3 ms·

Potentially unpopular opinion, but here goes. Would an acceptable level of presence have been just to keep Bagram? It was a pretty key base for so many operatio

by wpasc 5y ago

Potentially unpopular opinion, but here goes. Would an acceptable level of presence have been just to keep Bagram? It was a pretty key base for so many operations in the Middle East and could have been a huge force multiplier. Moreover, it could have a deterrent effect. For precedent, the US has a variety of bases across the world in Europe and Asia and many of those bases are not political nightmares. To just maintain Bagram could seemingly be done without really risking many personnel and serve as an air support base with faster response times to Afghan military requests for aid. Bagram could also be a strong piece in preventing this unrelenting push of the Taliban. Right now we are sending 3000 troops in for evacuations, and I don't think this is the last time we'll have troops in there. If the Taliban completes a significant enough takeover of Afghanistan then (in my opinion) it's just a matter of time before some action prompts US or some coalition of forces to return.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> It was a pretty key base for so many operations in the Middle East To what end? The security threat has been mitigated. The energy dynamic has changed with Aramco’s listing, fracking and bona fide renewable energy. We are, first and foremost, a naval power. Afghanistan is a shitty buffer state. Our ports and coastal bases more than suffice for the foreseeable future in that region.
- wpasc 5y ago
  Historically, a bunch of really important (to the war/counter terrorism efforts; you can say the war effort was not important and that's a fair argument but Bagram was at least helpful in the war). For starters, the raid to kill Bin Laden originated in Bagram [1]. If quick response times were needed based on intel with limited usefulness (the location of a specific terrorist leader) or the Afghani military needs air support, then Bagram couldve helped cut down response times in those important circumstances. The distances from the nearest carrier locations are real in terms of response time. I'm just guessing here and I'm no expert but it just seems like maintaining the base would cost not much when compared to its usefulness in even just counter terror operations (not in the broad sense where innocents are hurt but like actual raids on specific leaders, baghdadi, bin laden, etc [though i dont think the baghdadi raid originated from bagram]) [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Ope...
dogman144 5y ago
For people that have led Soldiers, “keeping Bagram” is not akin to keeping Germany or Japan bases. It would always have been a 18-24 month, family-less deployment. South Korea is already known to be a fairly hard deployment for this reason. Bagram would be similar, but worse. These risk calculations of “not many personnel” have American boys and girls on the receiving end, who spend 18-20 months to do what, maintain presence? Two notes then: - already been tried as a course of action in the last several years. The problem then and in this future hypothetical is that the mission creeps. If you watched American KIA in AFG the last few, youd start to notice deaths that come from patrolling and convoys. There is no scenario where Americans stay on Bagram only and ever. Even If Kabul is in fact surrounded, you’d have risks just the same but with a fighting force at Bagram completely unable to respond because it’s undermanned and without a clear mission (enter in: Somali 1992). - let’s say it’s an accepted risk though. how that model works in reality is long term, sustained presence. The desire impact of a long term Bagram is achieved by lengthy relationships with locals. The army model is 18 month rotations. This doesn’t build that relationship. There is a reason the last instances the US had really succeeded at war was “go to Berlin, come back when the Nazis are gone.” This stuff takes a very sustained presence to achieve, including leadership not leaving every 18 months. So which unit gets to live in AFG full time, in this long term Bagram scenario? Bc if it’s not done that way, you get the life disrupting/ending shadow war of 2016-2021.
- phendrenad2 5y ago
  Bagram could be expanded, and deployments could be shortened. None of the problems you list are hard to surmount.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    I don’t think you read: short deployments are very much part of the problem.
nradov 5y ago
Bagram isn't sustainable without a secure land supply route to bring in fuel, water, and other bulk items. The US military simply doesn't have the airlift capacity to sustain it while meeting their other global commitments. And without constant ground patrols through the surrounding area the base itself would be hit by daily rocket and mortar attacks.
- adrr 5y ago
  Could develop an iron dome type defense to protect against shelling and rockets. The land route is problematic with IEDs.
lostlogin 5y ago
> It was a pretty key base for so many operations in the Middle East A lot of this has been in support of some questionable regimes and has probably exacerbated the dysfunction.
- wpasc 5y ago
  No argument on the questionable nature of a wide variety of such actions. I would posit, though, that individual, targeted raids by special forces on specific terrorist leaders (baghdadi and bin laden) are much clearer than many other such operations and actions. if a key base located in that region helps those targeted and collateral damage minimizing missions, then perhaps that factors into the decision of staying there.
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
> For precedent, the US has a variety of bases across the world in Europe and Asia and many of those bases are not political nightmares. I think it is difficult to compare Germany and Afghanistan. I am French and if we had a US base here people would not be happy but it ultimately would have been a topic during elections. The soldiers wood blend in and the cultural difference between the US and Germany << US - Afghanistan. South Corea is an exotic country for us, but this is many food, entertainment, on the surface at least. I do not think that US soldiers wood blend in, or at least naturally incorporate into Afghanistan, there are too many differences. Just compare how and where the youth spend their time. In France, Germany, SK out Japan this wood be tiktok, listening to pretty much the same music (we had the kpop wave here...). In Afghanistan this is probably vastly different

