Is the US Abandoning Afghan Interpreters to Certain Death?
Afghan locals who helped the US were promised visas to America. They may be left behind to fight the Taliban on their own.
"I was getting letters from Taliban, they were showing up at my house and everywhere. They were telling me that they were going to kill me or a member of my family, or kidnap my son," says Janis Shinwari, a former Afghan interpreter for the American military.
The U.S. military relies heavily on locals in Afghanistan and Iraq to serve as interpreters. The Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project estimates that 50,000 Iraqi and Afghan nationals served as U.S. military interpreters over the past decade-plus.
Interpreters provide one of the most crucial roles in a military unit—without them, service members would not be able to communicate with local populations. It's also one of the most dangerous roles. In Afghanistan, the Taliban labels interpreters traitors and has no compunction about killing them and their loved ones.
"Interpreters have become a very big target of the Taliban and Al Queda," says Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). "There's been a lot of beheadings of people that have worked with the West."
The U.S. was able to recruit interpreters by promising them American visas when the war ended. "If we completely pull out of Afghanistan and we don't bring these interpreters back," says Kinzinger, "they're going to be killed. Their families are being killed too. Their houses are being burned down. It is very messy over there."
An officer in the Air National Guard and a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, Kinzinger is pushing Congress to extend and amend the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa Program. The program was established in 2009 to give visas to Afghan nationals who helped the U.S. military. The program has been extremely inefficient and it can take years for an application to be processed. From 2009 to 2013, Congress said 7,500 visas could be issued but the State Department approved only 2,000.
"A lot of it is because of bureaucratic wrangling," says Kinzinger. "While we do need to have good background checks and we do need to be cautious about this, its been way too slow at this point and a lot of translators have given their lives in the wait."
The State Department has responded to the criticism by improving the processing time. So far in 2014, approximately 2,300 Afghans received visas out of an allocation limit of 3,000. But State expects to run out of allocated visas within a few weeks and the whole program expires in September, leaving 6,000 applicants in limbo.
Secretary of State John Kerry has appealed to Congress to extend the program and to grant more visas for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30.
If left behind, many interpreters will die at the hands of the Taliban. Janis Shinwari was able to escape that fate and moved to Virginia in October with his wife and two children. His visa came largely due to the efforts of Army Capt. Matt Zeller, whose life he saved (Shinwari is credited with saving the lives of at least four other American soldiers). In 2008, Zeller returned to the U.S. while Shinwari stayed in Afghanistan to continue his work as an interpreter.
"It was the hardest goodbye I've ever had in my life," says Zeller. "If he had been an American he would have been getting on that plane with us. It didn't feel right."
Zeller relentlessly pressured the State Department to issue Shinwari his visa. He eventually succeeded and now the two friends are focused on not only bringing more interpreters to America but also providing food, shelter, and job opportunities to them once they arrive through Zeller's nonprofit, No One Left Behind.
Increasing and extending the visa program is "the right thing to do," says Rep. Kinzinger, who stresses not just the promises the U.S. made in the past but how abandoning local partners will affect operations in future wars. "America is going to find itself in another war one day—it's a reality. And then if we go in and we try to bring the local population on our side, and they look at history and look at all the promises we made in the past that we didn't follow through [on], that harms our national security because we can't convince them that America stands by its word."
About 6 minutes.
Produced by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Joshua Swain, Tracy Oppenheimer, and Winkler. Narrated by Todd Krainin.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new videos go live.
Music by The Abbasi Brothers.
Photos courtesy of Matt Zeller, Janis Shinwari, U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Jason Epperson, Staff Sgt. Christopher Allison, Staff Sgt. Ezekiel R. Kitandwe, Cpl. Adam Leyendecker, Staff Sgt. Eric James Estrada, Representative Adam Kinzinger, Cpl. John McCall, Lance Cpl. Bobby J. Gonzalez, Tech. Sgt. Kevin Wallace, Tech. Sgt. Efren Lopez, and Niklas Bildhauer.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So let me get this straight -
(1) These guys risked their lives for the United States
(2) Congress passed a law to recognize their service by giving them immigrant visas, BUT
(3) Many visa applications are backlogged AND
(4) The Congressional authorization for the visas may expire.
Who the heck is going to stick his neck out for the U.S. if this sort of crap persists?
