Post #26689 by Lambo on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (47)

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)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.