Hegseth’s Afghanistan remarks spark backlash from US veterans, allies\

Stars and Stripes | Jennifer H. Svan

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has drawn criticism from US veterans and European leaders after suggesting that only “one or two” NATO-led coalition allies remained actively involved in combat in Afghanistan towards the conflict’s end. Speaking to ROTC cadets at the University of Tennessee on October 17, 2026, he also mocked the abbreviation on the International Security Assistance Force patch. The remarks have reopened questions about allied contributions.

Retired General Ben Hodges called the comments shameful, while former Marine pilot Amy McGrath warned that diminishing allied sacrifice damages trust. NATO and partner nations deployed troops through the ISAF mission after the 2001 terrorist attacks, initially securing Kabul before the mission expanded nationwide by the second half of 2006. At its peak, more than 130,000 personnel served. The source cites 2,465 US service members killed and more than 1,100 from NATO and partner countries. British and Polish officials also defended their forces’ sacrifices, with Poland’s Radoslaw Sikorski citing deaths in Ghazni. The dispute centres on how coalition participation and combat contributions are understood, as Hegseth distinguishes the presence of national flags from what he considers meaningful military capability.

Comment

The dispute over Afghanistan exposes a command-and-coordination problem within multinational operations: political leaders can define contribution differently from commanders and personnel who served alongside coalition partners. A national contingent may provide combat forces, specialist support, training, protection or logistical capacity at different stages of a campaign. The International Security Assistance Force brought these varied national commitments under a common mission, but participation did not mean every contingent had identical tasks or authority. Hegseth’s remarks compress that variation into a judgement about who fought.

That distinction matters because coalition credibility depends partly on how burdens are recognised after operations end. Command arrangements distribute responsibilities across national chains of command and the multinational mission, while governments retain different political constraints and operational permissions. A narrow measure based on direct combat near the end of the campaign can obscure contributions made earlier or through other roles. The resulting argument is therefore about the standard used to assess participation, not simply the number of flags at headquarters.

The casualty figures cited by Stars and Stripes give the disagreement a concrete human dimension, even though losses alone cannot measure operational contribution. The ISAF experience shows how a coalition can share a theatre and mission without sharing identical exposure, tasks or national decision-making authority. Hegseth’s characterisation of allied involvement in Afghanistan now tests how that shared campaign is remembered across NATO partners.

Strategic Question for Discussion

When judging allied contributions to the ISAF campaign, how should direct combat exposure be weighed against other operational roles and the different national authorities governing them?

Direct combat is a meaningful measure, but it cannot fully represent a coalition’s combined effort across a long campaign. The ISAF experience suggests that contribution assessments become contested when they overlook changes in mission, role and national decision-making over time.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here