Blog No. 293. Afghanistan: Have We No Shame?

On April 22, Blog No 287 detailed the several flaws in President Biden’s rationale for our precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan, pointing out the negative consequences likely to flow from our departure. Among those consequences is the fate of Afghans who bravely worked with our forces:

Women will be far from the only objects of Taliban brutality. High on the list for retaliation will be Afghans who worked for or cooperated with American forces. As Phil Caruso wrote in the Washington Post,

Hundreds of thousands of Afghans have risked their lives directly supporting U.S. forces in positions ranging from security guards to cooks to interpreters. Approximately 17,000 Afghan former interpreters alone await adjudication of their Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applications….America’s Afghan allies face severe consequences at the hands of the Taliban. The Taliban have long insisted that those Afghans who have worked for the United States should be punished by death. They have delivered on this promise time and again.

In the nearly two months since that Blog was posted, painfully little progress has been made. Indeed, the embassy in Kabul, concerned with Covid, stopped processing visa applications. On Tuesday, Maine’s Senator Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, exclaimed in frustration, “I want the White House’s hair on fire, I want them to do everything within their power to solve this problem….I’m not being critical of the administration, but I think it’s time to step up their game.”

As President Biden returns from his successful European trip, he will be confronting a myriad of domestic problems and the daunting challenges of negotiating with both Republicans and progressives in his own party.  In that milieu, the fate of Afghan translators could easily get—or remain—lost. But if it is, it will be to our lasting shame.

The media has not overlooked the issue. Five years ago the New York Times urged that “Failing to keep our promise to Afghans who risked life and limb in the battlefield would add a shameful chapter to the mixed legacy of America’s longest war.” In recent weeks, the urgency of the situation has been widely recognized. For example:

“The Afghan translators risked their lives helping the U.S. — following the rules and earning a chance at the American dream. Abandoning them now is unconscionable.”

&

“Afghan translators deserve special visas—and fast”

Wall Street Journal & Washington Post

While there are options, time has grown short and is rapidly growing shorter. Although Biden’s commitment was to leave Afghanistan by September 11, the withdrawal from Afghanistan is more than half done and now America and NATO allies are expected to be fully out of Afghanistan as soon as July. How long thereafter the Afghan government will survive is a matter of speculation, but the actuarial prognosis is not encouraging. And the situation of the Afghan translators grows increasingly dire. On Wednesday, Congressman Steve Israel wrote in the Hill:

One former translator told the New York Times, “I get phone calls from the Taliban saying, ‘We will kill you’ — they know who I am and that I worked for the Americans.” A U.S. official deployed in Afghanistan told the American Legion that his translator “has a bounty on his head. The Taliban has no remorse. They will torture, rape and kill his kids, his wife, his mom and dad, brothers and sisters -whoever they can find – in front of him. Then they will behead him.”

The rescue of Afghan translators has been impeded by excessive rigidity in scrutinizing visa applications. As the New York Times reported:

The slightest blemish during years of otherwise stellar service can torpedo a visa application and negate glowing letters of recommendation from American commanders. In the last three months of 2020 alone, State Department statistics show, 1,646 Afghans were denied one of the special visas, which are issued to applicants satisfying demanding requirements and rigorous background checks even though interpreters would already have passed security screenings.

Among reasons cited for denial were the failure to prove the required length of service, insufficient documentation, failure to establish “faithful and valuable service” and “derogatory information.”

More than 18,000 Afghans are awaiting decisions on their S.I.V. applications, according to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan. Many say they are seized by dread, fearing they will be denied, or approved only after they have been hunted down and killed.

Moreover, the Washington Post has reported that visas have been denied simply because applicants could not show that they “have experienced or are experiencing a threat” by reason of their employment. As a result, applicants who claim that they face future threats — such as revenge attacks by the Taliban —have been rejected.

Finally, the process has been interminably slow, requiring up to 900 days to process and grant a visa. Clearly, the criteria for granting visa applications and the process of reviewing them are in need of radical reform. But there is no time for that now. The urgent need is for a plan to transport the Afghan translators and their families to a place of safety to await the sorting out of visa niceties.

Even that, however, will not be easy. With our withdrawal, our capacity to carry out a massive evacuation may become limited. As reported in Defense One on June 2:

Advocates estimate there are about 70,000 translators and family members who are waiting on a decision, said Matthew Zeller, a retired Army captain and advocate for Afghan interpreters. To move that many people out of the country between June 2 and Sept. 11, the military would need to move 703 people per day, which would require four airlifter flights. But if the withdrawal is, as reported, to be complete by July 4, that number jumps to 10 flights and more than 2,200 people per day, according to data compiled by the Association of Wartime Allies.

Then, of course, there is the question of the location to which the evacuees would be transported. On the assumption that relocation within the United States may not be feasible, legally or politically, one possibility is that they could be housed on Guam. That suggestion was made in an urgent letter sent to President Joe Biden on June 4 by the bipartisan Honoring Our Promises Working Group, which includes 21 House lawmakers led by veteran Reps. Seth Moulton and Jason Crow. 

In its June 2 article, Defense One reported that:

With time running out, the Pentagon is still developing plans to evacuate Afghans whose lives would be in danger from the Taliban after U.S. forces depart—but there’s still no order from the White House to move anyone, yet.

As of today, more than two weeks later, time is still running out and there is still no order from the White House…yet. Can anyone set afire the hair in the White House?