Sure. I see exactly the point you make, I used to be involved in military aviation, so I understand the point you make.
I think the gist of the article is that there are entities in and out of the US Air Force that would prefer to see the bridges burned so there is no way back to it. I believe it is possible that it may be true, even if I don’t believe anyone has actually acted on it in this fashion.
If anyone HAS approved the destruction of the refurbished airframes without those caveats you mentioned, I believe that is not just wrong and wasteful, but harmful to our national security.
I do agree, though...a “few” is not defined, and may be intentionally so to increase the impact of the article. (FWIW, I can believe that many of the A-10A variants are probably eligible to be destroyed for a variety of reasons)
Sad because it is one of the few planes now in the inventory that must be flown instead of "managed". And, it is perfect for the mission it has been called to do. Few post WWII designs can make that claim.
BTW, I think Warthogs and C-130s should be immortal. Every time I go by Davis Monthan I am nearly driven to tears when I see the tails of the C-130s. Just a few weeks ago I counted I would guess 400.