Leon Panetta on Afghanistan: We need to look forward and ask how we protect our national security
Former CIA director weighs in on the secretary of state facing questioning over the Afghanistan crisis on 'Your World'
This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto" September 13, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: All right, we are continuing to monitor this hearing.
Welcome, everybody. I'm Neil Cavuto. This is "Your World."
We're going in and out of this.
But I want to bring Leon Panetta into this, the former secretary of defense.
Secretary, thank you for taking the time.
One thing that keeps coming up as it goes along, by and large, party lines, but criticism about the way all of this was handled did seem to be a bipartisan theme, some going further back to say it's the fault of other administrations.
But you did recently, say, Secretary, that you thought this was Joe Biden's Bay of Pigs, his worst nightmare. Do you still feel that way, in light of some of the follow-up incidents that have happened, some say provocative acts, that might look random, like what's going on in North Korea launching more missiles, China getting particularly bellicose of late?
What do you think?
LEON PANETTA, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Well, Neil, I understand that this hearing is going to try to look at all of the issues involved with Afghanistan, both past and present.
But my biggest concern, frankly, is that we need to look forward and ask ourselves, how do we protect our national security? And protecting our national security is -- yes, it's about China. It's about Russia. It's about North Korea. It's about Iran. But it's also about terrorism.
And the greatest concern I have is that the Taliban that is now in charge of Afghanistan is pretty much the same Taliban that was in charge of Afghanistan on 9/11.
And that tells me that one of the dangers here is that Afghanistan could clearly become a safe haven for terrorists, for Al Qaeda, for ISIS, for the Haqqani terrorists, and that that could represent a real threat to our national security.
So, I'm more interested, and trying to determine, what steps does the United States have to take now to make sure that we can protect our national security in the future?
CAVUTO: Well, we can't protect it in Afghanistan, right?
So, if these groups are allowed to do whatever they want, with Taliban protection, whatever differences they have amongst themselves, like ISIS-K, and certainly the Taliban, if you're right, and I think you have signaled this in the past, we might have to return to Afghanistan.
PANETTA: Well, the issue for this president and for our country is to do what's necessary to protect our national security.
We have just been through a 9/11 20th anniversary, where we saw what Al Qaeda was willing to do and attacking our country, and killing almost 3,000 people. We went to war to try to make sure that Al Qaeda would never get the chance to attack our country again and that, hopefully, Afghanistan would not become a safe haven for terrorists.
Well, the danger right now is that this Afghanistan under Taliban control, I think, will become a safe haven for terrorism. And that means that Al Qaeda is going to be free to reorganize itself and to expand its work and to continue to plan attacks.
That's what Al Qaeda does. They're interested in attacking the United States of America. That's always been their goal, and killing Americans, as well as killing others. And that's true for ISIS. And it's true, frankly, for the Haqqanis. Their interest is in killing people.
And so what we need to have is intelligence on the ground. We need to make sure that we have strong intelligence capabilities, yes, in a Taliban Afghanistan. Intelligence is smart enough to know how to do that. We have ways and technologies to be able to gather that kind of intelligence. We do need people on the ground, so that we are monitoring just exactly what Al Qaeda is doing or what other terrorists are doing.
And, secondly, we need to have the capability to use counterterrorism operations against those targets. The president himself has said we have got to use counterterrorism. It's called over the horizon. But regardless of what you call it, we need to have Special Forces capabilities that can move if we identify terrorist targets who are threatening the United States of America.
That is important in order to protect our security.
CAVUTO: Secretary, you always hear the big difference between the Taliban now and then is the Taliban was working with or at least countenancing everything that Al Qaeda was doing 20 years ago, not so much today, particularly when it comes to this fringe group, this ISIS-K group, so we have less to worry about.
Do you buy that?
PANETTA: No, I don't.
I heard a spokesman for the Taliban being interviewed by a national network in which the interviewer asked the Taliban spokesman about bin Laden's role in the attack on 9/11. And the response was that that individual saw no evidence that bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attack.
If that's what that individual believes, and that represents the leadership's view in Afghanistan of the role of Al Qaeda, what it tells me is that they are going to allow Al Qaeda to do whatever the hell they want. And that's dangerous.
CAVUTO: Now, you talk about you can have people on the ground who necessarily aren't troops that could be monitoring how things are going, but it's a lot tougher without troops in this environment right now, isn't it?
PANETTA: Oh, there's no question.
