WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism, on Monday delivered remarks on the U.S. Senate floor making the case that the Taliban’s latest gains in Afghanistan are not a reason for the United States to reverse course and leave troops in the country.

“The Taliban’s surge isn’t a reason for the United States to reverse course and put a massive troop presence back into the country. No, the Taliban’s surge is actually a reason to stick to the withdrawal plan. Because the complete, utter failure of the Afghan National Army, absent our hand holding, to defend their country is a blistering indictment of a failed twenty-year strategy predicated on the belief that billions of U.S taxpayer dollars could create an effective, democratic central government in a nation that has never had one,” said Murphy.

Murphy continued: “Staying one more year in Afghanistan means we stay forever, because if twenty years of laborious training and equipping of the Afghan security forces had this little impact on their ability to fight, then another fifty years wouldn’t change anything. If we choose to keep spending trillions of dollars in Afghanistan until that nation is a fully functioning democracy and their security forces can by themselves repel extremist attacks, then we are never, ever leaving.”

On the consequences of our military involvement in Afghanistan, Murphy said: “Our presence in Afghanistan also created a deadly feedback loop, where Taliban and terrorist recruiters easily and eagerly scooped up trainees, chomping at the bit to fight the Americans. For instance, research suggests that in the northwest of Pakistan, where the Taliban and allied groups organized, our drone attacks actually led to increased, not decreased, numbers of Taliban fighters. Bombs falling from pilotless flying machines more often killed innocent civilians instead of enemy combatants, and this simply caused more anger against the United States and our Afghan government allies and more interest in locals to join the fight against us.”

Murphy added that the U.S. mission to defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan has long been over: “What my constituents do care about is preventing another attack on American soil, which is why thousands of our brave men and women in uniform made the ultimate sacrifice fighting in Afghanistan. That’s why we went there in the first place. And so if spending trillions to fight the Taliban was vitally necessary to this project, then the American people would probably back the investment. But right now, it isn’t necessary. U.S. officials believe al Qaeda in Afghanistan is likely no longer capable of carrying out attacks against the United States.”

Murphy concluded: “Let’s understand, finally, what would have happened if President Biden had chosen to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. 2,500 troops is not a sufficient number to repel this offensive. Our military leaders have been crystal clear that a minimum of 8,500 troops are required to provide any modicum of support necessary to keep the Taliban’s gains to a crawl … So if President Biden decided that to keep our open ended mission to support the Afghan military against the Taliban, he would have had to surge troop levels back to at least 8,500. Every single troop in Afghanistan costs over $1 million a year. Now never mind the complete unwillingness of the American public to support yet another Afghanistan troop surge, the cost of this escalation would have just been indefensible.”

Murphy has been supportive of President Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Murphy also asked U.S. Department of State Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad about the Biden administration’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan at the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing, “U.S. Policy on Afghanistan.”

A full transcript of Murphy’s floor remarks on Afghanistan can be found below:

“As the Taliban continues this rapid advance into territory that had been controlled by the Kabul-based Afghan government, there is going to be significant handwringing in Washington, especially amongst those who cheered our open-ended occupation of Afghanistan for the last twenty years. Those that opposed President Biden’s plan to leave are going to engage in a battery of “I told you so’s” and blame the president for the Taliban’s march on Kabul.

“But the Taliban’s surge isn’t a reason for the United States to reverse course and put a massive troop presence back into the country. No, the Taliban’s surge is actually a reason to stick to the withdrawal plan. Because the complete, utter failure of the Afghan National Army, absent our hand holding, to defend their country is a blistering indictment of a failed twenty-year strategy predicated on the belief that billions of U.S taxpayer dollars could create an effective, democratic central government in a nation that has never had one––and a western-modeled army structure populated by troops that were willing to die to preserve a government. Staying one more year in Afghanistan means we stay forever, because if twenty years of laborious training and equipping of the Afghan security forces had this little impact on their ability to fight, then another fifty years wouldn’t change anything. If we choose to keep spending trillions of dollars in Afghanistan until that nation is a fully functioning democracy and their security forces can by themselves repel extremist attacks, then we are never, ever leaving.

“Now, I went to Afghanistan four times in six years, from 2007 to 2013. And each time, what struck me most was the heroism, the patriotism, the capability of our soldiers. Too many of them never came home. Too many others came home with injuries that changed their lives. Many of them were from my home state. But also, each time I went to Afghanistan, I also met with a new impressive American general who has just recently arrived in country for his short twelve-month tour. Each walked me through a PowerPoint presentation detailing how the previous general hadn’t made that much progress in training Afghan security forces and how this general would change course and finally get it right. This cycle of failure, readjustment, and continued failure must have played out over a dozen times in Afghanistan between our arrival there and the beginning of the Biden administration. And the Taliban took full advantage. Now, President Trump made a little-noticed decision stop publicizing the estimates of how much territory the Taliban controlled in Afghanistan, no doubt because the news, especially in the last five years, got worse and worse. Yes, the Taliban is moving quickly toward regional capitals right now, but they have been gaining territory for nearly a decade. That trend is just accelerating now.

“One repeating mistake was our belief that we could create the Afghan National Army from our own mold. Now, our country’s sense of nationalist patriotism, which inspires Americans to put their lives on the line for the flag and what it represents––it does not have a corollary in Afghanistan. But we didn’t get that. We had no sense of how competing tribal and ethnic affiliations made creating this common military purpose difficult. And each time our military leaders and our on-the-ground trainers, they started to learn about these local nuances and started adapting their methods, they were sent home because their deployment was done and a new deployment of Americans arrived––to start from scratch and start making the same mistakes again. Our military leaders are incredibly capable, but we gave them an impossible task.

“Our presence in Afghanistan also created a deadly feedback loop, where Taliban and terrorist recruiters easily and eagerly scooped up trainees, chomping at the bit to fight the Americans. For instance, research suggests that in the northwest of Pakistan, where the Taliban and allied groups organized, our drone attacks actually led to increased, not decreased, numbers of Taliban fighters. Bombs falling from pilotless flying machines more often killed innocent civilians instead of enemy combatants, and this simply caused more anger against the United States and our Afghan government allies and more interest in locals to join the fight against us.

“Now, as the Taliban begins to quicken the pace of their assault on Afghan forces, hawks in the United States, they’re going to lead the charge for Biden to reverse course and continue the failed policies of the last 20 years. But to what end? If the Afghan National Army was so willing to stand aside after twenty years of U.S. investment, why would anything change if we stuck around longer? Of course, the answer is nothing would change. I know that that's hard to hear and to accept. Staying longer would just be to admit that American taxpayers have got to foot the bill for a permanent occupation of Afghanistan––to shore up a corrupt government and keep the Taliban at bay. Now, this isn’t wise, mostly because my constituents understandably have little interest in putting that much money in Afghanistan when they can’t afford groceries or college for their kids or their monthly rent. The Taliban are bad guys. But so are the leaders who rule Turkmenistan or Equatorial Guinea or Kazakhstan or North Korea––amongst others. We can’t afford to invade and displace every brutal regime in the world.

“Now, what my constituents do care about is preventing another attack on American soil, which is why thousands of our brave men and women in uniform made the ultimate sacrifice fighting in Afghanistan. That’s why we went there in the first place. And so if spending trillions to fight the Taliban was vitally necessary to this project, then the American people would probably back the investment. But right now, it isn’t necessary. U.S. officials believe al Qaeda in Afghanistan is likely no longer capable of carrying out attacks against the United States. We’re talking about 200 to 400 al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan today. Now, this is likely because the Taliban is seeking a less contentious relationship with the United States and therefore has promised to deny al Qaeda a safe haven. Now, I get it, assurances from the Taliban are of very limited value, but our intelligence collection on al Qaeda is good enough to allow us to monitor the Taliban’s compliance and adjust accordingly. 

“Now, I understand how difficult it is to watch the Afghan National Army refuse to defend its territory; to watch the Taliban move so quickly into provincial capitals. I understand how infuriating it must be for families who lost loved ones in Afghanistan to see these gains be eliminated so quickly. But let’s understand, finally, what would have happened if President Biden had chosen to keep 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. 2,500 troops is not a sufficient number to repel this offensive. Our military leaders have been crystal clear that a minimum of 8,500 troops are required to provide any modicum of support necessary to keep the Taliban’s gains to a crawl. That’s how many troops were there at the beginning of Trump’s term, but as part of his agreement with the Taliban, he drew down our force numbers to 2,500––a force size completely inadequate to stop any Taliban advance. And the only reason why those 2,500 soldiers didn’t get overrun by the Taliban is because, as part of the Trump-Taliban agreement, the Taliban promised to hold off on attacks until the United States had withdrawn.

“So if President Biden decided that to keep our open ended mission to support the Afghan military against the Taliban, he would have had to surge troop levels back to at least 8,500. Every single troop in Afghanistan costs over $1 million a year. Now never mind, the complete unwillingness of the American public to support yet another Afghanistan troop surge, the cost of this escalation would have just been indefensible.

“The Afghan military, on paper, is far superior a fighting force to the Taliban. The Afghan National Army has approximately three times the number of soldiers. The Afghan National Army has an air force. The Taliban doesn’t. The Afghan National Army’s equipment and weapons, thanks to the United States, are much more sophisticated and deadly. The United States trains that force, we pay their salaries, we support them. But despite this advantage, despite twenty years and trillions of dollars of investment, they are losing to the ragtag Taliban. Badly.

“This isn’t a reason for the United States to re-escalate. This is evidence of the wisdom and courage of President Biden’s decision to withdraw. Our counter-terrorism mission in Afghanistan is going to remain, but we should refuse as a nation to remain in forever wars that don’t make our nation safer.”

###