US President said that troops from the remaining NATO countries in Afghanistan “were left a little behind, a little away from the front line”, in a statement in which he sought to devalue the US allies. “I’ve always said, ‘Will they be there if we need them?’ And that’s really the litmus test. And I’m not sure about that,” Trump said. For Keir Starmer, these statements are “insulting and frankly shocking”, for the French presidency and Giorgia Meloni they are “unacceptable”
For Major General Jorge Saramago, who worked for NATO in Afghanistan at the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) headquarters in Kabul, Trump’s criticisms are not “completely wrong” – although “unfair”.
“Unfair” because, he explains, NATO took control of operations in several Afghan provinces. “It wasn’t because the US didn’t have the capacity, the reason was actually being relieved or supported by its allies in the Atlantic Alliance.”
Jorge Saramago gives the example of the German army, which commanded operations in the Mazar-i-Sharif area. “They responded to the ISAF command, which was located in Kabul, but they themselves commanded a group of NATO forces that operated in this province. This applied to all provinces, from Kunduz to Helmand. They all had a lead nation.”
As such, NATO troops were on the front line, commanding and carrying out “combat, counter-terrorism, counter-guerrilla, counter-insurgency operations and also operations against narcotics trafficking”. But not only.
“NATO also conducted support and training operations for police forces, military forces and provincial governments, as well as schools and justice. There was an aspect of civil support, for governance, and another of military support and conduct of war”, explains the major general. “Of course the criticism is unfair. NATO carried out combat operations and had many casualties”, he adds.
But the idea that Trump is not entirely wrong can be explained with one word: caveat. The expression caveat serves to designate any restriction or limitation imposed by a State on its armed forces in a multinational intervention scenario or in NATO coalitions. In short, there are countries that restrict the activities of their armed forces on the ground. This limitation may be not participating in combat operations in a certain region, with certain weapons or not participating in combat operations at all.
Jorge Saramago states that NATO countries authorize the deployment of their troops, but with “very many caveats”.It is in this context that he praises the Portuguese presence in Afghanistan.
“Portugal had a very important force in Kabul, made up essentially of Commando forces. quick reaction force“, he begins by explaining. “This force was heavily armed and had armored assets and, when it was necessary to deploy it outside Kabul, it was moved by helicopter. The Portuguese force did not have caveatstherefore it had no limitations and could be used, and was used, in combat operations. There are records of several NATO commanders who went so far as to say that they were the best forces they had at their disposal precisely because they did not have caveats”, explains the major-general.
For Lieutenant General Rafael Martins, who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom, launched after 9/11, Trump’s words were “perfectly unreasonable”. “It is an observation consistent with provocation, but it goes beyond provocation – it goes to disrespect towards allies, called to carry out missions alongside and sometimes even integrated with American forces, to defend what were the objectives of NATO and ISAF”, explains the lieutenant general. “Trump’s words do not represent in the slightest the spirit of solidarity that NATO countries delivered to these same missions.”
Rafael Martins states that there is already a “very significant group of countries, with a much greater representation than Portugal had, that have already noted that Trump’s words are completely unreasonable and disrespectful, they make no sense and the countries just have to feel offended by those same words”. As for the Portuguese government, which has not yet reacted, the lieutenant general says that silence “is an attitude with some representation”.
“It’s not giving importance to an observation that is totally unreasonable and devoid of truth. If everyone starts to hit on the same thing, then there will be no time to talk about other things that are much more important and much more effective. I don’t see, in any way, that not saying the same thing that others have already said diminishes us.”
For Jorge Saramago, reacting like Starmer or Macron “is a political assessment that must and must be made”, with this task falling to the Executive, but he emphasizes that the most “normal” way of expressing displeasure would be through diplomatic channels.
“We live in strange times in terms of international politics, but what is normal is to speak through formal channels. Portugal could clarify its position before the American embassy in Lisbon, which would send the Portuguese position to Washington DC.” However, public statements have an advantage: “It is clear what the position and stance are in relation to the statements”.
