The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 20, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Gorbachev Says Obama Should Start Afghan Withdrawal
DarthAmerica    11/10/2009 6:03:57 PM
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, drawing on his experience of military failure in Afghanistan in the 1980s, said the U.S. can?t win the conflict there and should begin pulling out its soldiers.

Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces are battling a Taliban-led insurgency, is too fragmented between clans to be controlled militarily, Gorbachev, 78, said in an interview today in Berlin. While he said President Barack Obama would be unlikely to take his advice, Gorbachev said he saw no chance of success even with more U.S. troops.

?I believe that there is no prospect of a military solution,? Gorbachev said in Russian through a translator. ?What we need is the reconciliation of Afghan society -- and they should be preparing the ground for withdrawal rather than additional troops.?

Gorbachev, who became general secretary of the ruling Communist Party in 1985, at age 54, initiated a restructuring program known as perestroika that eventually led to the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. He spoke a day after he joined Chancellor Angela Merkel and current world leaders in the German capital to mark the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago.

As Soviet leader, Gorbachev pursued a policy of detente with the U.S. while overseeing the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 1989 after grappling with an unsuccessful decade- long presence in the country.

Disputed Election

Obama is considering a military request to send as many as 40,000 more U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan, on top of the 68,000 due to be stationed there by the end of the year. Other North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces, comprising personnel from 42 countries, number about 36,000.

The U.S. troop review has been complicated by increased Taliban attacks and by a disputed victory for the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, in this year?s presidential election.

Speaking in Berlin yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that Karzai step up efforts to tackle corruption. Karzai was re-appointed president by Afghanistan?s electoral commissioners Nov. 2 following former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah?s decision to pull out of a runoff election.

In response to an Oct. 28 attack on United Nations staff by Taliban militants that killed five of the agency?s workers in a Kabul guesthouse, the UN last week announced it would move about 600 of its international staff members and remove some from the country.

Brezhnev?s Gamble

Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sent tanks into Afghanistan to support a Marxist regime in 1979, betting superior firepower from the ground and air would keep the country within Moscow?s fold. Soviet aims were thwarted by an Islamist mujahedeen movement supported by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.

While there was support in the Moscow establishment, Gorbachev as the general secretary of the Communist Party concluded that Soviet objectives couldn?t be achieved.

?We thought that that would lead nowhere,? Gorbachev said. ?So we started to disengage our troops from any kind of hostilities in Afghanistan.?

The pullout began in 1988 and ended in February of 1989, nine months before the Berlin Wall fell.

The Taliban, an outcrop of the mujahedeen that dominated Afghanistan in the 1990s, took control of most of the country in 1996. The U.S.-led invasion five years later, following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was meant to displace the Taliban, accused of harboring the terrorist group al-Qaeda.

American ?Perestroika?

Gorbachev said that relations between Russia and the U.S. are improving as America undergoes its own perestroika, or rebuilding, which he said had begun with the election of Obama as president last year.

?America should implement perestroika in the context of American society,? Gorbachev said. ?I believe that people of America, most of them who voted in these elections -- and most of them voted for Obama -- did vote for change.?

Asked whether Obama could trust Russia?s current leadership, President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the former Soviet leader said it would have to be a process. He cited his first meeting with former President Ronald Reagan in Geneva in 1985; after the two leaders met one-on-one, they shared their thoughts on each other with their delegations.

?He?s a real dinosaur, a man from the past,? Gorbachev remembered saying. ?Do you think that Reagan had a better view of me? He said: ?Gorbachev is a die-hard Bolshevik.? So that was the beginning.?

