Afghanistan is the war we will never win, warns SAS hero Chris Ryan

www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

HE'S the SAS hero who trudged 200 miles across baking desert to safety during the infamous Bravo Two Zero mission. Chris Ryan knows a thing or two about warfare in difficult environments. And even thought the author has nothing but the highest respect for British troops - he has friends and relatives still serving - he is convinced the Taliban can't be beaten on their own turf.

Old article but SAS soldier Chris Ryan explains why Afghanistan will NEVER be won. The british lost the Khyber pass battle once a long time ago and now the USA and Brits are making the same fatal mistake. He says this about the afghanis:

"There is a misconception, because we see the Taliban on TV dressed in rags, that they are not a formulated army, but these guys are phenomenal fighters and fearsome tacticians.

They are instrumental in their resistance and fight for freedom against the terrorist oppressors. They are extremely patient:

Hundreds of years of warfare have given them brilliant tactical brains and the willingness to play the waiting game.

Most of all, the Afghani muslims are not worried about this earth. This earth is a temporary place. They are waiting for heaven. Heaven is a billion times better than this world to them so naturally according to this soldier:

Ryan said it was terrifying that the enemy are not afraid to die.

But the USA and all its arrogance and pride thinks we can just beat them into the stone age and we can win with brute force. It will never happen, because what they are fighting for is better than the entire world and all that is in it. They are not impressed by the show of US and British Force.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


to true the russians also tried and got defeated big time, that was when the good ol USA supplied the afghans with US weapons.

Yup, there is a reason (a good one) why Afghanistan has been called the "graveyard of empires". Very few invaders have had very much long term success there. Now we are sucked in and getting the death of a 1000 cuts.

reply to post by eyeinoz


Now the USA is supplying the afghan army again, and a lot of time those people turn around and shoot the invading oppressors; karma sucks for those 'tough' marines lol..

reply to post by Frogs


It is precisely what they want, the US to run up bills of hundreds of billions of dollars and when they go broke, they will emerge victorious..no guns or bullets necessary to win the war.

Ya, watching war correspondant's taged up with patrol units you realise these people will die to see you leave. That is a hell of a sacrafice. When they have that determination, HOW do you win? Although winning against a nation responsible for nothing seems rather silly to me.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


You do realise that there are more countries fighting in Afghanistan than just the US and Britain?

It was meant to be an indefenent affair.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


If the USA was not there, no one else would be. The USA started it and everyone followed. Are you telling me that if the USA did not start the war the other countries would have gone in?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

If the USA was not there, no one else would be. The USA started it and everyone followed. Are you telling me that if the USA did not start the war the other countries would have gone in?

The UN basically approved of the invasion of Afghanistan by a COALITION of nations. There is not one country currently fighting in Afghanistan but many all with the backing of the UN. This is not an American war although the reasons were to do with the 9/11 attacks.
In fact I can't think of a single war that America has fought without needing another countries help.

reply to post by CrimsonKapital


I will state the question again. Would all those countries still attack Afghanistan if the USA did not?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

I will state the question again. Would all those countries still attack Afghanistan if the USA did not?

Of course not most countries aren't warmongers like the US, but if your going to talk about a war like Afghanistan you cannot just reference the US and Britain. Other countries have fought and lost troops there too. The more you know.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by CrimsonKapital

 

I will state the question again. Would all those countries still attack Afghanistan if the USA did not?

Of course not. I remember reading an article some time ago. Written by someone much like the person in your OP. He had a vast background and had spent much time there.

After 9/11 the Afghans feared we would come in and decimate everything and leave just as quickly as we came leaving a vast path of destruction in our wake and many too afraid to try another strike. They hoped we would come in and stay for awhile so that ...well...so that things would go pretty much like they have gone.

I'll have to see if I can dig it up..

The question should also be asked about its neighbor (Pakistan) whose ISI is influential in the region and ensures to keep the region a troubled hotspot. Taliban is their creation and not Afghanistan's creation. ISI is the culprit in attracting the conflicts to the Afghanistan Region(s).

I love hearing "experts" like Chris Ryan or Andy McNabb talking about Afghanistan, particularly when neither of them ever fought there and both had left the army long before we ever went near the place.

They were members of one of the most efficient special forces in the world and therefore by definition excellent soldiers. However they were both NCOs (McNabb was a Sergeant, Ryan a Corporal) 20 years ago and trained for different types of conflict than those we are fighting today. Neither of them are particularly popular in Hereford any more due to their books and have limited access to anything that most of us couldn't get hold of with minimal effort.

Do they make some good points? Yes.

Are they the experts in all things currant in the middle east? No.