It's tougher when the Taliban are in full control of Afghanistan to be able to have good intelligence. It's a big country. It was tough enough to do it when we were involved in working with the Afghan government to be able to cover that country and determine where the threats were coming from. Now it's even more difficult with the Taliban in charge.
In addition to that, to do counterterrorism operations, I mean, if we have to do them from bases outside of Afghanistan, whether it's a carrier, whether it's Pakistan, whether it's a Uzbekistan, wherever, it's going to take more time to be able to go after those targets.
And that's going to make it much, much more difficult to be able to hit the targets that could represent a threat to our security. So, there's a lot of work that needs to be done here in order to protect our national security. We have that obligation.
CAVUTO: Yes.
PANETTA: As I said, this is not something we can ignore.
Yes, sure, it's the end of a chapter in Afghanistan. We understand that. But it's not the end of the war on terrorism. And that means that the United States is going to continue, have to continue to be vigilant about the potential threat that we are going to be vulnerable to from what is now a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
CAVUTO: Secretary, do you think these 100 or so Americans, and no exact number given yet again by the secretary of state, are going to get out of Afghanistan safely?
PANETTA: Well, look, I think the administration has several important responsibilities here as we look forward.
Number one, they have a responsibility to get all of U.S. -- our U.S. personnel out of Afghanistan. Whether it's 100, or 150, whatever the number is, we have a responsibility to them to do everything necessary to get them out.
And the same thing is true for the Afghans who fought alongside of us. Those Afghans...
CAVUTO: But do you think they will get out? I guess what I'm asking, do you think they will get out, Secretary?
PANETTA: Well, we have a responsibility to do whatever the hell is necessary to get them out.
Now, that means we have got to be able to track them. That means we have to be able to guide them. That means that we have to be able to find ways to be able to get them out of Afghanistan, whether they go to Pakistan, whether they go to a particular location where we can try to retrieve them.
We have a responsibility to get them out. We can't just turn our backs on them. And we can't just allow the Taliban to tell us that they're going to cooperate, when, in fact, they're not cooperating. So we have got to -- we have got to push through this. That's number one.
Number two, as I said, I think we have really got to develop our intelligence capabilities and our counterterrorism capabilities. Three, we have got to continue to put pressure on this Taliban, working with our allies, to make sure that the -- if they say they're not going to support terrorism, if they say they're going to provide women's rights, then let's see them, in fact, implement that, not just use words, but, in fact, do that.
And then, lastly, I think we have got to learn the lessons of what's happened here in Afghanistan. If we're going to deploy United States forces any place, we need to have a clear mission, we need to have a strategy for achieving that mission, and we need to have an exit strategy.
That's the lesson we should have learned from Vietnam. And it's a lesson that we now should learn from Afghanistan.
CAVUTO: Secretary, we're learning a little bit now that defense officials and higher-ups and those confidants of the administration were warning the president what could ensue with our pullout.
And he took it and weighed it and obviously went through with the withdraw. Are you concerned about his judgment after all of this?
PANETTA: Well, Joe Biden has a lot of experience. He knows foreign policy. He's known it for a long time. He knows that -- the adversaries that face our country and what needs to be done to deal with our adversaries.
Look, presidents make mistakes, just like anybody else. I think the most important thing for this president to do is to be willing to accept responsibility for the mistakes and to move on, and to basically do what is necessary now to protect our national security.
He made the decision. Some will support that decision. Some will oppose the decision. But, in the end, I think the important thing for the United States of America and for this president is, what are we going to do to make sure that America never again experiences another 9/11 attack?
CAVUTO: Senator, you say that President Biden knows foreign policy, but on a lot of key issues over the years, he has not exhibited that knowledge.
And some have criticized him for being on the wrong side of almost every important foreign policy initiative. He was against the taking out of the Usama bin Laden, when you were leading the charge to take out of some Usama bin Laden. His concern at the time was about collateral damage. Obviously, the effort to take him out succeeded.
But it was a reminder that, on these key areas, maybe the president isn't as steeped or well-schooled in this or accurate in this or expert in this as he likes to say.
PANETTA: Neil, look, I have known Joe Biden for a long time.
And one thing he's always done is, he has raised questions about the decisions that impact on foreign policy. And that's OK. That's OK. That's what senators are responsible for doing, is to ask questions. And, very frankly, as vice president, he asked the same questions. I don't have any problem with that.