To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Burns in Berlin at cwburns@bloomberg.net; Patrick Donahue in Berlin at at pdonahue1@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: November 10, 2009 11:37 EST
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Zhang Fei       11/10/2009 6:51:30 PM
Other illustrious regional leaders like bin Laden and Mullah Omar agree with Gorbachev. Heck, senior government officials in Pakistan agree with Gorbachev. It's time to bring the troops home. We can always go back there after they turn NYC into a gigantic smoking crater. Think of it as urban renewal on a massive scale.
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    No way   11/10/2009 7:07:38 PM
That place is too touchy besides Taleban the India Pak China scenario needs American prescence to prevent any escalation. INdia vs China rhetoric is picking up and also loose Pak nukes may require direct US intervention. More than Germany AFghanistan is a permenant base.
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       11/10/2009 8:09:11 PM

That place is too touchy besides Taleban the India Pak China scenario needs American prescence to prevent any escalation. INdia vs China rhetoric is picking up and also loose Pak nukes may require direct US intervention. More than Germany AFghanistan is a permenant base.


Does anyone know whether there is any sort of mutual defense pact between China and Pakistan in the event of conflict between China and India?
 
Would Pakistan form part of any move to "surround" India, - as part of the "string of Pearls" but also in regard to opening up secondary or tertiatry fronts...
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Some ideas-   11/10/2009 8:32:51 PM
Provding intelligence, easy access through the passes in Pakistani Kashmir are some of the things Pak could do -also supporting Chinese navy and identifying Indian naval targets as they try to blockade Chinas oil. All in all a mere distraction unless it invaded or started trouble by military action on India;s western borders overall so as to bleed India's support for additional forces in the north against China. In that case US would be obliged to intervene as a major overt defeat for India would only encourage every anti-Western power in the world from the Islamic yahoos to the Chicoms. US prescence in AFghanistan moderates all that - not to speak of loose nukes from Pakistan.
 
I think 50 to 100 year deployment in AFghanistan is a must for everyone. Whats the use of NATO in Europe?
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    No formal military treaty between Pak & China   11/10/2009 8:43:46 PM
only this english.people.com.cn/200504/07/print20050407_179965.html , I could be wrong. String of pearls not working since INdia has chomped up quite a few pearls and US is right next to Gwadar port in Pakistan which is also close to Indian sympathetic Baluchis who could wreak havoc. Sri Lanka is back in India's fold as well as Maldives and Madagascar and straits of Malacca covered by Andaman bases.  INdian naval expansion will preserve Indian ocean policy of India- against any navy in the world due to diesel subs and nuke subs plus US surveillance aircraft , aircraft carriers etc.
The biggest security threat in the region is fall of Pakistan to Talebans and ham handed handling of Afghnistan by NATO or/and US. Even Afghans say deal with Talebans, thats like talking to Nazis.
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       11/10/2009 10:38:37 PM
It is amazing how the world attaches importance to the dunce that lost the Cold War.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/10/2009 10:54:51 PM

Does anyone know whether there is any sort of mutual defense pact between China and Pakistan in the event of conflict between China and India?

china and pakistan have a mutual defence agreement on India - its been firmed up ever since the early 70's.  pakistan regarded the US as reneging on support and china stepped in. 

Would Pakistan form part of any move to "surround" India, - as part of the "string of Pearls" but also in regard to opening up secondary or tertiatry fronts..

they are  more or less part of the indian ocean string which stretches from the chinese naval facility based in the deep water port of gwador and goes through to the chinese listening station in myanmar.  they have full view of all 4 of indias major fleet headquarters and some of the associated air force failities (southern india and the andoman-nicobars)
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/10/2009 11:28:42 PM
Gorbachev's a good man; I think he's equally as responsible for the end of the Cold War as Reagan or Thatcher.  (Put down the pitchforks...)  That said, I think this is sour grapes.  The Russians lost in Afghanistan because they fought poorly and treated the civilians abominably.  We're at the very least holding at a draw and still have a good possibility of winning this thing. 
 
And that would make the Russians look even more incompetent, so Gorby doesn't want to see that happen.  I still like him though.
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Whats the definition of winning in Afghanistan- Iraq was a win   11/10/2009 11:32:22 PM

Gorbachev's a good man; I think he's equally as responsible for the end of the Cold War as Reagan or Thatcher.  (Put down the pitchforks...)  That said, I think this is sour grapes.  The Russians lost in Afghanistan because they fought poorly and treated the civilians abominably.  We're at the very least holding at a draw and still have a good possibility of winning this thing. 

