by hilzoy
Owen West, an ex-Marine who served in Iraq:
"As a Marine, I was taught never to leave a comrade-in-arms behind on the battlefield. But that's exactly what the State Department is doing to men and women who've sacrificed everything to help our troops - our Iraqi interpreters.When I last left Iraq 12 months ago, I promised to save two "terps" marked for assassination. Last month, I received a desperate e-mail from one of them: "Sir my situatione is so bad naw please save my life. Please help me sir."
A year after making my promise, I'm deeply ashamed that I haven't completed the mission. And I'm not alone: To help "their" terps, Marines and soldiers across the country are battling a bureaucracy that is at times more maddening than the Iraqi insurgency."
Read his account of the idiotic hoops these Iraqi interpreters are being made to jump through in order to get to safety, and weep.
Then read this:
"The State Department has stopped processing the applications of 551 Iraqi and Afghan translators seeking special visas to come to the United States, because the current legal quota of 500 visas for the program this year is about to be reached, according to department officials.The applicants, all of whom have worked for U.S. military forces, received an e-mail notice from the State Department's National Visa Center last week. "We have temporarily stopped processing cases," the message said, adding that "the applicant should NOT make any travel arrangements, sell property or give up employment until the US Embassy or Consulate General has issued a visa."
The halt is the latest obstacle for many of the several thousand translators who have worked for U.S. military units in Iraq and Afghanistan, risking their lives and leaving their families vulnerable to retaliation from insurgents who see them as accomplices of American troops. More than 250 interpreters working for U.S. forces or their contractors have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003."
What makes this completely incomprehensible is that Congress recently passed a law increasing the quota:
"A bill sponsored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and signed into law by President Bush last month raised to 5,000 the number of special visas available this year to Iraqi translators and other Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government or American contractors in the war zone. Officials with the departments of State and Homeland Security are still analyzing the legislation to work out the details of how the new program will be implemented. (...)Kennedy, in a statement issued yesterday, said: "It's appalling that the administration is taking so long to issue the guidance necessary to continue the Special Immigrant Visa program for Iraqis with close ties to our government. . . . Every day we delay only further endangers these heroic Iraqis who have saved American lives.""
What the article I just quoted doesn't say is that this bill was passed over a month ago. (It was actually an amendment to the Defense Reauthorization Bill, which was signed into law on Jan. 28.) We had a month to work out the details before we had to tell people who risked their lives to help us out that they'll just have to risk their lives some more.
This is shameful. It is inexcusable. When people help us out, we should help them in return. Some serious attention from the President or the Secretary of State could have prevented this. For that matter, some serious attention might have led the administration to deal with this problem a long time ago. Someday, we might once again have a President who takes his or her responsibilities seriously. That day cannot come soon enough.
Links from The List Project Blog.
If the majority of commenters on this blog had had their way, the US would have cleared the decks in Iraq a year ago or earlier, leaving the interpreters and all the other people under similar threat to the mercy of the lynch mobs.
Absolutely not. The antiwar movement is not the reason why interpreters and other Iraqis who've worked for the U.S. have had difficulty getting out. The real reason is that the Bush Administration doesn't want an exodus of Iraqi refugees to the United States to undermine their "smoke and mirrors" efforts to paint the Iraq War as a success.
Posted by: jonp | March 04, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Jesurgislac wrote:
"When a foreign occupation pulls out, one of the fairly certain things that will happen afterwards is that locals who worked for/gave help to the foreign occupation will be targeted."
That is just not true. In some occupations collaborators are quite popular and gain extra power and prestige from their role. In other situations they simply return to private life. Sometimes, they face criminal charges. Finally, sometimes they are liquidated.
Posted by: RickDFL | March 04, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Gary Farber wrote:
"absent, perhaps, their being convicted war criminals, or the like"
That is exactly the point. Some Iraqis feel that some interpreters are "the like".
Posted by: RickDFL | March 04, 2008 at 10:25 AM
RickDFL: That is exactly the point. Some Iraqis feel that some interpreters are "the like".
If there is evidence that an Iraqi interpreter with the US military abused their position as you suggest, then they should be tried for this, in a venue where the US military associated with the crimes could also be tried. (This is what the International Criminal Court would be useful for.)
But, if there is good reason to believe (and there is) that the interpreters and their families are at risk of being killed for helping the US military, then the first priority would be getting the people at risk to a place of safety.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 04, 2008 at 10:38 AM
RickDFL, why do you believe that those particular Iraqis (assuming the death squad that tortures and kills a specific interpreter and his family is even made up of Iraqis) have the moral authority to speak for the Iraqi people as a whole? Also, note Gary's use of the word "convicted".
Posted by: KCinDC | March 04, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Jesurgislac:
Neither Iraq nor the U.S. is a party to the ICC. If the Iraqis want to settle their issues through a criminal process, that is their business. If they want to fight a civil war, same thing.
KCinDC: Who speaks for the Iraqi people is a tough questions, but I am fairly certain the answer in not me, you, hilzoy or Owen West.
Posted by: RickDFL | March 04, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Neither Iraq nor the U.S. is a party to the ICC.
I know. Hence my use of "would be".
If the Iraqis want to settle their issues through a criminal process, that is their business.
Speaking of Iraqi justice...
In any case, if Iraqis working with the US military have abused their position to point out candidates for arrest/torture who were enemies, this could only justly be investigated and lead to criminal trials, if the US military who were arresting/torturing the individuals pointed out without further investigation than one person's word, were also on trial. As Americans who are part of the US military occupation can't be tried by the Iraqi judiciary for crimes they committed in Iraq, that makes Iraq a completely inappropriate venue for such trials.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 04, 2008 at 11:23 AM
At this point, no-one speaks for the Iraqi people - if that nebulous entity even exists.
There may be (circumstances alter cases) an obligation to hand over accused criminals to a state justice system. I see no such obligation to leave them to face vigilantism.
I would make the presumption of innocence and get them clear of the danger of being lynched. Afterward, when the situation has stabilized, let the Iraqi government make extradition requests, to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Posted by: Jim Parish | March 04, 2008 at 11:30 AM
And I feel you're a genocidal monster. Should I be allowed to act on that feeling?
This is not an attitude that works very well in the real world.
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 11:41 AM
So whatever some gang in Iraq wants to do shouldn't be prevented or even commented on by us outsiders, even if they're killing people for helping Americans? Does this also apply to whatever groups of people in Kenya or Darfur do? Does it mean that all dictators are doing justice and shouldn't be condemned by outsiders, who can't understand the situation in the country?
I'm fairly sure that the answer is not the death squads.
Posted by: KCinDC | March 04, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I think this is a reasonable, moral and ethical way to look at things. It strikes me that leaving things to vigilantism is quite problematic. And it smacks of the cartoon version of moral relativism to consider legitimate a viewpoint that thinks of "translators" as war criminals.
At some point, we make moral and ethical judgements. Supposedly "refraining" from doing making a judgement actually DOES make a judgement. You don't get to wash your hands like that. You're making a judgement and you can't pass it off to someone else.
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Rick, repeating that you DO prioritize the supposed interest of the Iraqi people is not a meaningful answer to WHY we should prioritize their interest. You ask me to put myself in their place, I ask you to put yourself in ours. Or the interpreters'. Again, why is the important point of view here, the Iraqi people's?
One other point: we have already scr**d over most Iraqis. We are not going to mend that harm in any significant way by giving them the collective opportunity to take revenge on our proxies -- that's a very small gain per Iraqi. Most of them won't care anyway. On the other side of the equation, the harm to each interpreter to whom we refuse sanctuary is as big as it gets (I'm assuming that any interpreter who thinks he needs to run knows more about his situation than you or I do). So your proposal is that we make a clean sweep by scr**ing over the only Iraqis we have NOT already harmed. Great, why leave a job half-done? Let's betray everyone.
Or, we could try to salvage what scrap of honor we can out of the situation by keeping faith with those who helped us. Just a thought.
Posted by: trilobite | March 04, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Jim Parrish wrote:
"I would make the presumption of innocence and get them clear of the danger of being lynched. Afterward, when the situation has stabilized, let the Iraqi government make extradition requests, to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis"
You set the U.S. up as the neutral arbitrator of an Iraqi dispute, instead of a very interested party. Suppose you were the invaded country and you wanted to deal with the 'terps'. Would you agree to this deal? Suppose the 'terp' had the invader kill your brother because he wanted your brother's house.
I suppose I might agree if there were large evidence that large numbers of wholly innocent interpreters were being killed (above and beyond that regular killings in Iraq). But I don't see anybody in the U.S. remotely interested in looking into what the 'terps' did to make their neighbors want them dead. There is just a blanket assumption that 'our guys' must be protected.
Posted by: RickDFL | March 04, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Interpreters are to be assumed guilty unless there's "large evidence" that they're innocent? I suppose it's their association with the Great Satan rather than those wise and just death squads.
But then if the terp is an Iraqi, why isn't his desire to kill my brother an expression of the will of the Iraqi people and thus the very definition of justice?
Sometimes I ridicule right-wingers going on about strawman liberals who hate America and think anyone opposed to the US must be a great guy, no matter how thuggish they are, but every once in a while someone like RickDFL comes along and reminds me that there may be a tiny group who aren't made of straw after all.
Posted by: KCinDC | March 04, 2008 at 12:27 PM
My name has only one 'r' in it. A small thing, but my own.
Suppose you were the invaded country and you wanted to deal with the 'terps'.
I am not, and cannot be, a country. Nor are the people threatening the lives of these terps a country. They are individuals, seeking revenge for some harm, real or imagined. They have no special standing - no more than any other lynch mob.
Members of lynch mobs may have legitimate grievances; that does not make their actions legitimate. That they would object to having their prey taken from them is of no significance: they are neither qualified nor entitled to levy justice.
Posted by: Jim Parish | March 04, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Stop this. You're distorting the position of other people. It isn't honest. It isn't right.
Of course the US is an interested party. That's precisely the reason why I am urging action.
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Oh. And THAT should be the default. It's YOUR job to argue why it shouldn't be.
So far, you've utterly failed to do so (and, in fact, refused to make a stab at it).
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 12:51 PM
gwangung:
"THAT should be the default. It's YOUR job to argue why it shouldn't be."
As a general principle, I think the fate of collaborators should be determined by their countrymen, not the invader. I think that because helping a country invade yours is generally a bad thing. If there are special cases where it is a good thing, I think the people of the invaded country, not the invader, are best able to render a sound judgment on the matter.
Posted by: RickDFL | March 04, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Should the fate of collaborators be decided by criminals who may or may not be their countrymen? Is trying to make sure services can be more effectively provided to those in need of those services the same thing as helping a country invade yours? How about trying to ensure that people who don't pose a threat to the stability of your cournty aren't mistakenly killed by the invaders? What is it that you think these collaborators are up to exactly, and who do think it is that poses a threat to their safety, Rick?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | March 04, 2008 at 01:32 PM
That's not what you're arguing here.
You're arguing that non-legal processes (i.e. vigilantes) should receive equal weight with legal processes. And if people holding pre-existing grudges want to determine their countrymen's fate, that should be allowed (like, say, people accusing rivals of being Taliban terrorists should be listened to without verifying their accusations).
Are you really sure you want to promote a process that's similar to Guantanamo in many ways?
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 01:48 PM
Which the people were you most inclined to ask?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 04, 2008 at 02:00 PM
"Again, why is the important point of view here, the Iraqi people's?"
There's obviously no point to asking RickDFL questions, since he doesn't respond.
I asked him a series of questions here. No response.
More here. No response. (I made other comments which got no response, as well, but without direct questions being asked.)
More here, and I finally wrote "I'll wait until you've responded to the questions I've asked you before responding again. Most particularly, until you've explained why human beings should be power-drilled to death because of your arid abstract theorizing."
Still no answers, though. If he ever wants to respond, I'll pick up the conversation again. But conversation where someone dodges all the questions but the one or two they like isn't conversation. RickDFL is just lengthening the list of unanswered absurdities, and so long as he can get away without answering, the list just gets longer. There's no point in that; it turns into a game of trolling, whether intentional or not.
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 02:07 PM
Gary's right. I was going to say it's like arguing with a torture apologist, but in fact RickDFL is being a torture apologist.
Posted by: KCinDC | March 04, 2008 at 02:20 PM
For the record, I have bowed out of this debate, since I don't see it going anywhere productive. Not answering RickDFL's points should not be construed as accepting them in any way. :)
Posted by: hilzoy | March 04, 2008 at 02:38 PM
Actually, RickDFL probably gave the only answer he has in his 01:14 PM, which is that it all boils down to no reasons beyond the "I think" he gives, with no further reasoning.
That seems to be all that's there.
I could be wrong, of course, and RickDFL could demonstrate that by actually responding to the questions asked by so many folks here, rather than just ignoring all but one or two, and then just repeating himself.
But meanwhile there's no point in just repeating variants of unanswered questions. Let us know if and when you want to get back to us, RickDFL, by answering previously asked questions, and then we'll get back to you, too.
Meanwhile, enjoy your deeply moral default stance in favor of death squads with power tools as the true expression of democracy and justice.
Obviously that's what the default should be, and petty justifications like "saving human life" are imperialistic invader nonsense. I'm just thankful that someone is cool-headed enough to see through all that "every life is valuable" and "we owe you for risking your life" crap, which is simply cover for oppression! The only way to defeat such oppression is more power drills in the hands of crazed religious fanatic lynch mobs!
That's true humanitarianism and liberation!
I just don't understand why everyone doesn't see it. What's wrong with you people?
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 04, 2008 at 02:43 PM
hairshirthedonist:
If our 'terps' were doing good for Iraq, I expect they will be well treated by their countrymen. Many Iraqis do so quite openly and are acquiring profit and power because of it.
gwanggung said:
"You're arguing that non-legal processes (i.e. vigilantes) should receive equal weight with legal processes".
I am unaware of any serious legal processes looking into the actions of the Iraqi 'terps'. We have two competing 'vigilante' procedures, each of which takes place outside of normal judicial accountability. Given the choice I prefer leaving Iraqis to deal with Iraqis.
Gary:
I did not respond to your questions because they were too numerous and too off point.
Posted by: RickDFL | March 04, 2008 at 02:49 PM
So none of the people from various factions being killed by various other factions were doing good for Iraq? Everyone who's been killed in Iraq, as long as it wasn't by an American (or someone working with Americans), was a bad guy? And these various factions that are at war with each other somehow speak with one voice as "the Iraqi people"?
If a gang of thugs beats you to death in your city, are they carrying out justice in the name of the American people (or the people of whatever country you live in)?
The fundamental flaw in your argument is that the death squads are not "the Iraqi people".
Posted by: KCinDC | March 04, 2008 at 03:30 PM
You are unaware. Period.
Remedy that.
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Translation: I've been rhetorically bitch-slapped and I won't take my medicine like an adult, so I'll duck the questions.
Posted by: gwangung | March 04, 2008 at 03:42 PM
The problem with "terps" is that this State Dept regards them as "perps". Two, they're little brown people, and Goopers don't want no more of them.
Three, the Goopers remember all them Viet Cong boat people who invaded Texas and elsewhere after we kicked their butt and left them to their rice paddies, declaring victory. And how they took them good jobs nobody else wanted, sent their kids to school and then voted Democratic. And how they kept alive the reality of a conflict and defeat they wanted never to acknowledge.
Fourth, the State Dept hasn't a clue how to go about "investigating" their background in order to comply with routine bureaucratic rules, and couldn't possibly declare them NOT to be terrorist moles. After all, they're, you know, not white or karishchun. Among other things, that would require admitting what a chaotic hell hole we've made of their country.
Fifth and finally, their presence would keep alive the painful personal stories, and constitute a testament of the tragedy we've made of their lives, their faiths and their country.
They would be living symbols of Dick Cheney's and his party's abject failure. They will move heaven and earth to keep them out - and blame the Democrats for it.
Posted by: EoH | March 04, 2008 at 04:29 PM
As a general principle, I think the fate of collaborators should be determined by their countrymen, not the invader
As a general principle, I think that collaborators should be protected by (and taken in by) the invaders. Though those who committed crimes should subsequently be judged for them. I doubt interpreters will be impacted by the crime-exception.
Posted by: dutchmarbel | March 05, 2008 at 09:04 AM