I think that it's important, when a president has to make decisions, to have people in the room that are saying and raising questions about whether or not these are the right steps to take. I think that -- I think that's important to do.
And, frankly, I think every president, including this president, needs to have people in the room that are saying, wait a minute, I don't think this is the right decision. There are problems here. There are consequences that you have to look at. That's important to do.
So, I don't -- I don't question Joe Biden's knowledge or his capability or his willingness to ask questions. I think that's a good thing to have.
I think more questions should have been asked with regards to Afghanistan as to what the potential consequences would be, so that we could take steps to deal with that. For some reason, that didn't happen. But now the issue is, we have a situation in Afghanistan that represents a national security threat. We damn well better do what we have to do to protect our security.
CAVUTO: Secretary, Donald Trump has said this would not have happened if he were president.
Do you believe that?
PANETTA: No, I don't, as a matter of fact.
I think it was Donald Trump's decision to get out of Afghanistan. He's the one who, at Doha, basically cut the agreement to do it. And I think the Taliban, very frankly, got the best of us at Doha. They got everything they wanted. And we got very little in return.
And I think he would have -- he would have gotten us out of Afghanistan as quickly as he could, and probably made some of the same mistakes. So, look, I -- in some ways, I guess I don't question the fact that the president made the decision that it was time to take our forces out of Afghanistan.
I think the question comes down to execution. And were the right questions asked, in terms of, were we going to effectively execute that decision in a way that would accomplish his decision. and yet do it in a way that would also protect our people and the Afghans who fought with us?
That's the question that I think hopefully Congress will continue to ask, and one that we need to know the answers to in order to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes in the future.
CAVUTO: Do you think Antony Blinken should resign?
PANETTA: No, you know, I'm a believer that the president decides who stays and who goes in an administration.
And if the president has confidence in Tony Blinken as secretary of state, then I think he should stay. But that's a decision, frankly, between the president and the secretary of state.
CAVUTO: Finally, when you mentioned the Bay of Pigs thing, referring to the incident with a young U.S. President JFK just a few months into office, leading this debacle that failed, it did trigger a number of tests and challenges to the new president around the world. Some say the biggest, of course, was the setup of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Do you think that some of the things that have occurred since the collapse of Afghanistan, including now North Korea launching still more long-range cruise missiles, China getting very provocative, recommending that it send ships to our seas, as we send ships to their seas, even though they're not their seas -- but you get my point, that these things are not happening in a vacuum, they're happening post this collapse, and it is because of that that they're getting increasingly provocative and in our face?
PANETTA: Well, Neil, look, I think -- I think the United States is confronting a dangerous world.
And it's been dangerous for a while, because I think our adversaries have read weakness on the part of the United States. I think that's why Russia has been more aggressive in the way they have handled themselves and come after us. I think China reads weakness. And so they're being much more aggressive. And I think that's true for other adversaries.
We have got a dangerous world. We have got to confront not just China and Russia. We have got to confront Iran. We have got to confront North Korea and the testing that they're doing. We have got to confront terrorism. We have got to confront cyberattacks, which are without question the battlefield of the future.
So there's a lot that we have to worry about as a country in terms of protecting our national security. When -- any time something happens that sends a message out to our adversaries that somehow the United States doesn't have its act together, clearly, that creates a certain vacuum.
It is very important for the president, for this administration to make very clear that the United States is going to be a world leader, in terms of dealing with national security, that we are going to work with our allies in trying to protect our national security and try to advance peace in the world.
And it is very important for the United States to make clear that, when we give our word about what we're going to do, that we stick to it.
So, I think, without question, the United States now has to make clear that we have a strong, steady foreign policy, a strong, set, steady national security policy, and that we have a clear vision about what is going to be necessary in order to tell our adversaries, wherever they are, that the United States is strong and will stand up to protect the United States of America.
That is a message that now has to go out to the world.
CAVUTO: Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense, chief of staff, so many important positions in the history of this country, thank you for taking the time, Leon.
PANETTA: You bet. Good to talk to you, Neil.
CAVUTO: All right, Leon Panetta.
We will be going right back to these hearings.
But, before that, I do want to go to my friend and colleague Bret Baier of "Special Report," bestselling author.
Bret, the one thing that struck me of just talking to Leon Panetta, is he thinks we're returning to Afghanistan, that eventually we will have to return. What did you make of that?
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Well, he's a guy that knows a lot, former CIA director, former defense secretary, someone who works with Republicans and Democrats, and who knows the world.
