Why Did the United States Abandon Bagram Airfield?

[Cow Poke]

Why Did the United States Abandon Bagram Airfield?

Here's something I think a lot of people don't realize...

The bottom line is that Biden didn’t leave enough troops in Afghanistan for an evacuation.

bagram-air-base-7-1.jpg

On the night of July 1, the United States military departed from Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan “without notifying the base’s new Afghan commander, who discovered the Americans’ departure more than two hours after they left,” the Associated Press reported at the time.

As chaos erupted at Hamid Karzai International Airport following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban on Sunday, some members of Congress and Afghanistan war experts are asking why the United States didn’t hold on to its secure base of 20 years at Bagram, located about 30 miles north of Kabul.

“No one in their right mind would have closed Bagram Air Base while leaving behind thousands of civilians,” Arkansas GOP senator and Afghanistan war veteran Tom Cotton wrote on Twitter.

“If you want to conduct an evacuation, you don’t do it from an airport that’s literally almost in the heart of the city,” Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tells National Review. “A military planner would know that as soon as things started going south in Kabul, and the Taliban was on the march, that that airport [Karzai International] would be flooded.”

“You can’t secure that airport properly,” he says.

That fact was made all too apparent to people around the world on Monday morning when they woke up to horrifying videos of Afghan civilians clinging to a departing U.S. military aircraft — and then falling several hundred feet from the aircraft to their deaths.

Going back to the spring, following Biden’s withdrawal announcement, Roggio says he’s made the case for holding and evacuating from Bagram in conversations with U.S. “military and intelligence officials whose voices should have been heard by upper-echelons of leadership.”

On Wednesday afternoon, at a joint press conference, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley were asked about the decision to evacuate from Karzai International instead of Bagram. Lloyd didn’t address the question. Milley’s answer was a mouthful, but the bottom line is that there weren’t enough troops.

“If we were to keep both Bagram and the embassy going,” Milley said, that would require “a significant number of military forces,” so “you had to collapse one or the other.”

Milley also said the generals “estimated that the risk” of going out of Bagram or Karzai International “was about the same,” but he also acknowledged that President Biden did not leave enough troops for a scenario in which an evacuation was necessary to hold Bagram, protect the embassy, and protect Karzai International.

It is incompetence of the worst possible kind to have abandoned Bagram.

And, did you get that? WITHOUT EVEN NOTIFYING THE BASE'S AFGAN COMMANDER!!!!

Wouldn't you feel stabbed in the back?

[Cow Poke]

And look what the [trying really hard not to use any bad words] incredibly feckless doofus Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said....

At the end of Wednesday’s press conference, Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post asked Milley if the military is considering retaking Bagram. Karzai International “has a single runway, with a commercial airport making it much more difficult to defend that runway. We’ve already seen that this week. Bagram has two runways. It would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside,” he noted. “Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?”

“Good question, great question, but I’m not going to discuss branches and sequels off of our current operation,” Milley replied. “And I’ll just leave it at that.”

Why aren't these gutless little Woke Milicrats telling Biden - WE HAVE to retake Bagram to establish order..... no, Milley, acknowledges it's a great question, but....

[Cow Poke]

And look what the [trying really hard not to use any bad words] incredibly feckless doofus Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley said....

At the end of Wednesday’s press conference, Dan Lamothe of the Washington Post asked Milley if the military is considering retaking Bagram. Karzai International “has a single runway, with a commercial airport making it much more difficult to defend that runway. We’ve already seen that this week. Bagram has two runways. It would have been a lot easier to protect people once inside,” he noted. “Is there any thought of retaking Bagram in order to expedite this evacuation?”

“Good question, great question, but I’m not going to discuss branches and sequels off of our current operation,” Milley replied. “And I’ll just leave it at that.”

Why aren't these gutless little Woke Milicrats telling Biden - WE HAVE to retake Bagram to establish order..... no, Milley, acknowledges it's a great question, but....

And, yes, I realize things are probably way too screwed up for that now, because it'd require a major battle to retake Bagram.

[Starlight]

Milley also said the generals “estimated that the risk” of going out of Bagram or Karzai International “was about the same,”

So... Bagram wasn't particularly worth keeping then, in the estimation of the military generals.

If you saw the diagram being bandied about in the other thread, when pulling out you want to reduce the number of locations you're holding. They chose to keep Karzai airport and the embassy, and leave Bagram as they withdrew.

the United States military departed from Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan “without notifying the base’s new Afghan commander, who discovered the Americans’ departure more than two hours after they left,”

Do you think this was a mistake and oversight by the local base's US commander (and if so, their fault), or done under orders from higher-up for security reasons (and if so, a rational policy decision, since you keep emphasizing the importance of not telegraphing military moves before they're made)? In neither case would Biden seem to be at fault.

[Cow Poke]

So... Bagram wasn't particularly worth keeping then, in the estimation of the military generals.

According to what they're saying in a CYA sense, they have to downplay it.

If you saw the diagram being bandied about in the other thread, when pulling out you want to reduce the number of locations you're holding. They chose to keep Karzai airport and the embassy, and leave Bagram as they withdrew.

I'm well aware of what they did -- and look at the mess they're in now.

Do you think this was a mistake and oversight by the local base's US commander (and if so, their fault), or done under orders from higher-up for security reasons (and if so, a rational policy decision, since you keep emphasizing the importance of not telegraphing military moves before they're made)? In neither case would Biden seem to be at fault.

Wow, a carefully worded query narrowing options to attempt to clear Biden -- noted.

I believe Biden was so determined to get troops out of Afghanistan with - as has been documented in other threads here - not even the least concern about what it would leave behind - he just wanted troops out. The senior commander at Bagram Air Base would not pack up and pull out without orders from above.

Your attempted to insert "for security reasons" is a smoke screen - it was because Biden wanted troops out. Period.

What you seem incapable of fathoming is that the US President is, indeed, the Commander in Chief of the entire US Military. It is not up to senior military commanders or advisors - the Buck stops with POTUS. We have a CIVILIAN commanded Military.

Even Biden, while blaiming everybody but himself, finally declared "the buck stops with me".

It's Biden's screw-up.

[Starlight]

I believe Biden was so determined to get troops out of Afghanistan with - as has been documented in other threads here - not even the least concern about what it would leave behind - he just wanted troops out. The senior commander at Bagram Air Base would not pack up and pull out without orders from above.

Not what I was talking about. I was talking about the failure when they left to notify the new Afghan commander that they were leaving.

It's Biden's screw-up.

The number of posts you've written on this subject across numerous threads shows a certain desperation on your part to try and make this point, but I've yet to see you make it in any convincing way. But I suspect from the obsessive and shrill tone of your posts that you might be getting a bit old and doggery as well. Try not to become one of those "old man yells at cloud" type people, to quote The Simpsons.

[Cow Poke]

So... Bagram wasn't particularly worth keeping then, in the estimation of the military generals.

Something to think about, SL.... There's a very wide chasm between "the generals" in DC, and the "generals" in the field.

You may already know, but directly under the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is a Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In this case, that's Army General Mark A Milley. He gets (got) nominated by the President, and this is often seen as a "cush" job, for political purposes, not necessarily because he's the best and the brightest.

It's his job to make the President look good - he serves at the pleasure of the President - under his command. It's not really easy for that position to speak truth to power.

So, what happens many times is that there is - like I said - a very wide chasm between the commanders in the field and those in DC.

The base commander at Bagram had to pull out whether he felt it was in the best interest of the region or not - because Biden ultimately runs the show, telling Milley how to run the military.

That's always been a big problem for the military --- the "big boys" in DC get us into places the commanders in the field would never want to go just to be in a war.
Then, the "big boys" in DC don't allow our commanders in the field to fight the battle to win. That was our biggest problem in Vietnam, and ever since.

[Cow Poke]

Not what I was talking about. I was talking about the failure when they left to notify the new Afghan commander that they were leaving.

There are, of course, at least two sides to that story. I think the more credible sources confirm the Afghan commander's version that he was not notified.

The number of posts you've written on this subject across numerous threads shows a certain desperation on your part to try and make this point, but I've yet to see you make it in any convincing way.

"Desperation"? You do have a flare for drama. This is on Biden. Who else would you think was responsible?

But I suspect from the obsessive and shrill tone of your posts

There you go again -- "shrill tone"..... I'm amazed that I still try to take you seriously at times.

that you might be getting a bit old and doggery as well. Try not to become one of those "old man yells at cloud" type people, to quote The Simpsons.

I had actually "taken a deep breath" and taken time to try to explain some things you might not have known. Silly, silly me ---- I forget sometimes what a pathetic little loser you really are.

[Cow Poke]

From another thread, because it fits here, as well....



And then there's this ---- General Mark A Milley, now doing is best to back Biden's disastrous decision to leave Afganistan, had actually been very adamantly against such a move.

The Biden administration’s internal debate over the future of US military involvement in the war in Afghanistan over the last several weeks has taken place quietly, largely behind closed doors.

But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been heated. In fact, a previously unreported episode at a recent high-level meeting shows just how fraught these discussions have been as the Biden team tries to figure out how, or even whether, to bring to an end America’s longest-ever war.

At a recent National Security Council Principal’s Committee meeting, Cabinet-level officials including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and others gathered as part of the administration’s weekslong review of US policy in Afghanistan.

The officials are debating which of three broad options for the 20-year war in Afghanistan Biden should pursue. The first is to adhere to former President Donald Trump’s deal with the Taliban, which would require Biden to withdraw all remaining 2,500 US troops by May 1. The second is to negotiate an extension with the insurgent group, allowing American forces to remain in the country beyond early May. And third is to defy the Trump-Taliban pact altogether and keep fighting in Afghanistan with no stated end date.

