Post #26655 by bighairymike 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: 1

"Retaining Bagram would have required putting as many as 5,000 U.S. troops in harm's way just to operate and defend it," [ME: vs 2,500 troops per memory] Austin told the House Armed Services Committee during a hearing today on Capitol Hill. "It would have contributed little to the mission that we had been assigned, and that was to protect and defend the embassy which was some 30 miles away."

Additionally, when the noncombatant evacuation operation, or NEO, began, Bagram's distance from Kabul would have offered little help. SNIP - Lapsody

--------------

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.

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.