Dope1: Were the 2,500 that were there for the evacuation? I don't think so.

Well, think again.

Along with the embassy personnel, 5,000 US troops and some NATO troops remained in the city. The US government later authorized the deployment of 1,000 more troops from the 82nd Airborne Division to the airport, bolstering troop presence in Kabul to 6,000 to facilitate the evacuations.

Also, lost in all this Monday Morning Quarterbacking blather is the fact that contrary to claims made in this thread about the value of Bagram Airfield and the strategic error of closing the base is the fact that almost everyone fleeing Afghanistan was in Kabul, about an hour drive from Bagram under ideal conditions -- and the last days of the evacuation were far less than ideal. Getting the 122,000 individuals who were safely airlifted from Kabul instead to Bagram would have been logistically impossible.

And, of course, relocating to Bagram also would have made it impossible to protect the embassy in Kabul.

Dope1: LOL @ his Austin quote. 5,000 troops? To defend something with a defensible perimeter?

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.

But, sure, do go on with this nonsense.

thehill.com - Pentagon authorizes sending additional troops to afghanistan