No one. What is being done is nothing short of evil.
No one. What is being done is nothing short of evil.
double+ evil
If Congress had any cojones, they'd requisition funds and lease a couple of airliners from an airline and fly these people out themselves.
McCain, Schumer, et al could get in on this. Perhaps Glenn Beck will provide some $$.
Admit anyone who gets an affidavit from a comrade-in-arms that they served the U.S. - then process the application while the guy is in the U.S. If the application is rejected, find the applicant in his U.S. residence - use the same immigration-enforcement people as the ones who chase illegal entrants from Mexico.
That sounds like a decent plan. Don't want a replay of what happened in SE Asia.
Thanks, RN, I'm a bit too young to remember that. I thought something similar had happened when we left Vietnam.
This is no different from past practice. The US politicos like to talk big but never back it up.
Consider how the egged on rebellions behind the iron curtain. I bet there was a ton of this going on with Indians in the 1600s. And I doubt it was restricted to Norte Americanos either.
Memories are short when people are desperate.
I know of at least two incidents in Texas history at least:
The Tonkawa (specifically their history during the Republic and after)
and
the Alabama-Coushatta during the same period.
WARNING
You are reading 4 day-old comments because the Weekend Crew is too fucking lazy to strip them out before reposting them.
After reading the fine print, they found out that they were going to each receive a $50 prepaid Visa card that they could use to donate to the Democrat campaign of their choice on a particular day in September.
I feel bad for the people that trusted us, but we don't need to be there.
No, but we can at least make sure that they have the opportunity to live in a civilized country.
American foreign policy summed up by a Bluto Blutarsky quote: "You fucked up, you trusted us!"
Why not?
Yeah, this guy's a drop in a very big bucket. Every one who helped build a road. Every girl who went to school. Anyone who believed us when we said help us and we'll make things better and would not abandon. They all now have giant targets on their back. Let the next round of war cruelty begin. This is not an argument to stay there. It's an argument to stay out of nation building altogether.
No problem, fly them to Mexico an have them walk across the border. It has worked well for millions of people previously.
Hey,that would violate Mexican immigration policy. And you know how much our government respects Mexican law.
Imagine this: In 2001, at the age of 14, you get a job washing clothes on a US Army Special Forces Forward Operating Base (FOB). You live on the base, because if you leave, you'll be killed. You have no family, because they're all dead. Over time you learn to speak English, and at the age of 18 you start going out on mission as an interpreter. While the units you support rotate home every six months or so, the FOB is your home, and there is no going home for you. The FOB is your home and the soldiers you support are your family. When they get shot at, you get shot at. When they get rocketed, you get rocketed. When they lose a friend, you lose a friend. When they go outside the wire, you go outside the wire. You've spent more time in combat fighting alongside US Soldiers, than 99.9% of US Soldiers. They keep telling you that you'll be rewarded, that you'll get a visa and opportunities you've never had, that you've got a life to look forward to that doesn't involve fighting and bloodshed. You'll have a home that's not surrounded by Hesco barriers and concertina wire. Some day. Just keep fighting. It'll happen, if you don't get killed first. The only problem is that after 10 years of fighting, the odds you'll make it are getting slimmer every day, and you know it.
Yea, we suck.
Crap, what a buzzkill.
Thanks for the nut punch.
You're welcome. It's what I do best.
That you, Balko?
That guy deserves more than a visa, they ought just make him a citizen. 🙂
Good video: https:// news.vice.com/video/the-interpreters-part-1
There are hundreds, if not thousands of interpreters who are in this situation.
"Well, they deserve to die for being Muslims."-John
Maybe we should have cleared that with the American people first.
There's a reason the Founders formed a Representative Republic, and not a Democracy.
So it's ok to let those who helped us get their heads cut off? Right or wrong we got them in this fix and then skedaddled. You'd think we could summon up a shred of decency and save them from being butchered.
Or they could fight the people who want to cut their heads off.
Don't you think they're a bit outnumbered and outgunned? They were already helping to fight them, you know, that's why they're in trouble. And the people who they were helping were forced to leave them behind.
Your mistake is expecting decency from the people who run government. They are for the most part dishonest, dishonorable, sociopathic oath-breakers.
That Doctor in Pakistan who helped Obama find Bin Laden is sill in prison Do you really think Obama cares? He is here for one reason and on reason only Destroy America!
