The people we're leaving behind | Hacker News Reader

The people we're leaving behind

newyorker.com

73 pointssheri17 comments

I was a Marine military advisor in both Iraq and Afghanistan (1 year each) and lived and worked with local forces and interpreters. They endured the same hardships and dangers we did. When we needed supplies, they went out in town and bought them for us without any complaints. These guys weren't 'house cat' interpreters in Kabul or Baghdad, these guys were out with us in the shittiest parts of southern Helmand province. Some can’t even go back home.

These guys accepted more risk for our country than many Americans would and they did it proudly. Sure, some did it for money. But these guys love America as much as we do because they know what it stands for--something that's difficult to see sipping Starbucks, waiting for the new iPhone to come out. We’re incredibly fortunate, but we forget that sometimes. They've earned the right to be citizens, which is more than many of us can say because we were just lucky enough to be born here.

Are they all great? No, but I’m not talking about those guys. I’m talking about the ones that are phenomenal and they deserve better. For our interpreters, we screened and recommended the ones we thought were qualified. The process should be thorough, but not as cumbersome and slow as it is now, particularly for those who are vouched for by senior ranking officers. In my heart I believe we owe it to them for their sacrifices. If they didn't do their job, there'd be fewer of us coming home. The green-on-blue threat in Afghanistan is real. You guys talking about money are missing the point.

This goes back to Iraq? To my knowledge, this has been happening at least since Vietnam... http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=6009

And the US has tons of Vietnamese in it, partly as a result of that

And some of those (don't know the percentage) got here as refugees; they had to go the dangerous way, rather than the official way. My ship in the Navy picked up a boatload of refugees, then sank their boat as a navigation hazard. We took them to the Phillipines, don't know where they went after that.

The information missing here is that they were paid 10 times the average Afghani wage, knowing fully well what danger they were getting into. They were very well compensated for that danger.

It's not only the US; ex-workers for the German Bundeswehr have the exact same "problem":

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/afghan-employees-o...

(Ironically, this article conjures the impression that other NATO countries, including the US, willingly accept these people)

So instead of $35 a month, they're paying them $350 a month? They'll be rich the rest of their lives! But seriously, that's not the point of the article.

It shouldn't matter how much or how little the US Government is paying them, the point is that if the US was willing to trust them in sensitive situations, they should also trust them to enough to grant them a Visa.

It also doesn't matter if the US is alone in exercising poor judgment; that doesn't make it right.

Some of these people helped the US/others with the belief that their country would be a better place after they left. Not worse.

Quoting raw dollar values is completely meaningless if you do not also consider the price index in the country where that money will be spent (hence why I quoted the factor to average pay).

We pay soldiers hazard pay, and I don't think it's 10 times the base pay.

I don't understand the implication between "hiring people in a foreing country" and "giving them unlimited visas into your country". Does not compute.

Well, then they should have hedged their bet.

> "We pay soldiers hazard pay, and I don't think it's 10 times the base pay."

Right, and we pay soldiers extra to be in hazardous situations - yet when push comes to shove we're still responsible for getting them out.

We don't leave people to die because we paid them and they knew the risks. We don't leave firefighters in burning buildings and we don't leave miners underground, either.

> "Well, then they should have hedged their bet."

I am not sure what mentality would inspire someone to look at a person facing torture, abuse, and eventual beheading, and say "welp, shoulda hedged your bets".

It only sounds that way because the original proposition is ridiculous. You become a traitor to your country for monetary gain and expect the invading force to change the peoples' sentiment? That has never worked, as far as I can tell.

Instead, these people take the money and use it to relocate to a nicer place. If the country is still falling apart after the invasion, even more so.

I would rather take the view that if you were brave enough to oppose the Taliban you are a patriot considering what the Taliban want for your country.

Who's the traitor?

Calling them a traitor is pretty preposterous. Your argument also seems to indicate that monetary gain is the only motivation for these folks doing what they do. It is possible that they are true patriots for their country fighting injustice at the cost of their own homes.

wow, you sound like a real charmer.

> It shouldn't matter how much or how little the US Government is paying them, the point is that if the US was willing to trust them in sensitive situations, they should also trust them to enough to grant them a Visa.

You state this as if its a fact. It's not.

Just because A is true does not indicate that B is true.

It's true that they were very well compensated for the work.

I think it's worth keeping in mind, though, that controlling a large group of cultural natives who've integrated into your cultural leaves a lot of room open for further benefits on both sides of the equation. Of course, that way lies empire - maybe you don't want to take the trouble.

But I think the real reason we don't do it (the reason that the author of this piece brings up and then, rather oddly to my mind, dismisses) is that career politics doesn't reward building up long-term assets (outside of some very specialized circumstances), whereas it most certainly does punish 'letting in the wrong people'. There's little incentive to take the initiative if you haven't already been given an order.

OK, they were well paid. So what? It seems to me that the purpose of your post may be to impugn their integrity or say that they were collaborating with an evil enterprise, and therefore do not deserve to get a lifeline.

File this under: No good deed goes unpunished.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com