Honoring the Fallen: A Reflection on Leadership and Loyalty
The names of our fallen heroes resonate deeply, representing the ultimate sacrifice made in service to Britain and the United States. During the Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday, Keir Starmer took a moment to honor the memory of six young soldiers who lost their lives in a devastating bomb attack in Afghanistan thirteen years ago, along with a Royal Marine who was killed eighteen years ago. This tribute served as a poignant reminder of the sacrifices made by those who served alongside their American counterparts.
Starmer’s remembrance was particularly significant in light of recent comments made by US Vice President JD Vance. In a statement to Fox News, Vance suggested that Donald Trump’s minerals deal with Ukraine would provide greater protection than “20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.” While Vance later insisted that he did not intend to undermine the UK’s contributions, it was clear that there was a political motive behind the remarks. Starmer’s tribute can be interpreted as a subtle call for Vance to recognize the historical and ongoing sacrifices of British troops.
This moment also hints at a broader political message aimed at encouraging President Trump to rein in his Vice President, suggesting that the partnership between Trump and Vance may soon face challenges. The dynamic between the two cannot be expected to last indefinitely.
Elon Musk’s association with Vance, particularly during a Trump campaign event in Butler, Pennsylvania, last October, has raised eyebrows. Vance has proven to be a valuable asset for Trump, presenting a façade of intellectual depth while drawing on his own experiences growing up in the Appalachian region. This background allows him to claim an authentic understanding of the struggles of “left-behind” Americans. While Trump was a millionaire by the age of eight, Vance faced the harsh realities of life with a mother who battled addiction and poverty. In this sense, Vance’s narrative possesses a certain authenticity that contrasts sharply with Trump’s persona.
Despite some critiques aimed at Vance’s portrayal of his upbringing in his 2016 autobiography Hillbilly Elegy, it is undeniable that his childhood was marked by hardship. Vance positions himself as a champion for his mother and for America, taking on issues such as the drug trade, low-cost foreign imports, and immigrant labor that he believes have undermined the fabric of American life.
Yet, the seeds of conflict between Vance and Trump can also be traced back to Hillbilly Elegy. In it, Vance expresses his frustration with the revolving door of father figures in his mother’s life. His anger seems less about their abandonment of her and more about their failure to remain in his life. He recalls how he skillfully navigated these relationships, even going so far as to alter his appearance to win their approval.
- “I had grown especially skillful at navigating various father figures,” he wrote, recounting how he pierced his ear to impress one, expressed admiration for police cars to appeal to another, and showed kindness to yet another’s children.
- “But none of these things were really true,” he continued. “I hated earrings, I hated police cars, and I knew that Ken’s children would be out of my life by the next year.”
This introspection is striking when juxtaposed with Vance’s behavior in the Oval Office last week, where he seemed to instinctively play to Trump’s expectations. He took a jab at Starmer regarding free speech in the UK, only to be swiftly countered by Starmer, who expressed pride in Britain’s legacy of free speech. The following day, Vance ignited controversy by chastising Volodymyr Zelensky for what he perceived as a lack of gratitude towards the United States, clearly aiming to provoke a strong reaction from Trump.
The question remains: does Vance genuinely care about free speech and gratitude, or is he simply performing for the approval of his latest mentor? It’s uncertain even to Vance himself.
Vance’s life has been shaped by powerful male influences, leading him to adapt his views to fit those of his mentors. At Yale, he maintained a conservative stance under the influence of his law professors, but his relocation to Silicon Valley and the rise of far-right billionaire Peter Thiel shifted him further to the right. Today, Vance appears to be influenced by the extreme right-wing thinker Curtis Yarvin, who advocates for a radical rethinking of American democracy.
As Vance’s political aspirations grow, so does his commitment to a combative ideology. He has stated that conservatives must embrace strategies they may currently find uncomfortable. However, this ideological fervor will inevitably clash with Trump’s transactional approach to politics. Trump’s methodology—rooted in negotiation and deal-making—stands in stark contrast to Vance’s rigid ideological stance.
As Vance continues to pursue his vision for America, he may find himself at odds with the very man who once mentored him. Sooner or later, a transactional figure like Trump might view an ideologue like Vance as excessive. The potential rupture in their relationship looms on the horizon, with Vance possibly awakening one day to resent Trump as much as he did those who left his life. He may come to believe that only his own judgments can restore America to its former glory, leading to a moment of profound reckoning.
Alison Phillips was the editor of the Daily Mirror from 2018 to 2024; she was awarded Columnist of the Year at the 2018 National Press Awards.
