Subject: Re: Inheriting a far more dangerous world
bighairymike: Bagram's importance was not in defending Kabul or the Embassy. Bagram was a strategic asset that should have been retained due to its proximity to China coupled with runways that could accommodate B-52s.

Austin wasn't speaking only of the number of troops necessary for 'defending' the base. When fully operational, the infrastructure needed to support Bagram -- which covered 6 square miles -- employed about 40,000 people.

And the U.S. was no longer 'defending' Kabul. The war was over. This was a noncombatant evacuation operation. Period. Runways that could "accommodate B-52s" were useless if the 122,000 evacuees couldn't safely travel to the airport.

I don't like the whole idea of defending a base in the middle of hostile territory. It doesn't seem like a good idea. We've done it before, but it seems precarious.