Federal News Service - Hearing of the House Intenational Relations Committee - Transcript

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE SUBJECT: UNITED STATES SECURITY POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN ON THE EVE OF NATIONAL ELECTIONS

CHAIRED BY: REPRESENTATIVE HENRY J. HYDE (R-IL)

WITNESSES:

PETER W. RODMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE;

ROBERT B. CHARLES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AFFAIRS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; LIEUTENANT GENERAL WALTER L. SHARP, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC PLANS AND POLICY, J-5, THE JOINT STAFF

LOCATION: 2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

BODY:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

REP. EDWARD R. ROYCE (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On Afghanistan, when we read the 9/11 Commission in terms of aid, they say, we have heard again and again that the money for assistance is allocated too rigidly. They say the U.S. government should allocate money so that lower level officials have more flexibility to get the job done across agency lines, adjusting to the circumstances they find in the field. This should include discretionary funds for expenditures by military units that often encounter opportunities to help the local population.

And of course the concept here is that a better coordination of your assistance will go a long way towards increasing security but perhaps also do more than just simply deploying more soldiers. This is one of the reasons I am a supporter of the PRT concept. I had an opportunity to meet with one of those provisional reconstruction teams in March of 2002 on a trip I took to Afghanistan. I think they are very effective. We now have a total of 19 of these teams, 13 being U.S. led.

And my question is, do the commanders of these PRTs have adequate access to discretionary funds for reconstruction projects in the countryside? Do they have a commander's emergency response program in place? Chairman Duncan Hunter and I worked very hard to get that in place in Iraq, do they have that at their disposal? In other words, if the village elder says he'd like to have a school built and they concur that this would be helpful, how many layers of command does that PRT team have to wade through, or can it be built on the spot?

GEN. SHARP: Sir, I think I can start on that. The PRTs and the regional commands, first off to how much they have spent. FY '04 CERT money, they've spent or committed $40 million. If you look at the ODACA funds, 430 projects for $23 million.

REP. ROYCE: And you think they're effective, these provisional reconstruction teams?

GEN. SHARP: Absolutely, absolutely.

REP. ROYCE: They build that --

GEN. SHARP: I think they do a couple of things. They not only build the local economy, build what's needed out in the local area, but there's a clear tie back into the central government.

REP. ROYCE: They build a bond with the government.

GEN. SHARP: And the other thing they do that is effective in most cases is they bring a place that they can coordinate the security that's provided by the local police and if any ANA are deployed in their area and the NGOs together, to help coordinate the security for non-governmental organizations out there. So, yes, sir, I think they're a very effective way to get reconstruction started out there.

REP. ROYCE: Well, here's my other concern. We've got 18,000 troops in the country. What percentage are forward deployed in the countryside? What percentage are actually part of the effort out in the provinces, outside of Kabul, outside of Bagram Airbase?

And let me give you a perspective on this. There's a respected military writer who had a piece, Robert Kaplan, in this week's Wall Street Journal, and you may be familiar with his thesis, General. But Kaplan's theory is this. The smaller the American footprint, the more effective the operation. The smaller the tactical unit, the more forward deployed it is. And the more autonomy it enjoys from the chain of command, the more that can be accomplished.

A successful forward operation base is a nearly empty one in which most units are living beyond the base perimeters among the indigenous population for days or weeks at a time. He says we have to advance the merging of the departments of State and Defense as never before, planting significant numbers of State Department personnel inside the military's warfighting commands and Defense personnel inside a modernized Agency for International Development.

And I'd like to get your response on Kaplan's thesis in general, but also on how close is the cooperation between State and DOD in Afghanistan and who calls the shots. Thank you, General.

GEN. SHARP: Yes, sir, I could start on the military side, because we're very proud of this. It starts at the top with Dave Barno, with General Barno and Ambassador Khalilzad, as I said in my opening statement. I mean, that is a model of how State and DOD should work together.

They start every morning together with a country team and they end every afternoon with getting back together to see where they are. They coordinate very closely not only from a military perspective but also from a perspective of where reconstruction projects should go, what should be the emphasis within the country.

That is extended beyond Kabul, that is extended out into the PRTs, as you mentioned. Because in the 13 U.S. PRTs that are out there we have representation not only from the military but from State Department, USAID, other organizations to be able to pull that together. Those small teams are very, very effective, and I agree with the premise that you laid out that they can be.

When you get into combat operations it's a different story. Combat operations is where you need to be able to have, you know, strong chain of command that mass forces to be able to mass effects out there, and I think we've got exactly the right balance in Afghanistan.

REP. ROYCE: What percentage is forward deployed though? That's a key question. How much is outside of Kabul, because this is a concern for President Karzai? You know, how do you make certain that the entire country really is secure?

GEN. SHARP: Sir, we're working on the exact percentage and trying to figure out what is in the headquarters back there in the different locations versus the 13 PRTs and the majority of the forces that are part of OEF. Maybe Bobby if you could --

MR. CHARLES: Let me again-yeah, again, we'll try to find an exact percentage, but let me say that there's an increasing deployment outside, and I believe that-well, from my visit there, I think you're seeing ever since that really an increase. And I would also say that in both Iraq and Afghanistan, General Sharp and I see each other at least twice a week, sometimes in the NSC, sometimes elsewhere. We're talking regularly and emailing daily with the embassy to make sure that our forward deployed folks know exactly what the overall priorities are.

If they need something, I can back fill it here, ultimately come to you all if we need help. And in the reality here we are in fact lashed up better I think in Afghanistan and in Iraq than we've probably been anywhere.

REP. ROYCE: And in closing, let me just second Mr. Lantos' observations. I think all of us, Mr. Rodman, I think all of us find it unconscionable and unbelievable that outside of the United States and the UK there has been such little interest, given the fact that our allies have shown such little interest in Iraq that they couldn't at least step in in Afghanistan with more PRT teams and with other important work.

And I'm sure all of us will be conveying that, but I really hope you will as well, Mr. Rodman.

Thank you.