Introduction
Some statements are not misunderstood. They are not clumsy phrasing. They are not taken out of context. They are simply wrong, and offensive enough that history itself has to step in and say no.
Donald Trump’s claim that European and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan stayed back from the front was not an insult that landed badly. It was a full-scale smear of every allied soldier who fought, bled, and in many cases died backing the United States during a twenty-year war.
If you want a single, documented, unimpeachable rebuttal, read the Victoria Cross citation for Joshua Leakey. It is not opinion. It is not myth. It is an official record of a joint UK US firefight where allied troops went forward under fire and saved each other’s lives.
Afghanistan was a coalition war, fought shoulder to shoulder
Afghanistan was not fought in national silos. British, American, Danish, Estonian, Canadian, Dutch, Polish, Australian, and other forces operated in mixed task groups. Patrol bases were shared. Quick reaction forces crossed national lines. Medics treated whoever was bleeding, regardless of flag.
Allied troops did not stay back. They held ground, ran clearance operations, manned isolated patrol bases, and responded to contact in some of the most contested terrain in Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Kunar.
Coalition casualty lists exist for one reason only. Coalition troops were in combat.
Joshua Leakey VC: documented fact, not rhetoric
On 22 August 2013, in Helmand Province, Lance Corporal Joshua Leakey of the Parachute Regiment was part of a joint UK US operation led by the US Marine Corps.
The force was pinned down by intense Taliban fire. A US Marine Corps captain was shot and wounded. Enemy fighters were closing in. Communications were degraded.
Leakey did not stay back.
He ran across open ground under machine-gun fire to reach the pinned command group. He treated the wounded US Marine officer and helped initiate casualty evacuation. He then returned uphill under sustained fire to restore and reposition suppressed machine guns, repeatedly exposing himself to draw fire away from others.
The official citation states that his actions were decisive in preventing further loss of life and enabling the evacuation of the wounded US Marine officer.
That is what allied combat looks like. That is what backing the United States looks like.
The Gurkhas: alone, outnumbered, and under sustained attack
If Trump’s claim were true, it collapses completely when confronted with the actions of the Gurkhas.
Acting Sergeant Dipprasad Pun CGC
On 17 September 2010, Dipprasad Pun, of 1st Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles, was on sentry duty at a checkpoint in Babaji, Helmand Province.
He was alone on the roof of a compound when it came under sustained attack by an estimated 12 to 30 Taliban fighters.
For over 15 minutes, Pun fought alone. He fired more than 400 rounds, threw 17 grenades, and detonated a Claymore mine as insurgents attempted to overrun the position. When his rifle failed, and ammunition ran out, he physically threw a machine-gun tripod at an attacker climbing onto the roof.
He prevented the position from being overrun and saved the lives of three comrades inside the compound.
For this, he was awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, the second-highest award for bravery in the British Army.
There is no version of Afghanistan where this qualifies as staying back.
Lance Corporal Tuljung Gurung MC
In 2013, Tuljung Gurung, also of the Royal Gurkha Rifles, was awarded the Military Cross after close combat with insurgents during an Afghan operation.
When ammunition was exhausted, Gurung fought with his kukri knife, driving off attackers at close quarters.
Again, not staying back. Not symbolic. Direct, face-to-face combat.
It was not only British forces
British examples are among the best documented, but they are not unique.
Danish troops fought sustained combat operations in Helmand alongside British and US Marines, suffering heavy casualties relative to force size. Estonian infantry units operated in some of the most dangerous districts of Helmand under UK and US command, earning national gallantry awards for combat actions. Canadian troops fought major engagements in Kandahar and received numerous Stars of Military Valour, often during joint operations involving US units.
Across NATO, gallantry citations repeatedly reference:
-
extraction of wounded US personnel,
-
suppression of enemy fire to allow US manoeuvre,
-
defence of joint patrol bases under sustained attack.
These medals were not handed out for presence. They were awarded for contact.
The insult to US troops is built into the lie
Trump’s claim does not just smear allies. It insults US forces as well.
US medals for valour frequently cite actions taken to rescue or reinforce NATO troops under fire. You cannot praise those US soldiers while pretending the people they were saving were not in combat.
If allies stayed back, then US troops were apparently risking their lives for people who were not there. That is absurd.
The backtrack does not repair the damage
After the backlash, Trump attempted to soften the fallout by praising British soldiers as brave and acknowledging UK casualties.
That does not undo the original statement.
It simply singles out one ally for damage control while leaving every other NATO partner implicitly accused of cowardice. It also avoids the core issue, which is that the original claim was untrue.
You do not get credit for partial praise after full erasure.
Leadership, sacrifice, and the right to speak
When a leader rewrites the history of a war like Afghanistan, they do more than fracture trust. They hand propaganda victories to adversaries, weaken alliances from the inside, and degrade collective defence by undermining the shared memory that holds it together.
And in Trump’s case, there is an added layer of hypocrisy that cannot be ignored.
Donald Trump and his family have no military service anywhere in their history. None. No enlistment, no combat, no command, no sacrifice. Yet he feels entitled to insult soldiers from multiple nations who went forward under fire, backed US forces in contact, and in many cases did not come home.
He has no such right.
Respect for military service is not conferred by holding office. It is earned through understanding, restraint, and humility. Trump shows none of those qualities. He speaks about war as if it were a business negotiation, and about soldiers as if they were contractors who failed to deliver value.
That alone disqualifies him from passing judgment on those who fought.
A real comparison of leadership
If anyone wants a real comparison between leadership and cowardice, it is not found in speeches or slogans. It is found in actions when everything is on the line.
When Russia invaded Ukraine and attempted within days to seize Kyiv, Volodymyr Zelensky was given clear options. He could flee. He could form a government in exile. He could survive.
Instead, he stayed.
Zelensky knew that if Kyiv fell, his capture or death was almost certain. Russian forces were advancing rapidly. Assassination teams were active. Yet he remained in the capital, rallied his troops, addressed his people, and made it clear that the leadership would not abandon them.
That decision mattered. It stiffened resistance. It bought time. It saved Ukraine from collapse.
Trump, by contrast, has never faced anything remotely comparable. And there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that, under similar circumstances, he would have done anything other than run. Loud men who belittle courage from a safe distance are rarely brave when the danger is real.
That is the difference between a snake oil salesman and a leader. One sells strength, lies and Misinformation. The other proves it when it counts with actions.
Soapbox Comment
This was not a gaffe. It was not careless phrasing. It was a lie that spat on the graves of allied soldiers and on the US troops who fought beside them.
Trump is not fit to lead a military alliance. He is not fit to lecture anyone on courage. He is not fit to be the shit stain on the boots of those who served backing the United States up, often at the cost of their lives.
How many times does someone get to demean the armed forces, rewrite wars, and fracture alliances before the US political system does more than issue statements and move on? There is always noise in Congress. There is always outrage on cue. Then there is silence, and the next disgrace follows.
That silence does damage too.
Wake up, America.
Coalition Casualties in Afghanistan
No comments:
Post a Comment