Destruction of military equipment post conflict
Sir, I have witnessed similar silliness throughout the course of my career. "Surveying" as the Coast Guard calls it never made sense to me. If it's functional, why not sell it, trade it, recycle it, DD1149 it, or something, but for the love of Pete, don't destroy good equipment and then complain at budget time about what you don't have.
We might be well served by assigning a Radar O'Reilly to every unit to do nothing but trade, swap and bargain with everybody else to make better use of what we have.
A follow on comment sir. "It would make way more sense". There is no call for that sort of talk or logic in the US military! It flies in the face of what we do.
Destruction in place.
Everytime a war ends, you'll see this, with more equipment than you care to imagine. I'ts more an unfortunate but tru fact that it's much more economical to destroy much of the military equipment we projected into theater in place rather than paying to return it to the US of A. ACOGs I personally might keep, but then I was an out the gate guy. Trucks and other big stuff is where the big moola is tied up, and where we'll be using lots of demo, gas, and sledgehammers to wreck the gear rather than turning it over to the Taliban.. I mean the ANA / ANP.
Makes ya sick to see poor little and useful ACOGs get the hammer, but keep your eyes peeled... it will get MUCH worse, and soon.
Be safe out there. You're too short to get hurt now.

Common sense
