Dilemma of Afghans brought to USA

The Afghans you’re referring to—often called “allies” or “partners” in U.S. military and policy contexts—primarily include interpreters, advisors, security personnel, and other locals who collaborated with American and coalition forces during the 20-year war in Afghanistan. They assisted in operations against the Taliban and other insurgent groups, providing translation, intelligence, cultural guidance, and direct support in combat zones. Many were resettled in the U.S. via programs like the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) as a form of recognition for their service, especially after the 2021 withdrawal, when over 76,000 were evacuated amid fears of Taliban reprisals. 0 5

Whether they qualify as “traitors to their own country” depends heavily on perspective. From the Taliban’s viewpoint—and that of some segments of Afghan society—they were indeed seen as collaborators, spies, apostates, or ideological betrayers for aligning with foreign forces against local groups like the Taliban, who positioned themselves as defenders of Afghan sovereignty and Islamic values. 1 2 8 This led to targeted killings, with the Taliban vowing to hunt them down as “traitors” even before the U.S. exit. 3 Some critics, including voices on platforms like X, echo this by labeling them as sellouts motivated by cash rather than ideology, or as part of a minority that betrayed their nation for personal gain. 10 11 14 18

On the flip side, from the U.S. and allied perspective, these individuals weren’t betraying Afghanistan but fighting against the Taliban as oppressors who didn’t represent the country’s true interests. Many viewed the Taliban as terrorists or a regime that subjugated women, minorities, and moderates, so helping the U.S. was seen as loyalty to a freer, more stable Afghanistan—or at least to their own communities and families threatened by extremism. 6 15 16 Supporters argue they risked everything, including family safety, out of shared goals with the U.S., not treason. 13 There’s also criticism of U.S. policy for abandoning them, with figures like former commanders highlighting betrayals by American leaders across administrations. 21

As for whether “traitors have loyalties to any”—that’s more philosophical than factual, but history and psychology suggest yes, they often do. What looks like treason from one angle is frequently driven by loyalty to something else: a competing ideology, personal ethics, family survival, or a different vision of one’s country. In this case, some Afghan helpers were loyal to anti-Taliban ideals or U.S.-backed governance; others might have prioritized financial incentives or escape from poverty/war. 3 17 “Traitor” is a loaded term—it’s relative, like how some Afghans see the Taliban as patriots while others view them as foreign-backed (e.g., Pakistani-influenced) oppressors. 23 Ultimately, loyalties aren’t zero-sum; people navigate multiple ones, and betrayal of one can stem from allegiance to another.