This isn't new.
We did the same thing to our Hmong allies during the Vietnam and "Secret" War.
Who were America's allies during the Secret Wars? The X-Men? The Wrecking Crew? Mattel?
Our own police forces need to keep this lesson in mind if they ever try to use the Army to create the Statist Utopia. Payback is an irrational bitch.
With that said I wish we could've at least brought these guys back to our bases in the US. Put them to work as language instructors while we sort out their visas.
No wonder US "Nation Building" programs fail, all the people the US hires have no interest in building their own nation, they just want a visa to the US.
How in the world are any of these countries suppose to create a good society if the people in them first thought is running to the USA? No surprise that the Iraqi army dropped its guns and ran.
Also, I was told and I have heard it from as far back as Vietnam that the US was fighting to help these people build their own democratic countries, not that these people were fighting for the US so why is the US responsible for them when they failed to fight for their own freedom? Not a single Vietnamese, Hmong, Cambodian, Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Afghani, etc fought for my freedom or my country so I don't owe them a thing.
This illustrates that helping other people fight their wars is only justifiable if there's a US interest. In Afghanistan that would include flushing out Al Quaeda. As to whether we did this properly, or fell victim to mission creep and tried to democratize the Afghans, that is not the fault of the Afghans who served as translators. *They* didn't cause any policy errors.
By hypothesis, we fight for our own interest. Locals who help us are thus helping us fight for our own interest. So from the U.S. point of view, we owe them. If they help out their own countries, too, that's an add-on.
And if repaying those who helped us means granting their request to leave the dangers of their own country, so be it.
"""""Locals who help us are thus helping us fight for our own interest.""
The locals were paid for a job. They have their own country and if they don't want the Taliban running it then they better get a gun, learn how to use it and fight for the life they want to lead. If they fought for someone elses interests then they were idiots and we have enough idiots in the US already
The worlds problems cannot be solved by moving all the worlds problems to the US.
Unless they have it in their contract with the US that they get a free flight out then they have no right to come to the US and they need to fix their own country.
Yeah, there's no way the U.S. could benefit from having immigrants who are so committed to this country they risked their lives for it. Just let them wait in line after everyone's Uncle Bob. That'll show 'em!
What we need instead are citizens whose civic ideal is Where's Mine? - the Julias and Pajama Boys of the world are all we need to build a better country!
These guys have already shown that they are not loyal to Afganistan by wanting to run away, why do you think they will be loyal to anything in the USA?
Also who is going to pay for these guys, refugees get all sorts of money stolen from the taxpayer
Seriously? Unless you're descended exclusively from Native Americans or enslaved Africans, you're going to have ancestors who showed themselves "disloyal" to some other country by leaving it.
We could even coin a phrase for it - "nation of immigrants" or something.
Melting pot.
Near as I can tell, "Melting Pot" is now a racist term because TEH KULTUR or something.
BTW, Francisco, your speech in AS is one that should not be skipped. Lotta good stuff there.
... Hobbit
One of my favorite parts. That and Reardon's trial.
Sorry, no more melting pot, we are multicultural now.
So we are agreed, just because someone comes to the US does not mean that they have any loyalty to something in the US.
And I don't think we need any who are loyal to the imperial US and its overseas wars
"just because someone comes to the US does not mean that they have any loyalty to something in the US."
Good work, soldier - thanks to you, that straw man was destroyed, it's nothing but a pile of hay!!
And why stop at just interpreters, how about the Afghan Police or Army or civil service, or western trained doctors or teachers, they are just as much in danger as the interpreters?
Lets move all of Afghanistan to Reason Magazine headquarters
I don't think Congress was obeying Reason's demands when it allowed visas for Afghans who fought for or on behalf of the U.S. government (not the Afghan government, note well).
Reason simply suggests that the program should be continued - and more speedily administered. Treason!
They were contract employees who got the pay that their contract called for. Show me anything in their contract that gives them a visa to the US?
Really, *another* straw man?
Not a straw man at all. They were hired, if they did not like the contract they should have not signed on.
They should have *ignored* the specific statute which said if they worked for the U.S. but endangered their lives for doing so, they could get a chance to relocate to the U.S.?
That was EXACTLY the deal. Coming to the US was part of their payment.
Really, so it should be in writing in their contract. So just show that contract.
Look pal. My wife had an interpreter when she was there. It was part of the deal, and she saw several processed out.
WHether written or verbal. It's a contract.
"""WHether written or verbal. It's a contract.""'''
Not if verbal. The US is a nation of laws. Unless the contract is written and follows US laws it is not legal
Just like going to a US recuiting office, the recruiter can promise the moon, but you only get what is written down and only if it follows US law.
You are a fucking asshole. It WAS part of the contract. There was a Congressional program authorizing it. Did you even read the fucking article.
Admit you were wrong and stop being a dick!
Admit you were wrong and stop being a dick!
I've been reading this sub-thread trying to figure out what this guy's fucking problem is. Guess he just can't bear the thought of those dirty Afghans who risked their lives assisting US personnel contaminating his pristine nation.
The worlds problems cannot be solved by the worlds problems moving to the US
And I don't support imperial US, its wars or its contract personnel.
"The worlds problems cannot be solved by the worlds problems moving to the US"
So now you've slain *three* straw men! You should get some kind of medal.
The worlds problems cannot be solved by the worlds problems moving to the US
Congratulations.
This is the same fuckwit who, a few months ago, went on a tear proclaiming that military leaders should be tried for implementing the policies that they were ordered to implement by civilian authorities. He didn't see the problems posed by the military subverting civilian oversight.
His problem is that he is stupid and irrational.
So the US government promised visa's before Congress authorized it in 2009.
So all the people who promised it prior to 2009 should be charged as criminals since they were promising something before it was legal. How can you put something in a contract that was not legal?
You aren't real bright are you? I would imagine we were having problems finding people willing to risk their lives for us, so they got approval to incentivise them.
Regardless, you are simply a bigoted troll, who thinks it's okay to break your word (kinda disgusting actually). You've lost the argument and we are done.
So while on one hand we were wasting US lives and money Nation Building in Afghanistan, on the other hand we could not find any Afghanis who would even interpret without the promise to run to the US and away from the country we were Nation Building
Shouldn't that have been a clue that the whole project was a waste of lives and money?
"Shouldn't that have been a clue that the whole project was a waste of lives and money?"
I think you're missing GKC's point about it being about these particular individuals who made these particular agreements in this particular circumstance, which is in no way an argument in support of the entire enterprise.
You are here making an anti-immigration argument, followed by an argument against nation-building when the topic under discussion is promises the US government made to foreign allies.
Ships passing in the night.
You sure refuted the part of this video where they said these guy had a positive-law right to come to the U.S.!
these guys
Do a little Google Fu. Look up verbal contract. And oral contract.
Do yourself a favor: do some research on the, as you say, laws of this country before spouting off about what you clearly don't know about the laws of this country.
Putz
"Not if verbal. The US is a nation of laws. Unless the contract is written and follows US laws it is not legal"
Not true. Sorry, but just not true.
Take construction as an example, especially commercial construction with tight deadlines and delay damages. In such a context agreements are made verbally all of the time, as there is not time to stop and write up the changes before things need to be done. These agreements are legally enforceable. They are not ideal, and it can be a problem when there are disputes, but they are not null and void just because they are verbal.
War is perhaps even a higher stake sort of situation than construction.
But we are talking about the US government and that is suppose to be about the law, not verbal contract. Joe in Afghanistan can't walk around handing out US visas unless authorized by writen law.
So, are you arguing that when US soldiers in Afghanistan need interpreters, they should put out ads in local trade papers per public contract code, have some lawyers draft up some agreements to have their lawyers review and amend so that a fair compensation package for the services can be negotiated, formalized and legally executed?
Not if verbal...Unless the contract is written and follows US laws it is not legal
Remind me never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, to do business with you. Basically, what you've just said, is that you're a dishonest piece of shit and, unless someone can force you to honor the terms of your agreements under threat of government force, you don't consider your word binding.
Unless the contract is written and follows US laws it is not legal
Bzzzt! Verbal contracts are valid under most circumstances (Real Estate being one big exception).
... Hobbit
Only when people are authorized to do it by law and most people in government don't have that power.
Again, this debate has been on what the positive law ought to be - specifically, Congress is being urged to extend and expand the visa program, and the immigration authorities are urged to process applications quicker. And the argument was based on such ideas as national honor and national security, not the positive law.
