The Texan Podcast - Interview: Rep. Matt Schaefer on the Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Afghanistan

Episode Date: August 23, 2021

State Rep. Matt Schaefer (R-Tyler) joined The Texan’s reporter Daniel Friend to discuss the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and the ensuing chaos in Kabul.

Hey folks, my name is Daniel Friend. I'm a reporter with The Texan. Today on our podcast, we interviewed State Representative Matt Schaefer on his thoughts about the conflict in Afghanistan after he had served there in 2010. We also talked about the quorum break in the State House and about constitutional carry going into effect in September. For more news on Texas, please visit thetexan.news and subscribe today. Well, thank you, Representative Schaefer, for taking the time to talk with us. Just a little bit of background on Representative Schaefer. He is representative from Tyler up in East Texas.

He lives there with his wife, Jaisalyn, and his two children. He was the lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy Reserve. He also served in Afghanistan in 2010 over there at a provincial reconstruction team in western Afghanistan near the Iranian border. And then you also were first elected in 2012 after challenging GOP Representative Leo Berman. So tell us a little bit more about yourself, just some brief overview of what got you into politics, why you ran for office, maybe some of the issues that you care about. I'm in office because I believe God gave me an earnestness for public policy and gave me an ability to communicate and to understand some issues. And really, I feel like God led me into

this position. I started in the Navy back in May of 2001, shortly after I had been married to my wife, Jacelyn. And then September 11 happened later that year. So really, what happened in Afghanistan has been a big part of my life. The consequences of the events of 9-11, the security situation in Afghanistan, and my career in the Navy that ultimately led me to a deployment to Afghanistan. And as an intelligence officer spending much of my professional career looking at the global war on terrorism, at what terrorism means for our national security, and what that means for folks at home. So really, I think that that experience has been a profound, you know, thing that shaped my life. And so I really,

I'm just kind of processing what's happening in Afghanistan now and never thought it would hit me the way it has. But I'm seeing posts from a lot of my friends that I've served with that were in Afghanistan with me. And it seems to be that the depth of feeling that I'm experiencing is being experienced by a lot of Afghanistan veterans around the country. Got it. And of course, Afghanistan is the big topic that we wanted to talk to you about because of your experiences over there. Now, we have been over in Afghanistan for quite some time. The bulk of my life, I was not even five years old when 9-11 happened. And so we went over there shortly after.

Can you give just kind of a brief summary of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, kind of what you've seen over your lifetime and now leading up to the recent events? The simple truth is that what happens in Afghanistan can affect us negatively here in the United States. And that's what we saw with 9-11. The Taliban was in control of much of the country in Afghanistan, and they created a permissive environment for Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden to operate. And that ultimately is what led to us deploying and invading Afghanistan in order to clear that threat out. And what happened after that became a bit of a mess as far as government policy, where I don't think our leadership had a clear direction as to what to do next.

You put the United States in a difficult position. Do we leave and immediately allow al-Qaeda or another radical Islamic group like al-Qaeda to reconstitute and go right back to the permissive environment that hurt us with 9-11? Or do we stay and try to help the Afghan people stand up for themselves? And I think the effort was to let them stand up for themselves. And I think the effort was to let them stand up for themselves. And then Iraq took over and many of the resources that were being applied in Afghanistan were pulled away and applied into Iraq. And so there was a distraction. And then what we saw is that there was a resurgence in Iraq and President Obama and others had to deal with that. I ended up there in 2010 and there was still a lot of fighting, a lot of U.S. soldiers being killed. Yesterday, August 17th, was the anniversary of us losing our explosives ordnance disposal tech, Staff Sergeant Derek Farley.

He died on August 17th, 2010. So that has a profound impact. So a lot of treasure lost, a lot of blood spilled. build. And it's important for people to understand that nation building in Afghanistan, that mission was abandoned years ago. So really, the United States posture for the last several years in Afghanistan was not to build up the nation into a Western style democracy, but to keep a lid on a dangerous security environment, to allow a contingent of U.S. military forces to be there, to operate as needed, to put out grass fires, to have intelligence assets on the ground, to have eyes and ears on the ground in the country should another threat like al-Qaeda really take root and begin to have that permissive environment to hurt us in the United States. And so I think when people think about the polls that they're seeing about whether we should withdraw or not, everybody agrees with

