 Good morning everybody. Thank you for joining us this morning. My name is Nancy Lindborg, and I'm the brand-new president of USIP. This is my first week, so I'm particularly delighted to be here today to talk about such an important topic as Afghanistan, and I want to very much welcome all of you today with a special thanks to the Alliance and support of the Afghan people who are co-hosting the conversation today with Senator Cotton, who is joining us to talk about Afghanistan. And I just wanted to say quick note that this is a very important area of focus for USIP, and I've already had an opportunity to get briefed on our work. I first started going to Afghanistan in about the year 2000, and today is a really, we're at a really pivotal moment in Afghanistan, and and USIP has been there since 2002 working on initiatives to counter violent extremism, to strengthen the rule of law, support civil society organizations that are working to prevent and mitigate violent conflict, and really to train and educate a new generation of youth. This is a very important moment in Afghanistan with a lot of debate that will be critical to its future, and it's a time of opportunity. So we are very, very pleased to have with us today Senator Tom Cotton, who brings an important new voice to Senate after serving a term in the House. He has now joined the Senate after having on the ground experience with 101st in both Afghanistan and Iraq. So at a time when we're having these conversations, Senator Cotton, your voice is a very, very important one, and we are delighted to have you here with us this morning. After Senator Cotton's remarks, we will have him join our own USIP vice president for South and Central Asia, Andrew Wilder, who is, I've known Andrew for years and years as one of the foremost voices and experts in Afghanistan. So we'll have time for a brief conversation. Everybody, please join me in welcoming Senator Cotton. Thank you all. Thank you very much. Well, I appreciate Nancy, the kind introduction. I appreciate the warm welcome. So I gather this is your first public event as president. I hope I make you proud and keep you employed. I'm very grateful to the US Institute for Peace and the Alliance in support of the Afghan people for providing this forum, as well as for your work to promote a stable and peaceful Afghanistan that's an ally in the war against al-Qaeda and affiliates. I appreciate your bipartisan, really your nonpartisan support for America's national security and Afghan people. And I particularly like to salute the alliances Scott Mackey, who has shown how much a small organization can accomplish by determination, commitment, grit, despite limited resources. America has waged war and peace in Afghanistan for over 13 years. Our taxpayers have spent a lot and our sons and daughters have bled and died there in a difficult effort to ensure that America will never again face a terrorist attack from the Hindu Kush mountains. It's natural to grow weary, even frustrated, with Afghanistan's seemingly endless complexities and problems. Few people are more aware of these difficulties than I and the men and women with whom I had the honor to serve in Afghanistan. We've seen grinding poverty, a fanatical yet skillful enemy, societal scars from three decades of war, corruption and its ill effects, political dysfunction and constant bickering among well-meaning allies and partners with differing interests and agendas. It's easy for the international media to portray these problems so vividly. So much that many Americans know Afghanistan only as a hopeless endeavor. But Afghanistan is not hopeless. Afghans, Americans and international partners, on the contrary, have made tremendous gains there. Gains that have made the country safer and more secure, while giving millions of Afghans a chance to live safe, healthy, honorable and meaningful lives. America is safer today because of our efforts in Afghanistan. And those efforts have yielded this singular achievement. That country remains the only place in the world from which we have expelled al-Qaeda and have prevented it from returning. That success alone, of course, isn't enough to protect the U.S. from expanding al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats around the world. But let's never forget, Afghanistan is where al-Qaeda was born. It's where Jalaluddin Haqqani, the founder of the Haqqani network, which remains one of the most virulent insurgencies in Afghanistan, invited Osama bin Laden to set up his first training camp in the 1980s. It's where the Taliban, under Mullah Omar, sheltered bin Laden and refused to give him up even after the 9-11 attacks. It's where al-Qaeda leadership would love to return to planet Slagagen and declare wrongly that they defeated the American superpower, just as they falsely claimed to have defeated the Soviet Empire. We can't give them that chance. Further, America has a moral imperative to support and assist the human gains Afghanistan has made over the past decade. We correctly toppled the Taliban government and committed along with the UN, NATO and many international partners to help Afghans establish a stable, peaceful country that gives hope and dignity to their people. We must honor that commitment to a people who fought so hard and taken so many losses fighting our common enemies. There are many reasons for hope in Afghanistan today. Perhaps the most important is the fact that Afghanistan has just completed the first peaceful, democratic transition of power in its history. A history that's older than our own, dating back to the middle of the 18th century. Also, the Afghan national security forces continue to improve and are taking the fight to the enemy every day. And Afghans have seen enormous gains in the quality of their lives. Conditions truly