AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Congress is seeking answers from the Biden administration and military leaders who oversaw the deadly 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs committee, questioned two former generals in a hearing on Tuesday. The committee is conducting an investigation into the Biden administration’s preparation and decision-making during the operation.

Nexstar Capitol reporter Ryan Chandler interviewed McCaul to discuss the progress of the investigation and the current issues the committee is considering. 

Ryan Chandler: What are the biggest, new revelations that we learned about the withdrawal?

McCaul: “The bottom line is, you know, the military said they were on track, they were doing what they were supposed to be doing. It was a State Department that didn’t have a plan of evacuation, and they’re required by law to have that.” 

This explains a lot of things, by the way, explains why the employees at the embassy set the emergency dissent cable, really a cry for help, because they knew the embassy was getting right to be overrun by the Taliban. They were concerned about their lives.

It also explains the chaos at the airport. And, then eventually, what led up to Abbey Gate and the suicide bomber, who detonated and killed 13 service members who, by the way the families were there during the testimony.

The fact is that a lot could have been prevented if they just had a plan, and so it’s very unfortunate.

We also are looking forward to hearing more from the commanding officers on the ground, who dealt with the sniper, who testified almost a year ago that talked about how he had the suicide bomber in his sights. 

He reported this, the sniper photos, and was never given permission to engage the sniper, which would have saved so many lives.”

What is the end goal here? What does accountability look like? And where do you place that blame based on what we know now? 

“I’ve had to, you know, threaten contempt twice now on the Secretary of State to produce documents. He finally did produce the dissent cable, and then he finally presented the notes to the after-action review report, which has been very revealing about what was happening on the ground at the time.

I think that really all roads are gonna lead to the White House on this. We heard from the generals that their advice from the very beginning, whether it was to withdraw, and how to withdraw, were basically not listened to.

The decisions made out of the White House, and at the higher levels of the State Department really culminated with this awful, suicide bomber. In addition to 13 service members, we had dozens injured, and 170 Afghans were killed.

We also have found out, because there was no plan, all these Americans are then left behind in enemy lines under the Taliban, and also our Afghan partners that we promised we would protect, were left behind.

Now those Afghan partners are being let down by the Taliban with their biometrics and being executed. So it’s a very, very sad outcome.”

Why now? I think you run the risk two and a half years after we pulled out of Afghanistan, during an election year, to be accused of doing this for political reasons for campaign reasons. How do you respond to that?

“Well, I started this. I did a report even before the last election cycle. It’s taken us quite frankly, Ryan, this long to get these documents.

In fact, when the sniper testified a year ago, we still have an outstanding request to the Department of Defense for the sniper photos, now for documents, for the commanding officer’s testimony on the ground, and we still haven’t received it. So it’s not for lack of trying. It’s just this administration has slowed down our investigation. We hope to finalize this with a report by August on the anniversary of the Abbey Gate suicide bombing.”

Are you confident that you can make that timeline?

“I believe so. I think with the top two generals testifying, and they agreed that the Department of Defense, along with the state, should be fully cooperating with our investigation. I think it’s going to break the ice so we can get the testimonies that we need to finish. We got to answer the basic questions. Why was the sniper’s request denied? And did he properly identify the suicide bomber?

Look, we had Vietnam. We were told this was not gonna be like Vietnam, or you’re not going to have helicopters flying off the embassy rooftop. That’s exactly what happened. So we want to, you know, prepare legislation, so that God forbid we ever end up in a situation like this again, we won’t have the same outcome and repeat the mistakes of the past.”

Would that legislation look like giving more oversight to Congress or putting more barriers on the White House or the military command? What do you envision there?

“I think, tightening up these requirements on the evacuation plan, and who has the authority and the execution of the plan.

Bottom line is, you know, the old adage, if you fail to plan you plan to fail. And that’s exactly what happened here. They failed.” 

