quote:
We're still building infrastructure at the larger bases as we close some of the FOBs.
When has building infrastructure ever been a guarantee that US forces will stay and use it? New and virtually unused facilities litter the globe in the wake of US military withdrawals.
In the space of 90 days South Vietnam went from the 15th best equipped military in the world to the 3rd best equipped based strictly on what MACV left on the ground when Nixon declared that Vietnamization had been accomplished. There was probably not a more modern and better equipped naval base in the world at the time than Cam Ranh Bay when the US withdrew.
Seven years later the US withdrew forces and relinquished title to the Panama Canal Zone. That was an extremely well outfitted base and maintained in beautiful condition until it was given to the Panamanians.
I would wager that the legacy force in Afghanistan will be hardly a figleaf outside the embassy by 2015 and barely larger than the current US military presence in Iraq. Bear in mind that there has not been a single instance since 2009 when President Obama has accepted any recommended COA on troop levels from the JCS or COCOMS in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else (except perhaps Darwin AU). When Petreaus and McKiernan briefed the President Elect on troop surge necessary to defeat the resurgent Taliban in late 2008 they offered low, medium, and high risk force levels for the mission at 80k, 60k, and 40k. The President sent 30k. The deliberate diplomatic malpractice that led to no SOFA in Iraq made any stability force impossible. The post-2014 "zero option" was floated because that is what the POTUS wants to see irrespective of what has been sacrificed thus far. I'm not taking the position that US security or strategic objectives were or weren't worth that sacrifice that have been made but I am taking the position that whatever gains have been made or have not been made is irrelevant to the calculus of the CINC as to how many troops will remain after 2014.
