Starmer and Veteran Condemn Trump’s NATO Afghanistan Remarks (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Let me start by paying tribute to the 457 of our armed services who lost their lives in Afghanistan. I will never forget their courage, their bravery, and the sacrifice that they made for their country. There are many also who were injured, some with life-changing injuries. And so I consider President Trump's remarks to be insulting and frankly appalling. And I'm not surprised they've caused such hurt to the loved ones of those who were killed or injured, and in fact, across the country.

[00:00:40] Speaker 2: As well as politicians expressing a view, a lot of the relatives, some bereaved, others whose sons in particular suffered dreadful injuries. One is Diane Derney, mother of a man called Ben Parkinson. Dreadful injuries. She has said that you need to be tougher with President Trump and demand an apology from him. Will you call for an apology from the President?

[00:01:05] Speaker 1: Well, I've made my position clear and what I say to Diane is if I had misspoken in that way or said those words, I would certainly apologise and I'd apologise to her.

[00:01:18] Speaker 2: This is becoming a bit of a habit now, you're having to distance yourself and criticise the President about a third or fourth time in this week. Are you getting a bit exasperated by some of the things President Trump says?

[00:01:29] Speaker 1: We have a very close relationship with the US and that is important for our security, for our defence and our intelligence and it's very important we maintain that relationship. But is it because of that relationship that we fought alongside the Americans for our values in Afghanistan and it was in that context that people lost their lives or suffered terrible injuries, fighting for freedom, fighting with our allies for what we believe in.

[00:02:00] Speaker 3: Sir Keir Starmer issuing that statement following those words from President Trump when he spoke to Fox News, something that has caused an awful lot of upset. We've been seeing that across the day here on BBC News when he said that we've never needed them, talking about NATO, NATO allied forces, saying they'll say that they sent some troops to Afghanistan and they did, they stayed a little back, a little off the front line, something that as we've been hearing it's caused a lot of offence and an awful lot of upset as well. We can speak to somebody who actually served in Helmand Province, somebody who has first hand experience, Dr Patrick Bure, a former NATO analyst and defence expert at the University of Bath. Like I was saying, you're a former infantry captain who served in Helmand Province. Just your reaction to the President of the United States talking about NATO allied troops staying back from the front line?

[00:03:05] Speaker 4: Good afternoon, yeah, and thanks for having us on. I mean, it's wrong on so many levels, isn't it? And he keeps dropping to new levels over the last few weeks. It's unfortunate. I think it's wrong factually, as you know, we've lost 457 service members in this country, another over 2,000 badly injured. So that's the cost there. And then you've got the other nations that really did fight, the Danes, the Dutch, the Canadians, the Norwegians, and even with smaller contingents, the Czechs, the Baltic states, you know, who went to the high risk areas and fought hard alongside their American allies. That's the thing that really bites. So it's uninformed. It's incorrect. And it is insulting because, you know, at the basis of this, I had the honor and the privilege to lead U.S. Marine Corps soldiers in Sangin, as well as British. And we fought together as brothers. We were integrated platoons. We casufact our wounded and our dead together often. And so there's that brotherhood, you know, you've been in combat and that brotherhood, and that's important. And for a man who frankly deferred the draft five times for bone spurs, you know, in Vietnam to come around and then question that kind of brotherhood, that's deeply insulting.

[00:04:28] Speaker 3: And when you talk about that kind of brotherhood, what do you think your American brothers, who you fought alongside, what must they be thinking about their commander in chief?

[00:04:39] Speaker 4: Well, I don't know. I can't speak for them. But what I can say is that certainly those kind of sentiments were not made at all to those of us on the front line fighting together. I do think about the people currently serving in the U.S. military stationed all through Europe, some of which will be pretty embarrassed about this, I would have thought, and a little ashamed. I mean, there is another point that happened in Afghanistan, and it does need to be noted that some of the NATO states went to lower risk areas and put their own national caveats on it. And that is the truth. That did happen. Some states didn't fight as hard as other states because of their national politics and their appetite for risk. But some did. And that's why it's deeply upsetting. And you'd wonder who last had his ear, Donald Trump, because it is always about who last had his ear, telling him these things. Oh, well, NATO didn't really fight. I mean, some of NATO did fight. That's very clear. Other bits didn't. But the way he went about it is just disrespectful, I think.

