Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Our Feckless State Department Is an Embarrassment
Soon, 18,000 Afghan translators could die, and their blood will be on our hands. We are approaching an emergency situation as we plan to leave Afghanistan. Although we have a program in place, the Special Immigrant Visa Program (established in 2009), to save those Afghanis who worked for us, our State Department demonstrates once again its inability to get out of its own way. The U.S Embassy in Kabul recently suspended visa operations.
And many people will die.
The first dire issue is the impossibly slow processing of the visas by the State Department. Even though they’ve known for months that a withdrawal date was approaching, they didn’t make the effort to find other ways to save these people in the meantime. The dangers of the Taliban making inroads are already apparent:
The Taliban is on the move—now contesting more than half of the country’s districts and controlling more than does the Kabul government. More than 400 central government forces and about 260 civilians were killed last month, the deadliest since the summer of 2019. The Taliban has targeted translators and their families in the past, killing hundreds, and they will continue to do so as they take more territory.
The State Department said that Covid-19 killed an embassy employee, and the safety of diplomatic personnel should always be a priority. But the department made a point of vaccinating its staff abroad for a reason: Its work is critical, even during a pandemic, as Afghanistan makes clear.
What are a couple of alternatives?
Even a functioning visa program is insufficient at this point. President Biden can save lives by doing more, such as the evacuation of applicants to a temporary third country as the process plays out. Or he could provide them with humanitarian parole, which grants temporary permission to enter the U.S.
Anthony Blinken has made a point of saying that he cares:
‘I’ve actually lost personal friends and colleagues who supported the Americans.’
U.S. officials say there is no plan to evacuate these Afghan translators. Secretary of State Tony Blinken said this recently on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’: ‘Evacuation is the wrong word. We’re determined to make good on our obligation to those who helped us, who put their lives on the line, put their families’ lives on the line working with our military, working with our diplomats.’
I don’t think the families of the translators care what he calls the process, or even that he cares. His sentiments won’t save lives. Keep in mind that the 18,000 people at risk probably doesn’t include family members of the translators.
Protestations by members of Congress Jason Crow and Michael Waltz appear to be falling on deaf ears:
‘We are here today to urge the Biden Administration. To do the right thing and to evacuate those who stood by us at great personal risk,’ Crow said. Waltz added a direct challenge to Biden who famously said in 1975 that the U.S. did not have an obligation to evacuate those Vietnamese who worked with the U.S. military and government.
I want to be clear, if he doesn’t act and he doesn’t get these people out, blood will be on his hands and on his administration’s hands,’ Waltz said. ‘And I, for one, will very publicly and very loudly hold him accountable for that.’
Crow added: ‘There is a moral imperative at play here. The American handshake has to mean something.’
The Senate proposed changes to the SIV program a little over one week ago; the House proposed organizing a task force to look into evacuation of the translators. Meanwhile, withdrawal of our troops is more than 50% complete and could be completed as early as July 4.
I am certain that once more, as we watch this inept administration, the world is taking notes. Both allies and enemies.
Published in Foreign Policy
Susan, you are correct that you were not saying that we should be a refuge for the entire world. The practical difficult is where to draw the line. There’s often strong-seeming argument for letting in any particular group under consideration, though I don’t think that you’ve considered any concerns about the demographics of this particular group.
Here’s something to think about. What do you think is the general attitude toward Israel among these 18,000-odd Afghans? Do you think that there might be any anti-Semitic attitudes among this group? Any “death to the Jews” or “death to Israel” types?
This does seem quite likely to me, though I have no way of knowing for sure. As I understand it, Afghanistan is over 99% Muslim — Wikipedia says 99.7%. I suspect that there is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, though perhaps not a moderate Islam, but in any event, I think that you’d be unlikely to find one in Afghanistan. Wikipedia actually reports that all of the Jews but two fled by 2004. Reportedly, one of the two died in 2005, and the last Jew in Afghanistan has plans to leave this year.
Would you want to know such things about these 18,000 Afghan translators, before letting them into the country?
What about their attitude toward other things? Sharia law generally? Honor killings in particular? Is there anything that might give you pause?
Both Douglas Murray and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have been busy documenting a number of problems that accompany Muslim immigration into Western countries. I think that a number of European countries made a significant mistake by admitting large numbers of such migrants around 2015. I am very reluctant to do anything similar.
We’re not talking about providing a refuge to everyone. We’re not even talking about providing a refuge to everyone to whom terrible things have happened. We’re talking about providing a refuge to people who stuck out their necks for us. Moral considerations aside, if we want to have any credibility in the world, we need to have people’s backs when they help us in this way.
How did this comment wander in?
To answer your questions, part of the clearance process is an interview. Concerns about their beliefs and attitudes could be brought up then. Believe it or not, Jerry, I think people are entitled to their ideas and thoughts. It is when those ideas drive behavior that I am concerned. (You forget I dated a Nazi.) The people being considered also had relationships with Americans in Afghanistan; I suspect those relationships would influence their attitudes about America.
For the record, I am not anti-Muslim. Only against people who hate Jews. Just as you’ve pointed out elsewhere, how do you know they’ll all hate Jews (anymore than I believe they all have the potential for becoming good American citizens)?
Also I didn’t call you a murderer. I said you’d be okay with the Afghanis dying at the hands of the Taliban if we don’t allow them in. I have reason to believe that the Taliban, with its track record, will kill every translator he can get his hands on. Don’t you think that’s a fair assumption?
I would be in favor of the program that lets in the translators and their families, and we should shut down the program that let in Ilhan Omar.
Foggy Bottom has been bad for a long time. It is infested with Democrats.
Just out of curiosity, where do translators now live, and how do they live and survive without being killed, if the taliban wants them all dead? Are their identities as translators widely known? Do they live on military compounds with their families?
The simple answer is, “I don’t know.” My guess is that some are still working and are protected by Americans. But if their jobs have come to an end, I can only guess that they’d want to lay low. In that economy, though, I don’t know how a person would hide out with a family in tow.
It’s worse than that. It’s infested with experts.
“Experts.” There, fixed it for you.