that. Nobody wants to be at war. Nobody wants to see us fighting. The problem is that the other side gets a vote. Our enemies get a vote on whether we end up in a fight or not. So just because we decide as a policy, we don't want to fight anymore, doesn't mean they can't hurt us. And we found that something can happen in Afghanistan that reaches us all the way in the United States, they can find a way. So in my view, there's one argument to be made to keep a small contingent of U.S. military there in Afghanistan, not to try to make it into a Western-style democracy, but to secure our national interests to make sure that that part of the world can't turn into something that hurts us badly again. And you can do that with a relatively small force. Now understand, we're still in Japan. You say, well that with a relatively small force. Now understand,

we're still in Japan. You say, well, what's the danger from Japan? Well, after World War II, the United States didn't want Japan building up a big offensive military power. And Japan's own constitution said we can't have an offensive military capability. And so there was a lid, there were brakes put on the Japanese military forces. We stayed there with the U.S. military presence and China grew and grew in strength and power and advanced weaponry to the point there's an imbalance. There's an imbalance between China and Japan as far as military forces. So if we don't leave Japan today, what does that mean for national security? What does that mean for national security if we were to leave South Korea today? We have much larger and more expensive equipment there in those countries. So

I can go on and on about this, but when American people hear withdrawal, I don't know if they all connect that with leaving Afghanistan in chaos and allowing an al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-like organization to develop again to where we're right back where we were. You spent several months over there in 2010. Can you tell a little bit about your experiences over there, kind of how that shaped your perspective on the situation and maybe how you have a different view than a lot of people who just, you know, they look at the news and like, oh yeah, we shouldn't be over there. We shouldn't just withdraw. You know, how is your perspective different

from just the average American from being over there? What are the things that you learned and saw? Afghanistan is a harsh place. It is a tough place. It really is a lot Just from the physical environment to the complexity of the tribal nature of that country. They think of themselves first as a member of a family and then as a member of a tribe. And maybe only third would they think of themselves as a member, as an Afghan citizen. Right. So we might think of ourselves as a Texan first or American first. They think, well, I'm a member of this family and I'm a member of this tribe. OK, that's the way it works over there. And so it's complicated.

Parts of the country are the development is almost third world. The part of Afghanistan where I was, if you've seen the movie The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston, other than AK-47s, cell phones, and some vehicles, nothing has changed. You can see coochie tribesmen with camels out there. No sanitation, no electricity for the most part. Nothing is advanced. Their way of life is pretty much still the same. So parts of it are very backward. But yet it's an environment next door to Pakistan,

which Pakistan is barely stable. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan is barely stable. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Pakistan is barely stable because they have a radical Islamic insurgency of their own that they have to deal with, and they have to keep a lid on that in Pakistan. And that all bleeds over. So what happens in Pakistan affects the whole world, and what happens in Afghanistan can affect Pakistan. So it's very complicated and it can be very dangerous for the whole world to allow chaos to descend in that part of the world.

Now, there's been some talk, President Biden, when he gave a speech on Monday now, he kind of said that the Afghan military did not really put up a fight. What was your experience working with the Afghan military? What was it like with U.S. soldiers working alongside them? Many of the Afghan soldiers were very brave, very committed to their cause, and they did fight. I have seen Afghan soldiers' bodies lined up in a row after being in battle. I've stood next to them, next to their bodies. I've worked with some of them. But it's also true that many of them were not good fighters, were cowards, and wouldn't fight. And it's true that some of their political leaders were cowards and wouldn't fight. But it's simply a lie to say that all Afghans would not fight. They've got 50,000 war casualties to prove that that's not

right. So at times when we were fighting with them, when we were there in support of them, they would be successful. And the Taliban couldn't take over. So there became this stalemate type of a situation where they weren't winning, but the Taliban and the foreign fighters were not winning either. And it kept a lid on the situation. Now, how will that ever resolve? It's been going on for a long time. When I was there, I would stand next to Russian armored personnel carriers that were left to rust.

As a history lesson to me, the Soviets were not successful there either. But again, the goal is not mission building. The goal is to maintain a lid on a really dangerous security environment so they can't hurt the United States. So moving back to the more policy aspect of this, we went over there in 2001. We were over there for a long time. There was some attempts at nation building that kind of stepped back, as you said. And now in the past few years, certainly with the Trump administration, now with the Biden administration, there was a lot of push for a withdrawal of troops. People saying we need to end this war. We shouldn't be over there. We shouldn't be the world's policemen.

