Gorbachev Says Obama Should Start Afghan Withdrawal

Gorbachev Says Obama Should Start Afghan Withdrawal

www.bloomberg.com

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 i

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bloomberg.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The New Great Game

"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."

Makes one wonder why Gorbachev is making this statement to the world now? What's in it for Gorby?

But Gorbachev has a history of pulling out!

"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.”

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Why should Obama listen to Gorb?

Talk about dictators dictating to dictators!

Also, is there any proof that Gorb is a friend of America?

Well although the Taliban and insurgents are well armed and probably have a lot more monetary backing than most realize.........the Russians aren't supplying them with millions of dollars in advanced anti-aircraft shoulder fired missiles. Let's face it........one of the biggest reasons for Russia's failure in the 1980's was because of our covert backing of the mujahadeen and the stinger missile.

I think they are wise words to be honest maybe made without any agenda, there does not have to be a barbed reason for it every single time. You cannot win a war using traditional military force against an enemy like this period. The lessons from the past have not been learnt, US failure in Vietnam, the French resistance caused untold trouble to the Germans in WWII and there are many examples which can be drawn upon.

What it does open up is the question of the validity of the armed forces period, if insurgents are happy to play the long game they will chip away like an axe on a tree until they achieve their goal. So if the armed forces with all of their technology advantage are not able to contain or remove the threat of this size and level what is the point of their existence? Long gone are the days when people lined up on a battle field and bashed it out, the world has moved on from that yet our understanding and deployment of military force has not really.

Let me give an example, if China invaded the US tomorrow based on the amount of citizens which are armed and the conflict of ideology, they would be in for a very rough ride. The vast majority of people would resist, global conflict these days is about territory acquisition and resources and the use of weapons of mass destruction in this scenario are useless. It comes down to economics, cost of theatre engagement versus the reward, once the gap narrows...

Basically, there must be better ways to secure resource or find alternatives. If the vast sums of money which have been spent on military toys over the last fifty years had been used for a scientific purposes who knows where we would be today. The fighting of resource may well be a non issue in that time line.

We really need to evolve and quickly!

Right, we'll take advice from Gorbachev, who didn't do so well in Afghanistan.

Of course, we shouldn't be there. We never should have gone in there. It's basically a bunch of smallish warring tribes in some of the most Godforsaken land on earth. There's really nothing much for us to do there. Except, maybe, get an oil pipeline running through it. But even that won't work, since the tribes will just sabotage these pipelines.

The irony of Afghanistan is that we created the Taliban. We wanted to help arm a Muslim extremist group to fight the Soviets. Apparently we figured that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", except that it doesn't work that way. They're only our friends until we've wiped out their enemy for them, at which time they turn against us.

This whole Afghanistan war is one huge fluster cluck.

reply to post by chiron613


I agree, I'm still not sure why exactly we went to war with the Taleban. I think it was mainly a show of force - US had been attacked and wanted to reaffirm strength to the more unsavoury regimes around the world.

It's easy to say it was a mistake in retrospect, as with Iraq, but who knows what the world would be like if we hadn't gone in?

I think we should get out of Afghanistan. After all we have completely abandoned our mission objective there.

What was that mission objective again?



But why are we still in Afghanistan?



[edit] Oops, wrong vid.

[edit on 11/11/2009 by whatukno]

Unlike to Soviet Union aka Russia, who was trying to take over the land for their own use. Fighting against the people, and the people against them, was a conflict they russia could not hope to win.

The USofA on the other hand, is fighting along side the people, obviuosly with ulterior motives, but the battle is a different one. We and I mean the US government, reletively speaking, is not there to conquer and takeover the land. Obvious ulterior motives aside, that is the difference. As my understanding of it any way.

When we are done there, the people will still have their land as ther own. "Gor bosh shev", see's we are actually succeeding in our limited goals, and will in the end aquire the end result of the govs ulterior motive/s.

No one ever wins in a fight, both sides lost when it came to blows. Same thing in war, no one, n o one wins in war. Not the people who suffer diplacement and loss of life.

The victor, has lost lives and resources. the defender of conflicts either by default lose, wether or not they succeeded in defence.

Every one loses, and I beleive the people in general can see and know that. We have either personally witnessed it, or have been exposed to some one who has, or via the media.

Withdrawl, yeah and history doesnt repeat either...

reply to post by ADVISOR


You're wrong. Let me ask you what's the difference between the Afghan government i.e. US backed taking over everything and a foreign enemy? NOTHING! The Afghan government is already taking over a lot of aspects of agriculture, timber, etc. from tribal families and villages. That is what the people are pissed off about. They want to be left alone whether it be the US military or their puppet Afghan government and Karzai.

reply to post by ADVISOR


Now while I can understand the purpose of why we went there. (to get rid of a madman and overthrow an oppressive regime) We put in place our own oppressive regime and failed to get the madman.

Not that it's the US military's fault that we failed to get UBL, mountainous regions are terrible places to conduct a war.

Now our military is basically being used as a PMC to protect KBR holdings in the area.

The West should listen to Gorby... A man who's been there and done that.

The US invaded Afghanistan because they 'believed' the Taliban were hiding Bin Laden. Where is the guy now? Dead? In Pakistan? How hard can it be to find a 7 foot Arab connected to a dialysis machine!

One can only conclude that the 'war' in Afghanistan is about something else entirely! Perhaps we should be asking the Military Industrial Complex!


IRM

I do have to disagree Advisor based on one point; the insurgents are the people of Afghanistan. From their perspective they are defending their homeland and their ideological point of view (which I don’t agree with I might add!). The key difference is that unlike when the Soviet Union went in, with US led backing and equipment they faced a tougher fight, but without that equipment the tactics have changed but are just as effective.

There is no real difference between the two at all, both the Soviet Union and the US/Nato have occupied the country for their own aims. So Afghanistan gets handed back once it has served its purpose? That sounds somewhat wrong to me and as resources get leaner we are heading down a very apocalyptic path with that approach.

For arguments sake the pipeline is built and pumping the resources away, do you honestly think that it will not be disrupted constantly? You would need a no-man’s land like that which exists between North and South Korea to even stand a chance surrounding the entire length of the pipeline. The troop levels required to police that distance would be massive without that, and maybe that’s the way it will go.

As I am sure you know Five British soldiers were shot in their own checkpoint by a Taliban insurgent that had been posing as a police officer for two years. So if you cant trust the people your supposed to be working with what is the difference between the Soviet and US/Nato actions? I knew one of the guys that was killed personally, so based on that incident and change of tactic the whole “project” is sunk before it gets off the ground. Nothing has been won at all, just more dead bodies and increased military hardware spending.

Maybe the Arabic nations should maybe look to secure their future by implementing large scale solar farms and sell that energy to the world? Rather than hold the world to ransom as long as possible until the last drop of oil is out. It would have many environmental benefits as well, no need for more nuclear power stations that way.. Iran anyone? Just thinking logically, your a shop that sells strawberries what do you sell out of season? Because that point will come for them... Forward planning makes a good leader, shame there are not many of them.

The next battleground will be the polar regions and the moves have already started between old sparring partners, that’s why I suggested we evolve a bit and look at a less confrontational solution for the benefit of all mankind. As things run out, it will be WWIII but that has to occur before that point otherwise again your fighting over nothing. Peak oil reached anyone? We really have to move past this I am tougher than you mentality and the grab of limited resources or we are all doomed make no mistake!

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by ADVISOR

 

You're wrong. Let me ask you what's the difference between the Afghan government i.e. US backed taking over everything and a foreign enemy? NOTHING! The Afghan government is already taking over a lot of aspects of agriculture, timber, etc. from tribal families and villages. That is what the people are pissed off about. They want to be left alone whether it be the US military or their puppet Afghan government and Karzai.

You're wrong. The Taliban are mostly Pakistani pashtuns. The Majority of the people don't want the Taliban's twisted version of Islam to return. As far as the very limited economy. The new Government is regulating it's natural resources just like any Government should.

reply to post by Bunker or Bust

The next battleground will be the polar regions and the moves have already started between old sparring partners, that’s why I suggested we evolve a bit and look at a less confrontational solution for the benefit of all mankind. As things run out, it will be WWIII but that has to occur before that point otherwise again your fighting over nothing. Peak oil reached anyone? We really have to move past this I am tougher than you mentality and the grab of limited resources or we are all doomed make no mistake!

What do you think would happen if the Taliban controlled Afghanistan again or the Iranians? Would that bring about the peace that you want? No way!

Well I doubt they would mount a full scale land invasion of the US. What specifically are you scared of? Terrorist attacks? Has the all clear been given since the country has been occupied? Nope didn't think so

I am saying military action against this type of threat is pointless really, and by the way it's not about terror but resources.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, the Soviet Union broke up due to economics.

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust
There is more than one way to skin a cat, the Soviet Union broke up due to economics.

The Soviet Union broke up due to many factors...

Corruption, Bureaucracies, Mismanagement, 15 Break away republics all pulling in different direction. A brutal central Government, dissolution of the Soviet Union by it's citizens, lack of personal freedoms, travel...


Afghanistan was just a little salt in the wound in the big picture.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Some of that sounds like an Afgan talking about the Taliban...

As I said before this kind of military engagement cannot end well, you can’t defeat an ideology with force without mass genocide. Also based on your previous post you telling me the Afgan policeman who shot five British soldiers was a Pakistani?

Leading back to the original post, a pull out based on fact after eight years terror is still a threat, you can’t find the CIA bogeyman, nothing has changed apart from death and expense which your tax dollars will be paying for many years to come. Yes I say come home and let Afghanistan sort its own affairs. If not how long do you need and what is the end game? You advocating genocide?

Is the US/Nato responsibility to right all wrongs and injustice as seen through western eyes? When are we off to Tibet or Zimbabwe? (There are plenty more, sadly no oil though but maybe we can sell more missles?)
Must the whole world conform to our ideology? What’s the difference between the extremists and us then in that case?

Originally posted by Bunker or Bust

Is the US/Nato responsibility to right all wrongs and injustice as seen through western eyes? When are we off to Tibet or Zimbabwe? (There are plenty more, sadly no oil though but maybe we can sell more missles?)

First off we are not talking about Tibet or Zimbabwe now are we? Second we are not the only ones in the region selling arms. Have you researched Recent Russian MultiBillion dollar deals in the region?

Must the whole world conform to our ideology? What’s the difference between the extremists and us then in that case?

Whose forcing them to conform to our ideology?

I remember reading a recent ATS thread about Child Brides in Afghanistan. It's an outdated practice but the US was accused of not ending their long held customs as proof of a US Failure.

Well?
Which is it?
Are we forcing them to our ideology or are we leaving them to their customs?

[edit on 11-11-2009 by SLAYER69]

In addition to very real problems the Soviet Union was facing, there was also a complete inaptitude of Gorby himself (despite his apparent charisma) which contributed to the country's break-up. His policies and speeches were oftentimes obviously naive, and he managed to miss a massive plot by his own co-managers -- not a sign of political savvy by any means.

Anyone who listens to this fool is fool himself.