Is it possible to have ‘accountability' for the War in Afghanistan?
Well, it's Friday.
This is a special edition of the Pentagon Rundown in which we will look at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's promise that the latest Defense Department review of the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan will finally lead to 'accountability' for the debacle.
On Aug. 26, 2021, 13 U.S. service members and around 170 Afghans were killed in a suicide bombing at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul. The bombing was the final attack on U.S. troops in a war that claimed the lives of more than 2,000 American service members since it began on Oct. 7, 2001.
But what does accountability for the withdrawal from Afghanistan actually look like? And what about accountability for the handling of America's longest war, one plagued almost from the outset by mission creep, nebulous goals, a lack of accountability and transparency, and no clear exit plan? Accountability for that is long overdue, but it's unclear if yet another review of the final moments of a decades-spanning war will achieve it.
John Sopko, then serving as the U.S. government's top watchdog for Afghanistan reconstruction, told Congress in January 2020 that U.S. government officials had an 'incentive' to lie about progress in Afghanistan. Yet there have been few, if any, consequences for those who kept claiming Afghanistan had turned the corner — claims made by senior leaders in the military and officials from presidential administrations of both parties.
Neither Hegseth nor any other civilian or military leaders have said what types of actions the U.S. military might take as a result of the review's findings — a review that focuses just on the withdrawal and not the totality of the war and its management. And if it were to extend to the broader conflict, any real form of accountability would be hampered by the fact that so many of the key decision-makers in the 20-year war have since retired or otherwise left government service. A defense official queried about the matter by Task & Purpose had no additional information to provide.
Another question is who exactly should be held accountable for America's defeat in Afghanistan. The chaotic retreat from Kabul in August 2021 was far more than a military failure. Every presidential administration between 2001 and 2021 bears some responsibility, as does Congress, which ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Let's not forget the State Department, which did not order the non-combatant evacuation from Afghanistan until the day before the Taliban captured Kabul.
The United States' NATO allies and its former partners in the now defunct Afghan government also bear a degree of culpability for the final defeat, said Jonathan Schroden, an Afghanistan expert who works for CNA, a nonprofit research and analysis organization in Arlington, Virginia.
'The finger of blame for the outcomes we observed in Afghanistan point at every actor involved,' said Schroden, who previously served as research director for the Afghanistan War Commission, which was established by Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the conflict. 'It was both a systemic failure of many organizations and the collective failure of many individuals.'
Although there have been some previous assessments of failed military missions — such as the Holloway Commission's examination of the 1980 attempt to rescue Americans held hostage by the Iranians — the Afghanistan War Commission marks the first time the United States has attempted to conduct a non-political appraisal of a major war, Schroden said.
For the Defense Department, the task of holding people accountable for the failures in Afghanistan will be an uphill climb, especially since the military has a long history of absolving itself from any wrongdoing. Another tried and true military tradition is finding someone to blame for a catastrophe, as the Navy did after an explosion aboard the battleship USS Iowa killed 47 sailors — and again in 2020 following a deadly outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt.
The military can also be loath to discipline senior leaders, as was initially the case after four soldiers were killed in a 2017 ambush in Niger. Congress ultimately pressured the Army to withdraw a promotion to general for the colonel who approved the mission.
In cases where there is no way to deny that a war has gone terribly wrong, another solution is to remove the senior commander by promoting him. Army Gens. William Westmoreland and George Casey were both named Army chief of staff after their strategies in Vietnam and Iraq, respectively, failed.
Perhaps the accountability review announced by Hegseth will lead to a truly honest examination of the Afghanistan War, which defined a generation of service members and veterans.
Or, it could very well be derailed by the military's inability to accept hard truths — the same thing that doomed the war to drag on until its tragic end.
Regardless of how the review pans out, those who served there can and should take pride in the individual acts of sacrifice, bravery and service they participated in and bore witness to.
