Sure, and sorry for the delay. In Iraq circa 2006/7 the Army's #1 airlift request was getting stuff flown into Taji. There was a lot of fighting around Taji. I did a bunch of -130 deployments to Balad, and one day I happened to be the guy picked to fly the AMC/CC around the AOR. I asked him why we weren't flying into Taji, being that Army commanders at LSA Anaconda (Balad) were always asking us the same question, being told to call AMD, and subsequently being told no. He told me that he owned the pushback against authorizing us to fly into Taji, and he was extremely proud of it. Army helos were regularly taking SAFIREs IVO Taji, and he believed he was protecting his people (me) by denying the request. "Why would I make you fly somewhere unsafe?"
But the Army had to resupply and operate out of Taji. It's in the heart of the Sunni triangle and at the time, security in that area was crucial to US strategy. Because AMC refused to fly into Taji, the task was left to Army helos and ground convoys. They are significantly more vulnerable to attack. It's pretty hard to hit a herc on a Pen-D with an RPK. It's not hard to use an EFP on some 21 year old kid driving truck #23 of a huge convoy. By embracing risk aversion for his fleet that AMC commander put more people in greater risk. Stated another way: his risk aversion didn't actually decrease risk, it merely forced another to accept it. And the people forced to accept it were far more susceptible to the dangers.
When I pointed this out, I was completely blown off with a sarcastic comment about how his priority was my safety..... Etc.. It's a foul philosophy. There's absolutely nothing special about me and I'm sure a lot of dudes reading this have similar tales; but I hope this story illustrates the principal I was attempting to convey.