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
Jimme       11/12/2009 1:19:26 AM

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.


I have to completely agree. Can anyone even describe a realistic winning scenario? With a wishy washy president calling the shots does anyone think "we can win this" ?
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    realistic win will take 50years- give up F-22 if we have o, but Afghan campaign stays   11/12/2009 3:18:14 AM




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.







I have to completely agree. Can anyone even describe a realistic winning scenario? With a wishy washy president calling the shots does anyone think "we can win this" ?



Pakistan and Afghan government really do not get along and hence Pakistan cannot be trusted. Return of full Taleban control is comprehensive win for Al Qaida. Remember 9/11?
 
Quote    Reply

Panther       11/12/2009 3:33:50 AM









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.

















I have to completely agree. Can anyone even describe a realistic winning scenario? With a wishy washy president calling the shots does anyone think "we can win this" ?









Pakistan and Afghan government really do not get along and hence Pakistan cannot be trusted. Return of full Taleban control is comprehensive win for Al Qaida. Remember 9/11?

Pardon moi.... but since when did you become patriotic all of a sudden? Hmmmm....
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/12/2009 3:40:00 AM
Even worse...when did Le Zoo start making sense?
 
I'm going to have some of Hamlicar's pie from the Chinese F-22 thread, and wash it down with some hard liquor.
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/12/2009 1:11:34 PM

How would you deal with the issue of the Pakistani Nuclear weapons? Can't have these waiting around for a Islamofacist to sieze...



Already too late. They have the bomb, and there is nothing you can do about it, unless you have the guts to conduct preemptive genocide. I don't, thus my suggestion is to enjoy life while you can, and build more nukes.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       11/12/2009 1:13:36 PM

Pakistan and Afghan government really do not get along and hence Pakistan cannot be trusted. Return of full Taleban control is comprehensive win for Al Qaida. Remember 9/11?

Your will see Karzai kissing the butt of high Pakistani officials when it is the only option for him to stay in power.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Do we really want to win?   11/12/2009 4:14:46 PM
I get the feeling that the Afghanistan strategy is deliberately being killed. This effort may have already started during the Bush years.
 
First, because the CIA has supported a heroin dealer in becoming the leader in Afghanistan, which makes a civil Afghanistan society as a goal nearly impossible. If the goal was to put a pro dictator in charge, then this would be OK, but you shouldn't have held elections. If the goal was to create a democratic Afghanistan, then you shouldn't have supported a heroin dealer getting elected. It counters the strategy followed.

Second additional missions/pet causes are added to the strategy in Afghanistan that make succes impossible. The war on drugs has no chance of being won. Why saddle up your troops with a mission that cannot be succesfull and negatively influences the chances of success for the other missions?
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    Pre-emptive genocide? its pre-emptive nutjob & WMD elimination- yelli turning way lefty   11/12/2009 4:27:56 PM




How would you deal with the issue of the Pakistani Nuclear weapons? Can't have these waiting around for a Islamofacist to sieze...









Already too late. They have the bomb, and there is nothing you can do about it, unless you have the guts to conduct preemptive genocide. I don't, thus my suggestion is to enjoy life while you can, and build more nukes.
Nothing more than nuclear bunker buster type warheads required. Everyone knows where Pak nukes are. Israel had deployed cruise missiles(warhead unknown, I suspect nuclear) in Indian Kashmir etc to take out nukes in Pakistan during recent Pak India Kargil war. Pakistan Islamofascists have 3 other enemeies besides US- India and Iran and Israel (hey 3 I's), all fully capable of conducting pre-emptive nuclear strikes(Iran already has few nukes).
 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    Decisiveness Not Obama's Strong Point   11/12/2009 11:24:19 PM

Barack Obama 'risks Suez-like disaster' in Afghanistan, says key adviser

Leading authority on counter-insurgency fears US is heading for 'irresponsible' fudge on extra troops

Ewen MacAskill

A key adviser to Nato forces warned today that Barack Obama risks a Suez-style debacle in Afghanistan if he fails to deploy enough extra troops and opts instead for a messy compromise.

David Kilcullen, one of the world's leading authorities on counter-insurgency and an adviser to the British government as well as the US state department, said Obama's delay in reaching a decision over extra troops had been "messy". He said it not only worried US allies but created uncertainty the Taliban could exploit.

Speaking in an interview with the Guardian, he compared the president to someone "pontificating" over whether to send enough firefighters into a burning building to put a fire out.

He was speaking as Obama left Washington for a nine-day trip to Asia without announcing a decision on troop numbers. The options being considered by the US have been narrowed down to four: sending 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000, the latter the figure requested by the Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal. These would be on top of 68,000 US troops already deployed.

The deep divisions with the Obama administration were exposed yesterday by leaked diplomatic cables from the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, who urged Obama to ignore McChrystal's request unless the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, cleaned up his corrupt government.

Kilcullen expressed concern that Obama might deny McChrystal the 40,000 extra troops and split the difference between the four options, the kind of fudge common in domestic politics.

"Time is running out for us to make a decision. We can either put in enough troops to control the environment or we can credibly communicate our intention to leave. Either could work. Splitting the difference is not the way to go," Kilcullen said.

"It feels to me that all these options are dangerously close to the middle ground and we have to consider whether the middle ground is a good place to be. The middle ground is a good place on domestic issues, but not on strategy. You either commit to D-Day and invade the continent or you get Suez. Half-measures end up with Suez. Do it or not do it."

Kilcullen, though employed by the state department and various Nato governments, stressed he was speaking in a private capacity. A former Australian army officer, he is based in an office outside Washington and has served in various capacities in the US government, including as an adviser to General David Petraeus, the overall US commander. He is coy about the extent of his involvement but, apart from paid consultancies, his views are regularly sought by senior figures at the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration.

He said it would be irresponsible to opt for a halfway house in which extra troops were sent in but not enough to secure Afghanistan, which seemed to be the way the administration was headed. He noted that Obama, in a speech to troops in Jacksonville, Florida, a fortnight ago, had said he would never lightly put them in harm's way.

"That's not the situation we are in. As an analogy, you have a building on fire, and it's got a bunch of firemen inside. There are not enough firemen

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Lot of nonsense here.   11/13/2009 2:24:31 AM
Reread the thread and cull for common sense.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3



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