are getting better in Afghanistan. There's also a reason for concern, however. The Taliban and allied jihadists continue to attack the Afghan security forces, testing them and trying to demoralize them. Afghanistan's political balance remains extremely delicate. Its economy, still struggling with corruption, is imperiled by the stark reductions in international aid that lie ahead. The gains that we and the Afghan people have made can still collapse into anarchy and ruin. That would be a tragedy for the Afghan people and a stain on America's honor. Worse still, it would imperil the safety of the American people. We must therefore turn away from an unwise policy of total withdrawal according to fixed and arbitrary deadlines and instead recommit ourselves to supporting improved Afghan security and governance. It's easier to portray misery and despair than gradual, quiet progress of daily improvement. Many Americans therefore understandably question our continued engagement in a land where such improvement seems so limited. But those who have served there over the years know that NATO's presence truly has changed the country in important ways, from health care, education, and infrastructure to governance and security. Before 2001, medical care was almost totally inaccessible to most Afghans. Now, 85 percent of the country has access to a health professional and better health care has made a big difference in the lives of ordinary Afghans. For example, Afghanistan's maternal mortality rate has plunged by more than 80 percent. And the life expectancy of the average Afghan has increased by six years since just 2001. Afghans are learning that a longer, healthier life is possible. As important, they're also learning that liberty and openness to the outside world and other ideas can enrich and improve their lives. Whereas the fanaticism and anti-modernism of the Taliban brought only devastation, poverty, and premature death. That's an important victory in the fight to delegitimize the hateful ideology of Islamic jihadists. The Afghan people have also made educational gains. Today, eight million Afghan children are enrolled in school, up from just one million in 2002. And now girls account for 40 percent of students. Whereas just 14 years ago, they were prohibited by the Taliban from an even attending school. Literacy has improved over the last decade, particularly among children and young adults, although it remains too low. Better literacy, like improved health care, not only improve Afghan society and its economy, but also are essential to helping Afghans secure their country from our common foes. Healthy, literate soldiers fight better and learn faster. Soldiers who cherish the health of their families and the education of their kids fight harder to protect those opportunities. This kind of social progress is a critical element of the security in any country. A third area of tangible improvement is infrastructure. As I witnessed personally during my service on a Provincial Reconstruction Team in 2008 and 2009. Since 2001, at least 10,000 miles of roads have been built. That's enough to drive the continental United States three times over. These roads enable the movement of people and goods that is so critical to economic growth and security. Afghanistan's economy has a long way to go, of course, since it was virtually obliterated by the Civil Wars and the Taliban rule in the 1990s, but the international community, with American assistance, has been helping Afghans build the essential infrastructure they will need to have an economy again in the future. These efforts serve our interests, as well as those of the Afghans. The destruction of Afghanistan's economy has made Afghanistan largely dependent on foreign assistance to survive. Neither Americans nor any other people who want to go on paying for Afghanistan's government and security forces forever. Yet we need both the function in order to prevent al-Qaeda from reclaiming its lost birthland. That's why our continued assistance is so important and why money spent wisely now will save much more money down the road. An increasingly robust and capable Afghan national security forces has continued to fight hard against enemy counter offenses, even as our forces have been dramatically reduced. Recruitment remains strong for both the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, although casualties remain higher than those forces can likely sustain. Among the Afghan security forces, the special forces are performing particularly well. They are able to plan and conduct targeted strikes against insurgent and enemy leaders and concentrations with greatly reduced U.S. and coalition assistance, a capability that will be essential in fighting al-Qaeda and its allies over the long term. Afghanistan's military and police leadership are also developing. Just weeks ago, leaders from the Afghan National Army Corps, Afghan Border Police, a Pakistani Army Corps, and a delegation from NATO's Resolute Support Headquarters discussed border security at Operation Base Fenty in Nangarhar. Reports indicate that these commanders exchanged intelligence considered future operations and discussed the mutual benefits of cross-border cooperation. It wasn't that long ago that Afghan and Pakistanis were exchanging artillery across their border. We should apply this change as a possible harbinger of improved relations between Afghanistan and its most important neighbor. Finally, NATO has a new partner after the first peaceful democratic transition of power in Afghanistan's history. Gone is a difficult and sometimes erratic former leadership replaced by a more cooperative and pro-Western President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah. With so much else going wrong in the world, too many people have overlooked