It looks as though he's motivated by "logic" something like this: "I trained these people, and they could do things I could not, and I am one of the best. Therefore, there's practically no chance of defeating them!"
I'm not worried about their ability to defeat a bunch of sandal wearing AK-47 toting third world militia.
By the way, this guy is a bit out of date. Some of our helicopters can indeed operate in places like Afghanistan, and our special forces routinely equip themselves with things like boot treads that match those of their opponents and so on.
It looked to me like you were saying that he thought it would be impossible to defeat them, but he was wrong, because we are the best in the world and the Afghans are a sandal-wearing third world militia.
My response was an attempt to bring some realism to the discussion. The first point was that the US Special Forces are good, yes, but that the SAS is just as good, maybe better in some areas. The subsequent points were that it wouldn't be quite as easy as deploying certain helicopters and troops trained in high-altitude marching and combat.
The Afghan guerillas are far from a "sandal wearing AK-47 toting third world militia", they are a highly motivated, battle hardened group that was trained in part by our own Special Forces, CIA, and the British Paras and SAS. They also have terrain on their side. Not just on their side like enfilading fire or lots of canyons, on their side like our helicopters have half their normal range in their mountains, and maybe %2 of our troops are currently acclimated to the altitude.
I'm sorry if I sounded argumentative, to me your first post seemed unrealistic and over-enthusiastic. I, too, think we can win, but it will be very, very difficult.
He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil.
[ Parent ]