The Trump transition team is compiling a list of senior current and former U.S. military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and exploring whether they could be court-martialed for their involvement, according to a U.S. official and a person familiar with the plan.

Just wow if true.

Possible Court Martials

Trinity Ag said:

---

Tanker123 said:

---

The Trump transition team is compiling a list of senior current and former U.S. military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and exploring whether they could be court-martialed for their involvement, according to a U.S. official and a person familiar with the plan.

Just wow if true.

Possible Court Martials

---

If you actually read the story, it in no way matches your summary.

An unnamed source said the transition team is considering a commission to study the war, including the withdrawal.

The person supposedly named by the source to lead the commission (Matt Flynn) has denied any involvement, or being in contact with anyone on the transition team.

Smells like complete nonsense.

I would put the odds of courts martial from the Afghan debacle as precisely 0%

---

The summary was lifted from the article verbatim - paragraph one. Did you read the article? lol

Not saying there needs to be a court martial, but there needs to be accountability for that disastrous embarrassment.

2004FIGHTINTXAG said:

---

Not saying there needs to be a court martial, but there needs to be accountability for that disastrous embarrassment.

---

It would be very difficult to determine what decisions were made by military leaders and what was being directed by political leadership.

Often, civilians make decisions on resource constraints and timelines, and generals try to make the least bad decisions out of the remaining options.

The generals didn't randomly decide to close Bagram. They were given a requirement that the Kabul Embassy and airfield had to be maintained -- and a force cap that wouldn't support defending both Bagram and Kabul. And then politicians said "closing Bagram was a military decision". Sure. Sort of.

Accountability at the Strategic/Political level occurs at the ballot box, not the court room.

But don't kid yourself that Afghanistan was going to end any better under the Trump administration, who was in as big a hurry to close it down as Biden.

Bagram was 100% a military decision and the correct one.

Both for logistics/ease of access to the rest of country and a multitude of security reasons at that point in the conflict.

The issue with how Kabul went is how long we waited. There were better plans ready to be executed months prior.

i've always viewed the afghan withdrawal as a DoS/civilian leadership failure, not a DoD/military one.

having now been briefed by boots on the ground when this occurred, i still believe it.

i hope this is just saber rattling from the trump admin.

Trinity Ag said:

---

I did.

And it was total nonsense. The conclusions in the summary don't even match the the actual text of the article -- whether you wrote it or the media aggregator that stitched it together is irrelevant.

I get that you like to stir up engagement on here, but have some standards.

---

You remind me of Don Quixote. Whether I wrote it or not is irrelevant? How did I stir up engagement, by telling you that I did not write what I quoted? You are a hypocrite and can't handle the simple truth, and that is the standard you and your buddies have. lol

Hincemm said:

---

i've always viewed the afghan withdrawal as a DoS/civilian leadership failure, not a DoD/military one.

having now been briefed by boots on the ground when this occurred, i still believe it.

i hope this is just saber rattling from the trump admin.

---

Assumptions have to be made in large military operations because sometimes facts can only be realized by future events. The pivotal assumption was the Afghan military would remain viable much longer than it did. That is when everything collapsed.

i agree with that (same goes for iraq, btw) but didn't think that was the basis for a possible inquiry. i thought it referred to the evacuation itself.

It dramatically changed the force protection level requirements which were not met.