After Afghanistan, we’re fighting different adversaries on multiple different fronts, whether it’s Israel, Ukraine, or Taiwan, trying to assist our allies there. Where are we in that process? What has our delay done to those countries? What kind of damage is that caused?

“I think in Ukraine, you know, from the reporting I’m getting, is on the front lines, they’re having to retreat because they don’t have ammunition. The administration, I think, just made a $300 million advance to get ammunition to them. But every day we delay is a day in favor of Putin over the free and democratic Ukraine. I’ve been stressing the urgency of this, along with Israel. Now Israel needs our assistance as well.

Then the Indo-Pacific, from that threat to Communist China. And so, you know, we’re getting through our normal preparations bills this week. Friday, we should have that completed. Then the next step after that will be to take on this emergency National Security supplemental.” 

How likely do you see it that American troops will find themselves in another conflict within the next few years?

“I’m very concerned. I think that the threat environment, Ryan, I don’t think we’ve seen anything quite like this since my dad’s generation, the World War Two generation, given the threat to the Pacific, the threat to Europe, and now the Middle East.

I argued it all started with Afghanistan. That was a turning point, when Afghanistan fell, we were projecting weakness, surrendering to the Taliban. It wasn’t very long after that we saw the Russian Federation moving into Ukraine, and then this unholy alliance with Chairman Xi, in Beijing threatening Taiwan, and then their ally in the Middle East, the Ayatollah with Iran. So if we don’t project strength, if we don’t provide deterrence, we will invite aggression, and we will invite conflict and war.

That’s why I believe it’s so important, particularly in Ukraine, to provide that deterrence so we can stop what happened in 1939, from happening all over again. Or we can stop Chairman Xi from invading Taiwan or put deterrence on the Ayatollah from lighting up the Middle East. But I would argue this administration has been projecting a lot of weakness, and I believe that does invite just like Chamberlain and Hitler, that invited aggression.”

Does the brunt of that blame fall on the administration or on Congress? President Biden has been asking Congress for aid packages and stronger support for Ukraine in particular for years now, how do we end that congressional gridlock?

“What made Putin decide to invade Ukraine? In my calculus, Afghanistan, in the way it was conducted, gave him a green light. He thought he could get away with it. I think Chairman Xi sees weakness, as well. And that’s why I’m worried about Taiwan. And, of course, they have 90% of the advanced semiconductor manufacturing capability. I think that’s precisely why you see a more hostile Iran. I mean, why aren’t we enforcing the sanctions on Iran? Rather, we’re lifting the energy sanctions, which has allowed them to sell $80 billion of energy to China, and then gives them $80 billion to use for terror operations in the Middle East.

Why aren’t we enforcing the sanctions on their drone and missile program that they then use with Iran proxies, and also sell to Russia to use in Ukraine? So they’re all tied together, and my view is because they see a weak president.” 

After the House impeached Secretary Mayorkas, it seems like we’ve heard very little about that on the Senate side. You’re an impeachment manager in that process. Can you give us a timeline there and what you hope to see about how the Senate handles this? 

“We want to get through the appropriations process. And be focused, you know, like a laser on this. We have to get this done this week, and then the emergency supplemental. After that point in time, we will then walk over the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.” 

We’re tracking the state of Texas’ regulation of artificial intelligence. They’ve established new legislative committees and commissions. What are your concerns on the AI front?

“That’s very much in my wheelhouse. We deal with the export control laws on the foreign affairs committee. I don’t want to over-regulate or stifle innovation, creativity, with respect to AI. But at the same time, we have to be very careful that we’re not selling that sort of technology to our adversaries like China, that can then be used for military purposes. And I think that’s the biggest concern. In fact, we just found out that in China, they were able to manufacture a seven nanometer chip, which puts you in the gateway of AI. That’s very concerning for the United States. We want to make sure that we have the competitive edge when it comes to AI, particularly as it pertains to the military.

The military applications of AI are very, you know, it can be very grave and very severe. And I think if it ends up in the wrong hands, it could be in a lot of respects fatal and damaging to our national security.”