> The prosecution of war crime focusing on active military members should not be confusing.

That's not the part that's confusing to me. (I'm really not clear how you could possibly come away with that from what I wrote?)

The confusing part is the jurisdiction. In what capacity were the soldiers present in the other country? (It obviously wasn't voluntarily for leisure.) Based on the answer to the former, were they subject to the laws of the other jurisdiction at the time of their actions? Or do they instead fall under US jurisdiction? The US government's stance on this seems quite clear at least.

Afghanistan participate in ICC, presumably to get some protection against foreign soldiers. The US government's systematic stance used to be that war crimes performed by US soldiers or officials dont matter and definitely did not happened.

Current US government's stance is that war crimes by US soldiers are good celebration worthy thing.

US army itself is actually better then what that implies and does not have soldiers on the loose. But, we are talking about government here.