Jerry Dunleavy, a senior investigator with the Foreign Affairs Committee, has resigned in protest, citing dissatisfaction with the investigation into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. After joining the committee a year ago, Dunleavy expressed deep concerns about the rigor and leadership of the investigation. His resignation comes as the committee prepares to release a 600-page report on the 2021 withdrawal from Kabul, a report Dunleavy believes falls short in addressing critical aspects of the incident.

Dunleavy’s resignation underscores growing concerns about the investigation into the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Kabul in 2021, which included a deadly ISIS-K bombing, according to a report by the Daily Mail.

The committee’s investigation focuses on the U.S. withdrawal from Kabul, a process marred by an ISIS-K bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members and nearly 200 Afghan allies. This event has been the subject of intense scrutiny, with the committee aiming to uncover the decisions and actions that led to such a tragic outcome. Dunleavy, a former journalist and author, joined the investigation to contribute his investigative experience to this complex and highly charged issue.

Investigator Cites Broken Promises and Leadership Failures

In his resignation letter, Dunleavy accused the committee of lacking the courage to fully investigate all aspects of the U.S. withdrawal. He criticized Chairman Michael McCaul's leadership, accusing him of not effectively using his power to guide the investigation.

Dunleavy claimed that promises made to Gold Star families were broken, particularly regarding the thoroughness of the investigation into the ISIS-K bombing.

Dunleavy also criticized the committee’s handling of witness interviews and hearing titles. He expressed frustration over the committee’s refusal to adopt his proposed hearing titles and interview suggestions, which he believed were crucial for a comprehensive investigation. He also called for a deeper examination of Vice President Kamala Harris’s role in the withdrawal, a request that was ignored, further fueling his decision to resign.

Concerns About Witness Testimonies and Key Figures

Dunleavy strongly opposed the committee’s refusal to interview certain key witnesses. While the committee interviewed 20 senior administration officials, including Jen Psaki, John Bass, and Ned Price, it failed to interview others whom Dunleavy considered crucial. He argued that testimonies from Tracey Jacobson, Wendy Sherman, and Victoria Nuland were essential for fully understanding the events.

Dunleavy also criticized the U.S. Central Command for its limited cooperation, noting that they provided only a classified briefing with no transcription or counter-questioning, which he felt was insufficient for the investigation’s needs. Additionally, he expressed disappointment that Ross Wilson, the last U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, did not provide public testimony.

Clash Over the Handling of Key Figures

Dunleavy viewed the committee’s handling of Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, as a significant issue. He believed Khalilzad had acted dishonestly in his dealings with the Taliban, particularly regarding the Doha Agreement, which facilitated the U.S. withdrawal. Dunleavy's frustration grew as he saw the committee’s failure to adequately challenge Khalilzad’s testimony, especially during a February hearing that, in his view, unfairly portrayed the Doha Agreement in a favorable light.

Dunleavy also criticized the conduct of committee staff, particularly after a staffer took a selfie with Khalilzad. He described this action as "highly inappropriate" and damaging to the credibility of the investigation, underscoring his broader concerns about the investigation’s integrity.

Committee Responds to Dunleavy’s Criticisms

Emily Cassil, a spokesperson for the committee, responded to Dunleavy’s resignation and criticisms by defending the work of Chairman McCaul and the committee as a whole. She emphasized that both the staff and members of the committee have spent thousands of hours on the forthcoming report. Cassil argued that McCaul has shown deep commitment to getting answers for the Gold Star families and Afghanistan veterans, suggesting that Dunleavy’s accusations were unfounded.

A source speaking to DailyMail.com also contested Dunleavy’s account, describing it as "deeply inaccurate." This source further complicated the narrative, indicating that differing perspectives may exist within the committee on how the investigation was conducted and the extent to which it fulfilled its mandate.

Conclusion: A Divisive Investigation

Significant tensions emerge within the Foreign Affairs Committee’s investigation into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, underscored by Jerry Dunleavy’s resignation.

Deep divisions over how to address one of the most controversial events in recent U.S. foreign policy emerge as Jerry Dunleavy criticizes the investigation’s leadership, its handling of key witnesses, and the overall thoroughness of the probe.

The committee’s preparation to release its comprehensive report raises questions about the investigation’s conclusions and its implications for U.S. policy moving forward due to these internal conflicts.