3 ms·

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 wel

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-of-german-military-face-threats-from-taliban-a-894494.html 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)

binarycrusader 14y ago
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.
- revelation 14y ago
  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.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    > "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".
    - revelation 14y ago
      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.
      - dia80 14y ago
        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.
      - a3n 14y ago
        Who's the traitor?
      - WettowelReactor 14y ago
        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.
  - crapshoot101 14y ago
    wow, you sound like a real charmer.
- chollida1 14y ago
  > 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.
yew 14y ago
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.
pekk 14y ago
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.

binarycrusader 14y ago

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.

revelation 14y ago
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.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  > "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".
  - revelation 14y ago
    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.
    - dia80 14y ago
      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.
    - a3n 14y ago
      Who's the traitor?
    - WettowelReactor 14y ago
      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.
- crapshoot101 14y ago
  wow, you sound like a real charmer.
chollida1 14y ago
> 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.

yew 14y ago

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.

pekk 14y ago

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.