When you think about it, vetting suggests exclusion/intolerance and exclusion/intolerance (consider what happens to those who fail vetting, they get... deported, i.e. excluded) falls afoul of liberal pseudo-morality. Obviously anyone who arrives at this reasoning and yet is tasked with a vetting process cannot be trusted to do anything short of admit practically everyone. It is similar to how 'liberals' hate generalization, stereotyping and a wide range of other things for similar reasons. The answer is probably as simple as this: The people leaving Afghanistan tend toward being urbanite feminists, queers, trannies, etc. and these people don't need to be 'vetted' simply because they are practically already 'morally pure' under liberal pseudo-morality. They are always 'victims' and never 'oppressors', 'threats', 'villains', etc. To even consider that they may be oppressors is actually all that one needs to do in order to himself become an oppressor or villain himself (the fact that 'RadFems' or 'TERFs' question whether 'trans women' may in fact merely be men intruding into women's safe spaces where they will then 'oppress' them, is all it takes to get people calling them 'Far-Right TERFs', for example).

I don't even think we're getting these more desperate or 'mercenary' types. Most of these Afghan military types are probably straight and, by American standards, socially reactionary, men who would probably fit in fine with the Taliban if they didn't fear retaliation for supporting the Westerners. They might pass because their race is correct (they are oppressed browns in the eyes of the 'liberals'), but they're still practically religious straight conservative men who will make the average Republican voter look radical on average.