[00:05:36] Speaker 3: You talk about how he's uninformed when it comes to the figures. Of course, we do know that the highest number of casualties were from U.S. soldiers, 2,461, 547 when it comes to the U.K., 43 for Denmark. But when you look at the figures, when you look at the losses relative to the size of the population of each country, then, like you say, yes, the United States at the lead, but Denmark suffering incredibly high losses in relation to their population figures, the U.K. as well. I just wonder, your reflections, given your first-hand experience, that we're talking about body counts in order to talk about what was done in Afghanistan and who has more clout. It must be so demoralising for you.

[00:06:22] Speaker 4: Well, it's triggering, isn't it? And I didn't sign up to serve Donald Trump by any means. I signed up to serve the country and my regiment and my comrades in arms. And I was happy and honoured to serve with great people from America throughout that career as well. So, with my kind of analyst academic head on, you start talking about those numbers that you have up on your website about population. It's not about the size of population. It's about the size of the military, first of all, which is much smaller in some of these countries. And then it's the size of that military that deployed to the front lines. So, for example, my platoon, my company, we took 10% casualties. In fact, 25% casualties. It's like the Normandy breakouts. The U.S. Marine Corps who served with us took terrible casualties. That wasn't the worst. The guys who came after us in three rifles, way worse. And the same with the Marines. So, we shared that risk together. So, yeah, I just don't think it's presidential, is it? And that's what causes so much fury. But I think expecting Donald Trump to be presidential is probably, you know, a bit of an ask in this regard. You know, presidential is about shared embodying and an understanding if you look at the shared sacrifices of all our countries, whether they're big or small. And basically, as I said, understanding that brotherhood, which is gathered and the interoperational experience, which is gathered on the front lines, behind the front lines. You know, we haven't even talked about the special forces of a lot of these countries operating together. So, yeah, it's just the positive of alliances and what's hold us together is really bounded in the shared history and the shared sacrifice. And when you forget that, or you don't honour it, I think the world is a worse place.

[00:08:16] Speaker 3: So, on that point, because, of course, you also, you're a former NATO analyst, a defence expert at the University of Bath. When you've got the president being so dismissive of the facts, so dismissive of the shared history that you're speaking about, what future is there for NATO if he doesn't even acknowledge what happened on the ground?

[00:08:37] Speaker 4: Well, we'll see. I mean, we don't want to transpose sort of flippant comments to Fox News out to the implications for NATO. What I can say is the difference is that the Americans, when I worked in NATO, knew that they were the most powerful nation and they knew that ultimately the decision rested with them about what NATO did. And they knew that they funded it the most. They also knew there was bad imbalances about how that funded would have quietly tried to get those addressed. And it was right that Europe has stepped up and we all can see that now and is stepping up. But they wore it well. You know, that was it. They were the most powerful nation in the world, but they wore it well and they were diplomatic about how things went. And I remember, you know, seeing how they worked like at the interpersonal level and being like, had a lot of respect for how they wore that power. I think we've clearly moved into a different situation with that. I would still say about the future of NATO, though, the US needs a lot of the bases. This is not like Venezuela, where they can just kind of do what they want. It needs a lot of the bases. It needs the sensors and the listening stations. Look at the seizure of the Russian tanker off Scotland just last week and the way that went through different bases in the UK. So there'd be much more costs and risk involved if the US was to decide it didn't want to be a part of NATO anymore. And the corollary of that would then be the people leaving the bases, wouldn't it?

[00:09:58] Speaker 3: Dr. Patrick Bure, former NATO analyst, defence expert at Bath University, and also thank you for sharing your experience of having served in Afghanistan. Thank you.