Hegseth’s Dangerous Afghan Investigation Fails to Provide Closure or Answers

This week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initiated a new investigation into the Biden administration’s troublesome withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, prompting applause from many conservatives.

Despite four prior investigations by the National Security Council, the State Department, US Central Command, and the GOP-led House Foreign Affairs Committee, no personnel in the Pentagon or military hierarchy faced consequences for their roles in the crisis.

Additionally, no officials at the State Department or White House were held accountable for a flawed evacuation reminiscent of the disgraceful fall of Saigon in 1975.

However, Hegseth’s renewed pursuit of “accountability” is a potentially risky strategy—one that the Trump administration might exploit as a political weapon against the president’s supposed adversaries.

Key figures in this political crossfire include retired Gen. Mark Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former USCENTCOM commander Gen. Keith McKenzie, who will likely be scrutinized in this investigation.

The inquiry puts Milley directly in the spotlight.

In January, Hegseth revoked Milley’s security detail and national security clearance, directing the Pentagon’s inspector general to review Milley’s previous decisions to determine if he should face a rank demotion.

Milley’s public fallout with Trump was widely reported. In Bob Woodward’s recent book, Milley described the president as “a fascist to the core” and labeled him “the most dangerous person ever [in America].”

Now, Milley is at risk of a Pentagon court-martial despite being shielded from federal prosecution due to a preemptive pardon from President Biden. The findings of the new Afghanistan investigation will likely play a significant role in the evidence against him.

Milley has publicly expressed remorse, stating that “the whole thing was a strategic failure” and that “the fundamental mistake, fundamental flaw was the timing.”

When testifying before Congress in March 2024, both Milley and McKenzie stated they had advised Biden against a full withdrawal.

It is crucial to seek answers. The families mourning the Abbey Gate suicide bombing that resulted in the deaths of 13 American servicemembers and 170 Afghan civilians deserve recognition and accountability.

Taxpayers are entitled to inquire about the $7 billion worth of US military equipment left behind. Moreover, there are vital geostrategic lessons regarding the risks associated with rapid US force withdrawals from volatile regions.

Unfortunately, it seems unlikely we will obtain these answers.

A recent controversy in the US Senate hinted at the forthcoming politicization of this matter.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a prominent Trump ally, placed a promotion hold on Gen. Chris Donahue, who led US troops in Afghanistan during the withdrawal, basing his objection on Donahue’s role in the situation.

Although Donahue’s fourth star was ultimately confirmed through unanimous Senate consent, Mullin’s actions signaled that the incoming Trump administration views the Afghan withdrawal as an open issue.

Thus, Hegseth’s probe poses a precarious challenge. After three and a half years, Donahue remains the highest-ranking commander still in service.

If the investigation becomes excessively politicized or divisive, it risks hampering the Pentagon and US Combatant Commands during a crucial period marked by the Ukraine-Russia conflict and the escalating threat posed by China in the Indo-Pacific and western hemisphere.

The same holds true for confronting Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear ambitions.

During his Senate confirmation in January, Hegseth asserted that “[Trump], like me, wants a Pentagon focused on lethality, meritocracy, warfighting, accountability, and readiness.”

He argued this necessitates a return to the “warrior ethos.”

With the time for reprimanding Milley and McKenzie long gone, is stripping a star from either general—likely the outcome if blame for the disaster is directed at them—worth dragging the entire military command structure through a political quagmire?

Arguably, it is not—especially considering Hegseth’s publicly stated commitment to “trimming the [Pentagon] bureaucracy and reallocating resources to the warfighter.”

Now, more than ever, the Pentagon must adopt a forward-thinking approach. Continually revisiting the failures of previous administrations—especially when they might appear to be political vendettas—would be counterproductive, further complicating the Pentagon’s bureaucracy.

This could breed a generation of cautious combatant commanders hesitant to provide unfiltered advice or make bold decisions out of fear of future political backlash.

While accountability within the Pentagon is imperative, if Hegseth is wise, he will center his focus on future accountability, beginning with the situation in Ukraine.

The outcome of that conflict—and any potential for peace—will prove significantly more consequential than the events in Afghanistan.

Biden’s failure in Afghanistan was primarily a regional calamity, whereas Trump’s potential defeat in Ukraine would carry global ramifications.

Col. (Ret.) Jonathan Sweet served 30 years as a military intelligence officer. Mark Toth specializes in national security and foreign policy.