If the positive law was on the side of these beleaguered translators, then there would be no need for Congress to step in, duh!
They passed a law authorizing it. The reason they're not getting their visas is a bureaucratic backlog...not a factor of it not being a valid contract.
Did you read the article at all or are you just a fucking moron?
They gave out promises prior to the law authorizing them to give those promises.
And then they passed the law, dipshit.
You're the world's worst fake Internet attorney.
But now they want to amend and extend the law so what you want is not legal until the law is changed. I see no reason to waste more money on Afghanistan
You don't really understand how laws work, do you?
I think your mom's calling you for nap time, Billy...go get your sippy cup full of Juicy Juice and fuck off while the grown-ups talk.
Wasting money on Afghanistan? Fuck you, kid. A plane ticket costs peanuts. If you allowed them to, these terps would gladly pay their own fare.
In order for the doj to get people to give testimony necessary to convict dangerous, powerful criminals, they use the witness protection program. No one would turn rat if their safety wasn't going to be protected. Likewise, these interpreters were led to believe that the u.s. would stay in Afghanistan until the Taliban were finished. Although that is clearly no longer case, we still have a duty to provide safety.
Furthermore, is this how you conduct your own affairs? Could you tell someone who has faced death with you, even saved your life, "sorry, pal. You should have gotten that in writing."
This is depressing.
You pick up arms for this country and you deserve to be here more than most of us.
If only we had some type of Executive who was in charge of running the Fed Gov't, then maybe that Executive could take a few hours off from fundraising/golf/vacation and get some people in a room and solve this.
They were not fighting for the US they were fighting for nation building in Afghanistan.
Not one Afghani fought to defend the US.
Right, because stabilizing the country (even if temporarily) had nothing to do with the mission of hunting bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
You really are a fucking moron.
You mean the guy in Pakistan?
Who was originally in Afghanistan, where we set up our support bases to conduct operations in Pakistan.
You realize how the military works, right? When conducting operations in a country in which there is no capability (Pakistan) we use another nearby country from which to conduct operations. And we have to stabilize that country to enable operations to continue...especially if the insurgency in the country we're in is supportive of the people we're trying to get.
You're a shitty fake Internet general too, apparently.
So the whole 'Nation Building' story was just a lie to cover for this temporary stabilization which has lasted twice as long as WW2?
Are there any other lies you want to tell me about?
How about when Bush said it was not inportant if we got Osama and that we were instead going to build a new Afghanistan based on freedom and democracy. Must have been a lie since how could they do that if they were handng out contracts to Afghanis so they could run away from Afghanistan
Sorry...too busy to read you a bedtime story right now. You'll have to go research that on your own once your nap is over.
And get a grown-up to help you, because you obviously have trouble understanding context.
And 99% of the fighting in Afghanistan was not about bin Laden and al-Qaeda, it was about the Taliban and other locals
You mean the Taliban who were allies with al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 and with whom al-Qaeda was still conducting operations in Afghanistan after we invaded?
Congratulations, you've made a stupid argument in every comment you've posted on this thread. That's a special kind of perfection.
So our plan was not to temporarily stabilize Afghanistan to fight Osama but to defeat the previous government of Afghanistan and impose a new government. That is a long term job and wouldn't we need as many Afghans o our side as possible to stay and fight and not give them visas to run away?
How do you create a long term pro-US government in Afghanistan when the pro-US Afghans can run to the US?
You don't...because creating a pro-U.S. government was never the point.
Your ignorance and inability to read for comprehension bites you again. Capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda was the point. Stability in Afghanistan was just a temporary condition necessary for us to achieve that goal. If you'd ever read about our gunboat diplomacy era in Latin America, you'd understand that we don't go into other nations to help them fix their countries...we do it to meet a particular need of our own. We didn't give a shit about the Afghan government after the Soviets left and we shouldn't care about this Afghan government now.
We should, however, care about the people who helped us who we made promises to...because when we screw them over, that stops others from being willing to help or work with us in the future.
There guys are doing it all wrong. Instead of applying for Visas, what they need to do is get a one way ticket to Honduras, and then hop a train to the USA, It's a guaranteed in for everyone.
Just tell everyone that they are 16.