Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

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.