And the world and the reality is, is that terrorism is going to be a problem in some place that is a witch's brew of radical Islamic terrorists, and that is the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
A couple of things, Neil, to note about Secretary Blinken's testimony and the questioning here. Towards the end, when you had questions about how many Americans are on the ground, the number keeps coming back to roughly 100.
Well, it's been roughly 100 for a couple of weeks from the administration, even after those two flights from Doha went to Qatar from Kabul.
CAVUTO: Right.
BAIER: Now, it's still at roughly 100. So that number seems to be unsatisfying for Republicans, especially on that committee.
Two was several thousand green card holders. How many is several thousands? Is it two? Is it three? Is it five? And did we try to get them out or not? And that is a real question.
When asked about SIVs, the Special Immigrant Visa holders, there is no number. They're trying to get a handle, the secretary said. Well, we're told that number is tens of thousands.
So, now you're looking at a situation where the people who helped us for two decades on the ground who are threatened by the Taliban are really running for their lives still, and we can't get a firm number on what that is or what we're doing to get them out.
CAVUTO: Do you think the secretary is still safe in his job, that he won't be fired?
BAIER: Well, I think, on this point, Leon Panetta is exactly right, that it's President Biden, who, if he determines that Blinken, who is his long, longtime aide is safe, he's safe.
CAVUTO: Right.
BAIER: I'm surprised that there haven't been other resignations in other parts of this chain, because this really was a horrible thing, from the intelligence that prevented them from knowing the Taliban was gaming this, to the actual implementation.
You saw Secretary Blinken say, we inherited a deadline, but we didn't inherit a plan as far as withdrawal. That doesn't cut it, Neil, because they inherited a deadline negotiated with conditions-based negotiations, as pointed out by some of the Republicans, of May 1, but then they renegotiated that deal to make it September 11.
They renegotiated it. But they didn't, in the interim, come up with a plan about how to get Americans and other people out by that date, which is what led to the situation that we saw.
CAVUTO: Yes, and have always wondered how specious an argument that was, because you think about it, Bret, the Biden administration came in ripping up all sorts of deals and actions taken by the prior administration. So why stop at this particular one, when it was indeed adjusted, to your point?
I guess what I'm asking, as we could put a forward sort of spin on this now, Bret, is this notion that the Taliban will continue cooperating with us, working with us to get these 100 or so Americans out, these thousands of Afghan nationals out.
The latter seems a little bit of a steep climb here. But, in the interim, the vacuum is filled by the Chinese, Russians, others. How do you see this playing out for the administration?
BAIER: Listen, hope is a plan, I suppose. But hope is not the best thing for the people that are stuck on the ground.
And trusting the Taliban that has a pretty bad record, Neil, is a -- is thin, as far as wanting to get real results. I think there's an effort, obviously, that continues every day. And there's also a private effort that continues with former special ops officers.
And we have heard a lot about that in recent days. But how this is going from a government perspective is not well, and we are talking about the Taliban differently than we're talking about pretty much anybody else.
CAVUTO: Finally, one point you mentioned earlier about it seems a bit incredulous to think that the secretary of state wouldn't know an exact number.
But I will take him at his word that it's roughly 100 Americans, as you said, that it's a few thousand here, could be a lot more foreign nationals who work with us. But wouldn't that be something a secretary of state would know down to the exact person and last person?
BAIER: They're arguing that it fluctuates day to day. People get out. We find some more people that are trying to get out. Fine. Give them the benefit of the doubt.
But the real number is in the thousands of people that we should be getting out, if you talk to anybody in this business, including Leon Panetta, who said we have an obligation to those people on the ground.
The one thing I thought Secretary Panetta said that I don't know if I jibe with by who -- the people I talked to in the military circles and also up on Capitol Hill is that, would it have been the exact same under a Trump administration, this -- how this went?
I don't think that's possible, because, as bad as this went, there were conditions baked into the Taliban withdrawal. And I'm pretty sure, just judging by the people who are talking about it, that they wouldn't have left all these people on the ground.
But we are where we are.
CAVUTO: Right.
BAIER: And looking to the future, you got to get those people out.
CAVUTO: So that the Taliban, if it were to actively started taking over large swathes of the country in this interim leading up to the deadline, they would not have countenanced that?
BAIER: Well, there were -- in the deal itself, there were loopholes that said, if you do this, the thing is over and we get to decide when we're leaving.
