Trump Eyes Court-martial for the Afghanistan Withdrawal

Court-Martialing Military Leaders for the Afghanistan Withdrawal: A Realistic Assessment

When I woke up this morning, I read an article titled, “Trump Transition Team Compiling List of Current and Former U.S. Military Officers for Possible Courts-Martial.” The below article is my response. As a former Army JAG officer with nearly 24 years of experience in military justice—and as the father of an Army soldier who served in Afghanistan during the summer of 2021—I feel uniquely qualified to offer an objective and realistic assessment of this suggestion. This is intended to be a balanced analysis of the legal, practical, and ethical challenges such a proposal would entail.

The Context: What Happened During the Afghanistan Withdrawal?

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 marked the tumultuous end to America’s longest war. The process began with a February 2020 agreement negotiated by the Trump administration, which set a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal in exchange for Taliban promises to reduce violence and cut ties with terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. When President Joe Biden assumed office in January 2021, the withdrawal plan was already underway, with a timeline in place to remove most U.S. forces. However, the planning and execution of the final stages of the withdrawal became a major political flashpoint, drawing intense scrutiny and widespread criticism.

President Biden extended the withdrawal deadline to August 31, 2021, but the operation quickly spiraled into chaos. The Taliban’s rapid takeover of Kabul inexcusably caught U.S. and Afghan forces off guard, forcing a rushed evacuation that left behind billions of dollars in military equipment and many Afghan allies. The Abbey Gate bombing on August 26, which killed 13 U.S. service members and over 170 Afghan civilians, underscored the dangers of the hasty exit. This tragic and disorganized withdrawal has fueled debates over who should be held accountable.

The Trump Team’s Proposal: Accountability Through Court-Martial

Recently, members of Donald Trump’s transition team suggested that senior military leaders responsible for overseeing the withdrawal should face court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). While this idea has gained attention, it is highly unlikely to succeed—and would be unwise to pursue—for several reasons.

Legal Hurdles to Court-Martialing Senior Officers

The UCMJ provides the legal framework for prosecuting active-duty and, in some cases, retired service members for offenses committed during their service. Potential charges against military leaders might include Article 133 (“Conduct Unbecoming an Officer”) or Article 92 (“Dereliction of Duty”). However, these charges present significant legal challenges:

• Ambiguity of Charges: Both Article 133 and Article 92 require evidence of clear misconduct or negligence. Operational decisions, especially in fast-changing and high-pressure environments like the Afghanistan withdrawal, often involve subjective judgments that make assigning blame difficult.

• Civilian Oversight of the Military: Military leaders execute orders given by civilian leadership. Unless those orders are unlawful, they are obligated to follow them. Holding generals accountable for the execution of policy decisions—rather than focusing on the political leaders who shaped those policies—would set a dangerous precedent.

• Jury Composition: To court-martial a general officer, a jury of officers who outrank the accused must be assembled. This means that jurors would need to be three- or four-star generals, many of whom may have professional relationships with the accused. Assembling an unbiased jury under these circumstances would be nearly impossible.

Practical Implications and Risks

Even if the legal obstacles could be overcome, pursuing court-martials for the Afghanistan withdrawal would create significant problems for the military and the nation:

1. Politicization of the Military: Prosecuting senior officers for their roles in a controversial withdrawal would likely be viewed as politically motivated. This could undermine public confidence in the military as an apolitical institution and damage morale within the ranks.

2. Distraction from Strategic Priorities: The U.S. military faces serious challenges, including potential conflicts with global powers like China, Russia, and Iran. Diverting resources to investigate and prosecute senior officers for the withdrawal would detract from these critical priorities.

3. Historical Parallels: In past military scandals, such as the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, lower-ranking personnel were often scapegoated while senior leaders and political decision-makers avoided significant consequences. A similar outcome could occur here, with individual officers being unfairly targeted for systemic and political failures.

4. Uncertain Outcomes: Even if a court-martial were pursued, securing a conviction would be unlikely. The withdrawal’s failures resulted from a complex mix of strategic decisions, political constraints, and operational realities. A court-martial would likely devolve into a spectacle of finger-pointing rather than achieving meaningful accountability.

A Better Approach: Comprehensive Review and Accountability

Rather than pursuing divisive and impractical court-martials, the U.S. should conduct a thorough, bipartisan public review of the Afghanistan withdrawal, similar to the 9/11 Commission Report. This review would examine the decisions made by both the Trump and Biden administrations and the roles of the military, intelligence agencies, and other stakeholders.

Such an inquiry would provide the transparency and accountability needed to identify lessons learned and prevent similar failures in the future. It would also address the critical question: who is ultimately responsible? The answer likely lies more in the realm of political leadership than in the actions of individual military officers.

Conclusion

Having enlisted in the Army in 1993, served as a JAG officer, and watched my son serve in Afghanistan during its most turbulent summer, I approach this issue with both deep professional knowledge and personal connection. While the Afghanistan withdrawal was undeniably mishandled, pursuing court-martials for senior military leaders is not the answer. Such actions would likely create more harm than good, reducing a critical matter to a political spectacle and eroding confidence in the military justice system.

True accountability must address the systemic and political decisions that shaped the withdrawal’s failures. Holding military leaders responsible for carrying out orders from civilian leadership is neither fair nor constructive. Instead, a thorough, bipartisan review is essential to understand what went wrong, ensure the lessons of Afghanistan are learned, and prevent similar missteps in future operations.