Follow us on social

Afghan-intepreters

'Operation: Allied Refuge' better be a speedy express

President Biden announced plans today to start evacuating at-risk Afghan interpreters and families. No criticism here.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Today, the Biden administration announced “Operation Allied Refuge” to begin evacuating vulnerable former Afghan interpreters and their families from Afghanistan.

For twenty years U.S. policy there undermined achievable goals by pursing lofty ideals through unaccountable spending and permanent troop deployments. Going forward, American policymakers must accept the limited ability of Washington to shape conditions on the ground and prioritize actions that are achievable. Evacuating at-risk translators and their families is something entirely in the control of President Biden and should be done with speed and dispatch. This is an opportunity for the United States to lead and other NATO partners should follow suit.

The United States has evacuated partners in past conflicts ranging from Vietnam to Kosovo. This mission is achievable, consistent with American values,  supported by a bipartisan group of lawmakers and veterans groups, and won’t place Americans at risk. In other words, it is an example of the kind of objective that Secretary Blinken pledged to the American people to carry out. There is also growing support for offering refugee status to a limited number of individuals from Afghan civil society who supported the U.S. mission through their work and face credible death threats. Such measures should not be cynically misconstrued as dooming the fledgling peace process to failure, lack of confidence in the resolve of the Afghan security forces, passive acceptance of a Taliban takeover, or a misguided inclination to save the world. Rather, it is a recognition that specific individuals who assisted the United States are at grave risk and we are in a position to help. 

The appointment of Ambassador Tracey Jacobson to lead the State Department’s effort to evacuate former Afghan interpreters will offer a much needed point person as former interpreters who are vulnerable to reprisals by the Taliban find themselves in the eleventh hour of the U.S. troop withdrawal. The priority now should be to evacuate all applicants for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program and not leave behind anyone simply because they are stuck in an earlier phase of a burdensome bureaucratic process. A preference should be given to relocating individuals to U.S. territory.

The Biden administration has received criticism from opponents of the withdrawal for primarily focusing on securing the U.S. Embassy, continued security for Kabul’s airport, and evacuating former interpreters. This despite the fact the United States continues to fund the Afghan security forces. But maintaining a diplomatic presence, ensuring Kabul remains connected to the world, providing the Afghan security forces with the means to fight, and protecting Afghans who directly supported the U.S. military mission are the most tangible ways that the Biden administration can continue to support Afghanistan.


US Military and Civilian personnel assigned with the Civil Military Operations (CMO) TEAM, made up of personnel representing Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Military Interrogations Team (MIT), Civil Affairs (CA), Medics, Interpreters, Embedded Media and Combat Camera (COMCAM), pose for a group photograph with the American Flag, at the CMO Alamo at Objective Colt, in Afghanistan, during Operation Mountain Sweep, conducted during Operation ENDURING FREEDOM. (2006)(US Army Photo/SPC MARSHALL EMERSON)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.