Follow us on social

google cta
Protecting our partners: evacuating interpreters should be a no-brainer

Protecting our partners: evacuating interpreters should be a no-brainer

Biden’s withdrawal plan should include Afghans who directly supported U.S. troops and are now vulnerable to Taliban reprisals.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

The United States is transferring major military installations to the Afghan security forces and withdrawing the remainder of U.S. troops from Afghanistan at a pace that may well surpass President Biden’s own September deadline.

While this extraction plan is focused on the secure passage of American troops and assets, for Washington, there lies another dilemma: how to protect the local Afghans who risked their lives alongside U.S. troops? The only clear solution is to evacuate Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants and their dependents along with U.S. troops as soon as possible. 

Afghans, particularly translators, who served alongside U.S. troops but outside of the Afghan military, played a critical role in the war effort. Aside from providing invaluable intelligence due to their command of languages like Dari and Pashto, and cultural knowledge, Afghan contractors also served as a bridge between U.S. troops and the communities they patrolled. These Afghans now find themselves in a precarious position as the Afghan government is unable to protect them and the Taliban labels them as traitors. A recent Taliban statement claims that former interpreters are not in danger but also calls on them to show “remorse” and is a far cry from reconciliation. SIV applicants should not be left to potentially be targeted by the Taliban. But in seeking to migrate to the United States, they face a series of byzantine bureaucratic processes that could take years — time they no longer have.

A report by Brown University's Costs of War project highlights the plight of SIV applicants. Processing can take up to 658 days, excluding the time it takes to assemble the individual application. That process requires an expensive health examination at an authorized clinic in Kabul, and letters of recommendation from employers who may or may not be in the same position and can be next-to-impossible to track down. For some, making multiple trips to Kabul is extremely difficult, not just because of costs, but because they must journey through hostile territories with checkposts manned by the Taliban. 

Once someone is known to have applied to the SIV program, they can become subject to extortion or extra scrutiny from the militias. According to the Costs of War project, one SIV recipient from Ghazni had to skip his mother's funeral because the Taliban was on the lookout for him. Some of the reasons behind the failure to efficiently process these vulnerable individuals are nothing short of negligent. For example, the State Department’s senior coordinating official position for the Afghan SIV program was vacant since January 2017. 

The good news for SIV applicants is that there is strong bipartisan support in Congress and among veterans for evacuating them to a safer location for further processing. One letter to President Biden calling for this action was signed by 16 veteran-led organizations. Another letter sent on June 4 by a bipartisan group of 21 members of Congress, calls on the Biden administration to expedite the process. There are also recent reports that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has requested options for such an evacuation. But this broad support will be for naught unless rapid action is taken.

During President Biden’s speech to the nation in which he announced a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, he reiterated that America's "diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue" in Afghanistan despite the troop's homecoming. Washington can begin by evacuating those Afghans who most have a target on their back due to their direct assistance of U.S. troops. “In together, out together” must apply to these individuals too.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Timothy McGuire, from 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry, and his interpreter, right, speak with a recent Afghan National Army graduate, left, during a visit in Seghana, Afghanistan, Sept. 18, 2005. The visit in Seghana is conducted as a part of security patrol on the day of parliamentary elections in Afghanistan. (U.S Army photo by Pfc. Michael Zuk) |U.S. Army Lt. Col. Timothy McGuire, from 1st Battalion, 508th Infantry, and his interpreter, right, speak with a recent Afghan National Army graduate, left, during a visit in Seghana, Afghanistan, Sept. 18, 2005. The visit in Seghana is conducted as a part of security patrol on the day of parliamentary elections in Afghanistan. (U.S Army photo by Pfc. Michael Zuk)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump addresses the nation, Wednesday, December 17, 2025, from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump national security logic: rare earths and fossil fuels

Washington Politics

The new National Security Strategy of the United States seeks “strategic stability” with Russia. It declares that China is merely a competitor, that the Middle East is not central to American security, that Latin America is “our hemisphere,” and that Europe faces “civilizational erasure.”

India, the world's largest country by population, barely rates a mention — one might say, as Neville Chamberlain did of Czechoslovakia in 1938, it’s “a faraway country... of which we know nothing.” Well, so much the better for India, which can take care of itself.

keep readingShow less
Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela
Top image credit: LightField Studios via shutterstock.com

Experts at oil & weapons-funded think tank: 'Go big' in Venezuela

Military Industrial Complex

As the U.S. threatens to take “oil, land and other assets” from Venezuela, staffers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank funded in part by defense contractors and oil companies, are eager to help make the public case for regime change and investment. “The U.S. should go big” in Venezuela, write CSIS experts Ryan Berg and Kimberly Breier.

Both America’s Quarterly, which published the essay, and the authors’ employer happen to be funded by the likes of Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil, a fact that is not disclosed in the article.

keep readingShow less
ukraine military
UKRAINE MARCH 22, 2023: Ukrainian military practice assault tactics at the training ground before counteroffensive operation during Russo-Ukrainian War (Shutterstock/Dymtro Larin)

Ukraine's own pragmatism demands 'armed un-alignment'

Europe

Eleven months after returning to the White House, the Trump administration believes it has finally found a way to resolve the four-year old war in Ukraine. Its formula is seemingly simple: land for security guarantees.

Under the current plan—or what is publicly known about it—Ukraine would cede the 20 percent of Donetsk that it currently controls to Russia in return for a package of security guarantees including an “Article 5-style” commitment from the United States, a European “reassurance force” inside post-war Ukraine, and peacetime Ukrainian military of 800,000 personnel.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.