People making that argument has kind of grown in both parties. This is Republicans and Democrats, both. There's people saying that. What are your thoughts on kind of that public sentiment and how it was approached by the Trump administration and the Biden administration? And there's been some intra-party conflict within both of those administrations, I think. So what are your views on that? War is hell. And the American public began to feel fatigue of seeing troops come home from Afghanistan, wounded or dead. And so I can't argue with that. But if you look at the posture that the U.S. military had taken in Afghanistan in the last year or so, casualties had been almost non-existent. Number of killed in action almost non-existent. So we had drawn down our forces to a point where we still had eyes and ears in the country.

And there was some stability in places like Kabul. And by the way, there was some advancements on the human level made in places like Kabul, which is a densely populated city for women. For a modern society of sorts in Afghanistan, there were some advancements that were really made in some of those bigger cities where there was a level of security that was possible because of our presence. So I would say to my friends in the Republican Party, no soldier that signs up wants war. If you've truly seen it and you know what it's like to see an American flag draped over a U.S. soldier's body, you only need to see that one time to know you don't want that. But you could also see the danger that exists from a radical Islamic element

that has a completely permissive environment and what that means for the United States. You know, when I was there, I was there for a September 11th remembrance. We were in Afghanistan at a forward operating base, and they flew to our dirt landing strip a piece of steel from the Twin Towers. And there was a lieutenant in the army who was there with us, whose father was a fireman who died in the Twin Towers. So it was very real. So I understand that what happens in Afghanistan can hurt us here if we don't pay attention to it.

And we have to realize that a complete removal of all U.S. military presence there puts us in a dangerous position. We don't even have an active embassy there now. So withdrawal, yes. But in my opinion, withdrawal to a basic force there that allows us to have an airport, allows us to have an embassy, allows us to put out some fires that could hurt us. So over the past couple of years with Trump kind of pushing for withdrawal, he had some conflict within his own administration. I know, you know, some senior officials in his administration told him, no, this is a bad idea, pushing him different way. There was a lot of turmoil there. And then this year we saw President Biden continue with a similar plan, different plan to withdraw. I think Trump had planned to withdraw by May 1st was what he was aiming for at the end of his administration. And then Biden came in and kind of changed the plans a little bit, but still continued with that withdrawal.

What are the comparisons and contrasts of what Trump did versus what Biden did? Are they the same? Are they different? What is your take on that? I don't know the ins and outs of the Trump decision making. I can just point to what we can see objectively. When President Trump left office, he left a contingent of combat power in Afghanistan, some 2,500 troops. And I do know that he was listening to his generals. And so whether you believe that we should have drawn that down to zero or not, I don't know what Trump would have ultimately done. I would like to believe that President Trump was willing to call an audible based on the facts on the ground. And if the facts on the ground said, if we pull out all 2,500, this place goes to hell and we lose our ability to have eyes and ears in the country and to maintain our national security interests here, I have to believe that Donald Trump was going to call that audible. But I can tell you that what President Biden did, in my opinion, was reckless. And I think he probably ignored the

advice of many in the intelligence community and certainly some in the military leadership. Got it. What are your thoughts on shifting more towards Biden? What his administration did? What could he have done differently? You know, was this just a poorly executed withdrawal or, you know, was the only option going to be to leave some there or there's going to be chaos one way or another? There is no question that it was poorly executed. Just look at the image of Afghans

hanging onto a C-17 military cargo plane. I've flown in one of those. First of all, that shows you the desperation of the Afghan people. Second of all, the fact that a civilian could even get close enough to that airplane when it was underway on the tarmac shows you that the security situation was chaotic. I promise you that military planners could have done that differently. And I promise you that there were plans in place that could have been executed that would have done that in a more orderly manner. An honorable withdrawal from Afghanistan was not too much to ask of the U.S. military, nor was it too much to ask of an American president. What we did was dishonorable. There were plans that could have been executed differently than what was done. Now, looking at the broader foreign policy,

