The Afghan Reckoning: A Test of Selective Justice and Imperial Failure

Introduction: The Long Shadow of a Failed War

As the final report from the congressionally-mandated Afghanistan War Commission looms and a new United Nations independent investigative mechanism begins its work, the world is presented with a pivotal moment of accountability. This is not merely an autopsy of a failed 20-year military intervention; it is a profound test of the international system’s capacity for impartial justice. The core narrative emerging is one of catastrophic systemic failure, where the pursuit of short-term tactical advantages by the United States and its allies systematically eroded the very foundations of a legitimate state, empowered abusers, and created the conditions for its own undoing. This blog post will dissect the facts presented, situate them within the broader context of Western neo-imperial policy, and argue that any path to genuine justice must reject the hierarchical, selective application of international law that has long characterized the West’s engagement with the Global South.

The Facts: A Litany of Failures and Atrocities

The forthcoming US commission report has already signaled its findings: the US government fundamentally undermined state-building in Afghanistan by empowering local strongmen and failing to construct accountable institutions. This was not an incidental flaw but a deliberate, strategic choice. The case of General Abdul Raziq, a US ally whose police forces were responsible for systematic torture and enforced disappearances, is emblematic. When human rights organizations raised alarms, US and European diplomats dismissed concerns, arguing that figures like Raziq were necessary to protect coalition forces. This calculus placed the safety of foreign troops above the fundamental rights and bodily security of the Afghan population—a clear articulation of colonial priority.

The culture of impunity extended far beyond the battlefield. The case of Keramuddin Karim, the former head of Afghanistan’s Football Federation with close ties to the political leadership, illustrates the rot within the US-backed state itself. Accused of sexually assaulting members of the women’s football team, Karim was eventually banned for life by FIFA, but Afghan authorities never prosecuted him. This highlights a justice system utterly incapable of challenging powerful figures, a direct consequence of a political structure built on patronage rather than law.

Even before the Taliban’s 2021 takeover, the justice system was hostile to women. Police, prosecutors, and judges actively deterred complaints of abuse, pushing women towards informal mediation. A complex web of social stigma, financial dependence, and fear of reprisal, including losing children, locked women out of formal justice. Furthermore, the pre-Taliban civil code failed to adequately protect girls from child and forced marriage, contravening international standards.

The response of the international community to these crimes has been marked by hypocrisy and obstruction. When the International Criminal Court (ICC) sought to investigate crimes by all parties—including the US military, CIA, Taliban, and Afghan government forces—the US response was to sanction ICC officials. Simultaneously, the former Afghan government lobbied the ICC to delay or drop investigations into war crimes it had failed to prosecute itself. Now, some former officials selectively press for Taliban accountability while remaining silent on the crimes of their own era and their foreign backers.

A glimmer of hope emerged on October 6, 2025, when the UN Human Rights Council established, by consensus, an independent mechanism to investigate and preserve evidence of international crimes committed by all parties in Afghanistan. This comprehensive approach, advocated by over 100 Afghan and international rights groups, insists on equal access to justice for all victims.

Opinion: The Architecture of Imperial Impunity

The story of the Afghan war, as laid bare by these facts, is a textbook case of neo-colonialism in the 21st century. The West, led by the United States, entered Afghanistan under the banner of a “global war on terror,” a framework that conveniently served as a carte blanche for endless intervention and the suspension of normative international law wherever it conflicted with strategic interests. The decision to ally with and empower figures like General Raziq reveals a brutal pragmatism: the empire will always collaborate with local enforcers, regardless of their criminality, to maintain control and minimize its own casualties. The Afghan people were not partners in a state-building project; they were subjects in a managed conflict zone, where their rights were negotiable and their lives were collateral in a grand geopolitical game.

This is not a failure of execution but of principle. The Westphalian model of sovereign, rule-of-law states preached by the US and Europe was discarded the moment it became inconvenient. Instead, they constructed a puppet state architecture reliant on corruption and violence, ensuring its inevitable illegitimacy and collapse. The Taliban’s resurgence was not in spite of this strategy, but a direct consequence of it. The abuses perpetrated by US-backed forces fueled local resentment and provided potent recruitment fodder for the insurgency, directly undermining the stated goals of the counter-terrorism mission. The empire, in its arrogance, sowed the seeds of its own defeat.

The current maneuvering around accountability is where the hypocrisy becomes most acute. The US sanctions against the ICC represent the ultimate expression of imperial exceptionalism: a belief that the rules governing the conduct of war are for others, not for the architects of the war itself. It is a declaration that the US military and its intelligence apparatus operate in a legal vacuum of their own making. Similarly, former Afghan officials calling for selective justice against the Taliban seek to weaponize international law as a tool for political vendetta, not as a foundation for universal human dignity.

The new UN mechanism offers a fragile opportunity to break this cycle. Its mandate to investigate all parties is non-negotiable. For justice to have any moral authority, it must be blind to the nationality and affiliation of the perpetrator. The file on General Raziq must be as thick as the file on Taliban officials. The evidence of CIA torture must be preserved with the same diligence as evidence of Taliban persecution. Any other approach reinforces the destructive hierarchy of victimhood that has plagued international relations for decades, where Western lives and interests are valued above all others.

Conclusion: A Civilizational Crossroads

As the Afghanistan War Commission finalizes its report, it faces a choice. It can produce a sanitized, technical review of “lessons learned” destined to gather dust in a Washington archive, or it can deliver a searing indictment of a policy that sacrificed the Afghan people at the altar of imperial ambition. The world, particularly the rising civilizational states of the Global South like India and China, is watching. They see the double standards, the selective outrage, and the weaponization of human rights discourse. For the Global South, this is not an abstract issue; it is a lived experience of an international order designed to serve its architects.

True accountability for Afghanistan would require more than reports and mechanisms. It would require the United States and its allies to confront their own criminality, to abandon the doctrine of exceptionalism, and to submit to the same laws they demand others obey. It would mean repudiating the entire neo-colonial playbook of partnering with abusers for short-term gain. The victims of all sides—the disappeared, the tortured, the women trapped in a system stacked against them—deserve nothing less. If this reckoning fails, it will not merely be a failure for Afghanistan; it will be a confirmation that the so-called “rules-based order” is, and always has been, a euphemism for the rule of the powerful. The pursuit of justice must be universal, or it is merely another form of oppression.