From the NY Times:
"Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain, other leading British politicians and Prince Harry on Friday condemned claims made by President Trump that NATO troops had stayed “a little off the front lines” during the war in Afghanistan.
Mr. Trump made the comments in an interview in Davos, Switzerland, with Fox Business, in which the president questioned whether other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would come to the aid of the United States if needed.
“We’ve never needed them,” Mr. Trump said. “We have never really asked anything of them. You know, they’ll say they sent some troops to Afghanistan or this or that. And they did. They stayed a little back, little off the front lines.”
Under NATO’s collective security agreement, known as Article 5, aggression against one member country is considered an attack on all. It has been invoked only once in the history of the alliance — after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
In Britain, which lost 457 soldiers during two decades of subsequent fighting in Afghanistan, the reaction to Mr. Trump’s claims was swift and universally critical.
Mr. Starmer — who normally avoids criticizing the president — said the remarks were “insulting and frankly appalling,” adding that he was “not surprised they have caused such hurt.” Asked whether Mr. Trump should apologize, Mr. Starmer said that if he had “misspoken in that way or said those words, I would certainly apologize.”
In a statement, Prince Harry recalled his deployment to Afghanistan as part of the British military. “I served there” he said. “I made lifelong friends there. The United Kingdom alone had 457 personnel killed. Thousands of lives were changed forever. Mothers and fathers buried sons and daughters.”
“Those sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect,” he added.
Earlier on Friday, John Healey, Britain’s defense secretary wrote on social media: “The U.K. and NATO allies answered the U.S. call. And more than 450 British personnel lost their lives in Afghanistan. Those British troops should be remembered for who they were: heroes who gave their lives in service of our nation.”
Also writing on social media, Kemi Badenoch, leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, described Mr. Trump’s claims as “flat-out nonsense.” She added: “British, Canadian, and NATO troops fought and died alongside the US for 20 years. This is a fact, not opinion. Their sacrifice deserves respect not denigration.”
Ed Davey, leader of the centrist Liberal Democrat party and an outspoken critic of the president noted in a post that Mr. Trump had received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War, adding: “How dare he question their sacrifice.”
Trump is ignorant, toxic slime who continues to damage NATO. And delight Putin.
Why?
USA lost about 2500 people in Afghanistan. So Trump isn't wrong to a certain extent.
Now if you watch any podcasts or anything like that about soldiers who fought over there. They say all troops were warriors and helped. Be it British SAS, Canadian special forces, US special forces, etc. but facts are facts.....USA lost 5 to 1 compared to British soldiers
USA spent $2.3 trillion on that war.....British spent $30 billion.
I am not arguing merits of the war, who should have or have not been there, etc. But facts are facts
USA took more casualties, spent more, etc. Than other NATO nations that it didn't happen on home turf.
Again not saying other nations were not brave, didn't fight, etc. they are all amazing soldiers and warriors.....
Facts are facts with the casualties and money spent......USA lost and spent more.....But nice try.....
-- Modified on 1/24/2026 12:13:56 AM
I asked Gemini AI "which nations had most casualties per capita in afghanistan". Here is it's response . . .
-
Denmark experienced the highest per capita military casualty rate among coalition nations in Afghanistan, followed closely by Estonia, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Despite the United States suffering the highest absolute number of deaths (over 2,400), smaller nations like Denmark, with 44 fatalities, bore a higher proportional burden.
.
Denmark: Ranked highest, with a death rate roughly equivalent to, or exceeding, the U.S. in per capita terms, due to intense frontline fighting in Helmand Province.
.
Estonia: Had a high per capita rate due to a small population and significant combat role.
.
United Kingdom & Canada: Suffered the next highest per capita tolls due to heavy deployment in high-risk areas like Sangin and Helmand.
.
United States: While having the highest total fatalities (67.6% of all coalition deaths), its larger population resulted in a lower per capita rate than Denmark or Estonia.
.
Georgia: As a non-NATO contributor, Georgia also suffered a high casualty rate relative to its small troop contribution.
But our little friend is too stupid to get it.
Now he'll default to his mantra that the naughty liberals are "moving the goal posts" and calling him mean names again.
What a dolt.
Oh god.....using AI.
Now you two want to say "pre capita". Or use that as a bench mark. But you don't understand that plays perfectly into what Trump is says.....less troops by those nations, less money spent, less resources, less boots on the ground, etc ....all meaning they sat on the side lines while USA did most of the work.
Thanks for proving the point Trump was making.
You truly are a partisan idiot.
How???? These guys proved Trump's point. USA invested more, had more boots on the group, loss more troops, etc. while other countries didn't.
How is that partisan back? It is facts and the truth. Then they try to say pre capita.....well if a country sent in 100 special forces and 20 get killed in one mission. Yes per capita they had "more loss". Yet USA sent 2000 special forces and could run 100 missions and lose 100. Per capita they loss less but took more risk. Hence what Trump was talking about. USA had more skin in the game than others.
Again.....I'm not talking merit if we should have been there or saying loss of life by other countries isn't bad. All soldiers are warriors and helped. But facts are facts...... USA spent more and lost more troops and did the brunt of all the missions. NATO was more on the sidelines and worked in the background. Facts are facts. I can't help that you all are blind by it.
Again the per capita argument they tried to make proves Trump's point. They all had less troops, less invested, less equipment, etc. NaTO wasn't the driving force leading missions. They played more of a support role with limited special forces operations. Many NATO countries special forces were force multiplayer type roles. IE: one or two would join seals, rangers, etc.
But yeah....call me partisan when I just state facts.
You truly are a partisan idiot. The more you post, the more you look like a damn fool.
Haha.....facts matter and when presented with FACTS. Liberals only game plan is to insult.
Like I said the per capita comparison only proves Trump's point. USA invested more than NATO nations....they "say on the sidelines" for the most part. It is what he said.....they ignore the "for the most part". And the liberal minds in this sight ignore what I talked about how other nations were more back up roles unless they were special forces. Then they were considered force multiplers. But ignorance is bliss for some.
through your rabid radical extremist leftist eyes someone posting the truth and facts will look foolish. Which proves you are not only foolish but weak and easily manipulated by your masters.
Exactly.....they still don't get that the per capita made Trump's point.
Oh they had more people die "per capita" because they didn't have as many there. Trump's fucking point. NATO stood by while USA did all the heavy lifting. The USA had more troops on the ground, more assets involved, more intelligence involved, more money invested/spent, etc. Trump's point is NATO needs to step it up and not lean on USA to do it all. Facts matter....to most but not some on this board.
They act smart by saying.....well per capita is the only way to look at it.....TRUMP is...... USA had more invested than NATO nations. I'm surprised he didn't call them suckers and losers for losing so much compared to the USA who should have had more losses because of all the people we had there.
Of course California has more morons than Minnesota. But would you rather live in a state that has one moron per 1,000 or a state where one out of 100 people is a moron? You're much more likely to run into a moron in Minnesota.
The same thing applies to soldiers - you're more likely to meet someone in Denmark who had a relative killed in Afghanistan than you are to meet someone in the U.S. who had a relative killed in Afghanistan.
Liberal being a liberal.....name calling and still not understanding you keep proving Trump's point.
You keep proving Bps' point.
And you're too dumb to know it.
Liberals throwing insults....keep proving my point.