The tumultuous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021 was symbolized by the quiet, middle-of-the-night departure from Bagram Airfield—once the epicenter of American military power in the country. The sprawling base, handed over to Afghan forces who would soon capitulate to the Taliban, was seen as the final, stark period at the end of a twenty-year sentence.
Now, that period is being questioned. In a recent rally speech and subsequent comments, former President Donald Trump made a striking claim: that the United States is actively trying to get Bagram Airbase "back" from the Taliban. The statement, delivered with characteristic certainty, has sent shockwaves through foreign policy circles, raising a torrent of questions about its feasibility, purpose, and veracity. Is this a genuine strategic initiative, a misstatement, or purely political rhetoric aimed at criticizing the Biden administration’s withdrawal? This article delves into the complex layers of this claim, separating potential strategy from political theater.
The Heart of the Claim: What Exactly Did Trump Say?
The core of the story lies in Trump's own words. Speaking to supporters, he stated:
"You probably saw that we're trying to get back into Bagram Airbase... because we're going to have to do something with Russia and Ukraine and something with Israel... We're trying to get Bagram Airbase back. It's not easy. It's not easy. The Taliban isn't happy. We built it. We built every foot of it. And they don't want to give it back. But we're trying."
This narrative positions the reacquisition of Bagram as a necessary strategic move to address global threats, specifically citing the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. The framing is one of rightful ownership ("We built it") and strategic imperative.
Bagram's Legacy: Why This Base Matters
To understand the weight of this claim, one must appreciate Bagram's significance. Located roughly 40 miles north of Kabul, Bagram Airfield was not just another forward operating base; it was a strategic linchpin.
A Miniature American City: At its peak, Bagram housed thousands of U.S. and coalition troops, featuring two runways capable of handling any aircraft in the inventory, from C-17 Globemasters to B-1 bombers. It had a hospital, dining facilities, gyms, and maintenance depots. It was the logistical hub for the entire war effort.
A Power Projection Platform: Its location was key for launching aerial operations across Afghanistan and into the surrounding region. Control of Bagram meant control of the skies.
A Symbol: For two decades, Bagram represented the enduring American commitment to the mission. Its fall signaled the definitive end of that era.
Strategic Rationale: Why Would the US Want Bagram "Back"?
If taken at face value, the strategic arguments for re-establishing a presence at Bagram are compelling to certain military planners:
Counter-Terrorism Over-the-Horizon, But Closer: The Biden administration's "over-the-horizon" counter-terrorism strategy—striking terrorist targets from bases in the Gulf—has significant limitations. Distance, diplomatic clearances, and intelligence lag time create what Pentagon officials call the "tyranny of distance." A base in Afghanistan would put U.S. assets hours closer to potential ISIS-K targets, enabling quicker strikes and better intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR).
Regional Deterrence: In the context of great power competition, a footprint in Afghanistan could be seen as a check on Chinese and Russian influence in Central Asia. It offers a potential listening post and a strategic foothold in a highly contested region.
Leverage in Negotiations: Having a base could provide leverage in any future negotiations with the Taliban, whether over counter-terrorism cooperation, human rights, or the formation of an inclusive government.
The Immense Obstacles: Why It's "Not Easy"
Trump’s admission that it’s "not easy" is a monumental understatement. The hurdles to re-establishing a U.S. presence at Bagram are staggering.
Diplomatic Impossibility: The United States does not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Negotiating a basing agreement with an unrecognized entity that is still under international sanctions is a legal and diplomatic minefield. It would grant the Taliban a legitimacy they desperately crave without any of the concessions the international community has demanded (e.g., on women's rights).
Logistical and Security Nightmare: The Taliban currently controls the base, but its ability to secure its perimeter against a determined enemy like ISIS-K is questionable. Reoccupying Bagram would require a massive deployment of troops solely for force protection—potentially thousands of soldiers—undoing the core objective of the withdrawal and creating a high-value target for insurgents.
Political Will, Domestically and Abroad: The American public has overwhelmingly supported ending the "forever war." Re-entering Afghanistan, even in a limited capacity, would be politically toxic. Furthermore, key NATO allies would almost certainly not participate, making it a largely unilateral U.S. endeavor.
The "We Built It" Fallacy: While the U.S. massively expanded Bagram, the underlying airfield has existed since the Soviet era. The notion of taking it "back" implies a property right that simply doesn't exist in international relations. Sovereignty over the base, and the country, resides with the de facto rulers—the Taliban.
Expert Analysis: Fact-Checking the Feasibility
National security experts and current officials have been largely skeptical, if not dismissive, of the claim.
The Pentagon's Response: The Department of Defense has flatly denied the claim. A Pentagon spokesman stated there is "no intention" of seeking any bases in Afghanistan, reiterating the commitment to the over-the-horizon counter-terrorism approach.
Former Officials Weigh In: Many former generals and diplomats have called the idea a "fantasy" and a "non-starter." They point to the immense cost, the strategic distraction, and the near-impossibility of dealing with the Taliban as a host government without undermining core U.S. values and strategic interests.
The Taliban's Certain Response: The Taliban has consistently stated that foreign forces will never be allowed to return to Afghan soil. Allowing the U.S. back into Bagram would be a catastrophic blow to their credibility and a direct contradiction of their core ideology, which was built on expelling foreign occupiers.
The Political Lens: A Narrative for the Campaign Trail
Beyond the strategic analysis, Trump's comments must be viewed through a political prism. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan is one of the Biden administration's most significant perceived vulnerabilities. By claiming that he, as a leader, is trying to "get it back," Trump:
Reinforces a Narrative of Strength: It positions him as a dealmaker who can rectify the weaknesses of his successor, projecting an image of restoring American power and correcting a historic mistake.
Keeps the Withdrawal in the News: It ensures that a potent criticism of Biden remains a headline topic, appealing to voters who view the withdrawal as a humiliating defeat.
Uses Symbolism Over Substance: Bagram is the perfect symbol of the war. Talking about retaking it is a powerful, easily digestible soundbite that resonates more deeply than a complex policy discussion about counter-terrorism strategy.
Conclusion: A Bridge Too Far Back
The claim that the U.S. is actively trying to reacquire Bagram Airbase sits at the intersection of strategic desire, logistical reality, and political rhetoric. While the strategic arguments for a closer counter-terrorism platform have merit, they are utterly overwhelmed by the diplomatic, logistical, and political realities.
The Pentagon's swift denial suggests this is not a active policy initiative. Rather, it appears to be a potent piece of political messaging designed to critique the past and promise a more assertive future. Reoccupying Bagram would mean negotiating with the very insurgents the U.S. fought for two decades, potentially legitimizing their regime, expending massive resources, and risking American lives for a limited return—all while reopening a wound the American public has largely chosen to move on from.
The ghosts of Bagram may forever haunt the American military psyche, but the probability of them once again walking its runways in uniform remains, for now, a specter of campaign rhetoric rather than a forthcoming reality.
.png)
0 Comments