The report is comprehensive but still leaves some questions unanswered, one amongst all others for me. The report is written with the certain knolwedge that an attack took place that could be judged succesful (by Taliban standards, not by coalition standards, I am sure that we would't have accepted the odds offered).
If the total force size is set and commanders are left with the task of balancing risks against resources then what would have happened if the generals had rebalanced towards FP of Bastion and an attack had not occured, but there was an increased loss of life in Task Force Helmand/ Task Force Leatherneck AORs because the force density was reduced there? Hindsight is a wonderful tool but I would contend that the issues here are far from black and white.