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     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
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

albywan       11/11/2009 8:35:01 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.



Agree mostly with what you say here, except the delgation of responsibility to Pakistan. a strategy needs to be put in place to counter the terrorists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the two need to be addressed as one...
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/11/2009 10:58:47 PM

Agree mostly with what you say here, except the delegation of responsibility to Pakistan. a strategy needs to be put in place to counter the terrorists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the two need to be addressed as one...


I don't agree that Pakistan and Afghanistan is the same problem. IMHO, Pakistan is the source of all problems. Had they had not created Taleban, the US wouldn't have this hot potato. However, even if you can nuke Islamabad and annihilate Pakistan military and intelligence, then split the land into Sindh, Punjab and Baluchi states peacefully, you still have Pushtun problem. Those Turkish speaking people in Afghanistan can be either bribed or compelled into cooperation, but not Pushtun. The smart ways to deal with those people are:
 
1. Kill them all, men, women, children and sheep; burn all the crops, destroy all the roads and  bridges, poison all the wells then leave toxic waste all over the place after you fill the land with anti-personal mines made in non-deteriorating plastic and aluminum.
2. Pitch one against the other.
3. Leave them alone.
 
Option 3 was usually the prime choice, but since Pakistan has created this craphole situation, they can't be left alone. Option 1 is also unacceptable for legal and ethical reasons, unless you are Chinese commie. So the US really doesn't have many options to play. In order to disengage from Afghanistan, the US needs to reserve some strings to pull. Unfortunately, no other power is interested in dealing with that craphole, except for Pakistan, which is why they created this craphole in the first place. Somebody needs to fill the power vacuum after NATO withdraw in order to prevent sudden collapse of current order.
 
On the other hand, by keeping Pakistan busy in the craphole they created, they will be unable to concentrate their resources against India. Since some other country is using Pakistan as counter weight to balance India, and can't afford to let Pakistan slip into yet another craphole, it will become their liability to keep Pakistan float. It also gives the West some string to pull Pakistan, but that's another story.

 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/11/2009 11:14:49 PM
 
Quote    Reply

albywan       11/11/2009 11:29:33 PM



Agree mostly with what you say here, except the delegation of responsibility to Pakistan. a strategy needs to be put in place to counter the terrorists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the two need to be addressed as one...






I don't agree that Pakistan and Afghanistan is the same problem. IMHO, Pakistan is the source of all problems. Had they had not created Taleban, the US wouldn't have this hot potato. However, even if you can nuke Islamabad and annihilate Pakistan military and intelligence, then split the land into Sindh, Punjab and Baluchi states peacefully, you still have Pushtun problem. Those Turkish speaking people in Afghanistan can be either bribed or compelled into cooperation, but not Pushtun. The smart ways to deal with those people are:

 

1. Kill them all, men, women, children and sheep; burn all the crops, destroy all the roads and  bridges, poison all the wells then leave toxic waste all over the place after you fill the land with anti-personal mines made in non-deteriorating plastic and aluminum.


2. Pitch one against the other.


3. Leave them alone.

 

Option 3 was usually the prime choice, but since Pakistan has created this craphole situation, they can't be left alone. Option 1 is also unacceptable for legal and ethical reasons, unless you are Chinese commie. So the US really doesn't have many options to play. In order to disengage from Afghanistan, the US needs to reserve some strings to pull. Unfortunately, no other power is interested in dealing with that craphole, except for Pakistan, which is why they created this craphole in the first place. Somebody needs to fill the power vacuum after NATO withdraw in order to prevent sudden collapse of current order.


 

On the other hand, by keeping Pakistan busy in the craphole they created, they will be unable to concentrate their resources against India. Since some other country is using Pakistan as counter weight to balance India, and can't afford to let Pakistan slip into yet another craphole, it will become their liability to keep Pakistan float. It also gives the West some string to pull Pakistan, but that's another story.






My God, we're in agreement....
 
How would you deal with the issue of the Pakistani Nuclear weapons? Can't have these waiting around for a Islamofacist to sieze...
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/12/2009 12:06:07 AM



Agree mostly with what you say here, except the delegation of responsibility to Pakistan. a strategy needs to be put in place to counter the terrorists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the two need to be addressed as one...






I don't agree that Pakistan and Afghanistan is the same problem. IMHO, Pakistan is the source of all problems. Had they had not created Taleban, the US wouldn't have this hot potato. However, even if you can nuke Islamabad and annihilate Pakistan military and intelligence, then split the land into Sindh, Punjab and Baluchi states peacefully, you still have Pushtun problem. Those Turkish speaking people in Afghanistan can be either bribed or compelled into cooperation, but not Pushtun. The smart ways to deal with those people are:

 

1. Kill them all, men, women, children and sheep; burn all the crops, destroy all the roads and  bridges, poison all the wells then leave toxic waste all over the place after you fill the land with anti-personal mines made in non-deteriorating plastic and aluminum.


2. Pitch one against the other.


3. Leave them alone.

 

Option 3 was usually the prime choice, but since Pakistan has created this craphole situation, they can't be left alone. Option 1 is also unacceptable for legal and ethical reasons, unless you are Chinese commie. So the US really doesn't have many options to play. In order to disengage from Afghanistan, the US needs to reserve some strings to pull. Unfortunately, no other power is interested in dealing with that craphole, except for Pakistan, which is why they created this craphole in the first place. Somebody needs to fill the power vacuum after NATO withdraw in order to prevent sudden collapse of current order.


 

On the other hand, by keeping Pakistan busy in the craphole they created, they will be unable to concentrate their resources against India. Since some other country is using Pakistan as counter weight to balance India, and can't afford to let Pakistan slip into yet another craphole, it will become their liability to keep Pakistan float. It also gives the West some string to pull Pakistan, but that's another story.





PRCs apply Tibet solution. Do likewise to THEM..
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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