this critical change. Consider that within hours of taking office, President Ghani signed the Bilateral Security Agreement with the U.S. and the Status of Forces Agreement with NATO. These agreements provide the legal framework for continued American and NATO military presence in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's parliament then ratified the agreement promptly and without meaningful opposition. President Ghani has also pledged greater economic security and legal reforms, increased rights for women and minorities, as well as initiatives to fight corruption rampant under his predecessor. By all indications, President Ghani has also embraced the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in a way his predecessor never did, immediately lifting previous restrictions on the ability of U.S. forces to help Afghan troops take the fight to our common enemies. In short, he appears to be a reliable partner for the West, and we should take this opportunity, this change in leadership and attitude, as a needed opportunity. Despite this progress, though, Afghanistan's gains are still reversible if the United States sticks with a deadline-driven withdrawal irrespective of conditions on the ground there. When I was deployed to Afghanistan, the bad guys like to say, Americans have the watches, but we have the time. Regrettably, the current withdrawal plan may prove them right. Under the current plan, we've already cut troop levels to approximately 10,000 personnel, and before the end of this year, that number will get cut roughly in half. Partly because of these reductions, the NATO mission has already transitioned to mostly training behind walled compounds. This mission is being conducted at a sprints pace, as our forces must also focus on closing these sites rapidly. Ultimately, our troop levels are predicted to drop below 1,000 by January 2017. Commanders predict what they call a Kabul-centric mission as we contract the capital, closing even Bagram airfield, the country's principal logistical hub and airbase. It's unclear today what that mission will be, but when you consider the number of troops needed just to secure the Kabul airfield and the American embassy in Kabul, it's hard to imagine any further mission they could accomplish. It's not hard to predict the potential consequences of this decision, though, and I will venture to do so. While the Afghan national security forces have made real gains, they're not in a place where we can be assured of their long-term stability and success. In the past year alone, nearly 5,000 members of the Afghan military and police have been killed fighting the Taliban. Twice the number of Americans killed in the country since 2001. The Afghans continue to need the support of NATO intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, air power, medical evacuation, and logistics. These are not front-line trigger pullers, but they are critical combat enablers that require time and investment to develop. Without this support, the front-line Afghan troops are likely to struggle increasingly against the enemy. After all, the Taliban have continued brutal, brazen attacks. They assaulted a major military base in Helmand Province just weeks after British forces turned it over to Afghan control. And there was another major attack in Kabul just days ago. With drawing support and weakening, the Afghan national security forces could well set off a tragic chain of events. The Taliban will continue to regain strength in the traditional southern and eastern heartland. As ominous, the Akhani network, closely tied to al-Qaeda Steel, would have the opportunity to regain control of its old territory in southeastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden set up his first training camp in the 1980s. At the invitation of the Akhani. These enemy gains could not only threaten the Afghan national security forces on the battlefield, but also splinter the country. Afghanistan's northern ethnic groups suffered terribly under the Taliban and remained fearful of its return. As the forces arrayed against the government and the people began to resemble the old Taliban coalition that swept into power in the 1990s, those former northern alliance commanders will face considerable pressure to retrench and protect northern ethnic groups, potentially triggering an ethnic conflict. For multiple reasons then, the Afghan national security forces won't be able to preserve the territorial integrity of the country or defeat terrorist group on its own soil without some U.S. and NATO assistance for a considerable time. They might not fall apart immediately if support is withdrawn prematurely, but a war of attrition over a number of years is very unlikely to end well. Meantime, the lack of NATO military presence will also impair or even prevent other agencies from performing their critical missions, further weakening our counterterrorism efforts. This could all be a tragic replay of what happened when the U.S. abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet Union withdrew. Eastern Afghanistan, the exact place from which Al Qaeda launched the 9-11 attacks, could again become a lawless safe haven, as could Pakistan's federally administered tribal areas just across the border. Terrorists could not only once again use territory to plan and launch attacks against America, but also to destabilize Pakistan with the ultimate prize of obtaining nuclear material from that nuclear-armed country. The Afghan people and their new government would be caught in the crossfire, along with all the progress both have made. That would be more than a humanitarian and moral disaster. It would also be a grave security threat as it would further empower Islamic jihadists and lend credence to their narrative that the West will always