As the international community weighs its response, many in Afghanistan hope that this renewed attention may lead to some measure of justice – long overdue for victims whose voices were too often drowned out in the fog of war.
A sweeping New York Times investigation has reignited scrutiny over alleged war crimes committed by US forces in Afghanistan. It has also reignited scrutiny over the apparent disparity in how those cases are handled. The revelations lay bare a deeply troubling pattern: some service members face vigorous prosecution, while others – even when evidence appears compelling – evade accountability.
Central to the New York Times’ report is the case of Matthew Golsteyn, a former Green Beret who admitted that during a 2010 deployment he released a bomb-making suspect and later killed him, then burned his body. Though the case has been opened and closed multiple times over the years, Golsteyn was intensively pursued by military prosecutors.
In stark contrast stands a case in the Nerkh district of Kunduz province, in which an Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA) team is accused of the killing and torture of nine Afghan detainees. Despite extensive evidence suggesting misconduct, the investigation was quietly dropped and no US service members were charged.
Analysts say the juxtaposition of these two outcomes illustrates a “culture of immunity” within certain sectors of US Special Operations. “There has been a completely double-standard approach,” said political analyst Ruhullah Hotak.
A Culture of Silence, Cover-Ups, and Promotions
According to the Times, the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has repeatedly favoured obfuscation, inaction, and even career advancement for accused personnel – rather than full, transparent investigations.
One oft-cited example is the 2015 airstrike on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, which killed 42 civilians. Although accountability was promised, no senior US official was ever held to account.
Wahid Faqiri, an expert in international relations, told Afghan news platform, TOLOnews, that several recent New York Times reports “expose a culture of impunity” – a system in which wrongdoing by US soldiers in Afghanistan is insufficiently pursued.
A Broader Pattern of Allegations
The Golsteyn and Nerkh cases are not anomalies. Over the course of the US presence in Afghanistan, accusations of war crimes have repeatedly emerged – many unresolved or downgraded to administrative matters.
Bagram Detention Abuses: In 2005, two Afghan detainees, Habibullah and Dilawar, died after being chained to the ceiling and beaten. Autopsy reports determined their deaths were homicides. Seven soldiers were charged.
Kandahar Massacre (2012): Staff Sergeant Robert Bales walked from his base into nearby villages and slaughtered 16 Afghan civilians, including women and children. After admitting guilt, Bales was sentenced to life without parole.
Maywand (Kill Team) Murders: In 2010 in Kandahar, a group of US infantrymen (self-dubbed the “Kill Team”) murdered Afghan civilians in staged combat settings. Several soldiers were convicted, but critics say the case’s handling underscores how rare it is for frontline units to face accountability.
Shinwar Shooting (2007): After a car bomb attack near a US convoy, Marines returning fire were accused of killing up to 19 civilians along a highway. Though US investigators later reduced the estimated fatalities, charges were never filed.
These and other instances suggest structural obstacles to transparency – from buried evidence to internal resistance to investigation, or the framing of incidents as unavoidable in combat.
Reactions from Kabul and Beyond
Afghan authorities and analysts have long decried what they describe as US disregard for accountability. The Afghan government has repeatedly demanded that countries and individuals responsible for wartime violations in Afghanistan pay reparations and face justice.
Within Kabul and among the country’s political elite, the new New York Times report is being seen as vindication of longstanding claims that the US exercised impunity, especially during its two decades of military involvement. Some view it as an opportunity to press for renewed international investigations or even prosecutions in international fora.
International human rights groups are also calling for independent scrutiny. They argue that without credible external oversight, internal US military processes will continue to shield alleged perpetrators – particularly those in elite units.
The Challenge of Accountability in War
Observers emphasize that investigating alleged war crimes is a forbidding task, especially in conflict zones. Security, access to evidence, witness protection, and political will all present enormous hurdles. Yet for critics, these are precisely the reasons why strong, transparent mechanisms must be institutionalized – to ensure fair treatment regardless of rank or unit.
In the wake of the New York Times’ revelations, key questions arise: Why was Golsteyn targeted so aggressively while the Nerkh case was quashed? Which decisions were taken higher up the chain of command? And what reforms, if any, will emerge to prevent recurrence?
Image: CHATGPT
