Left Behind in Iraq

Obama's withdrawal strategy offers no serious solutions for America's Iraqi employees, who are likely to enter the war's worst days once the United States is gone.

BY KIRK W. JOHNSON | MAY 18, 2010

America is leaving Iraq. We already itch to forget. The U.S. media gave more coverage to the elections in Zimbabwe than those held in March across Iraq. We award Oscars to films about Iraq, but don't particularly care to watch them. The seventh anniversary of the U.S. invasion passed recently, with little notice.

Another regrettable anniversary recently passed, one from which U.S. President Barack Obama might take heed. The fall of Saigon 35 years ago marked the end of the Vietnam War and the beginning of a seismic refugee crisis. An eleventh-hour request for $722 million to evacuate the thousands of South Vietnamese who had assisted the United States went unfunded by a war-weary Congress. What ensued in those early morning hours on the rooftops of Saigon, as desperate Vietnamese clamored beneath departing helicopters, would be the war's final image seared into the American conscience. Al Jazeera rebroadcast these scenes of abandonment throughout 2005, when I worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Baghdad and Fallujah. My Iraqi colleagues who risked their lives to help us were demoralized by the footage, and constantly worried about what would happen to them when we left.

Since my return, I have been trying to help thousands of Iraqis who fled the assassin's bullet. They have been tortured, raped, abducted, and killed because they worked for America. My organization, The List Project to Resettle Iraqi Allies, assists these imperiled Iraqis in navigating the straits of the winding U.S. refugee resettlement bureaucracy. Although it is the largest single list in existence of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis, at several thousand names, our list is only a reflection of a much larger community. Estimates vary, but between 50,000 to 70,000 Iraqis have been employed by the United States over the past seven years. It is likely that thousands have already been killed as "traitors" or "agents" of America. (I have a separate list documenting hundreds of assassinated interpreters who worked for just one contractor, a small but gruesome glimpse.) And while I once thought that the dark years of Iraq's 2006-2008 civil war were the bleakest for these Iraqis, I am increasingly concerned that the worst days are yet ahead.

The U.S. military is now aggressively redeploying from Iraq and will have pulled half of its 100,000 troops out by the end of August. Lt. Gen. WilliamWebster, who commands the U.S. 3rd Army, reflected on the historic dimension of the logistics operation in March: "Hannibal trying to move over the Alps had a tremendous logistics burden, but it was nothing like the complexity we are dealing with now." Tens of thousands of troops have been reassigned to this effort, which will dismantle hundreds of bases in the coming months. The military's logistic experts have planned it out so well, they say, that they can even track a coffee pot on its journey from Baghdad to Birmingham.

Impressive as this might be, it ignores a fundamental oversight in the Obama administration's vaunted withdrawal strategy: There are no serious contingency plans to evacuate the thousands of Iraqis who've worked for the United States and live alongside U.S. troops and civilian officials as interpreters, engineers, and advisors. When the U.S. military shutters its bases, these Iraqis will be cut loose to run the resettlement gauntlet, which typically takes a year or more.

I recently came across a frightening document that outlines another group's designs for the coming U.S. withdrawal. Published in Fallujah by the Islamic State of Iraq, the umbrella organization composed of numerous insurgent and terrorist groups (including al Qaeda in Iraq), the manual sets forth their "balanced military plan" in chilling simplicity: "1) nine bullets for the traitors and one for the crusader, 2) cleansing, and 3) targeting." They are practical: "This cannot be accomplished within one or two months, but requires continuous effort." Those who believe the group's threats have been rendered hollow by the surge might reflect upon the scores of victims from its triple-suicide car bombing that targeted foreign embassies just weeks ago. This past Friday, upon a string of attacks that killed another hundred Iraqis, the group's "minister of war" declared: "What is happening to you nowadays is just a drizzle."

We know where this road leads. When British forces drew down from southern Iraq just two years ago, militias conducted a systematic manhunt for their former Iraqi employees. Seventeen interpreters were publicly executed in a single massacre; their bodies were dumped throughout the streets of Basra. This predictable churn of violence against those who "collaborated" with an occupying power has been repeated through history, from the tens of thousands of Algerian harkis who were slaughtered after the 1962 French withdrawal to the British loyalists hunted by American militias after the Revolutionary War.