by wpasc 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> It was a pretty key base for so many operations in the Middle East To what end? The security threat has been mitigated. The energy dynamic has changed with Aramco’s listing, fracking and bona fide renewable energy. We are, first and foremost, a naval power. Afghanistan is a shitty buffer state. Our ports and coastal bases more than suffice for the foreseeable future in that region.

wpasc 5y ago
Historically, a bunch of really important (to the war/counter terrorism efforts; you can say the war effort was not important and that's a fair argument but Bagram was at least helpful in the war). For starters, the raid to kill Bin Laden originated in Bagram [1]. If quick response times were needed based on intel with limited usefulness (the location of a specific terrorist leader) or the Afghani military needs air support, then Bagram couldve helped cut down response times in those important circumstances. The distances from the nearest carrier locations are real in terms of response time. I'm just guessing here and I'm no expert but it just seems like maintaining the base would cost not much when compared to its usefulness in even just counter terror operations (not in the broad sense where innocents are hurt but like actual raids on specific leaders, baghdadi, bin laden, etc [though i dont think the baghdadi raid originated from bagram]) [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Ope...

dogman144 5y ago

For people that have led Soldiers, “keeping Bagram” is not akin to keeping Germany or Japan bases. It would always have been a 18-24 month, family-less deployment. South Korea is already known to be a fairly hard deployment for this reason. Bagram would be similar, but worse. These risk calculations of “not many personnel” have American boys and girls on the receiving end, who spend 18-20 months to do what, maintain presence? Two notes then: - already been tried as a course of action in the last several years. The problem then and in this future hypothetical is that the mission creeps. If you watched American KIA in AFG the last few, youd start to notice deaths that come from patrolling and convoys. There is no scenario where Americans stay on Bagram only and ever. Even If Kabul is in fact surrounded, you’d have risks just the same but with a fighting force at Bagram completely unable to respond because it’s undermanned and without a clear mission (enter in: Somali 1992). - let’s say it’s an accepted risk though. how that model works in reality is long term, sustained presence. The desire impact of a long term Bagram is achieved by lengthy relationships with locals. The army model is 18 month rotations. This doesn’t build that relationship. There is a reason the last instances the US had really succeeded at war was “go to Berlin, come back when the Nazis are gone.” This stuff takes a very sustained presence to achieve, including leadership not leaving every 18 months. So which unit gets to live in AFG full time, in this long term Bagram scenario? Bc if it’s not done that way, you get the life disrupting/ending shadow war of 2016-2021.

phendrenad2 5y ago
Bagram could be expanded, and deployments could be shortened. None of the problems you list are hard to surmount.
- dogman144 5y ago
  I don’t think you read: short deployments are very much part of the problem.

nradov 5y ago

Bagram isn't sustainable without a secure land supply route to bring in fuel, water, and other bulk items. The US military simply doesn't have the airlift capacity to sustain it while meeting their other global commitments. And without constant ground patrols through the surrounding area the base itself would be hit by daily rocket and mortar attacks.

adrr 5y ago
Could develop an iron dome type defense to protect against shelling and rockets. The land route is problematic with IEDs.

lostlogin 5y ago

> It was a pretty key base for so many operations in the Middle East A lot of this has been in support of some questionable regimes and has probably exacerbated the dysfunction.

wpasc 5y ago
No argument on the questionable nature of a wide variety of such actions. I would posit, though, that individual, targeted raids by special forces on specific terrorist leaders (baghdadi and bin laden) are much clearer than many other such operations and actions. if a key base located in that region helps those targeted and collateral damage minimizing missions, then perhaps that factors into the decision of staying there.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

> For precedent, the US has a variety of bases across the world in Europe and Asia and many of those bases are not political nightmares. I think it is difficult to compare Germany and Afghanistan. I am French and if we had a US base here people would not be happy but it ultimately would have been a topic during elections. The soldiers wood blend in and the cultural difference between the US and Germany << US - Afghanistan. South Corea is an exotic country for us, but this is many food, entertainment, on the surface at least. I do not think that US soldiers wood blend in, or at least naturally incorporate into Afghanistan, there are too many differences. Just compare how and where the youth spend their time. In France, Germany, SK out Japan this wood be tiktok, listening to pretty much the same music (we had the kpop wave here...). In Afghanistan this is probably vastly different