S President Donald Trump has once again stirred controversy within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), this time by questioning the frontline commitment of allied forces during the two-decade-long war in Afghanistan. His remarks have reopened old wounds among US allies — but they have also revived a quieter debate about the uneven nature of NATO’s burden-sharing, particularly Turkey’s distinctive role in the conflict.
Speaking in an interview with Fox News, Trump cast doubt on whether NATO members would come to America’s aid if Washington were ever attacked. “I’m not sure if NATO allies would be there if we ever needed them,” he said, calling that scenario “the ultimate test.” He went on to downplay allied contributions to the Afghanistan war, suggesting that while NATO countries did deploy troops, many “stayed a little back, a little off the front lines.”
The comments drew swift condemnation from a range of US allies, including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Poland and Denmark, as well as non-NATO partner Australia, all of whom lost significant numbers of troops in Afghanistan. Critics described Trump’s remarks as disrespectful and dismissive of sacrifices made under NATO’s banner, eventually prompting the US president to soften his tone.
Yet one NATO member stood out for its silence: Turkey.
Despite often clashing with Washington and European capitals on issues ranging from Syria to defense procurement, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not publicly rebuke Trump’s comments. Analysts suggest Ankara’s restraint may reflect an uncomfortable truth — that Turkey’s Afghanistan mission was fundamentally different from that of many of its allies.
Turkey, NATO’s second-largest military contributor after the United States, lost just 15 soldiers in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021. By comparison, the US lost roughly 2,450 troops, the UK 457, Canada 159, and France 90. More strikingly, none of Turkey’s fatalities occurred during combat operations.
Most Turkish losses were the result of accidents. Two soldiers died in a vehicle crash in 2009, while 12 were killed when a NATO helicopter crashed near Kabul in 2012 due to a technical malfunction — the deadliest single incident involving Turkish forces during their decade-long deployment.
At the height of its involvement, Turkey had around 1,800 troops stationed in Afghanistan. However, Ankara had imposed strict limitations on how its forces could be used. When Turkey joined the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2001, it did so on the explicit condition that its troops would not participate in offensive counterinsurgency or counterterrorism operations.
Instead, Turkey framed its mission as a stabilizing and humanitarian effort aimed at supporting the Afghan people rather than confronting the Taliban militarily. Turkish troops primarily conducted patrols, guarded facilities, and focused on training and reconstruction efforts.
Turkey twice assumed command of ISAF — from June 2002 to February 2003 and again from February to August 2005 — and was responsible for securing and operating Kabul International Airport. Its forces were largely deployed in Kabul, which was considerably safer than volatile regions such as Helmand, Kandahar, or eastern provinces bordering Pakistan, where US, British and Canadian troops bore the brunt of insurgent attacks.
Beyond Kabul, Turkish forces also oversaw Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in regions such as Wardak and Jawzjan. These missions emphasized infrastructure development, education, healthcare, and governance capacity-building, often led by civilian officials rather than combat troops. Such activities were seen as less threatening by insurgent groups and were rarely targeted.
Domestic political considerations also shaped Ankara’s approach. Turkish public opinion has historically been wary of foreign military adventures, particularly those involving prolonged combat. As a result, the government consistently portrayed its Afghanistan role as supportive rather than aggressive.
Cultural and religious factors further reduced Turkey’s exposure to violence. As a Muslim-majority nation with historical ties to Central Asia, Turkey enjoyed relatively warm relations with Afghan communities, including Turkic groups such as Uzbeks and Turkmens. Afghan civilians frequently referred to Turkish soldiers as “brothers” rather than occupiers.
Some analysts believe the Taliban deliberately avoided attacking Turkish forces to avoid alienating local populations that viewed them favorably. Taliban propaganda also tended to spare Muslim-majority nations perceived as non-hostile.
Former Kabul provincial governor Zabibullah Mojadid captured this sentiment in a 2012 interview, noting that Turkish troops moved without the aggressive posture common among other foreign forces. “Afghans don’t look at the Turkish forces as foreign forces here,” he said. “They somehow view them as their own.”
Turkey also resisted pressure to expand its military footprint. In December 2009, Erdogan rejected calls to send additional troops, even as then-US President Barack Obama announced a surge of 30,000 American soldiers. Ankara instead emphasized training Afghan security forces.
Turkey’s close ties with Pakistan — widely viewed at the time as a key Taliban backer — may have further insulated its troops.
Ankara maintained its engagement until NATO’s final withdrawal in 2021. Turkish officials even offered to continue securing Kabul’s international airport after the Taliban takeover, but the insurgent group rejected any ongoing foreign military presence.
With that, Turkey’s nearly 20-year involvement in Afghanistan came to an end — leaving behind a legacy markedly different from that of its NATO allies, and lending unexpected context to Trump’s controversial remarks.
