The Tragic Failure of Vetting: When Good Intentions Endanger American Lives

The Facts of the Case

According to former American officials familiar with classified CIA operations, the agency maintained a diligent process to assist Afghans who had served in CIA-sponsored units—known initially as Counterterrorism Pursuit Teams and later as Zero Units—in navigating the complex U.S. immigration system. These individuals, who had worked alongside American intelligence operatives in high-risk counterterrorism operations against Taliban forces, faced imminent danger if left behind under Taliban rule following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The CIA’s support included writing classified letters to supplement immigration files, advocating for asylum or parole claims, and maintaining extensive biometric data including retinal scans to verify the identities of their Afghan partners. The agency even established a dedicated team to help resettle these individuals in the United States, believing they had earned protection through their service and shared risk-taking alongside American personnel.

The vetting process in Afghanistan was reportedly intensive: prospective members needed endorsements from current force members who put their tribe or family reputation on the line, regular vetting continued as they advanced in rank, and the CIA conducted polygraph tests to identify potential Taliban allies or those with anti-American sentiments. This rigorous process, combined with these units’ work evacuating people during the Taliban takeover, gave the agency confidence that these individuals posed no threat to Americans.

Tragically, this system failed spectacularly in the case of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who was granted asylum in April (during the Trump administration) and is now accused of killing one National Guard member and critically wounding another just blocks from the White House. CIA Director John Ratcliffe has publicly faulted the Biden administration’s vetting of Lakanwal, stating he “should have never been allowed to come here,” though the exact timing of the CIA’s endorsement remains unclear.

The Context of Moral Obligation Versus Security Imperatives

The United States has a profound moral obligation to those who risk their lives alongside our military and intelligence personnel in conflict zones. From Vietnamese interpreters to Iraqi contractors to Afghan partners, we have made promises—explicit and implicit—that we would protect those who stood with us against common enemies. This ethical commitment is woven into the fabric of American values and our nation’s standing in the world.

Simultaneously, we have an equally sacred obligation to protect American citizens from harm, whether foreign or domestic. Our immigration and vetting systems represent the critical boundary between these competing imperatives—they must be robust enough to identify potential threats while honoring our commitments to allies who have earned our protection through shared sacrifice.

The CIA-backed units in question operated in the shadows of the Afghanistan conflict, conducting operations that resulted in the deaths and detention of Taliban leaders and fighters. While human rights groups criticized these units for oversight issues, use of force concerns, and civilian casualties, the CIA defended them as the “most disciplined and effective Afghan military force” during the war. This dichotomy reflects the inherent tension in counterinsurgency warfare: the need for effective, sometimes brutal, operations versus the ideals of transparency and accountability we claim to uphold.

The Systemic Failure and Its Consequences

The alleged actions of Rahmanullah Lakanwal represent not just an individual failure but a systemic one that demands urgent examination. When someone vetted through multiple layers of intelligence scrutiny—including polygraph testing, biometric verification, and peer endorsement—allegedly commits violence against Americans on American soil, it suggests fundamental flaws in our understanding of threat assessment and moral character evaluation.

This tragedy strikes at the heart of public trust in our institutions. Citizens rightly expect their government to balance compassion with security, but when that balance fails so catastrophically, it undermines confidence in the entire immigration system, intelligence community, and national security apparatus. The bitter irony is that the very system designed to protect those who helped us ultimately may have enabled harm to the citizens it was meant to protect.

Director Ratcliffe’s public criticism of the administration’s vetting process—while notable—raises questions about interagency communication and responsibility. If the CIA indeed provided classified endorsements for immigration cases, what responsibility does the agency bear when those recommendations result in tragedy? The anonymity of the former officials speaking about these processes further complicates public understanding and accountability.

The Human Cost of Policy Failures

Behind this policy discussion lies profound human tragedy: a National Guard member killed, another critically wounded, and families shattered by violence that might have been prevented. These citizens—who took an oath to protect and defend—became victims of a system that failed in its most basic protective function. Their sacrifice must not become merely a statistic in a political debate but should serve as a catalyst for meaningful reform.

Similarly, we must acknowledge that the vast majority of Afghan allies resettled through these programs are genuine partners who enriched our nation and deserved protection. One tragic case should not undermine our broader moral commitment to those who stood with us, often at greater risk to themselves and their families than we faced.

The Path Forward: Reforming With Principle and Pragmatism

This tragedy demands a comprehensive review of our vetting processes for foreign allies seeking refuge in the United States. We need greater transparency in how intelligence agencies contribute to immigration decisions, better interagency coordination, and perhaps most importantly, independent oversight of these classified processes. The balance between security and compassion cannot be entrusted solely to any single agency without adequate checks and balances.

We must also confront difficult questions about the nature of our partnerships in conflict zones. If we cannot reliably distinguish genuine allies from potential threats despite polygraphs, biometrics, and peer vetting, what does this say about the sustainability of such partnerships? How do we ensure that our gratitude for service does not blind us to potential risks?

The solution is not abandonment of our moral obligations but smarter, more transparent, and more accountable systems. We owe this to the memory of the fallen National Guard member, to the recovering wounded, to the Afghan allies who genuinely deserve protection, and to the American people who rightfully expect their safety to be the government’s highest priority.

In the finest tradition of American democracy, we can and must honor both our humanitarian commitments and our security needs—but this tragic case demonstrates that our current systems are failing to achieve either objective adequately. The time for thoughtful, principled reform is now, before more lives are lost to the gaps between our intentions and our capabilities.