During the meeting, according to four sources from the White House, Pentagon, and elsewhere familiar with what happened, Milley made an impassioned — and at times “emotional,” according to some — case to consider keeping US troops in the country.

Milley, who was the deputy commanding general of US forces in Afghanistan and served three tours in the country, essentially argued that if American forces fully withdraw by May 1, it would open the door for the Taliban to overtake the country, making life worse for millions of Afghans and imperiling US national security goals.

Women’s rights “will go back to the Stone Age,” Milley said, according to two of the sources. He argued that it wasn’t worth leaving the country after “all the blood and treasure spent” there over the last two decades. He also added that, in his view, the lack of 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan would make it harder to stem threats from a nuclear-armed Pakistan.

[rogue06]

Why Did the United States Abandon Bagram Airfield?

Here's something I think a lot of people don't realize...

The bottom line is that Biden didn’t leave enough troops in Afghanistan for an evacuation.

bagram-air-base-7-1.jpg

On the night of July 1, the United States military departed from Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan “without notifying the base’s new Afghan commander, who discovered the Americans’ departure more than two hours after they left,” the Associated Press reported at the time.

As chaos erupted at Hamid Karzai International Airport following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban on Sunday, some members of Congress and Afghanistan war experts are asking why the United States didn’t hold on to its secure base of 20 years at Bagram, located about 30 miles north of Kabul.

“No one in their right mind would have closed Bagram Air Base while leaving behind thousands of civilians,” Arkansas GOP senator and Afghanistan war veteran Tom Cotton wrote on Twitter.

“If you want to conduct an evacuation, you don’t do it from an airport that’s literally almost in the heart of the city,” Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, tells National Review. “A military planner would know that as soon as things started going south in Kabul, and the Taliban was on the march, that that airport [Karzai International] would be flooded.”

“You can’t secure that airport properly,” he says.

That fact was made all too apparent to people around the world on Monday morning when they woke up to horrifying videos of Afghan civilians clinging to a departing U.S. military aircraft — and then falling several hundred feet from the aircraft to their deaths.

Going back to the spring, following Biden’s withdrawal announcement, Roggio says he’s made the case for holding and evacuating from Bagram in conversations with U.S. “military and intelligence officials whose voices should have been heard by upper-echelons of leadership.”

On Wednesday afternoon, at a joint press conference, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley were asked about the decision to evacuate from Karzai International instead of Bagram. Lloyd didn’t address the question. Milley’s answer was a mouthful, but the bottom line is that there weren’t enough troops.

“If we were to keep both Bagram and the embassy going,” Milley said, that would require “a significant number of military forces,” so “you had to collapse one or the other.”

Milley also said the generals “estimated that the risk” of going out of Bagram or Karzai International “was about the same,” but he also acknowledged that President Biden did not leave enough troops for a scenario in which an evacuation was necessary to hold Bagram, protect the embassy, and protect Karzai International.

It is incompetence of the worst possible kind to have abandoned Bagram.

And, did you get that? WITHOUT EVEN NOTIFYING THE BASE'S AFGAN COMMANDER!!!!

Wouldn't you feel stabbed in the back?

Realizing that the entire mission was fraught with mistakes, old Joe decided to show everyone how a total screw up can really screw things up, handed his glass of prune juice to "Dr.Jill"^[1] and mumbled "watch the... you know... the thing"

I'm not sure that anyone could point to anything in this bug out that was done right.





1. it's amazing just how many folks think she's a doctor rather than an educrat and the MSM does nothing to correct that.

[Sparko]

“No one in their right mind would have closed Bagram Air Base while leaving behind thousands of civilians,” Arkansas GOP senator and Afghanistan war veteran Tom Cotton wrote on Twitter.

Well, thar's your problem right thar! Nobody ever accused Biden of being in his right mind.

[Cow Poke]

“No one in their right mind would have closed Bagram Air Base while leaving behind thousands of civilians,” Arkansas GOP senator and Afghanistan war veteran Tom Cotton wrote on Twitter.

Well, thar's your problem right thar! Nobody ever accused Biden of being in his right mind.

So, while there is talk about "retaking it", what would you imagine the Taliban is doing now?

[rogue06]

So, while there is talk about "retaking it", what would you imagine the Taliban is doing now?

If they were smart they'd be using some of the tons of ordinance that we left for their use and blow massive craters in the runways making them unusable and hence no reason to retake it.

[Cow Poke]

If they were smart they'd be using some of the tons of ordinance that we left for their use and blow massive craters in the runways making them unusable and hence no reason to retake it.

And therein lies the quandary -- do WE make it unusable to prevent them from using it as a base of operations, or do we act swiftly before they have a chance to make it unusable for us.

Biden has given all the cards to the Taliban (but kept the joker) -- if we destroy Bagram, they can retaliate by killing Afghanis. If we try to retake Bagram, they can see that as an all out war....