Army to eliminate 2 Security Force Assistance Brigades, reassign experienced soldiers
Why the Army's new XM7 rifle reignited a debate over volume of fire
Air Force delay on separation and retirement orders isn't 'stop loss,' defense official says
F-35's close call over Yemen raises questions about how it's used
An Army unit's 'extreme use of profanity' was so bad, they made a rule about it
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's ‘return to office' crusade smothers its pronatalist promise
The White House trumpets a 'baby bonus' — $5,000 wired days after delivery — to reverse America's record-low 1.6 fertility rate, documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Vital Statistics Reports. In the same breath, it orders every federal employee back to the office five days a week. But Stanford's new 'Working from Home in 2025' survey of 16,422 professionals upends that logic: women with children desire 2.66 remote days each week, higher than any other demographic. The administration vows to grow families while vaporizing the flexibility that makes new children feasible, creating a collision that risks empty cribs and hollow offices alike. Time rules parenthood. The average American commute consumes 55 minutes round-trip, meaning a traditional five-day schedule eats up almost another five hours of free time each week. Those hours fuel bedtime routines, homework patrol and marriage maintenance; without them, parental stress spikes. Stanford's survey shows parents steer toward hybrid work precisely because several home days help restore that bandwidth. Parents still collaborate on site yet dodge traffic's cortisol surge. The federal badge doctrine yanks that option, forcing caregivers back into rush-hour gridlock and shredding the very capacity the 'baby bonus' seeks to reward. The White House defends the order as a downtown-revitalization plan, yet empty playgrounds undermine long-term urban vitality far more than shuttered salad bars. The response has been swift — over 260,000 civil-service resignations, buyouts or early retirements since the mandate, a wave led by mid-career women. These departures bleed institutional knowledge, spike contractor costs and prove that rigid schedules push out precisely the workers the baby-bonus scheme aims to empower. Direct payments headline well, yet history shows money alone seldom moves fertility. France, Hungary and South Korea all dangled cash but saw sustained birth-rate gains only after they paired subsidies with affordable childcare and generous leave. We've seen the same skepticism here, with women calling the $5,000 proposal 'meager' without schedule support. In fact, policymakers still debate whether a bonus would move the needle at all. Child-care tuition already tops mortgage payments in many metro areas, and the gas, parking and wardrobe costs tied to full-time commutes burn up the bonus long before a first birthday. Rigid attendance therefore turns the 'baby bonus' into a consolation prize for exhaustion. The persistent declines in births stem from soaring childcare costs, student debt and delayed milestones such as homeownership — all problems amplified by longer daily commutes. When the administration mandates five badge scans a week, it inflates every hidden parenting expense the subsidy intends to ease. The result is policy whiplash: a check in one envelope, a time audit in the next. The Stanford survey reinforces that economic calculus: women with children value schedule control more than any other employment perk, ranking it higher than pay or promotion prospects. Force them back, and many abandon growth plans — at work and at home. The administration's own ranks testify. Treasury's internal return-to-office guidance, issued in February, acknowledges 'heightened retention risk' among caregivers, yet it still enforces five days on-site. Pronatalism that ignores workplace physics turns into press-release theater. One pivot resolves the clash: Replace the blanket five-day decree with a disciplined three-day anchor model for roles that do not handle classified hardware or wet-lab equipment. Stanford's Steven Davis and Nicholas Bloom show firms keep productivity steady — or lift it — under such hybrid rules, while recruitment costs fall because talent pools widen geographically. Eighty percent of Fortune 500 companies now run some version of this model, proof that flexibility and performance coexist. Hybrid schedules also cut vehicle miles, handing the administration an unwritten climate victory without another regulation, as remote-work research from Hoover Institution scholars confirms. Congress can hard-wire the alignment. Tie the enlarged Child Tax Credit now under debate to employer certification of at least two voluntary home days per week, nudging private firms toward family-friendly norms. House negotiators already weigh credit expansion as part of a broader pronatalist push. Add lease subsidies for offices that include on-site childcare and stroller storage, and the commute becomes a support node, not a hurdle. Stanford's evidence stands clear: caregivers who will deliver tomorrow's taxpayers want 2.66 remote days each week, yet the badge order throttles that desire and drains the very talent the government hopes to retain. Align workplace structure with family aspirations, and the baby bonus transforms from political gimmick to demographic catalyst. Ignore the contradiction, and America exchanges rattles for resignation letters — a trade no nation can afford. Flexibility, not fiat, is the linchpin that lets families, careers and the country thrive together. Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Budget for NASA Is Absolutely Horrifying
Earlier this year, the Trump administration revealed its proposed budget for NASA's fiscal year 2026, indicating brutal cuts of unprecedented proportions are coming. Now, the agency has released new data about the proposal, painting a dire picture of its future. As SpaceNews reports, the documents reveal that thousands of jobs would be cut, and dozens of science missions would be on the chopping block. The cuts — which would drag the budget to its lowest point since 1961, SpaceNews points out, when adjusted for inflation — would result in the firing of roughly one-third of all civil servants. The budget would also slash the space agency's science budget in almost half, "nothing short of an extinction-level event for space science and exploration in the United States," as Planetary Society chief of space policy Casey Dreier told Ars Technica in March. The extent of the proposed cuts is truly baffling, with the Trump administration basically looking to give up on space science altogether in favor of militarizing the Earth's orbit and sending humans to Mars. The so-called "skinny" budget would result in the cancellation of several key space exploration missions, including NASA's Mars Sample Return mission. Other Earth observation programs would also be ripped up, including missions to monitor the planet's gravity field or study tropical cyclones, per SpaceNews. The budget would also cancel planned missions to explore the surface of Mars, as well as existing operations such as OSIRIS-APEX, which is headed to an asteroid called Apophis. While NASA's next major landmark space observatory, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, wouldn't be entirely canceled, it would be allocated less than half of its previously outlined budget. Meanwhile, the space agency would be doubling down on establishing commercially funded ways to get to the Moon and Mars, highlighting the Trump administration's sometimes-cozy relationship with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, whose space company is bound to reap the benefits. The budget would clear up north of $1 billion for projects connected to sending humans to the Red Planet, indicating the president is willing to closely follow Musk's lead. The proposed 2026 fiscal year budget is now headed to Congress, where it's likely to meet ample opposition. "No one is eager to cut NASA science," Dreier told SpaceNews. "No one is out there openly defending and saying that this is a great idea." In short, if it were to make it through Congress unaltered — which is unlikely, since the agency is supported by many lawmakers — Trump's NASA budget could deal the country's leadership in space an existential blow, allowing adversaries, most notably China, to race ahead. "It sends a signal that America is stepping back from leadership in virtually every science area, including NASA," former NASA associate administrator for science John Grunsfeld told PBS. "The proposal for the NASA science budget is, in fact, cataclysmic for US leadership in science." "What we see is a full-scale assault on science in America," representative George Whitesides (D-CA) added. "It is probably the biggest attack on our scientific establishment in history." "It's a poorly wielded chainsaw," he added. More on NASA's budget: NASA Disgusted by Elon Musk's Disrespect

Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After Trump cuts, National Weather Service is hiring. What about Florida?
