will happen, in
fact, in this case as it relates to this individual?
Mr. Jacobson. In fact, the Department of Defense earlier
this week announced that it will be a Two Star General who will
be leading the overall investigation. We've heard Army Chief of
Staff Odierno say that there will a full investigation, and
that was echoed by the Chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff,
General Martin Dempsey.
Mr. Cicilline. So, in addition to that we have this other
principle about insuring that we leave no soldier behind as
part of kind of the warrior ethos, as part of the soldier's
creed. It's a deeply held American belief and practice that we
leave no soldier behind, and we do everything we can to secure
the release of any American who's caught in time of war.
Correct?
Mr. Jacobson. That is something that I believe in. That is
something that I think that even if you don't like the
circumstances of someone being captured you believe it's
necessary to go and get them, leave no one behind.
Mr. Cicilline. So, why wouldn't we do this hearing,
investigation, and all the kinds of things that are going to
happen now before we secure the release of an American? Isn't
that what--couldn't we do it that way?
Mr. Jacobson. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Cicilline. My point is, we can't conduct an
investigation, the kind of investigation that is required and
that is underway prior to securing the release of the prisoner
of war in most instances.
Mr. Jacobson. I think that would be very difficult because
you want to interview the individual captured. That's why, as I
said before, there was an initial investigation that was by
definition incomplete.
Mr. Cicilline. So, it makes sense then that we do
everything we can to secure the release of every American
prisoner of war. And then if, in fact, an investigation proves
that they have done something improper or engaged in some
misconduct they will, of course, be required--be punished in
the appropriate way. And in this case if, in fact, this
individual turns out to be having deserted under the Military
Code of Justice he could up to, you said, a death sentence.
Mr. Jacobson. Yes, I think--now, I understand that death is
a possible punishment, too. I would note that the last American
deserter prosecuted, Charles Jenkins, he had left his post on a
DMZ in Korea, the demilitarized zone in Korea in the '60s. When
he came back to the United States 2006-2008 time frame he was
court-martialed, sentenced to 26 days confinement, and then
given a dishonorable discharge. That's a range, or that comes
after the investigation and after charges are referred and
there is a trial.
Mr. Cicilline. And, Dr. Jacobson, my final question is what
do you think the impact would be on our American military if
our men and women did not know that this country was committed
to securing their release and to undertaking every imaginable
effort to bring them home?
Mr. Jacobson. I think, first, that that would shatter the
bonds of trust between the soldiers and the American people,
and the chain of command. Secondly, I think that it would be an
enormous propaganda coup for our enemies when they have these
people in captivity that we don't care about. It would signal
in many ways that we no longer are committed to our men and
women in uniform.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Dr. Jacobson. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back the time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cook, Colonel
Cook, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Andrews, I know it's tough to be here. As someone who's
been in combat, the second hardest duty, I know probably the
hardest duty is to actually go up to the parents or the spouses
and then to tell them their son or daughter is no longer with
them. It is very tough what you're going through. You have my
heartfelt condolences.
Specialist, if you could bear with me some of the
questions. I understand that his weapon was left behind?
Mr. Full. That is correct.
Mr. Cook. All his ammunition?
Mr. Full. Ammunition, night vision, his plate carrier.
Mr. Cook. Night vision device was left behind?
Mr. Full. Yes, all sensitive items were left behind. A
couple of days before that he had asked another platoon member
what would happen if one of his sensitive items went missing,
would that certain soldier be in trouble? That certain soldier
responded with yes, so Bergdahl left all his sensitive items.
Mr. Cook. Did he have access to radio freqs?
Mr. Full. He would, but he didn't have a radio with him.
Mr. Cook. No, but just the frequencies themselves, they
were all pre-programmed into the radio?
Mr. Full. Yes. Standard procedure when DUSTWAN happens you
change your radio frequency.
Mr. Cook. Okay. Any maps or GPS systems at all that went
with him, or was that all left behind?
Mr. Full. I don't know if he had a map on him, but GPS
would be sensitive equipment. He didn't have that.
Mr. Cook. Okay. I think there's been a lot of talk about
desertion and everything else. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
usually in a situation like that desertion is pretty much an
admin term because one of the elements that you have to prove
is permanent desertion. So, an individual that would disappear
from the unit, I don't know, all the instances that I had, and
I was a legal officer when I came back from--it's normally just
unauthorized absence. That's one of the charges because you
have to prove permanent desertion from the unit. Am I correct
or incorrect on that?
Mr. Full. That is correct. AWOL also turns into desertion
after 30 days.
Mr. Cook. Administratively, normally, so that they're
carried on that. But once they turn themselves in or what have
you, that turns into--okay.
A couple of things in terms of just trust in the unit. I
get the impression that the unit itself, and I really believe
in the Code of Conduct. I believe in taking care of everybody
in the unit, and to give your life for somebody like that. But
I get the feeling that you lost full trust and confidence in
that individual that he would be on your right flank or your
left flank. In other words----
Mr. Full. As far as the rest of the platoon?
Mr. Cook. No, you, and if you could--if you had any
opinions what the feeling of the rest of the platoon is?
Mr. Full. Well, the rest of the platoon, we're brothers.
None of the rest of us walked off on our own free will.
Mr. Cook. No, but I--the attitude of this individual that
was missing in action.
Mr. Full. Well, he walked off on his own accord. If he
never would have walked off, he never would have been held in
captivity. The rest of us fought for the guy to our left and
our right, and in front and back. And I don't know he felt
about us but we all felt strongly that we would give our lives
for him.
Mr. Cook. Okay. In terms of the Taliban, I'm not going to
go into the surprise, you know, that you weren't notified, but
just an impact on a combat unit that is fighting that
organization and then suddenly for whatever reason that five of
their top leaders, five of the ones that call the strategy,
five of the ones that kill Americans, five of the ones that are
involved in terrorism, are released. What kind of psychological
impact do you think that would have for the unit aside from
Bergdahl?
Mr. Full. Well, if my high-ranking members in my
organization were released back to me, I'd feel pretty good
about getting my top level guys back, personally.
Mr. Cook. I understand that, but from the standpoint of the
fact that the Taliban, basically the enemy that you're trying
to track down, find, and everything else, that the impact that
hey, they're back there calling the shots. Would that have a
demoralizing impact on the unit if you were still with that
unit, of course?
Mr. Full. Oh, no. The American forces are going to do
whatever they can every single day, do what they're supposed to
do. I don't think they're really worried about anybody else.
Mr. Cook. Okay. Mr. Waltz, in terms of permanent impact on
policy in regards, have we set a precedent by doing this in
regards to all the other terrorist groups?