The deadline was not firm if they didn't meet up with their obligations. They were not already meeting up with those obligations. And now to say that the Taliban suddenly is going to be trusted, even though the document that they signed, they never lived up to, but now they're going to be trusted to get all of these people out, again, is a lot of hope.
But we will see. We will cover all sides.
CAVUTO: All right, thank you very much, Bret Baier. Good catching up with you on this.
I want to go back to the secretary of state right now, as this hearing continues.
REP. DINA TITUS (D-NV): In the meantime, one of the challenges they're facing, of course, is the economy. And that's not new. That existed under the Ghani government. But we see Pakistan and China rapidly positioning themselves to kind of take advantage of this destabilized economy.
I wonder how that's going to impact the U.S. and U.S. international relations, especially in light of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund freezing distributions of funds to Afghanistan? Could you maybe talk about that?
BLINKEN: Yes, you're certainly right to point to that.
And the fact of the matter is, though, that there is a Security Council resolution that should also bind Russia and China in their conduct going forward.
The international community, over the last years, was providing every year about 75 percent of the Afghan government's budget. Needless to say, that's been frozen. Virtually all of Afghanistan's foreign reserves are here in the United States. They are frozen. International financial institutions are not going forward with their own assistance or the ability for Afghanistan to engage in international financial transactions.
And so all of that is on the ledger when it comes to what we can do to have the Taliban meet the expectations that have been set by the international community when it comes to how it conducts itself.
TITUS: Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
MEEKS: The gentlelady yields back.
I now recognize Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Europe, Energy and Environment and Cyber, for five minutes.
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): Mr. Secretary, just to get to the core of what your philosophy is on national and international security, sir, do you believe in the maxim and the precept of the stronger that we exert ourselves overseas, the safer we are here in America, i.e., peace through strength?
BLINKEN: I believe, first, the stronger we are at home, the stronger we're going to be overseas. And that requires unity. It requires coming together. It requires making investments in ourselves. And I hope we can see those forward to together.
Second, to your point, around the world, it requires absolutely having the strongest military and defense in the world. But it also requires using all the tools at our disposal, to include our diplomacy, to include our economic tools, to include political tools, cultural tools. All of that is in the mix. And all of that defines our strength in the world.
FITZPATRICK: Mr. Secretary, do you believe that what the world witnessed over the past several weeks in Afghanistan was American strength?
BLINKEN: I believe that what the world witnessed was the president ending a war that had gone on for 20 years, making sure...
FITZPATRICK: But did they witness American strength over the past few weeks?
BLINKEN: And they witnessed an extraordinary effort that no other country could or would have made under the most extreme conditions in bringing 125,000 people out to safety, in making sure that we stood by our allies and partners and helping them to get out as well.
And things we have heard from allies and partners around the world is no other country could or would have done what we did.
FITZPATRICK: Mr. Secretary, I recently left Ukraine. Just a few days ago, I returned.
My next step...
MEEKS: Just hold off one second. We're having technical problems.
I don't see the secretary that's on. And we should be able to see him visually. And I want to make sure you get all of the time to ask the questions that you are putting forward and his response.
BLINKEN: Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?
MEEKS: We hear you, Mr. Secretary, but we don't see you.
BLINKEN: Yes, it looks like the image is frozen here. So let's see if we can...
MEEKS: Yes, let's see if we can fix that.
The technical staff is working on it. And I want to make sure Mr. Fitzgerald gets...
CAVUTO: All right. They're having some video problems. You can hear the secretary of state. They're just trying to adjust the camera so they can see him.
While they're sorting this out, Lieutenant Colonel Bob Maginnis joins us.
Bob, how do you think this is going? And how is the secretary looking and, by extension, the administration?
LT. COL. BOB MAGINNIS (RET.), U.S. ARMY: Neil, aside from all the partisan bickering back and forth, which is, from a military perspective, that's clutter, it's nonsense, what we need to focus on is what Leon Panetta talked about, and what do we do going ahead?
Up early in the testimony, there was a question offered about, are we going to do regional counterterrorism, SIR capability-building? Are we going to listen to allegedly what Vladimir Putin said to Mr. Biden, that he's not going to build an intelligence capability in the region?
Those are threats. Those are serious threats. The idea that we can do over- the-horizon activities without having boots on the ground, as Mr. Panetta said, I think, is ludicrous. We have to have people there to direct, to collect and to do the things.
