Military interpreters have been central actors in recent military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as linguistic and cultural translators and mediators. Their role of aiding foreign and ‘hostile’ forces casts them in the position of traitor and collaborator in the eyes of some, forcing many to migrate and request protection by the governments that they have served. This paper will analyse the ways in which military interpreters have framed their right claims, as well as look at the legal and political arguments made by lawyers, politicians and media in the United Kingdom based on interviews and document analysis. It will investigate the apparent paradox that this group of forced migrants has overwhelming popular support, also among conservative and right-wing circles, while the UK government has been reluctant to grant asylum. It will address this seemingly paradoxical failure to protect and welcome former military interpreters by looking at how the intersection of masculinity, ‘race’ and religion casts this group as potentially threatening and undesirable, but simultaneously as exemplary national heroes. The paper will interrogate vulnerability, loyalty and service to the nation through a gender perspective. The paper will point to the historical continuities in relation to the treatment of ethnic minority and ‘foreign’ military in colonial settings. It will also address the resonances across European states, such as Denmark and the Netherlands and situate the case in relation to the more developed research on military interpreters as refugees in the United States.
