NYP: Betrayed By State

[flashback]

NY Post: BETRAYED BY STATE OUR BUREAUCRACY IS KILLING IRAQIS WHO HELP OUR TROOPS

By OWEN WEST

February 29, 2008 -- AS a Marine, I was taught never to leave a comrade-in-arms behind on the bat tlefield. 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.

Shunning those who risk death to help us deliver freedom is un-American.

On my second tour in Iraq in 2006-7, I was posted to an obscure town outside Ramadi to advise an Iraqi battalion. They were hardy soldiers with a hard mission - roadside bombs were commonplace in the area. My team couldn't have functioned without our two interpreters, who I'll call Alex and Reyes.

Soon after a childhood friend accused Alex of collaboration for serving as an interpreter, his brother was tortured to death in a dump. His father disowned him.

Reyes was wounded in a bombing that targeted the US troops for whom he was translating. When he went home to reassure his family, a neighbor saw the neat bandages - and spread the word that Reyes worked for the Americans, making him a marked man.

Iraqi interpreters are men and women without a country. By helping our troops, they're building a better future for Iraq - but they become prime targets for the enemy, and are forsaken even by ordinary Iraqis. Spies and assassins lurk in every city. The police and the army, with their scams and tribal loyalties, don't protect the terps - whose loyalty therefore lies with the Americans.

Alex and Reyes - two combat veterans, proven in loyalty and fluent in Arabic - wanted to become US Marines. Given the challenging stateside recruiting environment, I tried to get them fast-tracked - getting a general to write glowing letters of endorsement.

It took me two months after returning home to assemble the initial documents to apply for a special visa, which included two security screenings by the US military.

The packages then made their way through another screening by the Department of Homeland Security - which eventually forwarded them to State for its own lengthy screening and an entirely new set of paperwork.

Then a State Department clerk wrote to say that both "interrupters" needed new Iraqi passports. It was already clear that interrupting was exactly what State thought the terps were doing.

Bizarrely, State said the new passports were needed to prevent fraud. Yet State knows full well that anyone can get an Iraqi passport by forking over enough cash - top terrorists have two or three.

But you also have to apply in person, waiting in chaotic lines at one of just a few ministry offices. As marked men, the terps had to dress in sweat suits and infiltrate their hometowns to survive in the hours-long wait.

Alex had to pay $750 to get his new passport. Reyes was left in tears when told to come back with his father (who's dead) to prove his identity - or more cash.

Nine months into the whole process, State e-mailed Alex, telling him to report to Jordan with $380 for a visa interview. Another State e-mail informed Reyes that, since he'd served in the Iraqi Army, State needed his military record for its review.

State's requirement of Reyes - finding his Iraqi Ministry of Defense records - is dangerous, meaningless and probably impossible. Trying to get the file would expose him to assassins, and just about the only file you can easily (again, for cash) get from Iraqi government clerks is a forged one.

The problem for Alex was getting into Jordan - where most Iraqis are turned away at the border. (The lucky ones get herded into bribery-infested processing pens like cattle.) I asked State to help him get into Jordan - and last month was told he could pick up an "entry letter" - inside Jordan.

Meanwhile, though, State had cancelled his interview. The closest date it had available would come after his State Department security clearance had expired. He had to start over.

Now I understand why some of my peers have established underground railroads to Jordan - sneaking their terps through like hunted slaves. They've lost faith in their own government.

Iraq vets and terps now call State's paper maze the "waiting to die list" - because it requires interpreters to risk death to purchase passports and cross the border undisguised.

Congress has held hearings. Reporters have done newspaper and TV stories; there's even a play about State's obscene mess. Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the top US civilian in Iraq, has complained, citing "major bottlenecks" in a terse memo to State.

President Bush has a duty to intervene. The honorable remedy is to trust the US military: Let a returning brigade that wants to bring some of its interpreters home simply fill out the visa paperwork on base, then carry them along on the aircraft.

Whom should America trust more, the judgment of a Marine or Army brigade commander - or a faceless bureaucrat in Nebraska or Amman?

Owen West, a commodities trader, has served two tours in Iraq with the Marines.

[Thiebear]

Monday, February 18, 2008

Iraqi interpreters afforded new life

“Bruce,” an Iraqi interpreter, practices a grammar question in an Arabic to English dictionary to better his English skills. Bruce has worked for the Coalition Forces for 12 months now and he plans on putting in an immigration package so he can immigrate to the U.S. with his sister and mother. He also has plans of continuing his education in the U.S. and joining the Marine Corps. Once an interpreter has worked for 12 months with Coalition Forces, they can submit an immigration package that will allow them to move to the U.S. Photo by: Lance Cpl. Shawn Coolman

Feb. 6, 2008; Submitted on: 02/18/2008 08:12:21 AM ; Story ID#: 200821881221

By Lance Cpl. Shawn Coolman, 1st Marine Division

HADITHA CITY, Iraq (Feb. 6, 2008) -- The prospect for a better life awaits the men and women serving as interpreters in Iraq.

Iraqis who serve as interpreters for Coalition Forces have an opportunity to submit their immigration package and possibly become U.S. citizens.

“This is an incentive for their loyal and faithful service for serving us in our mission,” said Capt. Manuel F. Munoz, 42, the unit linguist manager for 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marines, who is from New York City.

To be considered, a minimum of 12 months of service is required in aiding the Coalition Forces.

An immigration package is then compiled and consists of letters of recommendations, security and background checks and any additional letters which describe the actions of the individual.

After an interpreter submits a package to the proper chain of command, the package is then sent up to the regimental commander and commanding general of Multi National Force West, said Munoz.

“The package is then sent to the American Embassy in Rome for special immigration status for the interpreter,” added Munoz.

Approximately six months after the package is submitted, an interview with the interpreter is arranged to discuss if his/her access to the U.S. will be granted, said “Hector,” an Iraq interpreter who is submitting his package this month.

Reasons why English speaking Iraqis want to become interpreters are extensive: a better life, a good job and security are just a few.

“It’s a good job,” said Hector, who has aided the Coalition forces for 12 months. “I studied to be an interpreter; I got a bachelors degree in English Literature from a Baghdad university.

Although, there are no guarantees that the interpreters’ packages will be approved, the command observes and creates their own recommendations for their package.

“We look at it like this; would the U.S. benefit by having these people there,” said Munoz. “Some of these interpreters are college educated, and our intent is to pick the very best.”

When an interpreter arrives in the U.S., they will have to file for a green card to work while their citizenship is finalized.

“They have to create liaisons when they get there (America); their intent is to hit the ground running,” said Munoz. “Their future is wide opene for them, and they can do whatever they want to in the U.S.”

There is always buerocracy in the state but some are getting through.

[flashback]

There is always buerocracy in the state but some are getting through.

A classic example of Republicans not doing their jobs, and other Republicans citing it as proof that Government doesn't work. Nicely done. :notworthy

[Baculus]

That's just plain sad. I have a great admiration for these folks willing to sacrifice, in spite of their own environment, for their country.

[Koolblue13]

A classic example of Republicans not doing their jobs, and other Republicans citing it as proof that Government doesn't work. Nicely done. :notworthy

How is this a "republican" issue? It was a bipartisan effort to get us into this mess and continue to **** it up.

This is basically in line with what I hear from the guys I know who are coming back. The people of Iraq are not our allies, except for small portions. The average Iraqi has had it's fill of our occupation.

[SkinsHokieFan]

A classic example of Republicans not doing their jobs, and other Republicans citing it as proof that Government doesn't work. Nicely done. :notworthy

Do you know how many "Republicans" work at DOS?

I can count them on my hand. And you know who they are

[Zguy28]

So, if you are an Iraqi who helps the Americans, you are marked man by your family, not Al Quaida. Your own family and community.

Sad.

[flashback]

Do you know how many "Republicans" work at DOS?

I can count them on my hand. And you know who they are

I know one...

[Predicto]

Do you know how many "Republicans" work at DOS?

I can count them on my hand. And you know who they are

Baloney. The GOP loves to demonsize the State Department as all liberals (Joe McCarthy called them all commies), but it is just a myth. They are civil servants who go across the entire political spectrum, just like any other agency.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

Baloney. The GOP loves to demonsize the State Department as all liberals (Joe McCarthy called them all commies), but it is just a myth. They are civil servants who go across the entire political spectrum, just like any other agency.

Have you worked in DOS????

I've worked with DOS and I can definitely tell you they are left leaning and a lot of times not even leaning, but left falling

[Zguy28]

Baloney. The GOP loves to demonsize the State Department as all liberals (Joe McCarthy called them all commies), but it is just a myth.

You don't think your knowledge is a little outdated?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Baloney. The GOP loves to demonsize the State Department as all liberals (Joe McCarthy called them all commies), but it is just a myth. They are civil servants who go across the entire political spectrum, just like any other agency.

I know you had a possible opportunity as an FSO so you have been on the inside, for a brief time. No I am not trying to paint it as being a commie institution, but it is certainly more liberal leaning and you have more people who would associate themselves as D's rather then R's by a wide margin there

Have you worked in DOS????

I've worked with DOS and I can definitely tell you they are left leaning and a lot of times not even leaning, but left falling

Have met, and had friends who worked at DOS and they confirm the same thing

[Predicto]

Have you worked in DOS????

I've worked with DOS and I can definitely tell you they are left leaning and a lot of times not even leaning, but left falling

I turned down a commission to be a Foreign Service officer. I know several FSOs personally. Two are Mormons, and hardly liberal.

DOS has a particular job to do. That job is to help us get along with other countries, put a good face on things, smooth over differences. That requires tact and it requires considering how things will be perceived in the other country, not just in the US.

I get the sense sometimes that people on this board are offended because DOS doesn't go out of its way to poke its finger in the eye of every other country in the world and chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" all day long. That is not what State is there for. Other arms of the government take care of that.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I turned down a commission to be a Foreign Service officer. I know several FSOs personally. Two are Mormons, and hardly liberal.

DOS has a particular job to do. That job is to help us get along with other countries, put a good face on things, smooth over differences. That requires tact and it requires considering how things will be perceived in the other country, not just in the US.

I get the sense sometimes that people on this board are offended because DOS doesn't go out of its way to poke its finger in the eye of every other country in the world and chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" all day long. That is not what State is there for. Other arms of the government take care of that.

I do say this, that DOS employees, in particular FSO's are very professional and go about their difficult jobs to the best of their ability.

I won't claim that because they are D's, they attempt to circumvent the policy of the administration

However, Flashback threw down a gauntlet with his quote, basically blaming the visa fiasco on Republicans. We have correctly pointed out his false claim, and can without a doubt say that DOS has more people who would consider themselves "liberal" or D's then conservative or R's. Doesn't make them less professional, but thats just the facts with DOS

[Predicto]

I know you had a possible opportunity as an FSO so you have been on the inside, for a brief time. No I am not trying to paint it as being a commie institution, but it is certainly more liberal leaning and you have more people who would associate themselves as D's rather then R's by a wide margin there

That is a more reasonable characterization. There is a self-selection process there. Liberal do-gooders are more inclined to try to work at State, while conservative gunslingers are more likely to go the military route. But it is not monolithic, not even close.

[SkinsHokieFan]

That is a more reasonable characterization. There is a self-selection process there. Liberal do-gooders are more inclined to try to work at State, while conservative gunslingers are more likely to go the military route. But it is not monolithic, not even close.

Agree with you in terms of the self selection part.

Its not just the FSO's or the FAO's though, its the HR people as well

[Predicto]

I do say this, that DOS employees, in particular FSO's are very professional and go about their difficult jobs to the best of their ability.

I won't claim that because they are D's, they attempt to circumvent the policy of the administration

However, Flashback threw down a gauntlet with his quote, basically blaming the visa fiasco on Republicans. We have correctly pointed out his false claim, and can without a doubt say that DOS has more people who would consider themselves "liberal" or D's then conservative or R's. Doesn't make them less professional, but thats just the facts with DOS

Fair enough, and I don't disagree.

[Predicto]

Agree with you in terms of the self selection part.

Its not just the FSO's or the FAO's though, its the HR people as well

Actually, the FSOs are the HR people, at least for the new FSOs. The selection process doesn't involve any HR people at all until after you are already in. Or at least it didn't 15 years go.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Actually, the FSOs are the HR people, at least for the new FSOs. The selection process doesn't involve any HR people at all until after you are already in. Or at least it didn't 15 years go.

You are correct in that regard and that is the same at the CIA

I guess I meant HR people as in those who tell you what your benifits are, your pay etc.

[DjTj]

I don't know how this thread got all political, but the bottom line is that our State Department, and our immigration laws, are not structured to handle something like this. There should be no surprise that there are huge delays, because most of our laws are designed to stop fraud and to keep immigration below a quota, not to allow soldiers to give out visa status as payment for services rendered ...

There is a bill in the Senate now that is trying to fix this problem, but for the time being, there are going to be major delays as we try to force these people through a bureaucracy that was not designed for them.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=299DE47C-BDE6-43AE-AB8F-6F0477084030

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

The FSO's do work really hard and bust their asses at getting the stuff done. Most of the time it's the HQ that drags their feet in getting things done and processed expeditously, but in their defense they are fielding all kinds of requests being funneled in from all of the posts so it can be overwhelming at times.

[Baculus]

I don't know how this thread got all political, but the bottom line is that our State Department, and our immigration laws, are not structured to handle something like this. There should be no surprise that there are huge delays, because most of our laws are designed to stop fraud and to keep immigration below a quota, not to allow soldiers to give out visa status as payment for services rendered ...

There is a bill in the Senate now that is trying to fix this problem, but for the time being, there are going to be major delays as we try to force these people through a bureaucracy that was not designed for them.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/press_release.cfm?id=299DE47C-BDE6-43AE-AB8F-6F0477084030

Honestly, we should be prepared for these situations. After all, our Vietnamese allies faced the same issues over three decades ago. You would think, by now, we would have a system in place to deal with indigenious allies that require relocation.

I just find it hard to fathom that, after all these years, and the time we have been in Iraq, we are STILL unable to deal with these issues. It just smacks of bureaucratic incompetence and it really should not be this difficult.

Also, my impression of the State department is that it is one of the more pragmatic departments around the Hill. And one that I wouldn't consider just "left-leaning."

[DjTj]

Honestly, we should be prepared for these situations. After all, our Vietnamese allies faced the same issues over three decades ago. You would think, by now, we would have a system in place to deal with indigenious allies that require relocation.

I just find it hard to fathom that, after all these years, and the time we have been in Iraq, we are STILL unable to deal with these issues. It just smacks of bureaucratic incompetence and it really should not be this difficult.

Also, my impression of the State department is that it is one of the more pragmatic departments around the Hill. And one that I wouldn't consider just "left-leaning."

Vietnamese refugees didn't exactly have an easy time getting here either ... there were a few waves of refugees and different legislation before that all go sorted out. Every time we deal with refugees, it is a political issue that gets caught up in bureaucracy. It's just a fundamentally difficult issue, and the laws are constantly changing.

Here is a more in-depth article about the Iraqi refugee problem:

http://www.mercurynews.com/community/ci_7809836

One reason for the extensive background checks (especially for Iraqis) is that the Patriot Act created a strict restriction on "material support" for terrorism:

A 1996 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 extended immigration restrictions against members of terrorist organizations to more indirect affiliates of such groups. It defined, for the first time, the concept of "material support" as the provision of money, goods, personnel, and/or training to terrorist organizations. It also barred those who provided such assistance from entering the United States.

The Patriot Act of 2001, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, and the Real ID Act of 2005 significantly broadened this definition.

In its most up-to-date form, in Title 18 of the United States Code, material support to terrorism is defined as the provision of "any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel…and transportation, except medicine or religious materials" to terrorist organizations.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?id=671

I think it's very likely that those with the skill to help our soldiers also had the skills to help Saddam's regime or other groups we might consider terrorists. With such a broad definition for material support, it's easy to see how many would be questioned under the law.

Immigration law is a delicate balancing of political, humanitarian, economic, and security interests. In the past few years, our laws have swung far in favor of the security interests and become increasingly restrictive. These Iraqi interpreters are only the latest people to be caught in the complex politics of the immigration debate.

[chomerics]

Do you know how many "Republicans" work at DOS?

I can count them on my hand. And you know who they are

Are you telling me the only people that work at DoS are democrats? Come on now SHF, you are not that naive are you?

And yes, the head of the DoS. . .Mrs. Condoleeeeezzza Rice could rectify this problem IMMEDIATELY and without hesitation. . .well that would be if she actually did her job and wasn't worried about shoe shopping :doh:

[Koolblue13]

Why would we encourage the Iraqis who are actually willing to help us get here easier? Shouldn't they be wanting to stay and rebuild thier country?