Mr. Waltz. I believe we have, Congressman. I believe we've
set a dangerous precedent, and I'd encourage this body to look
closely at future efforts toward release and calls to close
Guantanamo. We had these gentlemen detained. Men and women gave
their lives to detain them. Now, unfortunately, I believe men
and women will give their lives to capture or kill them once
again.
Mr. Cook. Thank you. And I want to thank the panel. I yield
back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Vargas, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Vargas. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And, again,
thank you for holding this hearing. I want to add my
condolences, too, to the Andrews family and, sir, to yourself
and to your wife. And I hope that the chemotherapy that we've
heard about just a little while ago is successful, sir. And
your son, obviously, clearly was a hero, and thank God for him.
And Specialist Full, too, we want to thank you. I want to thank
you for your service to our nation. Mr. Waltz, you also,
obviously, for the great service you've got. Mr. Jacobson, I
want to ask you a little bit because earlier on everyone was
thanked for their service except for you. Do you remember that?
You were kind of cut off? You weren't thanked for your service.
Do you remember that?
Mr. Jacobson. I heard a lot of thanks for service.
Mr. Vargas. Okay. What was your service, because at one
point everyone was thanked except for you. I thought you were
in uniform for a while, too.
Mr. Jacobson. I did. I enlisted in the United States Army
Reserve from 1993 through 2001 with service in Bosnia. I then
took a U.S. Navy commission as an intelligence officer and
continue to serve in the Navy Reserve today.
Mr. Vargas. Okay, thank you. I thought so. I wasn't sure
about it, so I just wanted to make sure. So, I want to thank
you also for your service, thank you.
Mr. Jacobson. You're welcome, Congressman.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you. Obviously, the issue here is the
principle, I think, of do we exchange, do we negotiate, do we
leave people behind? And, obviously, I mean, we've read a lot
about what us politicians say, and I won't take the time to
read it. I was going to read from the Congressional Record
because it's interesting what politicians say when it's
beneficial to them. There's lots of interesting things being
said both sides.
I'd like to know what the military thinks about this, Mr.
Waltz. You seem to have a good ear to what the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and others are saying. What do they say about this deal?
Are they criticizing it? Are they in favor of it, have they
been critical of it? Do you know what the Joint Chiefs have
said, or what they believe?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, you know, obviously many of our--we
have civilian oversight of the military and our most senior
leaders are supportive of this policy. I can tell you from the
rank and file, anecdotally, that are reaching out to me,
they're just as furious and resentful as we were at the time.
And I think if things had been handled a little bit
differently, if there had been a quiet reunion with the family
and Sergeant Bergdahl had----immediately there hadn't been a
rush to judgment to call him a hero, and tell the world he
served with distinction you would have seen a very--a much more
muted reaction.
Mr. Vargas. So, it's not necessarily the principle of
getting them back. You know, I was very curious when I listened
to you and you said that, I believe, and I don't want to put
words in your mouth, but I believe you said something we were
out there looking for him and we were trying--and we should
have, although we resented it, we were doing it. I mean, it
sounded like you were doing what you thought you should have
done.
Mr. Waltz. That's right. I don't know of many folks who
debate the principle that we should get every American back. I
think what's debated and what's controversial is, one, his
treatment when it was announced. But then, two, the price we
paid. And I personally believe the price was too high. Some
people draw the line at Khalid Sheik Mohammad. I draw the line
in the top five senior Taliban members that were requested by
the Taliban.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you, sir. Dr. Jacobson, I'm going to ask
you the same question, again. Thank you, sir, for your
testimony. What about that notion, do you know where the Joints
Chiefs of Staff, where are they on this? Are they against it,
are the military in favor of it? If they are, why? Would you
comment on that?
Mr. Jacobson. I can only refer back in terms of the serving
military leadership to the public statements made by Chairman
of the Joint Staff Dempsey, General Odierno, and others. But
two of my personal heroes who have retired from the military,
General Jim Mattis and General Stanley McChrystal have been
unequivocal in their support for that concept, and I'd be proud
to stand where they are in this.
I do understand that some feel that it's the right thing to
do, but they don't have to like it. There are a lot of missions
in the military that soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines are
very happy to do, that's why they're professionals, and they
don't like it.
At the same time, I think what makes our nation so great is
that I've spoken to many individuals who actually are very
content with this, and didn't have a problem doing it. But I
would find it strange if there was any less disagreement over
the--how much one enjoyed having to do this, or whether or not
we should have done it. I'd be very surprised if there was that
disagreement in the military.
Mr. Vargas. Well, you know, I have to say one of the things
that I find odd right here is it seems like no one is
disagreeing with the principle that we should get this guy, it
was just how it was handled, how it was handled, you know,
saying that he was a hero, you know, giving the Rose Garden
deal and all that. It doesn't seem like the principle is one
that Mr. Waltz or--correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like the
principle is one you agree with. And I apologize----
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, it's the principle and the price
that we paid, and I would argue that we'll have to pay again to
deal with these gentlemen in the future.
Mr. Jacobson. And, Congressman, I think that it was a good
price. I think this was worth the risk to get Sergeant Bergdahl
back home.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jacobson, you had taken issue with Mr. Waltz when he
had mentioned, I think correctly, that Mullah Omar thought this
was a great thing for the liban. You said well, yes, maybe
thought beheading Bergdahl would have been better for them. We
can't say that. Do you honestly think if they thought beheading
Bergdahl would have helped them that they would not have done
it in a second? They did this, they got those men back because
they want those guys back in command. Of course it was better
for them, so I thought--that comment I thought was just--struck
me as totally off base.
Let me ask you this, do we have troops in Afghanistan right
now?
Mr. Jacobson. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. So, you have referenced troops who have
been left behind. And we can argue whether Bergdahl left his
unit behind. And I agree with Specialist Full, I think he did
that, everyone that served with him said that. If we still have
troops there, who have we left behind? We're still fighting the
conflict. It's not over yet, so the notion that somehow had we
not done this trade that means we ``left him behind'' is utter
nonsense. So, what we've done is we've replenished the enemy in
wartime when we still have fighters in there, and those
individuals will be back on the battlefield, even if you
believe this Qatar year. They're going to be back while we
still under the President's timetable still have troops there.
So, we have not left anybody behind.
And I think Mr. Waltz hits it right on the head about the
price that you pay. Does this help or harm the security
interest of the United States? I would refer to people, like to
my colleague, Sam Johnson, who was a Medal of Honor winner, one
of the most respected men in this body, prisoner of war. He
said, ``Absolutely not, this should not have been done.'' And
when he was a prisoner of war, he would not have wanted to go
back if it meant harming the security interest of his country.
And when I talk to veterans in my district, and I have people
who were POWs, they say the same thing. Yes, of course, we want
to get everyone behind. We don't harm the country and put
everyone else at risk to do that.
Mr. Andrews, did your son, Darryn, get honored at the White
House for his service?
Mr. Andrews. No, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. And you were never invited to any type of
Rose Garden ceremony?
Mr. Andrews. No, sir.
Mr. DeSantis. And I think a lot of veterans had a visceral
reaction when they saw Bergdahl's parents given the lack of
honorable service----
Mr. Andrews. That's when the people are calling me.
Mr. DeSantis [continuing]. It was done to try to say we got
a hero back. Susan Rice, honor and distinction, in order to
divert the public's attention from the price that we paid. They
didn't want the public focusing on the Taliban Five. They
wanted the public focusing on we brought a soldier home, and so
they had to inflate his service in order to try do that. So, it
was an attempt at a deception of the public, and I think it
struck a lot--I mean, me as a veteran and a lot of my folks in
my district were very, very upset about that.
Let me ask you this. The Army lied to you, basically, about
how your son died. Correct?
Mr. Andrews. They at least, at the very best didn't tell
the whole story.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. So, knowing that, knowing that you
didn't get the whole story, do you have confidence with this
Bergdahl matter, we heard oh, we've got to let the military
decide, but do you have confidence that they're going to do an
investigation that's impartial and adequate?
Mr. Andrews. My personal feeling is if they will let the
military do it and leave the politics out of it, I think they
will do it.
Mr. DeSantis. Do you think that if there is a high-ranking
flag or general officer who's career could be impacted by how
that case goes----
Mr. Andrews. See, that's putting politics back in.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, I think, unfortunately, once you get up
to that level, if that's where it is, and I'm a former JAG
Prosecutor, so I'm worried about how it's working out.
Specialist Full, do you think that Mr. Bergdahl deserves an
honorable discharge from the Army?
Mr. Full. No, I do not. It's a slap in the face to all
those that did serve honorably, upheld their oath, and didn't
desert, that he gets the same benefits that they do.
Mr. DeSantis. And if he goes--if this case gets diverted
for whatever way and he's not actually found guilty at a court-
martial and given a punitive discharge, is it your
understanding that he would then be entitled to back pay for
all the years that he was gone?
Mr. Full. Yes, he would be entitled to back pay, which I
think is around $300,000, college benefits, VA health care
benefits, everything a veteran gets with an honorable
discharge.
Mr. DeSantis. So, you think that given what happened, you
know, if you were advising a prosecutor as to what to ask for
the penalty, would a dishonorable discharge be one of the
things that they should ask the military judge or the members
for?
Mr. Full. Yes, reduced in rank, forfeiture of all pay, and
a dishonorable discharge is what I'd recommend.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, I appreciate that. I am concerned--I
mean, I have been involved in the Military Justice System.
There is an inherent amount of lot of politics involved when
you get at that level, and I think it's important that this is
transparent. And I think Congress needs to conduct oversight.
You know, how Nidal Hasan was handled, to me, was a travesty
that it took that long, and he got over $300,000 just sitting
in the brig. So, I appreciate the witnesses, and I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will
recognize the gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Again, I want to just, to
Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, I just--my heart breaks for you. I'm so
sorry, I'm sorry that you have to be here. And I'll try not to
politicize this really for your benefit. To the other gentlemen
really thank you, again, for your service. I cannot tell you
how much as a mother of--and I don't want to keep hoisting my
son up, but I understand your bravery, your selflessness, just
thank you, thank you, thank you.
My first question is to Dr. Jacobson, and if the others
want to answer, fine. What can we learn from Sergeant Bergdahl?
I know we're bringing him back, we've been talking in all types
of disparaging ways about him. We don't know that much about
him, at least I don't. But what can we learn from his capture?
Can he give us valuable information?
Mr. Jacobson. Absolutely, Congresswoman Frankel. I know
Representative Kinzinger knows from his time going through SERE
training, a lot of what we understand now about captivity, a
lot of what can do to help innoculate our personnel against
those stresses comes from, unfortunately, the experience of
individuals who were held captive not just during our wars, but
during peacetime detention. So, as we have heard from the
military, there is going to be a debriefing process, and in
that one can hope that there is information that one day might
save the life or make it less problematic for future U.S.
personnel who are held in captivity in the inevitable conflicts
in the future.
Ms. Frankel. I believe for--without debating the merits of
how long we stayed in Afghanistan, I do believe that we were
there because our own freedoms were jeopardized by al-Qaeda,
and they were being protected by the Taliban. I want to talk
about those freedoms.
What sets us apart from the Taliban? Specifically, I know
you probably all agree, you go to fight for our freedom,
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and there's something
else I would respectfully like to suggest, which is our due
process of law that we have in this country, and what a high
standard it is. So, my question to all of you is should
soldiers who misbehave be subject to due process of law?
Mr. Full. Well, he's a member of the armed forces. He's not
subject to a civilian or Federal court, he's subject to UCMJ
action.
Ms. Frankel. Should he have due process even though it's a
military court?
Mr. Full. Yes, that's the whole point that I'm coming
forward and telling my side of the story. He deserted, he's
back, great he's back, but he needs to face and be held
accountable for his actions.
Ms. Frankel. Yes, Mr. Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. Congresswoman, there was a real fear, me
included in those first 24 hours that there would be, you know,
``ticker tape parades,'' and Rose Garden ceremonies, and that
this whole effort would get politicized, and that the truth,
frankly, would be buried. And that's why both myself,
Specialist Full, and others have come forward.
Ms. Frankel. Okay. So, I think we agree, though, the due
process of law, that he's entitled to that.
Mr. Full. Absolutely.
Ms. Frankel. And, lastly, I mean, I want to--anyone who
wants to answer this question. This I'm coming at as a mother,
all right? Which is, do you believe all our soldiers, all these
men and women who go into battle, go into war are perfect? Do
we bring in perfect people?
Mr. Jacobson. I hope my friend Mike will agree. When you've
been in charge of junior troops, hardly a day probably goes by,
it's almost like being a parent, where a parent--kids are
imperfect. I'm sure my mother would say the same thing, but
that's why it's so important to have well trained NCOs, to have
good leaders in those positions to guide these troops through
something that's unbelievably stressful, and to ensure that
they all get home alive.
Ms. Frankel. Well, I do know this. I don't know very much
about Mr. Bergdahl or his family, or what he was going through,
what his mom was going through. I hope that will be determined
as you have suggested. I think that's fair. But I do know this,
that so many of our young men and women are coming home and
they have been stressed out, and are mentally unstable. And I
would not like to think that they would not be subject to due
process if they committed a crime.
So, with that, I want to thank you, thank you all of you
for your service. Again, Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, really I'm so
sorry for your loss. And, Mr. Chair, I yield the rest of my
time.
Mr. Poe. The gentle lady yields back. And just so the
record is clear, Mr. Andrews served in the United States Air
Force, so all four of you all, thank you for your service.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you for your service, sir.
Mr. Poe. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Yoho, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, panelists. I appreciate
your being here, and thank you for your service to our great
country.
Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, thank you for the sacrifice of what
you went through. I, as a grateful citizen of this great nation
and a Member of Congress am appreciative every day of the
liberties and freedoms that we get to experience because of the
willingness of people to serve, commit, and dedicate to this
country. I thank you.
I think we should keep the narrative on the policy. The
description of whether or not he was a deserter or not, as you
brought up, Specialist Full, that will come out and it will go
through its due process.
Mr. Waltz, you said in your bio, you state that you deal or
provide strategic analysis and policy development for other
countries. Was the transfer of one American soldier for five
Taliban a wise decision in your opinion?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, I think we should look at this
policy as a whole and learn from it. Right now, a gentleman by
the name of Mullah Abdul Zakir is the head of the Taliban
Military Committee that we released previously from Guantanamo,
and we're paying that price now. And further, Abu Bakr al-
Baghdadi, head of ISIS that's terrorizing Syria and Iraq right
now, was also detained in Camp Bucca. We need to learn lessons
from these releases that we're paying for later.
Mr. Yoho. So, in your opinion it's probably not a wise
policy to implement.
Mr. Jacobson, you and Mr. Sherman were referring to our
democracy, and you brought in Israel, as democracies trade for
prisoners all the time. And I know I don't need to remind you,
but this is not Israel, we're not Israel. We don't do that as a
policy. And you're talking about a democracy, and again I know
I don't have to remind you, a true democracy is majority rule,
it's mob rule. And what I hear the public want to do with Mr.
Bergdahl is mob rule. And I had to remind people we're a
constitutional republic where the minority is protected by rule
of law. And as Ben Franklin always talked about, a democracy is
two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. That
sheep always loses, and so I'm thankful that we're in a
republic. And we need to remind people that we are different
because we do follow that.
And as far as Mr. Bergdahl, he will come home. And I think
any time we get an American soldier back to our country we all
should celebrate. But I think before we hang judgment on him,
was he wrong or right, we need to look at and let the military
go through what they're going to go through to decide the fate
of that young man.
The issues that I want to ask you about, do we negotiate
with terrorists or not? And, again, I think Specialist Full,
you brought up they're terrorist. It's not even a nation, it's
a terrorist group. And, again, this goes against our
precedents, it goes against our historical policy. Do you think
this is a wise thing that we do, or implement?
Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I certainly think that it's a
wise thing that we retrieved Sergeant Bergdahl.
Mr. Yoho. There's no doubt about that, but negotiate with
terrorists.
Mr. Jacobson. I want to run through just a list of a couple
of situations where we have negotiated not only with
terrorists, but with insurgent groups, and state-sponsors of
terrorism. As I mentioned, part of bringing the war in
Afghanistan to conclusion will be continuing discussions with
the Taliban, but taking a look back at our own history, not
just discussions that we've had with the North Koreans. We
also----
Mr. Yoho. Okay, North Korea, that's a country, it's not a
terror----
Mr. Jacobson. They sponsor terrorism.
Mr. Yoho. They're a country.
Mr. Jacobson. Was a state-sponsor of terrorism.
Mr. Yoho. Okay.
Mr. Jacobson. I also look back, as I said, if you
understand that there are differences between insurgents,
between terrorists, between state-sponsors of terrorism, the
concern I think people have is this idea of ransom for a
hostage. And I look back even at what--and I'm going to give
you allied and U.S. examples: Ronald Reagan in terms of what
happened with the Arms for Hostages deal. Margaret Thatcher and
her secret talks with the IRA. No one would discount that the
IRA was terrorist group.
Sometimes you end up sitting across the table from those
who have the blood of your friends on their hands to bring
peace. And if that is the case that we are seeing, if that's
what sitting down with the Taliban means, then I fully support
that.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. Let me ask you both, Mr. Waltz and Dr.
Jacobson, did the President by not consulting with Congress 30
days before in your opinion break the law? Mr. Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, that's my understanding of the law.
I'm not a legal expert, but my understanding of the law was
that Congress was to be consulted.
Mr. Yoho. Dr. Jacobson?
Mr. Jacobson. I'm not a lawyer, and you're all going to
argue about that statute, but I think what the President did,
acting on short notice was absolutely the right thing to do.
Mr. Yoho. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to Mr. and Mrs.
Andrews, my condolences and safe travels on your way back to
Texas. I represent San Antonio. Thank you for being here, and
thank you all, all your gentlemen for your service.
And I agree with part of Mr. Yoho's statement that I want
to focus on the policy, the agreement that was made for
Sergeant Bergdahl and that transfer has been made. There's
still a debate going on about whether that was good or bad, but
I think the most constructive thing that we can get out of this
hearing is what we do in the future.
And in that vein, I think there's two issues here. First,
if someone deserts their unit, should we go retrieve that
person? And then second, what is the appropriate deal that we
should make for a soldier? So, it sounds like, at least, the
prevailing idea is that even if somebody deserts, we should
still try to retrieve that person. Does anybody on the panel
differ or disagree with that principle?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, I think it comes down to a matter
of intent. Dr. Jacobson raised the issue in the case of Mr.
Jenkins who deserted into North Korea. To my knowledge, there
were no attempts to bring him home until he appeared 40 years
later in Japan.
Mr. Castro. But would you, and I know that it has not been
adjudicated whether he deserted or not. I know that there is
some evidence within--among the other soldiers that suggests
that perhaps he did, but that has not been adjudicated. But
assuming for the sake of argument that he did, does that mean
that if somebody deserts that we shouldn't go get him? Should
we change policy next time?
Mr. Full. Well, I think the problem as has been stated is
they brought him to a hero's welcome, and we're not the only
people that knew that he walked off on his own accord. There
was an original investigation done.
Mr. Castro. Sure.
Mr. Full. It's still open because they have to get his side
of the story, but everybody knew that he walked off on his own.
Mr. Castro. So, assuming that he did this, right, and that
there's no argument, then you're saying still bring him home,
just don't celebrate it. That would be your point.