Depressing as this history is, it is not inevitable. The United States is not evacuating but withdrawing, and it must take this opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the past. There are encouraging precedents to build upon. After the bloodletting in Basra, for instance, the British responded by airlifting its surviving Iraqi staffers directly to a Royal Air Force base in Oxfordshire, England, where they were offered asylum. Indeed, each of the United States' principal coalition partners -- Britain, Denmark, and Poland -- has honored its moral obligation to endangered Iraqi employees through airlifts to military bases.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

 

Kirk W. Johnson is the founder and executive director of the List Project to Resettle Iraqi Allies. He previously served as regional coordinator for reconstruction in Fallujah, Iraq, for the U.S. Agency for International Development. This article was adapted from a version previously published on the List Project's website.

Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

LAYLA72

11:07 PM ET

May 18, 2010

i wonder if the Administration will actually do anything to help

great article... I wasn't in Iraq but I share the author's concern... I hope the president can turn this campaign promise into a reality. Whether you look at it as a moral obligation to help our friends or as a strategic security issue- everyone's going to be watching both in the region and everywhere else whether or not we are going to leave these people behind. Whatever we do (or don't do) is going to be a lesson for potential future allies. Hope our president sends them the right message.

 

PCDE

1:37 AM ET

May 19, 2010

Remember a few names

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Najibulllah Zazi, Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, The Albanian and Bosnian Fort Dix plotters, Mohamed Atta, etc.....

These were all men who were granted citizenship, visas, or their parents were offered refugee status in America.

Iraqis that chose to work for the Coalition did so freely and were paid their wages. These Iraqis should work to build a new Iraq with all of their talents, energy, and experience.

That is all we owe them.

 

PCDE

11:21 AM ET

May 19, 2010

The 19 hijackers were all granted visas

American policy for the past 9 years has been: Invade the world, Invite the world, in debt to the world. This gets to be expensive.

We invaded Iraq, a country that was no threat to us. Our open borders policy allows Faisal Shahzad to become a citizen who then attempts to blow up Times Square. And we borrow the money for our invasions from China.

Invade, Invite, Borrow. This policy can't last much longer.

Khalid Shiekh Muhammad graduated from North Carolina A&T with an engineering degree. His years spent in America did not foster a sense of gratitude or love for a generous country and people. No, KSM decided to kill 3000 innocents.

Iraqi refugees in America will come to hate us for destroying the country of their birth and for their life in exile. Their sons and grandsons may foster these feelings as well, just like Major Nidal Malik Hassan. Hassan's family was pushed out of Palestine by Israel.

The children of Iraqi refugees may seek revenge well into the future.

Why take the risk? Iraqis should stay put and witness the flowering of democracy in Mesopatamia. Paul Wolfowitz's gift to humanity.

 

DDSNAIK

11:40 AM ET

May 19, 2010

Um, way to provide ammo for America's haters

You mean that after we declared a largely unprovoked war, leveling Iraq's infrastructure and painfully disrupting many family and social circles in the process, while conducting that unprovoked war foolishly and with total disregard to input from those that might have smoothed the transition - and all that we owe them after that is a half-hearted "Good luck, thanks for the memories and the shiny new Embassy" and invoke some callous self-help/self-empowerment mumbo jumbo and be on our merry way without looking back ?

Nice

I can only hope sarcasm is in there but is getting lost in translation in an online post.

P.S. None of the names you mention are Iraqi to my knowledge

 

AMF

12:40 PM ET

May 19, 2010

Names

First of all Mohammed Atta is Egyptian not Bosnian, and I never hear that any of the hijackers was granted a citizenship. And those Iraqi will not get a chance to participate in building thier coutnry simply and sadly because the terrorist will eliminate them. This is the point of the whole article. Those people deserve protection just because they are humans not necessarily because they helped the USA.

 

JAYDEE001

10:30 AM ET

May 19, 2010

It was ever so

It was inevitable that the end of the American involvement in the war that never should have happened would lead to concerns over those who have to be viewed as collaborators by the radical Islamists in Iraq.

I certainly recall the helicopters on the roof of the embassy, US and other foreign government personnel leaving Saigon, and the hundreds of Vietnamese clambering up to the rooftop begging to be saved from the on-rushing Vietcong and their North Vietnamese brothers. At the time, I did not feel any shame - just a terrible saddness over the waste and futility of our involvement in war that did not have to be. The fact that almost 40 years later Vietnam is a unified nation at peace both internally and with its neighbors, and a major trading partner with a growing mercantile class proves that our reasons for occupying the South and fighting the war were a terrible fraud upon the American people. "Domino effect" indeed! - same type of justification as Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Both wars started out by looking for a justification - any justification so that lives and treasure could be expended. That is even more terrible when you consider the 53,000 plus American lives lost and hundreds of thousands injured in body and spirit by their (mostly conscripted) involvement in that war.

It is up to the duly 'elected' Iraqi government to see to the safety and security of its people. We left them a new constitution and government and they have the means to move ahead to build a stable society. If the Iraqi people and their leaders cannot do that, the whole charade of building a democratic Iraq was a huge fraud. After almost eight years, it is time to end our occupation quickly and come home to solve the many problems we have within our own borders.

Frankly, I see no reason to do anything in Iraq but learn from the whole messy experience that we should not start wars with small countries far away that do not threaten us with immediate harm. There will always be collaborators whom we enlist who will be hurt in the end.

 

FENRIS

10:43 AM ET

May 19, 2010

If they are brought in . . .

If they are brought in, we have whole empty neighborhoods of brand new houses our here in the desert west. The government is welcome to buy them up and bring them here. They can't be any worse than the gangs we have here already!

 

IAN

1:13 PM ET

May 19, 2010

American's are already turning their backs

This is obvious even in the responses here. People are saying that Iraq should be able to take care of itself. Meanwhile, they turn a blind eye to the fact that the reason they can't is because the US walked in loaded for bear. Its called selective memory, and unfortunately, everyone does it when shameful things in the past come out.

Bush must be a master at it.

And a new generation of American citizens are starting to learn it quite well.

 

IAN

1:15 PM ET

May 19, 2010

Sorry for the double post...

My bad. I blame the slow internet at work.

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

6:30 PM ET

May 19, 2010

Appearances matter

Offering sanctuary to those who helped you invade their country is a tacit admission of failure. What is necessary is to adopt a system that makes it look like something else. A clause providing for a green card on termination of such contracts might push the problem under the carpet. This could be inserted automatically for future adventures and retroactively for Iraqis.

 

BOREDWELL

6:50 PM ET

May 19, 2010

Waiting

We are fast approaching the final minutes of the 11th hour if you say it takes one year for the process of immigration to take effect. A year on a bed of nails is a grim eternity when confronted with the probable extirpation of one's mortality. If these former employees continue to live in Iraq, why can they not live inside the bases? And why does it take so long? Surely, we have had more than enough time to get all the appropriate bureaucratic paperwork in order to effect a smooth. hassle-free transfer process for these people. If there's a will, there's a way it's said. In this case, it would seem that someone, somewhere was spending more time on tracking that inanimate coffee pot and not enough time planning for the imminent evacuation of indigenous employees.

 

LAL QILA

8:48 PM ET

May 19, 2010

I love American censorship of the "free" press

I love American censorship of the "free" press.

My comments get deleted because they do not follow the received and the prescribed wisdom?

Lovely, great free press.

Yes, free for providing only one side of propaganda.

 

ED MOISE

12:38 PM ET

May 21, 2010

Congress and the Vietnam Evacuation

You are mistaken in saying that as Saigon was about to fall, a war-weary Congress was unwilling to accept a request for $722 million to evacuate South Vietnamese who had assisted the United States.

The request President Ford made, for $722 million, which Congress essentially ignored, was not for evacuation assistance. It was for military aid.

President Ford did make a separate request for evacuation assistance. That the Congress did not ignore. The problem was simply that Ford had waited too long before making the request. Saigon fell less than three weeks after Ford sent the bill to Congress. During that time, both House and Senate debated the bill, and passed it in slightly different versions; the conference committee met and produced a compromise bill; and the Senate passed the compromise bill. But by the time the House was ready to vote on the compromise bill, eighteen days after President Ford had sent the original bill to Congress, South Vietnamese defenses were collapsing and the bill had become irrelevant.

 

LAL QILA

10:41 AM ET

May 22, 2010

Why did America invade Vietnam in the first place?

Why did America invade Vietnam in the first place?

Was it to spread democracy and Western/Christian values by committing most atrocious war crimes for several decades?

Why nobody in America has ever been tried in a court of law for the illegal invasions of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia by America?

Where are the good lawyers when we need them?

 

NORMAN ROGERS

4:36 PM ET

May 22, 2010

Boo hoo

sob sister.

thanks to hindsight, every clusterf#ck looks like something you could have solved yourself, doesn't it?

As to the topic at hand, abandoning those who have helped us is par for the course. There wouldn't be an al Qaeda if we hadn't abandoned the "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan.