Follow us on social

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

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)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Eisenhower and Nasser
Top photo credit: President Eisenhower and Egyptian President Nasser on sidelines of UN General Assembly in Waldorf Astoria presidential suite, New York in 1960. (public domain)

If Israel goes it alone is it risking another 'Suez'?

Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to accelerate his war against Iran with direct, offensive assistance from Washington — at a moment when there is less support for it than ever among the American people.

Netanyahu must expect that Washington will be compelled to accommodate and, if necessary, implement Israel’s expansive war aims – notably the complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile capabilities, and even regime change itself. U.S. assistance is widely considered to be critical to Israel’s success in this regard.

keep readingShow less
US Navy Taiwan Strait
TAIWAN STRAIT (August 23, 2019) – US Naval Officers scan the horizon from the bridge while standing watch, part of Commander, Amphibious Squadron 11, operating in the Indo-Pacific region to enhance interoperability with partners and serve as a ready-response force for any type of contingency. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Markus Castaneda)

Despite setbacks, trends still point to US foreign policy restraint

Military Industrial Complex

It’s been only a few days since Israel first struck Iranian nuclear and regime targets, but Washington’s remaining neoconservatives and long-time Iran hawks are already celebrating.

After more than a decade of calling for military action against Iran, they finally got their wish — sort of. The United States did not immediately join Israel’s campaign, but President Donald Trump acquiesced to Israel’s decision to use military force and has not meaningfully restrained Israel’s actions. For those hoping Trump would bring radical change to U.S. foreign policy, his failure to halt Israel’s preventative war is a disappointment and a betrayal of past promises.

keep readingShow less
iraqi protests iran israel
Top photo credit: Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims hold a cutout of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they attend a protest against Israeli strikes on Iran, in Baghdad, Iraq, June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ahmed Saad

Iraq on razor's edge between Iran and US interests in new war

Middle East

As Israeli jets and Iranian rockets streak across the Middle Eastern skies, Iraq finds itself caught squarely in the crossfire.

With regional titans clashing above its head, Iraq’s fragile and hard-won stability, painstakingly rebuilt over decades of conflict, now hangs precariously in the balance. Washington’s own tacit acknowledgement of Iraq’s vulnerable position was laid bare by its decision to partially evacuate embassy personnel in Iraq and allow military dependents to leave the region.

This withdrawal, prompted by intelligence indicating Israeli preparations for long-range strikes, highlighted that Iraq’s airspace would be an unwitting corridor for Israeli and Iranian operations.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani is now caught in a complicated bind, attempting to uphold Iraq’s security partnership with the United States while simultaneously facing intense domestic pressure from powerful, Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) factions. These groups, emboldened by the Israel-Iran clash, have intensified their calls for American troop withdrawal and threaten renewed attacks against U.S. personnel, viewing them as legitimate targets and enablers of Israeli aggression.

keep readingShow less

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.