Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-08-18-at-4.55.02-pm

Not the first time our allies' biometric info got into 'the wrong hands'

When the US military was done using the Sunni 'Sons of Iraq' they literally turned their iris scans over to the Shia government.

Analysis | Middle East

The Intercept is reporting that the Taliban have seized U.S. military biometric devices which hold iris scans, fingerprints, and other data that can identify individuals who worked with American forces and other coalition partners. In other words, the very people who have targets on their backs and are already scrambling to get out of Afghanistan today. 

The report, written by Ken Klippenstein and Sara Sirota, does not say how the devices (called HIIDE, or Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment) were taken, but one U.S. military contractor knows what an incredible breach this could be, and how big the database is. “We processed thousands of locals a day, had to ID, sweep for suicide vests, weapons, intel gathering, etc.” the contractor explained. “[HIIDE] was used as a biometric ID tool to help ID locals working for the coalition.”

The Department of Defense did not respond to the Intercept’s request for comment.

The military was initially using the devices to screen terrorists and create a trove of names and info that they had planned to share with U.S. law enforcement agencies, according to the article. But we know their use went way beyond that, collecting personal data on innocent Afghans. While it is unclear whether the Taliban would have the proper tools to ultimately use the devices to access the database, an Army special forces veteran who spoke with the Intercept expressed concerns that they could get outside help. “The Taliban doesn’t have the gear to use the data but the ISI do,” the former Special Operations official said, referring to Pakistan’s spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence. 

“I don’t think anyone ever thought about data privacy or what to do in the event the [HIIDE] system fell into the wrong hands,” Welton Chang, chief technology officer for Human Rights First, himself a former Army intelligence officer, told the reporters. “Moving forward, the U.S. military and diplomatic apparatus should think carefully about whether to deploy these systems again in situations as tenuous as Afghanistan.”

This is a bit disingenuous. The U.S. military knows what happens when this information gets into the “wrong hands.” After it had used up the so-called “Sons of Iraq,” or “Sunni Awakening,” for the "surge" in 2007, the U.S. military handed over all of the biometric info for those allies to the Shia government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. 

At the time, U.S. Army Lt. Col. John Velliquette called the information, “a hit list if it gets in the wrong hands.” 

Reportedly, Maliki pledged to assimilate the Sunni fighters into his ranks. But after the U.S. left, he did the opposite, swiping Sunni men off the streets, disappearing them into jails, and driving them into economic desperation. The growing Islamic State presence was able to exploit the situation, and the rest is history. 

Given that this was 14 years ago maybe memories are short, but not likely. Losing control of these HIIDE devices, if true, illustrates a systematic, blatant disregard for the people the U.S. military is ostensibly there to help. Simply put, this isn’t the first time we’ve left partners out to dry.


US Marine gets an iris scan from an Iraqi civilian in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2005. (USMC/public domain)
Analysis | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.