By now, the world has become used to US President Trump’s outlandish, bombastic, and usually unfounded outbursts on all sorts of topics as he plies his transactional politics on us all. Anyone with any sense ignores them and shrugs them off.
However, a new nadir was reached with his comments on the Afghanistan imbroglio when he stated that the US’ NATO allies in that theatre “stayed a little back, off the front lines”.
This was a very silly thing to say, and only a moment’s research would have shown him that his comments were very wide of the mark. Far from being “off the front lines”, many of the US’ allies suffered proportionally around the same level of casualties as the USA, and in the case of Denmark, a higher one.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Britain, for example, suffered a total of 457 deaths in the twenty years that UK forces were deployed there. Four hundred and four of these were classified as “killed as a result of hostile action”. Clearly not “a little back” then.
Unsurprisingly, there has been a tsunami of outrage from every country that committed its national forces to the American-led operation. Even the UK’s normally mealy-mouthed Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, summoned up the gumption to speak out, saying that Trump’s words were “insulting and frankly appalling”.
Faced with such global condemnation, Trump has rowed back on his opinion, as he so often does when faced with collective resistance. Never one to apologise directly, no doubt in case it is taken as a sign of weakness, the President nevertheless acknowledged the contribution made by British troops. He wrote, amongst other things, on his Truth Social platform: “The great and very brave soldiers of the United Kingdom will always be with the United States of America … it’s a bond too strong to ever be broken”.
Honour satisfied and British pride restored? Perhaps, but why say it in the first place?
The answer seems to be that this is just another step in the process of decoupling the USA, at least militarily, from its European NATO allies. It’s no secret that Trump has long been critical of European nations not pulling their weight in defence and security terms – and in this, he is correct – and this is just another iteration of his “America is no longer going to do it all” schtick.
And, to be fair, in this he has been successful. Alliance nations have been dragged, screaming and kicking, into the brave new realpolitik of paying properly for their security, and there is a general scramble among them to increase their defence budgets and rearm. Here in the UK, we’re committed – I would take that word with a pinch of salt if I’m being honest – to increasing our defence budget to five per cent of GDP by 2035.
Now, we all know this is neither a big enough increase nor an acceptable timeframe, but at least it’s a start in the right direction. But Labour will not be in power come the next General Election, and there’s no guarantee that the administration which succeeds them (Reform?) will be bound by previous pledges. That said, and looking on the bright side, perhaps they will seek to do better!
When the dust has settled, this minor farrago will come to be seen for what it is – another example of the Trump-style transactional approach to politics. He always enters with a preposterous opening gambit and then settles for much less than he asked for, and sometimes for nothing at all. It’s the way he does it, and the others are now wising up.
There is a new acronym in town: TACO, as in ‘Trump Always Chickens Out’. We have seen it in his approach to Ukraine, Gaza, and now Greenland. The only time he has followed through has been in Venezuela, and that was an altogether easier nut to crack. European politicians need to deal with Trump for what he is, a boastful, blowhard, narcissistic bully. The rest of the world will thank them in due course.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk
It was quite obvious to most that he was primarily referring to the French, Germans and some others who limited their involvement to the less volatile areas of the country, although most of these countries still lost many troops, so it was an ill judged comment. I think he has some good policy stand points, but his volatility and inability to be articulate is not helpful. Vance, a former marine and the man in waiting, is what the American right actually needs. Trump just needs to serve his time and move on.
Good that he has now apologised and recognised the British contribution.
‘Vance, a former marine and the man in waiting, is what the American right actually needs.’
That’s an opinion shared by very few even amongst the MAGA base. I’d look up his past if I were you, he’s not exactly the leadership type.
I’m sure all that time Vance spent doing public relations for the marines has set him in good stead. 😂
The lives of those who make the ultimate sacrifice are way more Important than His.
@ Stewart Crawford
At no point has the British government ever committed to spending 5% of defence. The figure is 3.5% with 1.5% to be spent on infrastructure dedicated to resilience. That will be items such as wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, roads, railways etc.
I would say your article does far more to complement and justify Trumps comments than admonish them. I would have thought anyone who served in Afghanistan would not be willing to justify such comments. How close to the front lines were you?
It’s worth pointing out many countries in NATO spend more than the USA on defence and lost people in Afghanistan and Trump levelled the same disgusting criticism on them so perhaps your argument does not hold water.