Forbes lists detailed equipment lists. They are generally priced at replacement costs - for equipment that is mostly decades old and was sent there over time since 2003. The largest number of ground vehicles left behind is 42,604 light tactical vehicles - Ford Ranger pick-ups and cargo trucks. Next are HMMWVs (post Vietnam), 5 ton cargo trucks, 928 MWRAPS (ambulance, mine-protected HMMWV), then a few dozen large and small aircraft of old but still fielded vintage, and some drones. The helicopters are Mi-17, a Russian helicopter, and MD-530 - a McDonell-Douglas helicopter. McDonell-Douglass was bought by Boeing in 1997 and a few Blackhawks of unknown generation, several 2-seater Embraier "light attack aircraft". The list goes on. It was sent there over the last 20 years and very little is recent technology, with the exception of drones and updated instruments or radios in older equipment, and cell phone detectors. I AGREE it was a criminal US exit, but a lot of that equipment would be more expensive to ship home and refurbish than to leave there. Besides, who will maintain it and keep it operational? Satellites will see it there rusting for a long long time. The real crime is the Americans and support personnel we left behind. Why do the articles focus on the equipment? Justifying an ever-bigger defense budget?