Doing the cyber, doing the...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: All right, Colonel, I'm going to jump on you. I'm going to jump on you, my friend, just because -- to return to the secretary.
And video is back here, how he's responding to a question about the timing of all this.
FITZPATRICK: ... do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan and Ukraine.
Next question. Not talking about the arms and munitions. I'm talking about the heavy equipment, the tanks, the Humvees, the Black Hawk helicopters, aircraft, sir, all this is GPS-tracked. We can identify this, where it's at. Why did we not destroy it or don't we destroy it now?
BLINKEN: Thank you.
So, let me -- let me say this. I know my colleagues from the Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs, et cetera, will have an opportunity to speak to you, to speak to Congress in the weeks ahead. They're the experts on this.
About since 2004, roughly, something like $80 billion in defense articles was provided to Afghanistan. So that goes back over the last roughly...
(CROSSTALK)
BLINKEN: Yes.
FITZPATRICK: Sir, sir, sir, I'm only asking about the GPS tracking.
We know the location of this equipment that we have now seen fall into the hands of terrorists. Are we going to destroy it or not?
BLINKEN: So, much of this -- much of this equipment is either inoperable or will soon be inoperable, because it can't be maintained.
FITZPATRICK: Sir...
(CROSSTALK)
BLINKEN: As I have seen it, and based on what I have heard from my colleagues, there is nothing of strategic value, that is, that would threaten us or threaten Afghanistan's neighbors.
Having said that, I'm not the expert on this. And I would really defer to my colleagues at the Pentagon.
FITZPATRICK: Mr. Secretary, do you believe that America should ever in any way capitulate to terrorists?
BLINKEN: Absolutely not.
FITZPATRICK: Do you believe, sir, that allowing the Taliban to run perimeter of HKIA with American troops on the inside of that perimeter, relying on the Taliban to keep ISIS out, and American citizens, passport holders, on the outside of the perimeter, relying on the Taliban to get in, that that is capitulating to terrorists?
BLINKEN: The reality is that the government and Afghan National Security Forces collapsed.
The reality is that the Taliban took over Kabul, as well as much of the country. That was the reality we were dealing with. And the judgment of all of us, starting with our military commanders, including people on the ground, was that our job was to work to get as many people out as possible, American citizens, Afghans at risk.
And because the Taliban controlled the city, that required some coordination with them to get people through and to the airport.
FITZPATRICK: Sir, to a an 18-year-old Afghani girl who may be watching this hearing today who was born after 9/11, who knows nothing of what it's like to live under Taliban rule, who had hopes and dreams, who's in school, who wanted to be a female journalist to help women and young girls rise up in Afghanistan, who now feels betrayed by the actions of this administration, what is your message to her?
BLINKEN: I spoke to a number of young Afghan women, including 18-, 19-, 21-year-olds, just about a week ago in Doha, actually in Ramstein, Germany...
FITZPATRICK: Do you believe their lives are at risk right now?
BLINKEN: ... where many had been relocated.
And we talked about their futures. We talked about the futures of Afghan women and girls...
FITZPATRICK: Under the Taliban?
BLINKEN: ... who...
(CROSSTALK)
BLINKEN: ... in Afghanistan.
FITZPATRICK: Under the Taliban?
BLINKEN: And we talked about the ongoing commitment that the United States has and countries around the world have to do everything we can to support those women and girls going forward.
MEEKS: The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Ted Lieu of California for five minutes.
REP. TED LIEU (D-CA): Thank you, Chairman Meeks.
And, thank you, Secretary Blinken, for your public service.
When I served on active duty in the United States Air Force, I participated in Operation Pacific Haven, where we airlifted thousands and thousands of Kurds out of Northern Iraq because Saddam Hussein was then going to kill them.
We worked with the State Department and other U.S. agencies, and it was a very difficult mission. So I want to commend you and the State Department and all the U.S. personnel who executed an evacuation of over 120,000 people under immense danger. That was a remarkable feat that all of you did.
And I also want to honor the 13 Marines that gave their lives in service to our country.
What I'd like to ask you about is the document that started all this, the February 29 document, 2020. That document was negotiated by the Trump administration with the Taliban, correct?
BLINKEN: That's correct.
LIEU: The Trump administration signed that document, correct?
BLINKEN: That's correct.
LIEU: And, under that document, it had a very specific date for withdrawal.
Content and Programming Copyright 2020 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2020 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published, or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright, or other notice from copies of the content.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox