Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Post of the Week!
Search Politics


Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (47) |
Author: Lambo 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 41585 
Subject: Re: Inheriting a far more dangerous world
Date: 09/25/2024 9:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
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.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (47) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds