Gulf War veteran and former prisoner of war John Nichol has launched a scathing attack on Donald Trump, branding the US President's recent comments about NATO troops in Afghanistan as "ludicrous" and "demonstrably false". The 62-year-old former RAF navigator, who endured torture after being shot down during the First Gulf War, took to social media platform X to deliver a stinging broadside against what he described as Trump's "inane" remarks.
Veteran's Fury Over Disputed Claims
Mr Nichol's intervention comes amid growing anger from military communities after President Trump suggested in a Fox News interview that NATO forces remained "a little off the frontlines" during the Afghanistan conflict. These comments have been met with particular outrage in Britain, where 457 service personnel lost their lives during operations in Afghanistan, with over 2,600 wounded including 616 seriously or very seriously injured.
The decorated veteran, who co-wrote the bestselling account Tornado Down about his wartime experiences, directly challenged the President's understanding of military sacrifice. "I wonder if he knows, understands, even cares, what is true?" Mr Nichol questioned in his social media post, adding: "To those he has hurt, insulted, vilified, I send you my deepest condolences for your loss, and gratitude for your service."
Political Figures Join Condemnation
Mr Nichol is not alone in his criticism of the President's remarks. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has called for an apology, describing Trump's comments as "insulting and frankly appalling". The Duke of Sussex, who completed two tours of Afghanistan, has emphasised that British "sacrifices deserve to be spoken about truthfully and with respect". Other critics have highlighted Trump's own military record, noting he received five deferments during the Vietnam War.
In his detailed 350-word critique published on X, Mr Nichol reflected on whether he should engage with what he termed Trump's "word-salads". He recalled his own harrowing experiences during the Gulf War, when he was captured alongside an American colleague, noting: "I was lying, handcuffed & blindfolded - literally 'shoulder to shoulder' - with a US colleague on a concrete floor in an Iraqi interrogation bunker."
Analysis of Presidential Behaviour
The veteran author offered psychological insight into Trump's communication style, describing him as "the pub-bore, the braggart, the know-it-all" who "pontificates on anything and everything in the hope of bolstering their own, clearly very low, self-esteem". Mr Nichol suggested that Trump's approach prioritises self-aggrandisement over factual accuracy, noting that "everything is clearly about him; his expertise in every subject, his grasp of all situations".
Drawing a vivid analogy, Mr Nichol concluded: "Trying to analyse Trump's ramblings is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. Somewhat interesting at first, but ultimately, truly pointless and rather frustrating." This colourful comparison underscores his view that engaging with the President's statements may be an exercise in futility.
Personal Experience Informs Perspective
Mr Nichol's perspective is shaped by extraordinary personal experience. During the 1991 Gulf War, he and pilot John Peters ejected over the Iraqi desert when their Tornado aircraft was hit by a missile on the conflict's first day. Captured by Iraqi forces, they suffered brutal torture including beatings with rubber truncheons and cigarette burns before being paraded on television and forced to denounce the war under threat of execution.
After seven weeks of captivity in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, where they heard the screams of other detainees, the pair were eventually freed following Iraq's defeat. This firsthand understanding of combat, capture, and coalition solidarity between British and American forces informs Mr Nichol's particular outrage at suggestions that NATO allies avoided frontline risks.
The controversy emerges as Trump continues to question NATO's reliability, telling Fox News: "I'm not sure they would be there if we ever needed them" and adding "We've never needed them." These comments have reignited debates about transatlantic military cooperation and the appropriate recognition of allied sacrifices in conflicts like Afghanistan.