As an active hurricane season looms for Florida, the National Weather Service is hiring. The Trump administration, through billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has slashed workforces in multiple federal agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which encompasses the NWS and the National Hurricane Center. With concerns rising over whether the stripped-down agencies will be enough to handle increasingly dangerous weather in the U.S., CNN has reported that the NWS has received permission to temporarily lift the hiring freeze and hire about 125 new meteorologists and specialists for its forecast offices around the country. The NWS is also hoping to continue hiring more people under a public safety exemption, CNN said. ➤ Weather alerts via text: Sign up to get updates about current storms and weather events by location As of June 3, any hiring is still in the planning stages. NWS spokesperson Erica Grow Cei told Newsweek that the agency is planning to hire additional staff members to "stabilize" the department to address people who took the voluntary early retirement option. In May, USA TODAY reported that the weather service was working to transfer meteorologists from well-staffed offices to fill 155 positions where they're needed. "Additionally, a targeted number of permanent, mission-critical field positions will soon be advertised under an exception to the department-wide hiring freeze to further stabilize front-line operations," Cei said. More than 550 of the 4,800 weather service employees have been dismissed, retired or accepted incentive offers to step down. Many of the country's 122 local weather service forecast offices, usually staffed 24 hours day, seven days a week, were left shorthanded with staff reductions from 20-40% and scrambling to cover staffing and maintain the usual quality and number of measurements. Several offices were forced to end or reduce weather balloon launches, which can reduce the agency's ability to predict weather, and CNN reported on May 2 that 30 NWS offices no longer had a lead meteorologist. NOAA, which studies Earth's atmosphere, oceans and climate, has also canceled events in a public awareness campaign on the importance of early preparation. 'This has never happened before. We've always been an agency that has provided 24/7 service to the American public,' Tom Fahy, legislative director for the National Weather Service Employees Organization, told ABC News. 'The risk is extremely high — if cuts like this continue to the National Weather Service, people will die.' The Trump administration laid off an estimated 650 NOAA employees in February in the name of cutting government spending, including two flight directors and an electronic engineer at NOAA's Office of Aircraft Operations, home of the NOAA Hurricane Hunters. That could affect the agency's ability to conduct the twice-daily flights necessary during a significant hurricane threat, according to former Hurricane Hunter and cofounder of Weather Underground Jeff Masters, especially if one or more becomes unavailable or sick. NOAA employees have been told to expect a further 50% reduction in its staff of almost 12,000. Hurricane season fears: Will federal cuts and state budget battle put Florida's hurricane readiness in peril? The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season began Sunday, June 1, and runs through Sunday, Nov. 30. However, storms can and do occur outside of those dates. AccuWeather is predicting the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season could bring: Named storms: 13 to 18 Hurricanes: 7-10 Major hurricanes: 3-5 Direct U.S. impacts: 3-6 NOAA is predicting a 60% chance of an above-normal season, a 30% chance of a near-normal season and a 10% chance for a below-normal season. Forecasters predict: Named storms: 13-19 Hurricanes: 6-10 Major hurricanes: 3-5 Colorado State University meteorologists predict: 17 named storms 9 hurricanes 4 major hurricanes Dr. Ryan Truchelut of WeatherTiger hedged his bets and predicted that the 2025 season has a 50-50 chance of landing in the ranges of: 16-21 tropical storms 7-9 hurricanes 3-4 major hurricanes Contributing: Dinah Voyles Pulver, USA TODAY, and Cheryl McCloud, USA TODAY NETWORK This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: National Weather Service to hire about 125 to replace DOGE losses