abandon Afghanistan, and they, the fanatics, will always triumph. Of course, one need not return to Afghanistan's history, instructive, though it may be, to see the consequences of a deadline driven withdrawal. One need only look west to Iraq. Against the best military judgment of his commanders, President Obama withdrew all troops in 2011, a decision he telegraphed in early 2009. Things look good at the time. Thanks to the bravery of our troops and the skill of our intelligence and diplomatic professionals, the war in Iraq was all but one. And al-Qaida in Iraq was defeated. But we managed to snatch disaster from the jaws of certain victory. The Iraqi security forces were not yet ready to fight alone without western combat enablers. Iraq's leadership lost many of the constraints on its sectarian tendencies when the last American troops departed. The terrorist remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq took advantage of an ungoverned cross-border territory. Sound familiar? To regroup and rearm. And al-Qaida in Iraq morphed into the Islamic State. A terrorist army with great wealth, armored vehicles, artillery, and the ability to maneuver against conventional forces on the ground. And the rapid advance on Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, collapsed two Iraqi army divisions and gave Islamists undisputed control of major urban areas for the first time in history. Today, the Islamic State is still rampaging across both Iraq and Syria. They're beheading Americans and the citizens of our closest allies, or burning them alive. They're again attacking Kirkuk and continue to pressure Baghdad. They're attracting thousands of foreign Muslims who want to sign up for Jihad with the strong horse, as bin Laden famously called radical Islam in the 1990s. And many hold western passports and have an ultimate aim to attack us here. We are now living with these deadly consequences, facing a much greater threat in Iraq than if we had simply accepted our military commander's recommendations at the time. Indeed, we may be reaching by slow motion the same troop levels in Iraq that we would have had, only under much worse conditions. We should not repeat the mistake of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the consequences could be even worse. Instead, we should commit now, today, to keeping at least 10,000 troops in Afghanistan until 2017, and perhaps beyond. This commitment is not based on an arbitrary deadline, but on conditions on the ground, as it should be today and in the future. This commitment also will show our partners, the Afghan people and our allies, that we're serious about keeping Afghanistan on the path to a stable, secure future. And these troop levels will preserve a genuine counter-terrorism capability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while ensuring that we can provide critical support to the Afghan security forces. Further, we should provide our troops with flexibility to engage any enemy in conjunction with the Afghan security forces. We ought not limit them to so-called pure al-Qaida, when our Afghan partners are targeting the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and other affiliated groups. We must help the Afghans target the enemies killing their soldiers and civilians, as well as the enemies that concern us most. In addition to security assistance, we should help Afghanistan through the coming loss of large amounts of international aid. While Afghanistan has depended heavily on aid in recent times, we now know that its huge mineral deposits can support the state over time. This will take time, though, and the U.S., along with our allies, should help President Ghani overcome the legal, structural, and procedural obstacles to this progress. This is not, nor it should be, no strings attached to foreign aid. On the contrary, corruption and a parallel black economy undermine the legitimacy of the Afghan state and help fuel the insurgency. Fortunately, President Ghani, a former World Bank economist, appears to agree, having reopened the investigation of the Kabul Bank scandal, a good-faith effort to help Afghanistan meet its obligations under the 2012 Tokyo Framework for Mutual Accountability. We should build upon this success, and we also must recommit to attacking the finances of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated groups around the world. Above all is this central fact. Afghanistan is at the heart of America's national security policy. Were it not for al-Qaeda's safe haven there, we might not have been attacked on 9-11. And Afghanistan remains our one irrefutable victory in the war against Islamic terror. We expelled al-Qaeda, and it hasn't returned. For these reasons, President Obama used to say that Afghanistan was the good war. He was right. The war in Afghanistan is a just and noble war. To follow what I have contended is the right course of action in this war. The President will need to reverse earlier decisions and modify previous statements. No politician relishes that. But, if he does, President Obama will find that he has not just supporters, but advocates within my own party, as well as his own. More important, he will find an American people awakened again to the danger abroad that are ready to support their commander-in-chief in pursuit of America's vital national security interests. Thank you all for your time, and thank you all for your work. Thank you, Senator, for the very important remarks. First, we don't have much time. The Senator has to be at a hearing on the Hill at 10 o'clock, so we have a hard stop at 9.40, so I'll lead off with the first question and then open it up to the audience for some questions. But starting off, for most of the past 14 years, there's been strong bipartisan support for Afghanistan in the Hill. In