 

And that would make the Russians look even more incompetent, so Gorby doesn't want to see that happen.  I still like him though.


Most of the deck of cards and Saddam are dispensed with very ethically and legally, elections- even Chinese getting oil contract. Iraq was a clear clean (but very expensive) win.
Afghanistan- Osama alove, Zawahiri alive, Mullah Omar of Taleban alive , Pakistan shaky the AFghans say best to negotiate and integrate Taleban. A clear stalemate here.
 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus       11/11/2009 12:50:24 AM
Alexander took one look at Afghanistan and said nope, lets stop here.
 
The drunken Soviet leader sent poorly trained and underfunded conscripts who quickly became drunks.
 
Both had a better result than we can expect with this administration's commitment.
 
Without commitment, lives are sacrificed to satisfy domestic political gain.
 
Those in favor of victory should lobby to get out now.
 
A few thousand senseless casualties will solidify the administrations desire to withdraw insuring defeat.
 
A popular demand to withdraw now because of the administration's lack of commitment will save lives and force the administration to declare intent to win or withdraw.
 
NO military should be cannon fodder for domestic politics.
 
Poop, or get off the pooper.

 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       11/11/2009 3:34:45 AM
A little known fact, but the Russians actually went to great lengths to aid Afghanistan and win the hearts and minds. Their strategy did not consist solely of military actions. They sent in thousands of advisors to mentor Afghan civil servants and technical staff. The problem was, was that the Afghans didn't appreciate their help nor want their help. Thoses who were mentored simply stopped working and let their Russian mentors do all the work. The Afghans are too xenophobicc to accept or even comprehend aid. Billions of rubles were wasted in Quixotic aid efforts.... The tache d'huile tactics of Lautey do not work in Afghanistan.... whatever action one takes turns into a Rattenkreig....
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Find a tribe arm them, poromise them the moon, and let them do the dying.   11/11/2009 3:46:55 AM

A little known fact, but the Russians actually went to great lengths to aid Afghanistan and win the hearts and minds. Their strategy did not consist solely of military actions. They sent in thousands of advisors to mentor Afghan civil servants and technical staff. The problem was, was that the Afghans didn't appreciate their help nor want their help. Thoses who were mentored simply stopped working and let their Russian mentors do all the work. The Afghans are too xenophobicc to accept or even comprehend aid. Billions of rubles were wasted in Quixotic aid efforts.... The tache d'huile tactics of Lautey do not work in Afghanistan.... whatever action one takes turns into a Rattenkreig....

Andrew Jackson double-cross.
 
 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       11/11/2009 8:47:49 AM
Gorbachev's a good man; I think he's equally as responsible for the end of the Cold War as Reagan or Thatcher.
 
 While this is a de-railing, I beg to differ. The best that can be said of Gorby is that he didn't lash out violently when he realized that he was looking at a loss. He was doing everything in his power to put perfume on the pig of communism to keep it going. Reagan, Thatcher and John Paul II had already yanked the rug out before he even came into office.
 
He was a True Believer Communist (and I capitalize that on purpose), and was doing his best to save a system that in no way deserved to be saved (the body count alone says that). He was struggling to keep central power till the bitter end. Since the end of the Cold War he's been a tireless worker towards centralized world government (which is in no way laudable). He's a power obsessed anti-freedom crusader who doesn't believe in individual choice to any extent. A 'good man' -bollocks.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       11/11/2009 11:46:07 AM
A lot of our assumtions about the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan had to be revised when the actual Soviet documents from the Kremlin on Afghanistan became publicly available.
 
On this you don't have to trust me, because you can look at these documents yourself on line and form your own opinion. 
 
"http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1409"
 
link />
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/11/2009 6:40:06 PM
I see no point to stay in Afghanistan. There are ways to prevent Afghanistan slipping into the hands of terrorists, and there are ways to prevent Afghanistan running back into total chaos. Both aren't pretty, but are way cheaper. It's better to delegate Afghanistan to Pakistan after this wave of Taleban resurgence is cracked down. Short term surge, than GTFO.
 
Time has changed, and so should the strategic goals.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy