[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                        EXAMINING THE WORLDWIDE
                     THREAT OF AL QAEDA, ISIS, AND
                        OTHER FOREIGN TERRORIST
                             ORGANIZATIONS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

                                 OF THE

                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            DECEMBER 7, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-56

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-283 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                               
                             
                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Vacancy
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
                       Daniel Rebnord, Team Lead
                    Amy Stratton, Deputy Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                                 
                                 ------                                

                   Subcommittee on National Security

               Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts, Chairman
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Ranking 
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,          Minority Member
    Georgia                          Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Vacancy
Jackie Speier, California
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on December 7, 2021.................................     1

                               Witnesses

Ms. Milancy D. Harris, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, 
  Special Operations and Combating Terrorism, Department of 
  Defense
Oral Statement...................................................     4
Mr. Christopher A. Landberg, Acting Principal Deputy Coordinator, 
  Bureau of Counterterrorism, Department of State
Oral Statement...................................................     5

Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are 
  available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document 
  Repository at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              

No additional documents were entered into the record for this 
  hearing. 


 
                        EXAMINING THE WORLDWIDE
                     THREAT OF AL QAEDA, ISIS, AND
                        OTHER FOREIGN TERRORIST
                             ORGANIZATIONS

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, December 7, 2021

                   House of Representatives
          Subcommittee on National Security
                          Committee on Oversight and Reform
                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., 
2154 Rayburn House Office Building, and via Zoom. Hon. Stephen 
F. Lynch (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Lynch, Maloney, Welch, DeSaulnier, 
Wasserman Schultz, Grothman, and Comer.
    Also present: Representatives Trahan and Franklin (waived 
on).
    Mr. Lynch. The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time. I now recognize myself for 
an opening statement.
    Good morning, everyone, and thank you for attending today's 
hearing. Today's Subcommittee on National Security will 
reexamine and reassess the varied and evolving terrorist 
threats facing our Nation and our democratic allies, with the 
goal of better preparing for and effectively responding to 
those threats.
    While the current challenges posed by the global COVID-19 
pandemic has claimed the attention and resources of our 
government, we cannot afford to ignore the active and emerging 
threats that continue to develop, and in some cases have 
shifted to ungoverned regions of the globe and have evolved in 
ways that may become more difficult to defeat.
    As terrorist threats to the United States continue to 
evolve, so too must our counterterrorism approach. Terrorist 
organizations around the world have started to exploit local 
conflicts and insurgencies to advance their own violent and 
twisted ideological objectives. Denying safe haven to these 
organizations and de-legitimatizing their ideology requires a 
whole-of-government approach that lessens our reliance on 
massive, long-term military presence and instead looks to over-
the-horizon partnerships and quick-strike capabilities.
    Recent history has demonstrated that the value of robust 
intelligence sharing, diplomatic engagement, and civilian and 
humanitarian assistance to address root causes of conflict. 
Experience has also shown that broad democratic goals are best 
accomplished in coordination with our allies, by, with, and 
through local partners in the lead, whenever possible.
    We do owe a solemn debt of gratitude to the hundreds of 
thousands of men and women who have fought to defend our 
country against terrorism over the past 30 years. 
Notwithstanding that service and patriotism, which has depleted 
the ranks of al Qaeda and ISIS leadership, the long-term 
success of our effort remains a challenge. In some ways, the 
terrorist threats we face today are more complex and diffuse 
than ever before, and once again we are in search of a strategy 
and a policy that will succeed against these new threats going 
forward.
    I look forward to the hearing--excuse me. I look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses today about their assessment of the 
terrorist threats facing the United States. I also look forward 
to hearing more about how the Biden administration is working 
to protect Americans from these threats by building and 
strengthening our counterterrorism partnership and leveraging 
all available tools of national power, including military 
force, when necessary.
    Finally, while I believe the decision to end the massive 
20-year military presence in Afghanistan was the correct one, 
the withdrawal does create additional counterterrorism 
challenges, and I look forward to hearing more about how the 
Biden administration will continue to contain those threats.
    In an effort to gain a more thorough insight of these 
issues, by agreement, we have also arranged for a classified 
question-and-answer session following this hearing to provide 
answers to members' questions which may require disclosure of 
sensitive and classified information and materials.
    And with that I will now yield to the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, for his opening 
remarks.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First of all, I would like to 
thank you for allowing, to a degree--I know this was not the 
day we were expecting it, but to allow some of us to attend the 
hearing in person, and it is appreciated and it has not gone 
unnoticed.
    Good morning. I want to thank our witnesses for being here 
today. We are here to discuss the worldwide threat of 
terrorism. Interestingly, we originally invited this hearing 
weeks ago with a different theme. Back then, the hearing was 
going to cover the continued threat posed by terrorist 
organizations following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. I 
wonder why that changed.
    I wish this hearing was focused on Afghanistan. The world 
watched as the Biden administration botched the withdrawal, 
leading to the deaths of 13 servicemembers in an explosion 
outside the Kabul airport.
    President Biden promised we would not see another Saigon. 
He was wrong. He promised he would get all Americans and our 
allies out of harm's way, but he abandoned them. He promised 
that al Qaeda was gone, but common sense will tell us that is 
not true. He promised his over-the-horizon capabilities were 
just as good as traditional means of counterterror, then 
launched a drone strike that killed 10 civilians, including 
children.
    Any one of these failures warrants a hearing, but we have 
not had them. I wonder why.
    Since withdrawal, life in Afghanistan has not improved. For 
example, the Taliban's new government contains U.S.-recognized 
terrorists. The Taliban threw a military parade with American 
equipment. The Taliban have brutally beat women and children 
for protesting for their rights. And the Taliban are actively 
hunting our allies for execution. But this committee remains 
silent while it has held hearings on bills not under the 
committee's jurisdiction, paychecks for soccer players, and the 
Green New Deal pipeline.
    I hope we can learn today how the Biden administration 
plans to ensure the safety of Afghanistan, including our former 
troops who are former allies, and the women and girls, what our 
current over-the-horizon capabilities are and how the Biden 
administration plans to stop Afghanistan from becoming a safe 
haven for terrorism.
    The last time Taliban controlled Afghanistan the result was 
the worst attack on the homeland is six decades. I sincerely 
hope we are well positioned to stop that from happening again.
    I would like to thank our witnesses again for being here 
today, and I yield back.
    Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman, and I do appreciate his 
comments about the scope of this hearing. Certainly Afghanistan 
is in bounds for our discussion in this hearing. As I am sure 
you share, our priority is the safety of American citizens, 
both at home and overseas, and the scope of this hearing is 
broader because we want to make sure that the discussion is 
germane to other countries, such as Somalia, Mali, Syria, and 
other theaters where we are also seeing terrorist activity.
    So that is the reason we expanded it, but certainly 
Afghanistan is well within bounds to talk about what is 
happening there and what is happening with the over-the-horizon 
strategy.
    So I would like to now introduce our witnesses. Today we 
are joined by Ms. Milancy D. Harris, who is the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and 
Combating Terrorism at the Department of Defense. Ms. Harris 
was sworn into her position in February 2021. She has extensive 
experience working on U.S. counterterrorism policy, including 
through prior service as Chief of Staff of the Director of 
Intelligence at the National Counterterrorism Center and as the 
Director for Counterterrorism on the National Security Council.
    We are also joined by Mr. Christopher A. Landberg, Acting 
Principal Deputy Coordinator for the Bureau of Counterterrorism 
at the Department of State. Mr. Landberg is a career member of 
State Department Senior Foreign Service and has previously 
served in several roles at the Department, including as 
Director of the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 
Program at Embassy Bogota and Director of the Counterterrorism 
Bureau's Office of South and Central Asia and Near East 
Affairs. I want to thank you both for attending, and especially 
attending in person. We appreciate that courtesy. I look 
forward to your testimony.
    Pursuant to rules of the committee, would you please both 
stand and raise your right hands so we can swear you in.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Ms. Harris. I do.
    Mr. Landberg. I do.
    Mr. Lynch. Let the record show that the witnesses have each 
answered in the affirmative. And without objection, your 
written statements will be made part of the record.
    With that, Ms. Harris--please be seated, both of you. Thank 
you. With that, Ms. Harris, you are now recognized for a five-
minute summation of your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF MILANCY D. HARRIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
DEFENSE, SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND COMBATING TERRORISM, DEPARTMENT 
                           OF DEFENSE

    Ms. Harris. Good morning Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member 
Grothman, and esteemed members of the subcommittee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to speak with you today, particularly in 
person, about the Department of Defense's approach to 
counterterrorism. I am grateful to appear with my Department of 
State colleague and look forward to today's discussion.
    While we have significantly degraded the terrorist threat 
with the last 20 years of sustained pressure, we still face a 
potent challenge. The terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland 
from externally directed attacks is at its lowest since 9/11, 
but we still face a number of terrorist groups committed to 
targeting U.S. interests and personnel abroad. These groups 
seek to take advantage of instability and ungoverned spaces and 
have a new and evolving set of tools readily available.
    Today's terrorist groups are proficient with new 
technologies, agile in the information environment, creative in 
circumventing traditional financial systems, and remain 
ideologically influential enough to motivate generations of new 
people to join them or conduct independent attacks on their 
behalf.
    But let me be clear. The United States has met this 
challenge at every evolution. Our capability to counter 
terrorist threats has grown exponentially since 9/11. While it 
is critical to preserve the option for unilateral U.S. 
counterterrorism operations where necessary, we often see that 
the most effective counterterrorism approach is a mix of 
kinetic and non-kinetic capabilities and working with our 
partners and allies.
    For the Department, this includes collaborating with allies 
and partners on partnered operations, using our education and 
capacity-building programs to help develop increased 
counterterrorism capability in critical regions and ensuring 
our security cooperation efforts integrate with other 
complementary U.S. Government efforts.
    As we process the lessons from our time in Afghanistan and 
set the conditions for a new counterterrorism mission, we will 
seek to leverage intelligence, diplomacy, and military 
capabilities to ensure Afghanistan never again becomes a safe 
haven for terrorist organizations. Any approach will not be 
static. We will continue to iterate and adjust based on the 
terrorist threat and what will keep America safe. We will rely 
on the whole-of-government approach as we seek to deepen 
relationships in the region, understand the evolving state of 
Afghanistan's government, and maintain our commitment to the 
Afghan people.
    Our withdrawal from Afghanistan does not diminish the 
Department's vigilance in our counterterrorism mission, and our 
full intention remains on protecting our homeland, citizens, 
and interests from the continued threat terrorism poses, not 
only from Afghanistan but around the world. We will never 
waiver in that mission.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished 
members of the committee. I look forward to your questions 
today.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you. And, Mr. Landberg, you are now 
recognized for five minutes for a summation of your testimony. 
Welcome.

 STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. LANDBERG, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 
  COORDINATOR, BUREAU OF COUNTERTERRORISM, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. Landberg. Good morning. Chairman Lynch, Ranking Member 
Grothman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for this opportunity to appear before you today with my 
Department of Defense colleague to discuss the State 
Department's and broader U.S. government's efforts to counter 
the evolving terrorist threats around the world. I would ask 
that my full written statement be entered into the record.
    The United States is confronting a terrorist threat 
landscape that is dynamic, complex, and fast moving. Foreign 
terrorist groups remain a persistent and pervasive threat, 
despite the significant progress we have made in degrading 
their ability to directly threaten the United States.
    Globally, ISIS and al Qaeda remain resilient and 
determined. Despite significant losses in leadership and 
territorial control, both groups are leveraging their branches 
and networks across the Middle East, Asia, and Africa to 
advance their agendas.
    Countering these terrorist threats remains at the forefront 
of the Biden-Harris administration priorities. The United 
States' global counterterrorism engagement is a whole-of-
government effort, as you said, Mr. Chairman, with the 
Department of Defense, the intelligence community, and civilian 
assistance and law enforcement agencies all playing important 
roles. Today I wish to focus on the State Department's efforts 
to protect the United States, our citizens, our allies, and our 
interests from terrorists.
    The State Department is taking concrete and specific 
actions to counter these complex and evolving terrorist threats 
worldwide. We play a critical role in the United States 
government's efforts to promote counterterrorism cooperation, 
strengthen partnerships, and build civilian capacity to counter 
the full spectrum of terrorist threats confronting the United 
States and our allies.
    This includes bolstering the professionalism and capability 
of partner nations' law enforcement to identify, deter, 
prevent, disrupt, apprehend, investigate, prosecute, and 
convict terrorists and their supporters, including through 
support for key regional and multilateral institutions and 
global initiatives.
    The State Department is leading the U.S. government's 
diplomatic engagements with key partners to ensure broad 
international counterterrorism support and assistance. State 
engages with foreign partners and leverages multilateral 
organizations such as the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, to 
bolster information-sharing and coordinate and intensify 
international support.
    State, in coordination with interagency and international 
partners, is using foreign assistance to build partner capacity 
to enable them to address terrorist threats. We are 
strengthening these partner nations' capabilities to secure 
their borders, investigate and disrupt terrorist plots, track 
terrorist financing, prosecute and incarcerate terrorist 
offenders, and prevent and counter violent extremism, and also 
rehabilitate and reintegrate former terrorists.
    State is using counterterrorism designations to counter 
terrorism threats and disrupt terrorism financing. For example, 
on November 22, we designed three ISIS Khorasan leaders as 
specially designated global terrorists.
    State is also working with our interagency and 
international partners to prevent terrorist travel. We actively 
encourage partner governments to nominate terrorist actors, as 
appropriate, into their own national watch lists and 
international law enforcement platforms such as Interpol. We 
also continue to negotiate and implement bilateral terrorism 
screening arrangements with select foreign partners, which 
position them to better identify and disrupt terrorist travel 
around the world.
    Amid this diverse and dynamic threat landscape, the path 
forward to countering terrorism required continued diplomacy, 
dialog, and diligence. We must remain vigilant and proactive in 
protecting the United States, our citizens and our allies, and 
in promoting U.S. national security interests.
    The State Department remains committed to working with 
interagency partner nations and with Congress to address the 
evolving threats of terrorism. We very much welcome the 
interest of Congress on this issue, and I look forward to your 
questions in the discussion. Thank you.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
    Before we move to questions I have a couple of quick 
housekeeping matters. As I understand, several members from 
outside of the committee wish to participate today. First, 
without objection, the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, my 
friend and colleague, Representative Lori Trahan, is recognized 
for the purpose of participating in the questioning of 
witnesses. And, without objection, the gentleman from Florida, 
Representative Franklin, is also recognized for the purpose of 
participating in questioning the witnesses. Thank you.
    I will now recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
    In September, Director of National Intelligence Avril 
Haines stated that while intelligence community will continue 
to monitor the terrorist threats in Afghanistan, that country 
is not currently at, quote, ``the top of the list for terrorist 
threats against the U.S. homeland.'' Instead, Director Haines 
said the intelligence community sees the greatest threats 
emerging from places like Yemen and Somalia, where al Qaeda-
affiliated groups continue to operate, and from Syria and Iraq, 
where ISIS maintains the ability to carry out attacks, despite 
the defeat of its so-called caliphate in 2019.
    Ms. Harris, President Biden has stated that the United 
States will continue to counter terrorist threats in 
Afghanistan from an over-the-horizon basis. That term has been 
used multiple times to describe the new profile of our 
response. To the extent that you can describe it, can you 
please help explain for our subcommittee members what that 
means. What does that mean and how is it working? How does it 
work and how is it working with that effort? Thank you.
    Ms. Harris. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. When 
we think about over-the-horizon it is not a static concept. It 
is an iterative approach, tailored to the individual terrorist 
threat that we are looking at. It is a way to bring the 
Department and the whole-of-government's full capabilities to 
bear against a terrorist problem and scale it based on the 
terrorist threat that we see.
    As we seek to set conditions in Afghanistan, for example, 
we are seeking to deepen our relationships in the region, work 
with our allies and partners who have a shared interest in 
preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safe haven and 
continue to understand how ISIS-K and al Qaeda are taking 
advantage of the new situation. As such, we will continue to 
iterate on how best to counter that threat, but we maintain the 
full suite of the Department's capabilities to bring to bear as 
we learn more.
    Mr. Lynch. We have had the chance to, on this committee, 
look at some of the problem areas. I have led multiple codels 
to Yemen, Somalia, and the one thing that strikes me in Africa, 
and Mali as well, but the one thing that strikes me is the 
sheer size of the continent of Africa and the difficulty that 
that presents. How does over-the-horizon work on the continent 
of Africa, places like Mali and the Sahel, and the Horn of 
Africa, given the fact that we are talking about huge spaces 
there and most of the areas are ungoverned so the 
infrastructure is very thin, and it would be difficult to 
maintain an over-the-horizon presence, I believe, in a timely 
fashion to address terrorist threats in those locations. Could 
you talk about the strategy there?
    Ms. Harris. Absolutely. I think Africa provides a good 
example of a tailored approach. So it does not necessarily mean 
we do not have, you know, U.S. forces stationed in Africa, to 
be operating over the horizon. It means that we can use the 
full suite of capabilities that are available in Africa, based 
on the terrorist threat we see.
    Some of it is a by-within-through effort. We work with 
allies and partners, when you think about our activities in the 
Sahel, and what we are trying to pursue against JNIM and ISIS 
in West Africa. In Somalia, you have seen we have had both 
forces in Somalia and stationed nearby, but an approach that 
focuses on episodic engagement, building partner capacity, 
working with Somali partners to build increased 
counterterrorism capacity.
    Both, I think, involve elements that could be described as 
over-the-horizon but are tailored to the nature of the 
terrorist threat.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Landberg, does the State 
Department have a role in this?
    Mr. Landberg. Absolutely, sir. Thank you for the question. 
As my DoD colleague was saying, we look at this especially in 
places like the Sahel and in East Africa as a whole-of-
government approach. In counterterrorism, that includes State 
Department, U.S. law enforcement, and DoD, and other 
interagency allies. That is part of the equation. But the 
Administration actually is looking at it as an approach that 
includes development assistance and governance and working with 
other countries.
    So one of the things I wanted to highlight is that we work 
very closely with our allies, through a number of international 
organizations. The D-ISIS Coalition is something that we have 
been working on intensively, and in a meeting just a few days 
ago they created, in the D-ISIS Coalition, the Africa Focus 
Group, which is now going to help the 84 members of the D-ISIS 
Coalition focus efforts, leverage all our capabilities on 
addressing terrorist threats in Africa. So this is like a 
whole-of-government but also really an international community 
approach.
    Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Have we resourced this enough? I 
mean, this is a new and additional responsibility, I think, for 
State Department. Have we provided the resources necessary to 
undertake this change?
    Mr. Landberg. Thank you. I can speak for only the 
Counterterrorism Bureau. We have robust resources that we are 
working to implement effectively. That is our mission. We have 
the capability to do more and so do our partners. We work to 
leverage DHS, DOJ, FBI to help build law enforcement 
capabilities wherever we are working.
    We have more capabilities and we could do more, but right 
now we are mostly focused on effective implementation of the 
funding we have.
    Mr. Lynch. OK. Thank you. My time has expired. I now 
recognize the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Grothman, for five minutes for questions.
    Mr. Grothman. Thanks. We will ask Mr. Landberg the 
questions. In February 2020, the Trump administration signed 
the DOHA Agreement with the Taliban, and this agreement 
required that the Taliban sever all ties with al Qaeda before 
the U.S. withdrew. Did the Taliban, to the best of your 
knowledge, meet all the requirements of the 2020 agreement 
before the Biden administration withdrew?
    Mr. Landberg. Thank you, sir. We have been very clear--we 
are very mission-focused right now, and we have been very clear 
with the Taliban what we expect of them in terms of 
counterterrorism. They are aware that they need to--if they 
want to build any legitimacy with the United States and the 
international community, cut ties with al Qaeda and also ensure 
that Afghanistan never again becomes a source of terrorist 
threats to the United States or any of our allies. And they are 
absolutely focused on degrading ISIS-K, and also there have 
bene many discussions on our concerns about al Qaeda and the 
persistent presence in parts of Afghanistan.
    Mr. Grothman. Since you did not answer yes I take it that 
means there are still some ties there, or what is the deal?
    Mr. Landberg. The Taliban have, including in a meeting just 
a few days ago, have assured the United States and also 
international partners that they will never again allow 
Afghanistan to become a source of terrorist threat to the 
United States or any other country.
    Mr. Grothman. You are still kind of weaseling around the 
question. Do they have ties with al Qaeda?
    Mr. Landberg. Our--we are going to have a classified 
session later on today I would be happy to talk in a little bit 
more detail about terrorist activities and threats emanating 
from Afghanistan. I will say that right now we have been very 
clear in our messaging with the Taliban, on numerous occasions.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Now we have a leadership vacuum in 
Afghanistan, and we have kind of that empty airport there. Will 
Russia, China, or Iran attempt to make geo-strategic gains 
through Afghanistan now that we are not there, including at the 
airport?
    Mr. Landberg. Sir, so I am happy to take back the question 
regarding the future of the airport, which is outside my 
purview in the Counterterrorism Bureau. What I can say is that, 
as my DoD colleague said, we are working in the region to 
bolster our partners' capabilities. We are not the only power 
in that region. We know that Russia and China and others have 
interest in that region. Where we can work collaboratively with 
them, we will, and where our interests diverge we will follow 
U.S. priorities and interests.
    And I absolutely know that there have been a number of 
meetings with the Russians and the Chinese that the United 
States has been a part of, and there is a lot of concern among 
all the parties in the region about discussing specifically 
terrorist threats and instability emanating from Afghanistan.
    Mr. Grothman. That is interesting. So you mean that Russia, 
China, and the U.S. all sit together with the Afghans?
    Mr. Landberg. We had one meeting that I am aware of with 
Russia and China. There is definitely a press statement on 
that. And we have had interaction with both countries where we 
highlight--and also there has been, actually, interaction in 
the United Nations as well. So there are a number of fora where 
we interact with both and where we highlight our major concerns 
about Afghanistan, what we expect of the Taliban, and also what 
we expect of the countries in the region to do.
    Mr. Grothman. Do you believe terror networks will begin to 
re-form in Afghanistan?
    Mr. Landberg. I am sorry. I didn't----
    Mr. Grothman. Do you think terror networks will re-form in 
Afghanistan?
    Mr. Landberg. So we are very concerned about terrorist 
threats in Afghanistan, and I think there have been a number of 
public comments on ISIS-K threats, in particular, but also 
potentially over time al Qaeda threats emanating from 
Afghanistan. We are monitoring it closely, and we are putting 
in place not just the unilateral, over-the-horizon capability 
to degrade that threat but also working to bolster the 
capabilities in the region.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Were counterterrorism officials involved 
in the vetting of Afghan refugees?
    Mr. Landberg. The vetting of Afghan refugees is handled by 
law enforcement and security professionals.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. So you don't know.
    Mr. Landberg. The Counterterrorism Bureau is aware of all 
that and involved in a lot of the negotiation of international 
agreements, but we are not involved in the actual vetting. No, 
that is DHS and some other agencies.
    Mr. Grothman. Were any suspected terrorists or individuals 
with ties to terrorism, that you know, evacuated from 
Afghanistan?
    I think I am going to followup and give you another 
question here.
    When the people come here from Afghanistan, one of the 
problems we have at the southern border is people are showing 
up without IDs. Do we know who these people are for sure? Do 
they just make up a name, or what is the deal there, before we 
let them in the country?
    Mr. Landberg. So this is what I can assure you, that we 
have robust vetting and screening of every single individual 
that would come into the United States, and that includes 
biographic and biometric information. So we have a lot of 
information about individuals that does not rely on documentary 
evidence, for example.
    Any Afghan that came out of Afghanistan was thoroughly 
vetted before coming to the United States. If there are issues, 
certainly DHS has the authorities to prevent those individuals 
from entering into the United States.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, I suppose I should say that is good. I 
don't know. OK. Thank you.
    Mr. Lynch. The gentleman yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Massachusetts, Mrs. Trahan, for 
five minutes for her questions. Welcome.
    Mrs. Trahan. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for holding this important hearing. It is so important that we 
get our chance to ask our questions.
    Mr. Landberg, in September 2014, just months after the 
Islamic State announced the formation of the Islamic caliphate 
in Syria and Iraq, the United States created a new global 
coalition with its international allies and partners to conduct 
counterterrorism operations against ISIS. And over the next 
five years, the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS worked by, 
with, and through local military partners to eliminate the 
Islamic State's territorial holds.
    The coalition also utilized non-military measures to reduce 
the Islamic State's access to funds, undermine its ability to 
spread its messages online, and stabilize areas that had been 
liberated from ISIS' grasp.
    While the fight against ISIS continues, the coalition's 
efforts succeeded in eliminating the physical ISIS caliphate in 
2019. So, Mr. Landberg, can you please describe how the 
coalition connected military pressure with diplomatic and other 
non-military efforts to successfully degrade ISIS' hold in Iraq 
and Syria?
    Mr. Landberg. Thank you. I think you could characterize the 
D-ISIS Coalition as the most successful international 
counterterrorism organization in history. As you said, it 
combined the capabilities of many different partners, not just 
the United States, including all of our most capable partners, 
really. And it also took a whole-of-government approach, so it 
was not just, you know, bringing to bear military use of force 
but also all of the civilian capabilities that many of our 
governments are very capable of. So the complete destruction of 
the caliphate was a huge success.
    We continue to be concerned about ISIS in the core. One of 
the things we have seen and been able to pivot the coalition to 
address, especially over the last year--and I will say actually 
there was a meeting of political directors on the 2nd of 
December, and there is a meeting in Bucharest today, and in 
both meetings they are discussing how this coalition, which is 
now 84 members, because Burkina Faso just joined, is now going 
to leverage our combined capabilities in places where ISIS 
affiliates are operating, like in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also 
bringing to bear our capabilities, and not just kinetic 
capabilities but civilian-led capabilities to address the 
threat of ISIS Khorasan coming out of Afghanistan.
    Mrs. Trahan. That is great that the coalition is growing, 
because the global coalition rightfully focused its efforts on 
degrading ISIS' capabilities in Iraq and Syria. The ISIS threat 
is obviously not contained to those two countries, and that 
became painfully and devastatingly clear on August 26, when 
militants associated with ISIS-K carried out an attack in Kabul 
that killed 13 U.S. servicemembers and at least 170 Afghan 
citizens. One of those servicemembers, Sergeant Johanny Rosario 
Pichardo, was from my district. She was a proud daughter of 
Lawrence, Massachusetts, and her community will forever 
remember her and the 12 other servicemembers killed as heroes.
    Mr. Landberg, on November 17, you testified to the House 
Foreign Affairs Committee that immediately after this attack 
the State Department asked members of the Global Coalition to 
Defeat ISIS to, quote, ``consider how it might leverage its 
experience and expertise to counter ISIS-K.'' You further 
stated that the coalition has, quote, ``responded and 
identified potential efforts against the ISIS-K threat.'' Why 
does the State Department believe the global coalition's 
counter-ISIS efforts can be expanded to Afghanistan, and can 
you elaborate on the potential lines of effort the global 
coalition members identified to counter ISIS-K?
    Mr. Landberg. Thank you, Congresswoman. So in the 
announcements that came out of the political directors' meeting 
a few days ago, they highlighted how we can leverage each 
other's experience and capabilities in the area, especially of 
counter-messaging related to ISIS in Afghanistan, also foreign 
fighter flows, which is of deep concern to many people, related 
to ISIS-K operating in Central and South Asia, as well as 
countering ISIS financing.
    So these are some of the areas where working groups within 
the coalition have already started to consider how we can 
collectively manage any ISIS Khorasan threat emanating from 
Afghanistan.
    Mrs. Trahan. Great. Well, my time is almost up. I will say 
that the creation of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS 
heralded a new way to conduct counterterrorism, one that relied 
not only on our military power but also on diplomatic and 
civilian lines of effort to degrade terrorist capabilities and 
assist vulnerable populations directly affected by the Islamic 
State's rule. And if we are to effectively counter the threat 
of ISIS-K we will need to do so in coordination with our allies 
and partners, using all of the military and civilian tools of 
national power at our disposal.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again, for letting me waive on, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Lynch. The gentlelady yields back, and we are grateful 
for her participation, and we share in her loss for her local 
constituent who gave her life so that others would be able to 
exit Afghanistan.
    The chair now recognizes the full committee ranking member, 
Mr. Comer, the gentleman from Kentucky, for five minutes for 
his questions.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On July 8, 2021, 
President Biden said a Taliban takeover was not inevitable. At 
that point that was not true. President Biden was warned of a 
Taliban takeover well before July 8. He knew a Taliban takeover 
was likely but said otherwise.
    Ms. Harris and Mr. Landberg, first of all, do you all trust 
the Taliban? Yes? No?
    Mr. Landberg. This a verify-before-trust situation. We have 
been very clear of what we expect from the Taliban. The ball is 
in their court. They have the ability to demonstrate to the 
world their commitment to what we have been asking for.
    Mr. Comer. OK. Ms. Harris?
    Ms. Harris. I would agree with my Department of State 
colleague. I think at this point all we can do is be clear in 
our expectations, in our commitment to not let a terrorist 
threat grow.
    Mr. Comer. All right. Yes or no. Mr. Landberg, is there an 
al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan today?
    Mr. Landberg. I think talking about the specific presence 
in Afghanistan would probably be better left for the classified 
session.
    Mr. Comer. I assume yes. Mr. Landberg, do the Taliban and 
al Qaeda have a mutually beneficial relationship?
    Mr. Landberg. Sir, going back, there has been a 
relationship, and I think that is well known.
    Mr. Comer. So are al Qaeda operatives within the Taliban?
    Mr. Landberg. Again, sir, I think any discussion on--any 
level of detail about specific terrorist group activities in 
Afghanistan probably should be deferred.
    Mr. Comer. Does the Taliban actively shield al Qaeda?
    Mr. Landberg. I think what is clear from conversations so 
far with the Taliban is that they are aware of our clear 
message that they cannot allow al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a 
safe haven, and I think they are wary of allowing al Qaeda to 
do that. I think it is a situation in flux, and we can talk in 
more detail later.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Landberg, can you confirm that after the 
withdrawal of U.S. troops the Taliban were going door to door 
and quietly executing U.S. sympathizers and other allies? Was 
that true or false, that story?
    Mr. Landberg. I do not think I am in a position to respond 
to that. The Counterterrorism Bureau was not tracking that. But 
I would refer you to maybe other parts, or I could take that 
question back and the other parts of the government would be 
able to respond.
    Mr. Comer. OK. Ms. Harris or Mr. Landberg, let me ask you 
this question. To conduct counterterror operations or collect 
intelligence, is the U.S. currently operating with the Taliban 
in any shape or form? Ms. Harris?
    Ms. Harris. We are engaged in an active diplomatic 
conversation with the Taliban, where we have made clear that we 
are not going to let any terrorist threats evolve in 
Afghanistan, and our expectations for what they will allow 
within that territory. But I would defer to my State colleague 
for specifics on that discussion.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Landberg?
    Mr. Landberg. So the interaction so far has been dialog. It 
has been mainly with our special representative for 
Afghanistan. In every single interaction, and in the recent 
press release from the meeting just at the end of November we 
are clear on what we expect from them, and the counterterrorism 
expectations are top of the list, always.
    Mr. Comer. OK. Ms. Harris, do you need permission from the 
Taliban for the United States to strike terrorists in 
Afghanistan?
    Ms. Harris. I am happy to elaborate further on our use of 
force policies in the closed session. However, what I can say 
to you is we have been clear that we will do whatever is 
necessary to keep Americans safe right now, as we engage in 
this dialog, and that our commitment to the counterterrorism 
mission in Afghanistan and preventing it from becoming a safe 
haven have remained unchanged.
    Mr. Comer. So if we have pretty significant confidence in 
intelligence that a terrorist is at a certain spot in 
Afghanistan, the United States can go ahead and pursue those 
terrorists without getting permission from the Taliban.
    Ms. Harris. I will refer you to comments that have been 
made by others from the Department. We will do whatever is 
necessary. We have said as much to the Taliban, and left no 
mystery there that if we have actionable intelligence and 
understand a credible threat to U.S. personnel, U.S. interests, 
we will seek to counter that threat.
    Mr. Comer. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired.
    Mr. Lynch. The gentleman yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
for five minutes for her questions. Welcome. Thank you.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the opportunity to ask questions, and I appreciate 
you sponsoring this important hearing.
    Since 2001, we have faced a terrorist threat that is 
rapidly evolving. Instead of plotting, organizing, and carrying 
out attacks directly, terrorist organizations are increasingly 
relying on individuals who are inspired by their ideology to 
take up arms on behalf of their cause.
    In September, FBI Director Chris Wray testified that these 
home-grown violent extremists, along with domestic violent 
extremists, are, quote, ``the most significant terrorism danger 
to our country.''
    Sadly, the violence perpetrated by home-grown violent 
extremists has already had a devastating impact on the United 
States. For example, in December 2015, two individuals inspired 
by ISIS carried out a mass shooting in San Bernardino, 
California, that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others, and 
the following year a terrorist who pledged allegiance to ISIS 
killed more than 50 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, 
Florida.
    Mr. Landberg, do groups like ISIS and al Qaeda have a 
deliberate strategy to inspire political sympathizers to 
conduct attacks on their behalf?
    Mr. Landberg. Thank you, Congresswoman. I think all 
terrorist groups over the last 20 years, and this is 
intensifying, have sought to use modern technology to inspire 
and radicalize, so absolutely, ISIS and al Qaeda attempt to do 
that in many parts of the world. That includes the United 
States. And I think where we have seen a lot of activity and a 
lot of movement by ISIS and al Qaeda affiliates to radicalize 
and take advantage of ungoverned spaces and local grievances 
has been in places like Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And why is terrorist 
plotting by home-grown violent extremists so challenging to 
disrupt? And I am asking this on a question, because certainly 
we have to continue to really focus on terrorism anywhere we 
might be attacked, but we have got a very serious problem right 
here in our country, inspired by foreign terrorists, and I 
would like a sense from you of the challenges that we face in 
disrupting those plots.
    Mr. Landberg. Well, it is challenging. We are certainly not 
the only country struggling with it. I think maybe a way to 
respond is to talk about some of the things we are doing to 
counter terrorist use of the Internet. We are working very 
closely with social media companies to get them to enforce 
their terms of service. We are working internationally to build 
capabilities of many of our partners, to be able to also 
counter terrorist messaging and use of the Internet. We are 
working through the United Nations with different partners. And 
we do our own counter-messaging.
    So there are a number of lines of effort that we do to 
counter terrorist use of the Internet to radicalize and 
inspire, but absolutely, it is a challenging problem.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. To address the threat of home-grown 
violent extremism, we really need to be proactive about de-
legitimizing terrorist ideology and countering their messaging.
    Mr. Landberg, can you talk about the counter-messaging 
efforts being undertaken by the State Department, including the 
Global Engagement Center, and how that work is being 
coordinated with the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS?
    Mr. Landberg. Thank you. Yes. Counter-messaging is a key 
part of what we do. The way the United States approaches it is 
really to counter negative messaging with positive messaging 
and to build long-term resistance to terrorism messaging 
instead of, for example, trying to control content.
    So the GEC is certainly the lead for the Department in that 
effort, but since the CT Bureau and the CT coordinator is dual-
hatted as a special envoy for counter-ISIS, CT Bureau and GEC 
work very closely, specifically with our coalition partners, to 
do counter-messaging and have expanded those efforts.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Madam Chair--Mr. 
Chairman, excuse me--if we are to effectively counter the 
terrorist threats that exist today we have to work fully with 
our international allies and partners to ensure foreign 
terrorist groups cannot spread their hateful messages and 
inspire others to commit violence, not just in foreign 
countries but against the United States as well, from within.
    Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Lynch. The gentlelady yields back, and we are thankful 
for her participation. Thank you very much.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Franklin, for five minutes for his questions.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding this really important hearing today, and thank you to 
our witnesses for being here. It is unfortunate the 
circumstances and the logistics did not work out to have more 
people participate, but it does not, in any way, diminish the 
significance of the topic here.
    Mr. Landberg, the Haqqani Network is currently designed a 
foreign terrorist organization. Is that a fair assessment in 
your mind? Do they deserve to be on that list?
    Mr. Landberg. They are designed as a foreign terrorist 
organization and have been for a while, and they deserve to be 
on that list.
    Mr. Franklin. And you see them still continuing the 
activities that they have been known for conducting?
    Mr. Landberg. So we see--we would be happy to talk in more 
detail, with more granularity, during the follow-on session, 
but the Haqqani group has been traditionally more inwardly 
focused in Afghanistan. But absolutely, they continue to be 
designated as an FTO, and we are continuing to monitor them 
closely.
    Mr. Franklin. OK. And the head of the Haqqani Network is 
currently the Taliban's Interior Minister. Is that correct?
    Mr. Landberg. Yes.
    Mr. Franklin. All right. In light of that, and also there 
are plenty of reports out there that people who we have worked 
with, who are sympathizers to the U.S. cause, have been rounded 
up. There are reports of execution. I have not verified that, 
but I would certainly think in your line of work that would be 
important to know and that you would be investigating that.
    But in light of that, should the Taliban have been removed 
from the list of designated terrorist organizations?
    Mr. Landberg. So we are under no--we have regular reviews 
of FTO designations. We are not at that five-year mark yet. We 
are under no pressure obligation to reconsider that.
    I think it is a wait-and-see situation in Afghanistan, and 
a lot of it is up to the Taliban and to see how they behave 
going forward, and whether they are going to fulfill their many 
commitments made to the United States and international 
community, specifically related to counterterrorism.
    I will note that, as you mentioned, some of the concerns 
about abuses. In the recent meeting with the Taliban, or the 
dialog that our special representative had, it notes this in 
the subsequent press release, it was highlighted our deep 
concerns about some of these reports. So we are monitoring it 
and tracking it very closely.
    Mr. Franklin. So as of today the Taliban has not been 
removed from that list?
    Mr. Landberg. The Taliban is designated as a specially 
designated global terrorist, not as an FTO. Also for 
immigration purposes, they are actually considered an FTO. 
Those are very strong tools. Again, it is really the Taliban 
have it in their hands to fulfill their commitments, and it is 
not just counterterrorism. I think we have been very clear 
about freedom of movement, return of Mark Frerichs, inclusive 
government, protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.
    So there are a number of expectations we have, and that is 
going to determine how we deal with the Taliban going forward.
    Mr. Franklin. Well, considering that their Interior 
Minister is still on the FBI's Most Wanted List, I would hope--
I have strong concern about that and would hope that the 
Department would not take them off.
    Ms. Harris, moving on there, there were estimates, when we 
had testimony before the Armed Services Committee, of al Qaeda 
re-emerging in Afghanistan within six months. It is now three 
months later. I understand you probably cannot get into a lot 
of detail in this environment, but without the specifics is 
that bearing true? Are we seeing activity there?
    Ms. Harris. So as you rightly said I cannot get into a ton 
of specifics here. What I can say is that we are well 
positioned to monitor terrorist organizations. We continue to 
try to improve our intelligence picture, day over day, to make 
sure that we are monitoring those threats. What I can tell you 
is that we are focused on making sure we have the capability to 
counter any threats we see crop up.
    Mr. Franklin. We unilaterally blinded ourselves in 
Afghanistan. General McKenzie, when he spoke before Armed 
Services, had testified that, you know, with 2,500 troops he 
could have held Bagram, we could have still maintained that in-
country ISR capability, but given the caps, the political caps 
of 700 people to defend the embassy, the airport, and Bagram, 
it just simply could not be done. But he wanted to make it 
clear that it could have been done had they been given the 
authority to do that.
    In light of our inability to see what is happening in the 
country there now, do you think that was a mistake?
    Ms. Harris. I think we have to consider what we need to 
cultivate to understand what is going on in Afghanistan. I 
think it is more complex than just maintaining ISR coverage. I 
think we need the full suite of intelligence capabilities. We 
need to work with our allies and partners. We need to ensure 
that we have a robust kind of intelligence picture across all 
of the intelligence ins to make sure we really understand what 
is going on.
    I think, day over day, we are trying to iterate and improve 
on that picture. We have a sense of what is going on in the 
country. I think it is better than it was three months ago, and 
I think if I come back and see you in three months we will have 
a more nuanced understanding then. Some of that is from the 
diplomatic channel. Some of that is from continuing to kind of 
understand where we are with our intelligence picture and seek 
to improve in different ways.
    Mr. Franklin. Well, from the outside observation it appears 
to be diplomacy of wishful thinking and also the same on the 
military side. We have unilaterally handicapped ourselves.
    Mr. Chairman, I am past my time but I yield back. Thank 
you.
    Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, a long-time member 
of this committee and one of our hardest workers in this area, 
the chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 
five minutes for his questions.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Landberg, in September, Christy Abizaid, the Director 
of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Homeland 
Security Committee that the current worldwide terror threat is, 
quote, ``less acute to the homeland but which continues to 
become more ideological diffuse and geographically diverse.''
    My question is, even if foreign terrorist threats to the 
U.S. homeland have diminished, and you can comment on whether 
you agree with the progress she states, they still pose a 
threat to our national security interests. Is that right? And 
can you explain why?
    Mr. Landberg. Yes, sir. Thank you. I think, absolutely, 
although it is evolving we have also evolved our approach. The 
Biden-Harris administration, as my DoD colleague said, is 
actually taking a whole-of-government approach to dealing with 
these threats.
    While we have had great success over the last 20 years in 
securing the homeland and creating a network of alliances that 
include information sharing and vetting and screening to 
prevent terrorist travel, and we have really increased the 
security of our country, threats continue to multiply, as we 
have noted in many places, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa, but 
that is not the only location.
    So to deal with this we are evolving from what has maybe 
been a little bit military-heavy counterterrorism approach over 
the last 20 years to a more balanced approach, as we also start 
to deal with a broader range of threats that goes way beyond 
counterterrorism, to cyber threats, to strategic nation state 
competition. By dealing with this as a whole-of-government our 
focus is going to be more on building the partner capabilities 
and also leveraging these international relationships that I 
have been talking about, like, for example, the D-ISIS 
Coalition.
    Mr. Welch. Ms. Harris, do you have anything you would like 
to add to that?
    Ms. Harris. I think with regards to Director Abizaid's 
remarks, I do think we see the threat from foreign terrorist 
organizations abroad as at its lowest point since 9/11. But 
what we see is a committed group of terrorist organizations 
that want to radicalize and inspire, and that is a different 
kind of threat for us. It presents a different challenge when 
you think about trying to counter that. I think, as my 
Department of State colleague said, the tools that you use 
there are things like, you know, engaging with social media 
companies on use of the Internet and working to try to counter 
messaging from, you know, the Global Engagement Center, and 
other U.S. Government entities.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you. Mr. Landberg, are you able to comment 
in a public setting to what extent al Qaeda and ISIS, the core, 
maintain operational control over any other prospective 
branches and affiliates?
    Mr. Landberg. I think it may be better to discuss details 
in the follow-on session, but there is connectivity, and I 
think it is publicly acknowledged between the ISIS affiliates 
networks and leadership.
    Mr. Welch. Let me ask you this. You know, the African home-
grown extremist groups have objectives and disproportionately 
target regional governments and civilians. Is that your view as 
to the focus of their main attention, not that they don't 
affiliate with other terrorist groups that may have global 
aspirations? Can you comment on that, Mr. Landberg?
    Mr. Landberg. So to make sure I understand, so there are 
ISIS and al Qaeda affiliates spreading throughout the world, 
and interacting with different elements in many of the spaces 
that they are moving into. And as we mentioned before, they 
take advantage of local grievances, ungoverned spaces, and 
often in these spaces there is already criminal and terrorist 
activity that these more organized affiliates are able to then 
take and focus to further, really, the ISIS and al Qaeda 
objectives in those regions.
    Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Lynch. The gentleman yields back. The chair now 
recognizes the full committee chair, the gentlelady from New 
York, Ms. Maloney, for five minutes. Welcome.
    Ms. Maloney. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman 
Lynch, for holding this important hearing, and thank you for 
calling on me.
    The United States is a force for good in the world because 
we take extraordinary steps to avoid civilian casualties when 
conducting military operations. We are not perfect. The loss of 
innocent life is a tragic reality of war, but when we harm 
innocent civilians we must take responsibility for our errors 
and investigate what happened so that the same mistakes do not 
happen again.
    Ms. Harris, I would like to ask you, do you agree that 
protecting innocent life while conducting military operations 
is a moral and strategic imperative?
    Ms. Harris. Thank you for the question, and, ma'am, I agree 
wholeheartedly. I think at the center of our very ethos are 
accountability and transparency. We abhor the loss of innocent 
life. We take all possible measures to prevent them. And when 
we have incidents it is our duty to learn from those and seek 
to be better.
    Ms. Maloney. Thank you, and I agree. That is why I am so 
concerned by recent examples under both Democratic and 
Republican administrations. There are examples of the Defense 
Department concealing or downplaying civilian casualties.
    The New York Times recently reported that under the Trump 
administration, when ISIS was making its last stand in Syria, 
in March 2019, U.S. forces conducted an airstrike that may have 
resulted in the deaths of dozens of innocent civilians. Instead 
of acknowledging the mistake, the military reportedly concealed 
the strike, downplayed the death toll, classified key reports, 
and even destroyed the site of the attack.
    And more recently, the August 29 airstrike in Kabul, which 
was intended to prevent another ISIS terrorist attack at the 
Kabul airport, tragically killed 10 civilians, including 7 
children. Yet DoD only admitted this after a New York Times 
report challenged the military's claim that the targeted 
vehicle was carrying explosives to be used in a terrorist 
attack.
    Ms. Harris, I appreciate that Secretary Austin has directed 
General Michael Garrett to conduct an independent review of the 
March 2019 strike in Syria. I also understand that the Air 
Force inspector general has reviewed the August 29 strike in 
Kabul and found that the personnel involved, quote, ``truly 
believed at the time that they were targeting an imminent 
threat to U.S. forces.''
    But nonetheless, as the United States of America we need to 
do a better job of protecting civilians and acknowledging our 
mistakes so that they may be corrected. So I would like to ask, 
what steps is DoD taking, following these two incidents, to 
protect innocent life and ensure that civilian casualties are 
appropriately documented and reported, and will you commit to 
providing our committee with a briefing following the 
conclusion of General Garrett's review of the March 2019 strike 
in Syria? Ms. Harris.
    Ms. Harris. Ma'am, we are committed to working with 
Congress once the investigations are complete.
    With regards to how we are processing the lessons learned, 
what I can assure you is that at all levels we are focused on 
understanding the investigation, understanding the mistakes 
that were made, and instituting processes by which we take 
accountability internal to the Department but also ways in 
which we will incorporate those lessons moving forward.
    Ms. Maloney. Well, thank you. Even when we make tragic 
mistakes we have a moral obligation to acknowledge our 
shortcomings. I look forward to working with you and the Biden 
administration to uphold America's reputation as a force for 
good in the world.
    And I yield back. My time has expired.
    Mr. Lynch. The gentlelady yields back. We will now conclude 
with myself and the ranking member on closing remarks.
    I do want to go back to allegations made by one of our 
members that President Biden knew, or could confirm that the 
collapse of the Afghan government and the subsequent takeover 
by the Taliban was inevitable. I just want to push back on that 
statement with the facts.
    No. 1, we have had multiple hearings at this subcommittee, 
beginning with the special envoy for Afghan negotiations with 
the Taliban, under the Trump administration. Zalmay Khalizad 
came here, sat at that table, representing the Trump 
administration in those negotiations, and reaffirmed that a 
Taliban takeover was not inevitable. He came back afterwards 
when he became the representative for the Biden administration, 
and again on the ground, in the meetings, able to make an on-
the-ground assessment himself. And at that second hearing that 
he appeared before this subcommittee, now representing the 
Biden administration, said that a Taliban takeover was not 
inevitable.
    We had the Afghan Study Group come before us, led by an 
esteemed Republican Senator, Senator Kelly Ayotte, also with 
General Joe Dunford, former head of the Joint Chiefs, and Nancy 
Lindberg from the Afghan Study Group. They did not say that the 
takeover by the Taliban was inevitable.
    We had President Ashraf Ghani's Defense Minister come here 
to the Capitol. I personally, with a group, met with him, and 
he assured us, the Defense Minister of Afghanistan said a 
Taliban takeover is not inevitable.
    We sat down with Ashraf Ghani, the President of 
Afghanistan, with Speaker Pelosi and Republican leadership. He 
assured us that the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan was not 
inevitable.
    I met with a larger group, Republican and Democrat, at the 
Munich Security Conference, with the Trump negotiating team, 
the team that was negotiating with the Taliban over the U.S. 
withdrawal, and they assured us that a Taliban takeover was not 
inevitable.
    So all of that evidence, from people who were directly 
involved with the negotiations and had personal experience and 
information from their own involvement in that process assured 
us, multiple times, over and over again, that a Taliban 
takeover was not inevitable, as a result of the Trump agreement 
to withdraw.
    So those are the facts, and I am compelled to defend the 
President's actions here and his position were trying to follow 
a fact-based response to the situation in Afghanistan.
    With that I yield to my colleague for any closing remarks 
he might have.
    Mr. Grothman. I would like to thank our witnesses for 
coming over here today. Obviously, we are still very concerned 
about how things wrapped up in Afghanistan, very concerned 
about the airport there in northern Afghanistan and what is 
going to become of it, and what is going to become of all the 
equipment that we left behind.
    I understand, or I think I understand why a lot of my 
questions remain unanswered, because you are saying we have to 
wait for a more secure location to answer them. But I, and I 
think many Americans, most Americans, should be very concerned, 
not only with what is going on in Afghanistan, what is going on 
with people who are associated with our efforts in Afghanistan, 
and reports that at least I hear of people dying, you know, 
being kidnapped and dying. I am very concerned about the huge 
number of people coming here in this country and whether they 
have been appropriately vetted, and very concerned about our 
lack of presence in all the countries surrounding Afghanistan, 
which is a recipe for trouble down the road.
    I am also very interested, and maybe you guys can be 
prepared for this if we have a closed-door meeting, in what our 
relationship is with Pakistan and the degree to which they will 
help prevent terror from emanating from that part of the world.
    But I will thank the chairman for having this subcommittee 
meeting, and hopefully we will have more in the near future.
    Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman.
    In closing, I want to thank our witnesses for their remarks 
today. I want to commend my colleagues for participating in 
this important conversation. I also want to remind everyone 
that immediately following this hearing we will have a 
classified briefing for members in HVC-301.
    With that, and without objection, all members will have 
five legislative days within which to submit additional written 
questions for the witnesses to the chair, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response. And consequently 
I would ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as you 
are able.
    This hearing is now adjourned. Thank you.

                            [all]