Mr. Full. Why would you call him a hero when there's people
like his son who pushed somebody down and took an RPG round.
Mr. Castro. Right.
Mr. Full. And gave his life for another one who is a hero,
that didn't get a hero's welcome.
Mr. Castro. But in terms of the policy, you would still say
go get that person.
Mr. Full. I don't know. I'm not--I'm truthful.
Mr. Castro. And then to my second question, what is the
appropriated deal that we should make to have a soldier return.
Right? There is a big issue here over whether you negotiate
with terrorists, or only nation states, but I think that the
difficulty we're running into here is that our enemies in this
common era are no longer just nation states. They are groups
like al-Qaeda, Haqqani Network, and others.
So, let me ask you, Mr. Waltz, because you were both a
soldier and you're a policy expert. What deal would you have
made for Sergeant Bergdahl?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, my own view is in any negotiation
both sides should walk away unhappy. That means it's about
right. And in this case the enemy walked away happy. The enemy
walked away declaring victory, and received exactly what they
asked for. I don't think that was good negotiation on our part.
Mr. Castro. But how does that translate--what would you
have given--if you were writing policy, what would you have
exchanged for Sergeant Bergdahl?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, there's a number of lower-level
detainees held in Afghanistan and other places. I think it was
the--a lot has been mentioned about trading numbers. The issue
for me here is the quality.
Mr. Castro. So, you might have given 100 people for one
person if they were lower level folks.
Mr. Waltz. I don't like it. I think that's a policy issue
that had to be debated, but the decision that was made, these
five, was a bad decision.
Mr. Castro. Did we get anything in exchange, Mr. Jacobson,
did we get anything in exchange for the prisoners that were
released from GITMO by President Bush?
Mr. Jacobson. Not that I'm aware of, but I have to say the
news reports I can remember from that time period, there was
talk about political deals and that, but I--nothing like the
Bergdahl situation.
Mr. Castro. So, that was just a straight release,
essentially, of those folks?
Mr. Jacobson. Yes.
Mr. Castro. Okay. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Poe. Thank the gentleman from Texas. The Chair
recognizes another gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, 5 minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. Specialist Full, what would you say
is the--was the morale in your unit following this illegal
prisoner exchange?
Mr. Full. I'm not in the Army any more, sir.
Mr. Weber. Would you hazard a guess?
Mr. Full. Oh, as far as us when we're talking?
Mr. Weber. Absolutely.
Mr. Full. Well, we were very upset with it. Like I said
numerous times, with the hero's welcome.
Mr. Weber. Okay. In your opinion, would this have set up
this agreement between an enlisted officer and those rank and
file soldiers, or were they pretty much in agreement this was a
bad deal?
Mr. Full. This is a bad deal all around.
Mr. Weber. All the way around.
Mr. Full. Nobody in the Blackfoot Company that would----
Mr. Weber. If you could say anything to President Obama
regarding this trade, what would you say?
Mr. Full. I'm not going to say that.
Mr. Weber. Fair enough. Mr. Waltz, you're forewarned, same
questions. What would you say would be the morale of those
units following this prisoner exchange?
Mr. Waltz. Fairly low, Congressman. And in terms of your
second question, I would point the President to the heroes at
the end of this table.
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Mr. Waltz. They deserve the same level of treatment.
Mr. Weber. Would you advise him to make the same trade
twice?
Mr. Waltz. No, Congressman, I wouldn't. And just a follow-
on to the previous Congressman's question. I think there are a
lot of other policy options open that weren't fully explored,
more pressure on Pakistan, for one. He was held by the Haqqani
Network which has been described as a veritable arm of the
Pakistani Intelligence Service. There are a number of other
options that were on the table besides a trade.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Dr. Jacobson, what would you say to the
President?
Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I would say good job, absolutely
go do this again, bring our soldier home.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Andrews, after having sat here, and thank
you very much, and you, Mrs. Andrews for being here, after
sitting through this hearing, what now would you say to this
committee?
Mr. Andrews. For one thing, 5 minutes isn't as long as it
used to be, but what I would say to the committee is my son was
a soldier's soldier, and it didn't matter what the assignment
was, he was going to do it. And I don't believe that you have
to be a perfect person to follow the Military Code of Justice.
You have a book right there. Read the book and do what it says.
It's not that complicated. But do not let my son--to me, this
situation with us not being told the whole truth, and then
trading a private for five high-ranking Taliban, exactly why
did my son die? Tell me one more time, because I don't know
what we've accomplished.
Mr. Weber. If you could say that to the President, is that
what you would say to him?
Mr. Andrews. Yes.
Mr. Weber. And now the hard questions, and forgive me. If
you could get your son back by trading five more of those
senior Taliban?
Mr. Andrews. If my son had been a deserter, then no,
absolutely not. But my son was a man of honor, and I would do
almost anything.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, folks. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, 5
minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank each of
you gentlemen for your service. Certainly, Mr. Andrews, I want
to let you know as someone who's worn the uniform that many
Americans feel like the actions by the administration and the
President have diminished your son's service, and your and his
sacrifice. And I let you know that I'm of that opinion, but I
also want to let you know that he has done a great thing for
the men that he served with, and the ones that are particularly
alive because of his actions, and a very grateful nation. So, I
just want to thank you for your sacrifice, as well.
Turn to questions. I'll start with Mr. Jacobson. You keep
saying, or at least I've heard you say a couple of times the
end of the war regarding the reference of prisoner swaps. And
I'm just wondering has the Taliban, as far as you know, stated
that they consider the war to be coming to a close?
Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, I was referring to the end of
conflict in the Second World War and Korean, specifically.
Mr. Perry. So, the paradigm is not the same, is my point.
We might be drawing down, but the Taliban, as far as you know,
are they going to continue to fight?
Mr. Jacobson. Well, the Taliban have been in talks with the
United States for several years.
Mr. Perry. As far as you know, do we have any reason to
believe right now they're not going to continue to fight when
we stop?
Mr. Jacobson. I don't believe we are stopping the fight,
Congressman.
Mr. Perry. We're just in disengagement. Right? So, the war
is still going to continue as far as you know.
Mr. Jacobson. We're still working with the Afghans not only
to try----
Mr. Perry. All right. I got it. I got it. So, are you--when
you say that these folks that we released have been so long
gone from the battlefield that they can't be relevant, are you
aware that Mr. Baghdadi, who's currently running ISIS, was
released in 2005? This is now 2014. Is he still relevant on the
battlefield today?
Mr. Jacobson. I can't comment to a specific situation. I'm
not----
Mr. Perry. I can comment. He's damn relevant, sir. Let me
move on.
Mr. Full, there was an investigation regarding Mr.
Bergdahl's absence conducted at some point. Right? And I
imagine you gave sworn statements in that regard?
Mr. Full. Yes, 15-6.
Mr. Perry. Right. So, do you think that the Army is aware
of the circumstances, his circumstances of departure?
Mr. Full. Yes.
Mr. Perry. You do. And I do, as well. I would like to turn
to Mr. Waltz at this point.
Understanding your circumstances if captured, what is your
understanding if you were captured on the battlefield of what
we would do, and what we wouldn't do, what you could expect
from your country?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, we deploy knowing the high
likelihood of being captured, and it comes with that
understanding that ransoms will not be paid, and there will not
be swaps for us. The United States will do everything it can to
get us back, but there's limits to what the country is going to
do. And I personally would not want anything done that's going
to harm our ongoing national security or endanger my fellow
soldiers.
Mr. Perry. Were you ever given the impression when you took
the oath, or any time after that, that the United States would
jeopardize our national security on your behalf to get you out
of----
Mr. Full. Absolutely not, Congressman, nor would I want
that to happen.
Mr. Perry. So, let me ask you, you're a Special Operator.
On June 3rd, the AP reported that the United States Government
knew the whereabouts of Mr. Bergdahl from three sources, UAS,
satellite, and human intelligence. You're a special operator
and you know the capability--you got out in 2009. Right? It's
now 2014, things have changed a little bit, but I know you stay
involved and in touch with your community.
My point is the options. Right? So, we had some options on
the table and we chose to trade five high-value targets for one
service member, right, that we wanted to free and have come
back home, which is laudable to have him come back home. It is
the right thing to do.
Do you have any lack of confidence in your ability, of your
unit, the United States Army with the capabilities we have, if
we knew where he was, your ability if tasked with the mission
and given the resources to go and retrieve that soldier?
Mr. Waltz. I don't know the details of----
Mr. Perry. I know you don't.
Mr. Waltz. But if we knew where he was and we were
confident, and the risks were evaluated, absolutely we have the
capability to get him.
Mr. Perry. So, you already spoke about the different
options that we had or didn't have, and you don't think this
was the best one. If we knew where he was, can you think--can
you come up with some scenario where we have people on the
ground that do what you did for a living, that we wouldn't
exercise that option?
Mr. Waltz. The only scenario that comes to mind, sir, is
that this was part of a broader policy initiative to open up
talks with the Taliban; that this was a confidence-building
measure, and this has been discussed for some time now, that
potentially this trade would be a confidence-building measure
as a first step toward future talks. That's the only plausible
scenario that I can come up with.
Mr. Perry. My time is expired, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back his time. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Duffy, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Duffy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, to respond to my colleague across the aisle
about due process, all of us agree on due process. The
conversation happening today is not about due process, the
conversation today is about the decision the administration
made for the five Taliban members in exchange for Sergeant
Bergdahl. That's the conversation. We all believe in due
process. We're Americans.
Mr. Waltz, I think it was you who indicated that you had
conversation about your country will never leave you behind.
And I don't know if it was you or Specialist Full who had
mentioned you thought it was that your country won't leave any
honorable man behind. Specialist Full, was that your comment?
Mr. Full. Yes, it was.
Mr. Duffy. Was Sergeant Bergdahl left behind?
Mr. Full. No.
Mr. Duffy. No.
Mr. Full. He walked off on his own.
Mr. Duffy. He left. Correct?
Mr. Full. Yes, he left.
Mr. Duffy. So, he wasn't left behind. He walked off.
Mr. Full. He left us behind.
Mr. Duffy. Right. And, Dr. Jacobson, you've indicated that
the fight is not over. Right? They're going to continue this
fight. It's not over, peace has not been declared with the
Taliban.
Mr. Jacobson. That's correct, Congressman.
Mr. Duffy. So, with the war or the fight that's going to
continue, it seems to me the argument that well, we're all
putting our arms down, and the conflict is going to end. This
exchange makes sense. That's what we do. World War II when the
war is over, we put down our arms, we exchange our prisoners
and everyone is happy. But that's not this case, right?
Mr. Jacobson. Well, that's not----
Mr. Duffy. This case you've said the fight will continue,
and with the fight still going on, we took someone who
allegedly walked away from his post in exchange for five high-
level Taliban members, and the fight continues. Am I wrong on
this?
Mr. Jacobson. The fight continued in Korea after the
prisoner exchanges, the fight continued in World War II after
the exchanges in 1944, the fight will continue in Afghanistan.
My argument is that the risk of putting these five individuals
on the battlefield is mitigated by a number of factors to
include all the accomplishments that we've seen in Afghanistan
over the past several years.
Mr. Duffy. I'll get to the risk in a second, but in regard
to the prior swaps that have been made, those swaps have been
made with nation states. Correct? Do you have an example where
we've had swaps with a non-nation state before this one?
Mr. Jacobson. The examples I have, and you term this a
swap. The examples I have of negotiation with non-nation----
Mr. Duffy. I didn't ask--I'm talking a swap, we exchange
prisoners with a non-nation state, or better yet for a
deserter, if that's what he--the military finds him to be.
Mr. Jacobson. The closest thing I can think of is after the
Battle of Mogadishu and the negotiations to get back Chief
Warrant Officer Michael Durant.
Mr. Duffy. But not with--you don't have a prior example of
a swap with a non-nation state. This is----
Mr. Jacobson. Well, that was with Mohammed Farrah Aidid who
was not a nation state.
Mr. Duffy. In regard to the threat that this now poses, Mr.
and Mrs. Andrews talk about a son, and how he may--that he
would be able to make that exchange to bring his own son back.
I think every heart breaks in here thinking about what his
family has gone through and the sacrifice that his son made for
his country.
Do you feel pretty comfortable that with these five Taliban
members released that we won't have another hearing like this
of another American family who lost a son or daughter who's
over fighting on behalf of the country because of these five
that were released, or do you feel pretty comfortable that
America is a safer place, and our men and women are safer in
those foreign lands?
Mr. Jacobson. Our men and women who put on the uniform are
always at risk regardless of what happened or will happen.
Mr. Duffy. That's not my question. I'm talking about the
five that were released.
Mr. Jacobson. I'm comfortable with the judgment that was
made by our military leaders that all the risks involved, the
risk of potentially these individuals ending back up on the
battlefield, the risks of not getting Bergdahl. I'm comfortable
that the assessment they made and the recommendations they made
are the right one.
Mr. Duffy. Mr. Waltz, I think you said the Taliban got
their top five draft picks in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl.
Mr. Waltz. Yes, sir.
Mr. Duffy. Good trade?
Mr. Waltz. Absolutely not.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman from Wisconsin yields back his time.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I've
been running in and out of meetings like everybody else here.
We're overwhelmed, so I'm sorry if I cover any territory that's
already been covered here.
Let me just note that I disagree with the statement that
our policy has been to do everything we can to get back a
prisoner. That is not the case, that is not policy for our
Government. Everything we can? No, even the people who are in
the field totally understand that we're not going to do things
that will further put other Americans at severe risk in order
to get them back. They understand that. And that's part of why
they're heroes, and that's part of the reason Mr. Andrews' son
is a hero. He knew he was taking a chance, and that even if he
was captured that we would not be doing things that would put
the American people at risk to get him back home. So, I want to
make sure that is a very significant point for people to
understand in the discussion of this.
Second of all, I'd like to point out that there are other
alternatives to try to get these guys back, or man back, Mr.
Bergdahl, than just giving up these five leaders of the
Taliban. We could have, for example--I have seen no evidence.
Mr. Jacobson, have you see any evidence that there was pressure
put on Pakistan in order to get the Taliban to return this
prisoner?
Mr. Jacobson. Congressman Rohrabacher, I'm not aware of the
specifics of those negotiations. I've only seen----
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. So, you're unaware of the--
you're unaware, I'm unaware. I've been looking, there is no
indication here that this administration didn't even put
pressure on the major supporter, the ISI in Pakistan to do what
they could do to get back this prisoner. Instead, they gave up
five murderous leaders. Let's take a look at who they are. We
know that one of them was perhaps engaged in the strategizing
for 9/11, which resulted in 3,000 Americans being slaughtered
in front of our face. He's being let go. Then there is Mullah
Mohammad Fazl, I guess that's how you pronounce his name. I
know about this man. I know that a long time ago he was, in
fact, captured. This is, you might say, a second time he was
released, you might say, because he was captured early on in
2001 after 9/11, and he was put into a French Fort with
hundreds of other Taliban leaders and Taliban fighters, and
there is a tradition in Afghanistan. The tradition is it's
almost the law that the people live by, it is their core
principles as Afghans, and that is once you are captured you do
not try to overpower the person who has captured you. And the
reason that they have that as part of their law is because over
the centuries they would have had to kill all of their
prisoners if they didn't uphold that. So, as part of their
honor as a person to not--once you're captured, you do not try
to overcome your captors.
Well, what happened in this case with Mr. Fazl? Yes, I'm
sure that he's already promised us that he wouldn't go back to
doing something and causing--putting our people at risk, or
attacking Americans, but at that time he led an uprising
against his captors. They murdered about 50 Afghans where
General Dostum's Afghani wife introduced Chairman Poe to
General Dostum before. And they murdered his--the guys who were
holding them captive, but they also murdered a CIA officer
named Mike Spann.
I visited that spot, I visited the spot where Mike Spann
had been murdered shortly after he was murdered, and this is
the guy that are one of the five guys we are releasing. We're
releasing a man who's already murdered the first real American
to lose his life in the Afghan War, we're releasing him now.
You think that's going to maybe indicate that we're strong?
Does this release indicate that we are strong, and that we are
people--that they're going to have to deal with the United
States of America in terms of our military strength? No,
they're going to deal with people who they think are weak, and
are cowards, and they will be willing then to kill more
Americans, and to capture more Americans in order to cut more
deals.
This is a travesty. The President of the United States has
maybe got himself into a position here that I don't know if
maybe he thinks of himself as a peacemaker. I think this will,
in the end, have just the opposite impact, and I think a
rational discussion will do that.
Mr. Chairman, I've got 6 seconds, and I actually would like
to give our witness the chance to retort to that.
Mr. Poe. Quickly.
Mr. Jacobson. Respectfully, I disagree, Congressman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Fine, yes. That's it? Okay. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Jacobson. If the chairman--at the chairman's pleasure
I'm happy to continue. I was being succint.
Mr. Poe. No, time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, though. The Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I apologize. This is
one of the days when everything goes long. Again, I'm Air Force
Reserve, I am the chaplain, I served in Iraq. Having been on
the unfortunate end of the door that you opened, and understand
this all too well.
The issues that come up for me, and some of this may be a
little bit of follow-up on my colleague who just mentioned--
but, Mr. Jacobson, I have a question. You keep bringing up, or
you brought up before the fact that they're not going back to
the same Afghanistan that they left, and that they would not
have the probable impact that they could have had. What leads
you--what intelligence, what information, what would have you
to believe that they couldn't get spun up pretty quickly in a
country that's not changed a whole lot in 4-, 5-, 6-, 700
years? I mean, what would cause you to believe that?
Mr. Jacobson. Congressman, in my experience in Afghanistan,
again both as an intelligence officer, and then later on as a
civilian advisor where I worked with senior Afghan officials
every day, I do believe there have been a great number of
changes if just in the last decade alone.
For example, I believe that most of the networks that these
individuals had when they were a force fighting against the
Northern Alliance no longer exist. Many of their friends are
dead, many of the Taliban leadership are dead. And I also
believe that the Afghan people have changed.
You have seen just in the recent elections, this open
defiance of threats to kill people who would go vote, 40
percent of the voters, I believe, were women who were told do
not do this.
Mr. Collins. Let me stop you right there for a second. We
saw a great deal of turnout in the Iraqi elections, too, and
now we're looking at almost a breakdown to civil war. I mean,
pointing to an election is a great thing, but also pointing to
a change of hearts, minds, and attitudes, I'm not sure you're
actually getting there. So, I mean, we just might probably,
respectfully, just have a difference of opinion here.
I believe that they may not walk back into the same
structure that they had before, but I do not believe it's going
to take them very long to build from scratch or to bring in
others that--there's a reason they were wanted them. There's a
reason they wanted these five. I don't believe that they just
picked out, said give us five, we'll give you him. And I think
there's a reason for that.
The other situation that I would like maybe some general
discussion about is something that keeps coming up here. Well,
we're drawing down our action, we're drawing down this war. And
it was--I don't know, Mr. Waltz, if it was you or someone else
that basically talked about the fact that we're dealing with
the Taliban. We're dealing with terrorist organizations in this
global war on terrorism, not the global war on Afghanistan, not
the global war on a country. And, granted, when we ended World
War II there was country state versus country state. We had a--
we're not in that situation any more, and I'm just curious to
know is, when does the fact that we're fighting--and I don't
believe the Taliban, or al-Qaeda, or any of these other
terrorist networks have changed their opinion of the West. Do
you believe they changed their opinion of the West, or they
still have the desire to wreak havoc on the West?
Mr. Jacobson. I actually believe our actions in Afghanistan
have split views amongst the Taliban. I don't think there's a
single unified view any more.
Mr. Collins. Interesting, but I think among the larger
terrorist network as a whole, and we can go look at that, I
think there is still a vast determination there, is we go
forward. So, I'm not sure what--when we draw the line now with
dealing with, negotiating with, however we want to do this. It
just--Specialist, talk about this for a second.
Given the fact that we traded, and there's some who will
give an argument that this was the end of the war. We had to do
it, a political outcome at some point. But is this a price that
you would ever have envisioned paying if--for someone who
walked off or didn't walk off? Is this what we are sort of
looking at? Not that we give up, but the price that we give up?
Mr. Full. We're still at war with the Taliban whether
people want to admit it or not. And just because we stop
fighting them, doesn't mean that they're going to stop wanting
to kill us, and fight us. No, when I signed an oath it was an
understanding, as Mr. Waltz has said, that I knew there would
be a certain price up to a point that the United States would
pay to get me back. And if that was me over there, no, you
could have left me over there. I would not have wanted you to
trade five high-level Taliban operatives for myself.
Mr. Collins. Well, the curious for me at this point is, if
five was the price this time, what's the price next time, the
President stepping down, cabinet members stepping down,
Congress giving them more money? What's the price, because
we're not dealing with a nation state here. We're dealing with
thugs, we're dealing with rogues, we're dealing with now the
same ideological bent that is going through many of the Middle
Eastern countries, and Iraq is simply a forum, what I'm fearful
is going to Afghanistan.
I appreciate you being here. This is just very much of a
concern for many folks because they do not understand why this
happened the way it did, given the fact that most believe that
this war is not over, and that we will see these guys again one
way or the other.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Poe. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will
recognize the ranking member for one additional question, and
recognize itself for an additional question.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. I'll note that in 1944 when we did
a prisoner exchange it was with the Nazis. And, of course, that
war continued for another year.
Mr. Poe. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. Collins. Would the gentleman also recognize that the
Nazi Government at that time represented Germany as a nation
state?
Mr. Sherman. Yes, but if you think----
Mr. Collins. Okay. But al-Qaeda never represented anyone as
a nation state.
Mr. Sherman. Al-Qaeda did control and govern, with the
acquiescence of the United States, the vast majority of
Afghanistan until 9/11. But, more importantly, if you want to
create groups that are anathema to the United States, I put the
Nazis right at the top.
Mr. Collins. Well, I think they also----
Mr. Sherman. In any case, I have not yielded any further.
Mr. Jacobson, only an investigation is going to disclose
the real facts behind Sergeant Bergdahl's disappearance and his
capture, but we've heard substantial evidence that Sergeant
Bergdahl acted in an inappropriate and inexplicable manner.
Can you describe the kinds of stresses that somebody, and
Sergeant Bergdahl would have faced in Afghanistan, and whether
that would cause someone, not everyone, but some to act in an
inexplicable manner? I realize that the vast majority of our
soldiers, Marines, et cetera, are subjected to those pressures
and do not act inexplicably.
Mr. Full. Can I have permission to speak?
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Mr. Full. Well, you're asking Dr. Jacobson what situation
Bergdahl was in over there. I was with Bergdahl at the same
location. I could give you a firsthand account of exactly what
Bergdahl was going through because I went through the exact
same conditions.
Mr. Sherman. Well, then I'll ask you then to respond to the
question first, and then Dr. Jacobson to respond second. I was
asking more in a general sphere as to what you face in
Afghanistan but, obviously, you know the specifics.
Mr. Full. We were at an observation post. It was very
primitive, we had to eat Meals Ready to Eat which are heated up
with water. It was very hot, very dirty, went without showers
for certain days, didn't get phone calls or any comforts of
home, but it didn't affect anybody else there. We all continued
the mission and upheld our oath.
Everybody deals with mental issues in some form or another
if they deploy to Afghanistan or Iraq. Everybody else still
came back from that same platoon. Nobody else deserted on their
own, so there's nothing in my opinion that was so bad that
forced him to walk off on his own accord caused by anything
going on over there. He walked off on his own accord.
Mr. Sherman. Dr. Jacobson, obviously, the vast majority of
those in his unit were not affected to the point where they
engaged in inappropriate behavior, and, obviously, anyone in
Afghanistan is subject to being shelled, or subject to an IED
at just about any time. Can you describe the pressures that
people are under, and whether that could explain the
inexplicable?
Mr. Jacobson. Well, Congressman, I won't make a claim to be
able to explain the unexplicable or inexplicable, but what I
will say is that the stresses of combat are tremendous. From my
own experience, which was not nearly as far forward in either
deployment as either of my colleagues to the right, you still
have fear, fear of being kidnapped, fear of being shot at, fear
of being shelled, mortared, what have you. There is tremendous
sleep deprivation for being on long combat patrols or being
woken in the night to enemy action.
I do agree that you've raised perhaps one of the most
important points, and that is that just because there is combat
stress doesn't excuse actions such as walking away from one's
post, but this is exactly why you have to have the full
investigation to determine what happened, and why it happened
in the hopes that we can prevent that from happening again, and
hold those individuals who need to be held accountable,
accountable in the Military Justice System.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you. And just to correct the record, I
once said al-Qaeda when I meant to say the Taliban. I yield
back.
Mr. Poe. The Chair has one additional question for all four
of you. The way I understand the law is that before people are
released from Guantanamo Bay, prisoners there, that the
Secretary of Defense must explain why it is in the national
security interest of the United States to release that specific
prisoner.
Assume that is the law, and from your point of view, what
was the national security interest, or do you believe there was
a national security interest of the United States in releasing
those five individuals? Dr. Jacobson, do you believe there was
a national security interest of the United States?
Mr. Jacobson. Yes, I do, Congressman.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Waltz?
Mr. Waltz. Congressman, I believe America is less safe and
the world is more dangerous with the release of those
individuals.
Mr. Poe. Sergeant Full?
Mr. Full. I believe America is less safe, and the world is
also in more danger.
Mr. Poe. And, Mr. Andrews, I'll give you the last word.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you. I believe America is less safe. I
believe these five guys are going to come after us. I believe
that it was a mistake to release them, and that that did not
serve our national interest in any way.
Mr. Poe. I want to thank you all for being here. Ms.
Andrews, I want to thank you for being here, as well.
The committee is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:52 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Ted Poe, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and chairman,
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]