where does this leave the United States? You know, if we're pulling out of Afghanistan, I know President Biden has sent some more troops there to help that evacuation of Americans still there. But assuming that he does withdraw all troops completely from Afghanistan, where does that leave Afghanistan with regards to Pakistan, with China, with Russia, with the whole environment there? What are the consequences of this withdrawal? It erodes trust. If you look at every major military conflict that we've been in in the last hundred years, the Americans have had allies that we've worked with. How will our allies view us if there's another, you know, serious conflict

in the world somewhere? Will they view us with high confidence? Or will they be looking at us with a skeptical eye? And so I think it erodes the trust that the world has in the Americans' ability to provide security. Gotcha. I guess going back to this question of foreign policy, especially the foreign policy within the debate of the Republican Party. You're a Republican. I've seen, you know, you go on Twitter, you go on looking at anything Republicans are saying, and there's this very vast difference between some Republicans. There's some who say we need to maintain a military presence or at least some sort of military presence. There's other people who are out there saying we should not be the world's policemen. We have no business in the affairs of Afghanistan. How does the Republican Party,

how do elected officials navigate this from a political perspective? Is there a way to unify the party or are these just differences? I think the difference is in experience. So if you look at, go back to my father's generation, Vietnam War, go back to even before that, a lot of World War II veterans, Korean veterans, a lot of those World War II veterans, Korean veterans, and Vietnam veterans were in the legislature, were in Congress. They were members of Congress. They helped shape their party's viewpoints on things. And so whether they were right or wrong, they brought real world experience with national security and military affairs to the conversation. How many members of the Texas legislature have been in Afghanistan? How many members of the Texas legislature have even served in the military now?

The numbers are dwindling. And I'm not saying I have the right foreign policy on every question. But when you no longer have a lot of leaders in the Republican Party who are elected, or who are filling the ranks and staff and party consultants and activists who have any actual military experience, I think that is part of what's shaping the conversation. Got it. Another thing that this might, in ways that this might affect Texas, obviously we have lots of troops in the military who are from Texas, so that's one big thing. But there's also going to be a big refugee situation that we'll see unfold. We've already seen that some, and there's been

reports that refugees might be temporarily housed in Fort Bliss out in El Paso. I've seen some stuff that there might be some more refugees coming to different parts of the state as well. How is, how should the country handle that situation? How should Texas handle that situation? Well, one, I think that there are Afghans who, by what they have done, should receive some assistance and protection from the United States. You got to understand when you sign up to be an interpreter for an American military contingent or even for U.S. humanitarian organization or journalist, that's an irrevocable decision for you. That's an irrevocable decision for your whole family. Because without the protection of the United States then, in many ways, you're dead.

And yet we needed them for our own national interest to make that decision, an irrevocable decision for their life. So to abandon those people, I think, is morally wrong. To vet them and to know who they are would be irresponsible on our part. But many of these Afghans, we do know who they are. We have a history working with them. And some of these are going to be the kind of people that they're going to come and live here. And they're going to be the kind of people that they're going to come here and live here. They're going to be so loyal. They're going to love this country so much because of the freedom and the things that we have.

We should not be afraid of those people. At the same time, we should be very careful about others that we have not vetted. The likelihood that some could come here who don't love America, who don't share any of our values, that's a real risk. And so we should be cautious with that, very much so. Got it. Now, I guess kind of to shift topics away from Afghanistan and the situation there and more onto the Texas legislature, there's a lot going on there as well. There has been this entire year. Not much difference, really.

That's true. This is true. So we have the election bill that Republicans are pushing for to make elections more secure. Democrats are saying this is a voter suppression bill. They're pushing against it, going to the lengths of House Democrats walking out and breaking the quorum. So now the House has not been able to do anything since mid-July at the beginning of the first special session that Governor Abbott called. Is there going to be a quorum anytime soon? I don't know.

I do favor the Speaker of the House increasing the level of sanctions against Democrats. I hope that he will do that. I believe he will. Patience does not always mean you're being passive. We ultimately want a peaceful end to this, right? You know, I think a lot of people get excited about dragging someone quite literally to the House floor, but I don't know if that's the outcome that people want. You could create a security situation in the Capitol in Austin that wouldn't be good with the visuals that would come out of that. So we need to be super minded about that. That being said, the Texas Constitution contemplates someone being physically arrested and brought to the House chamber. And I'm not

opposed to that. But we need to be careful about how we think about executing that. Civil fines, I believe are constitutional. I believe that stripping chairmanships and other positions should be done. It's unfortunate where we are because I believe that the arguments that the Democrats are making, many of them are just flat lies. You can argue about whether there should be voting at three in the morning or not. But there is no argument about whether Texans who are eligible are going to have the right to vote or not. That's not on the table. To say otherwise is a lie. And the racial connotations that have been made against the legislature and the Republican leadership are lies as well.

So I don't know how this works out. We're constrained by the Texas Constitution. The Texas Constitution says two-thirds. That means 51 members can break that quorum, and they are doing something that was ultimately contemplated by the Constitution, and yet I don't feel like they're fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to their constituents by holding out. Another thing that the legislature still has not done this year, not because of their fault, but the Census Bureau did not release the numbers until last week for redistricting. That

has to happen every decade. So how is the legislature going to handle redistricting in your view with the whole quorum break right now? Is it going to force Democrats to come back, or is it going to create another crisis? When it comes to redistricting, that is something that is so important for each district and for the citizens that live there. It's an entirely different question than the election integrity bill. And so in my view, that should be something that has such a weight and gravity to it that the Democrats would not think about breaking quorum for that issue. being influenced by the most radical voices in their party, by voices out of Washington that want to bring Washington-style politics to Texas. And I think that's harmful for the whole state. Another thing that's going to be happening soon, this is something that the legislature has already done. Back earlier this year, we covered it a lot on our website, thetexan.news. HB 1927, which you authored, constitutional carry as it's

referred to, is going into effect on September 1st. There was a lot of rhetoric thrown around while it was being debated. Some lawmakers said it was going to make Texas be a Wild West pimp style kind of scenario. Is that going to happen? The dire predictions are irresponsible and they are not matched by the evidence. We can look at highly populated areas like Phoenix, Arizona, which has millions of people. They've had this law in place for 10 years. There are 20 other states that have had this law in place for 10 years. There are 20 other states that have had this law in place for many years, and there's simply no data to support that kind of outcome.

Really, I do not believe that this changes much about the typical interaction a law enforcement person would have, which is usually at a traffic stop. Texans have already had the legal ability to have a handgun in their vehicle when they're traveling, even without a handgun license. And so it doesn't really change much even about a traffic stop. And you also have to remember when you're on somebody else's property, their property, their rules, that doesn't change. Also, any misuse of a firearm or a handgun in the state of Texas remains a crime. So we have strong laws in place in Texas regarding the misuse of a firearm, regards any kind of threat. And certainly criminals and felons, people like that,

their rights to have a firearm don't change. They're still going to be illegal. So what is going to change is a restoration of constitutional rights. It's been since 1871 that handguns were generally prohibited in the state of Texas. And it's about time that we put some faith back in ordinary Texans who are law-abiding citizens. I feel so strongly about this bill because my faith is with law-abiding Texans who want to defend themselves and their families, and they are the first responders if something bad happens. And so I'm very excited about this, and it's been a long time coming. Really, the credit for this is owed to so many Texans who've advocated for this and for the Second Amendment for so many years. I just happen to be in the right place to get it across the finish line

in the legislature. Now, the license to carry program is still in effect. People can still apply for an LTC if they want to and go to the range and get instructed and take the test and have that qualified LTC. Is there anything that's different between having an LTC or someone who's like considering, should I get that or should I just, I can carry now? What are the, are there any big differences between where a person can carry with an LTC versus without? The bill that we passed didn't really touch the places that you could go. And so there's a couple places that you can go with a handgun license that you can't go without. You know, there are certain college campus facilities that you could go in if you have a handgun license.

You know, the Texas Capitol is one of those places that you can enter the Texas Capitol with a handgun if you have a license. But also for traveling out of state, you know, the reciprocity with other states for their handgun laws is really a valuable thing. And so I think a handgun license is still a good thing to have. Great. Well, thank you so much for taking the time to talk to us. We appreciate you having you on and good luck on the legislature. Thank you very much. Thank you all so much for listening. If you've been enjoying our podcast, it would be awesome if you would review us on iTunes. And if there's a guest you'd love to hear on our show, give us a

shout on Twitter. Tweet at The Texan News. We're so proud to have you standing with us as we seek to provide real journalism in an age of disinformation. We're paid for exclusively by readers like you, so it's important we all do our part to support the Texan by subscribing and telling your friends about us. God bless you, and God bless Texas.