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.


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
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
Polymarket Iran War
Top photo credit: Polymarket logo (Shutterstock/PJ McDonald) and Scene following an airstrike on an Iranian police centre damaging residential buildings around it in Niloofar square in central Tehran on march 1, 2026. (Hamid Vakili/Parspix/ABACAPRESS.COM)

Prediction markets are a national security threat

Latest

Hours before an Israeli attack in Tehran killed Ayatollah Khamenei, an account on the prediction market Polymarket made over half a million dollars wagering that Iran’s Supreme Leader would vacate office before 3/31. That account, named “Magamyman,” was not the only one to cash in on the attacks.

Half a dozen Polymarket accounts made over $1.2M betting that the U.S. “strikes Iran by February 28, 2026.” Those accounts were allegedly paid for through cryptocurrency wallets that had previously not been funded prior to Feb. 27. Overall, prediction market users bet over $255M on markets related to the attacks in Iran on the prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket alone.

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.