recent years, that's dwindled, I think in no small part due to some of the unhelpful comments and behaviors of President Karzai. But we now have a new leadership in Kabul, and as you mentioned, I think interested in a strong partnership with the U.S. and our NATO allies. What do you think the new government needs to do to help rebuild that bipartisan support here in the Hill? Well, the new government in Afghanistan is a chance for us to restart our relationship with the Afghan government and the Afghan people. It hasn't gotten much attention in Washington or in Arkansas or places where everyone in the Congress comes from, in part because so much of the rest of the world is inflamed right now, whether it's the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or whether it's Iran's pursuit for nuclear weapons or what's happening in Ukraine with Russia's slow-motion invasion. So one thing that President Ghani and his emissaries need to do is stress to the senators and the congressmen who represent the American people that this is a chance to get a fresh start, that they are committed to rooting out the corruption that was endemic under the previous leadership, that international American dollars are being spent wisely, that the progress has been real and sustained, and that they want a continued American presence. They want our support to help defeat our common enemies. That's something that I hope and expect he will do on his upcoming trip to America, and it's something that elected leaders like myself and my colleagues have a responsibility to do with our, the people we serve back home as well, because Afghanistan often doesn't get the attention it deserves, since it is the place where Al-Qaeda attacked us from in 9-11. Maybe one follow-on question. I mean, I think attention often does get is negative, and I think both you and your remarks, and in October we had Senator Levin here also making remarks highlighting, again, the tremendous gains that have been made in Afghanistan. And as someone who worked during the 1980s and 1990s, I can personally attest that it's, to me, remarkable what has been achieved since 2001, but I think in part because for the media in particular, good news is not news, that doesn't often get communicated here, and also lots of things haven't gone quite as well as we had hoped, and there are serious problems that need to be addressed. But what do you think could be done or needs to be done to try to, again, inform the American people about the successes that have been achieved, and also the need, as you highlighted, to remain engaged and continue our, I think, robust levels of assistance so that we don't lose those gains? Well, Andrew, part of the problem is just the nature of the media. I mean, the house that doesn't burn doesn't get covered. The plane that lands safely doesn't get covered as well. It's easier to focus on bad news and that generates news rather than on slow, steady progress, particularly when it's overseas. Most Americans, the Arkans and I serve, experience what we call domestic policy every single day. They pay their taxes. They pay for gas at the pump. They pay their health insurance premiums. They go see their doctor. They get their kids homework assignment at night. You know, they don't need elected leaders to explain to them what's happening in their day-to-day lives because they're living it. That's simply not the case in most foreign policy and national security policy. Most Americans don't spend extended periods of time overseas. Even for many of you who have, it's a big, wide world out there and not everyone can go everywhere and experience everything. So as elected leaders, one thing that we have to do, and it's important the president do this because he has a singular voice in our system of government on national security matters, is to simply explain what has happened. Acknowledge some of the setbacks and some of the slow and frustrating progress, but explain the gains that we have made. This is something I would encourage the president to do more. Given the deterioration of conditions around the world, there's a lot of good news stories to be told in Afghanistan and it's directly related to our core national security interests, since it's still, it's still is the one place where we have defeated al-Qaeda and expelled it and it hasn't returned. And it's the reason why we started what's now become a 14-year war against Islamic terror in the first place. Okay. Time for a couple of questions from the audience. The gentleman here. Yeah, here. Please keep your questions short so we can get in as many as possible. Doug Brooks with the Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce. A very good talk and I think we see some signs between what the comments of Ash Carter yesterday and also General Campbell that there may be some changes in terms of the withdrawal policy. So hopefully that's correct. But one thing that I think has been very disappointing over the past few years is a lack of a really strong coalition to support Afghanistan in Congress. I'm wondering, have you talked to other people across the aisle about creating such a coalition where you might actually be unified on this particular issue? I have. I'll keep my conversation with colleagues private to protect the innocent or maybe they're not so innocent. But I will say that there is a pretty broad and bipartisan understanding that Afghanistan is part of our core national security interests. And if we proceed on the president's proposed withdrawal plan, we are apt to see the same kind of disaster replayed in Afghanistan as we're seeing today in Iraq and in Syria. I was personally heartened yesterday at the confirmation hearing for Secretary Designate Ashton Carter. The fact that Afghanistan was a central feature of many of the questions when there could be so many other questions about Ukraine or the Islamic State or Iran or the defense budget that Afghanistan actually was front of mind of many of my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee, as well as Mr. Carter's comments that he recognizes that we may need to adjust our policy in Afghanistan to consolidate the gains there. This is one of those elusive areas where we can probably find some bipartisan cooperation, which Republicans and Democrats alike in the Congress say we want, and which would help provide the president the support he needs to take what I said is a difficult step for any elected leaders, which is to modify previous decisions or pass statements. But I think if he did that, he would find support not just in the Congress in both parties, but more importantly, he'd find support among the American people, which means he's going to find support in Congress as well. A question from the journalist colleague in the back. Thank you very much. My name is Nazira Azim Karimi. I'm correspondent for Ariana television from Afghanistan. I'm concerned about women's right. Are you satisfied about women's right in Afghanistan? Any comment? And also the second question, you mentioned Pakistan, which is very important for Afghanistan. Any opinion regarding policy, Pakistan policy toward Afghanistan, to get better situation? Thank you. I wouldn't say that I'm satisfied with the advance of women's rights in Afghanistan because they can do a lot better there, but I would say that conditions have certainly improved tremendously over the last 14 years. As I mentioned in my remarks, over 40% of school kids in Afghanistan are now young girls, whereas 14 years ago they were banned from any kind of formal education. So there's certainly progress that can be made, but I do believe that the Afghan government recognizes and is working towards it. In Pakistan, Pakistan is always going to be a challenge for America's national security. There are many elements of the government that are aligned with our interests and that want to successful Afghanistan and recognize that America is a critical ally. There are other elements inside of both Pakistani government and society who are not so aligned, who are more closely aligned with Islamic jihadists. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons. So it's not a country from which we can ever disengage, yet if we disengage from Afghanistan, we are in some measure disengaging from Pakistan with all the threat that poses. So what we want to see is in Afghanistan and Pakistan that is working together, as the example I cited in my speech mentioned, both at the national leader level, but maybe as important at the lower levels of their national security and foreign policymaking apparatus. Once we see that kind of cooperation, we'll know that the heartland of the Akhani network in Al-Qaeda and affiliated groups in both eastern and southern Afghanistan across the Pakistani border is truly not going to once again become a safe haven. Time for one very quick question back there, Jonathan. But please keep it short because we're just about to run out of time. Yeah, so I'm an Afghanistan specialist since 1988. I was Andrew's next-door neighbor in 1989. So I got to see the first American fatigue in Afghanistan. And I believe that it was very strongly caused by a fatigue of the American people, not a fatigue of American power. And so I see it happening again. And I was wondering, how is that going to be dealt with? Well, first, I think the American people are once again awakened to the dangers that we see. It's most immediately not in Afghanistan, but in Iraq and in Syria. I certainly hear in Arkansas too, deep fearfulness about Iran and the prospects it may achieve nuclear weapons capability. And I saw that on a campaign. I just came through a campaign that's where elected leaders engage most immediately, most frequently with the people we serve. And that was certainly a top of mind issue. But it requires sustained momentum among elected leaders. We can't just stop at the ballot box and say, we're going to keep America safe. We have to continue to inform and persuade the American people about those interests, which, again, when you're dealing with foreign policy and national security policy is not something that most Americans see firsthand. You don't have to tell most Americans that their taxes are too high or that their health insurance premiums are too high. You do have to continue to remind them of the conditions that we see overseas and the threats that we face. I can say, though, that this is not going to be a very hard lift. In my state as well as the states of colleagues with whom I discussed the matter, I think the American people actually may be ahead of the elites on this question. There's a lot of talk of war weariness. I think a lot of our elites are more war weary than are the people. So the American people may be leading on this issue. It's simply up to elected leaders, especially those elected leaders who make national security and foreign policy, to continue to make the case for sustained engagement in Afghanistan, which is in our core national security interests. I'm afraid that's all we have time for. But thanks to all of you for coming, those who are joining us online. Thank you. Also, I just wanted to again acknowledge the support of the Association for the Support of the Afghanistan People. And if you want to learn more about ASAP, Scott Mackey is here sitting in the second row, and I'd encourage you to talk to him about ASAP. And last but not least, please join me in thanking Senator Cotton for his introduction. Thank y'all. Thank you very much. Yeah, I appreciate it. We can get you out this. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Nancy.