Weaponizing Accountability: The Risks of Revisiting Afghanistan Through Court-Martials

The Trump transition team’s reported pursuit of potential court-martials against senior U.S. military officers involved in the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan underscores a phenomenon that merits scrutiny: the allure of public reckoning and accountability when national humiliation festers in the public consciousness. While this bold plan stirs echoes of long-standing grievances, it raises pivotal questions about precedent, legality, and the enduring tug-of-war between civilian oversight and military obedience.

President Donald Trump’s vehement condemnation of the withdrawal—“a humiliation”—strikes a chord of righteous indignation among those who saw the chaotic scenes from Kabul as a nadir in American foreign policy. It also aligns with Trump’s signature style: a confluence of retribution and spectacle. Yet, it is essential to parse the implications of this proposed commission, especially given that the genesis of America’s faltering exit was not solely a consequence of President Joe Biden’s administration. The seeds of this outcome were sown in 2020, under Trump himself, with the Doha Agreement that committed the U.S. to withdrawal and the release of Taliban prisoners. To selectively assign blame without acknowledging this continuum is to engage in revisionism.

The suggestion of court-martials—or even charges as severe as treason—invites skepticism not only due to the inherent legal challenges but also because of what it signals about the balance of power in our democracy. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) allows for the recall of retired officers, but invoking this power for acts committed while executing the directives of the Commander-in-Chief complicates the calculus. If followed through, such actions could risk undermining the apolitical nature of military service, shifting it into a realm of partisan recrimination.

It is telling that Trump’s rumored choice for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, frames the withdrawal as an archetype of failure and betrayal. In his work, Hegseth’s rhetoric is scalding: generals, he claims, “violated their oath” and “disgraced our troops.” The anger is palpable and not without cause—the Abbey Gate attack and subsequent intelligence failures were tragic. Accountability, however, must distinguish between the failures of strategic judgment and the obedience inherent in military conduct. The orders came from the nation’s civilian leadership, and military officers, bound by duty, carried them out.

Trump’s motivation may be multifaceted: a signal of his administration’s seriousness about military accountability, a rebuke to what he perceives as entrenched and ineffectual leadership, or perhaps a preemptive narrative of competence and toughness. Yet, one must ask: what precedent does this set for future administrations and their relationship with the military? The Founders envisioned civilian control over the armed forces precisely to avoid such punitive retrospectives.

That America’s longest war ended with a crescendo of chaos invites understandable calls for introspection. But to contemplate court-martialing officers who executed orders they were sworn to follow would