Gorbachev: Victory in Afghanistan Impossible

[GUNNER]

Gorbachev: Nato victory in Afghanistan impossible

The former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has warned Nato that victory in Afghanistan is impossible.

Mr Gorbachev said that the US had no alternative but to withdraw its forces if it wanted to avoid another Vietnam.

As Soviet leader, he pulled his troops out of Afghanistan more than 20 years ago after a 10-year war.

He praised President Barack Obama for his decision to begin withdrawing troops next year, but said the US would struggle to get out of the situation.

"Victory is impossible in Afghanistan. Obama is right to pull the troops out. No matter how difficult it will be," Mr Gorbachev said in an interview with the BBC's Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg.

He said before the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, an agreement had been reached with Iran, India, Pakistan and the US.

"We had hoped America would abide by the agreement that we reached that Afghanistan should be a neutral, democratic country, that would have good relations with its neighbours and with both the US and the USSR.

"The Americans always said they supported this, but at the same time they were training militants - the same ones who today are terrorising Afghanistan and more and more of Pakistan," Mr Gorbachev said.

Because of this, it would be more difficult for the US to get out of the situation.

"But what's the alternative - another Vietnam? Sending in half-a-million troops? That wouldn't work."

The best that Nato could hope to achieve, he said, was to help the country get back on its feet and rebuild itself after the war.


BBC News - Gorbachev: Nato victory in Afghanistan impossible

 

[greatsequence]

I think he is right. It will be better for everyone if US pulls her troops back and even better if US stops intervening in internal Affairs of other countries. But For China they will still keep some presence.

 

[ThatDamnGood]

But For China they will still keep some presence.

China's presence will like miners, engineers, contractors (not the Blackwater kind), etc and not soldiers.

 

[TaimiKhan]

China's presence will like miners, engineers, contractors (not the Blackwater kind), etc and not soldiers.

He meant, to monitor China in the region, the US will have some presence. Not talking about Chinese presence.

 

[TechLahore]

Given the current situation on the ground in Afghanistan, and also the new NATO policy of engaging the Taliban, it seems as if Gorbachev is spot on.

 

[Markus]

Russians said something similar when US attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and they had even mentioned of an embarrassing defeat for US but the US held its place for almost 10 years and have installed a democratic government in Kabul.

It may take time but the American way is working.

 

[TechLahore]

Markus, would you care to enlighten us as to how the US approach (The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld approach, to be more precise) is working?

1. We have Karzai publicly saying that he accepts bags of money from Iran.
2. We have NATO negotiating with the Taliban.
3. Osama, Mullah Omar and Zawahiri are still at large.
4. The US and UN, as well as most of NATO, have pretty much written off Karzai's government as incredibly corrupt, to the extent where they themselves declared the last election to be rigged.
5. The NATO influence in Afghanistan is limited only to small areas around their bases and vast tracts of countryside are still held by the Taliban.
6. None of the major donor goals or development goals for Afghanistan, as established 9 years ago, have been met. In fact, the amounts committed to the country have not even been dispensed.
7. US goals and policies on Afghanistan have often shifted, strategy after strategy has been tried without success and even public accusations, at the highest levels, have been traded between US Generals and politicians.
8. Afghanistan has given NATO militaries a bad name; whether it is shooting up Taliban prisoners locked in a container, inhumane treatment & torture, "unpopular" use of "civilian contractors", a very large number of civilian deaths and the list goes on.

How is the US mission in Afghanistan a success?

If you think a "long lasting" democracy has been implemented in Afghanistan, then you are more optimistic than the US Generals and the NATO high command itself.

 

[Markus]

Markus, would you care to enlighten us as to how the US approach (The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld approach, to be more precise) is working?

1. We have Karzai publicly saying that he accepts bags of money from Iran.
2. We have NATO negotiating with the Taliban.
3. Osama, Mullah Omar and Zawahiri are still at large.
4. The US and UN, as well as most of NATO, have pretty much written off Karzai's government as incredibly corrupt, to the extent where they themselves declared the last election to be rigged.
5. The NATO influence in Afghanistan is limited only to small areas around their bases and vast tracts of countryside are still held by the Taliban.
6. None of the major donor goals or development goals for Afghanistan, as established 9 years ago, have been met. In fact, the amounts committed to the country have not even been dispensed.

How is the US mission in Afghanistan a success?

If you think a "long lasting" democracy has been implemented in Afghanistan, then you are more optimistic than the US Generals and the NATO high command itself.

To answer the bold in above, one counter question from my side:-

What was the US mission in Afghanistan?

 

[greatsequence]

Russians said something similar when US attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and they had even mentioned of an embarrassing defeat for US but the US held its place for almost 10 years and have installed a democratic government in Kabul.

It may take time but the American way is working.

Are you for real. Please dont compare Afghanistan with Iraq. Democracy is very fragile there and the only way out is to put taliban in with some sort of compromise.

 

[TechLahore]

^^ Because of the failures NATO has been faced with in Afghanistan, these goals have shifted continuously.

From Wikipedia:

"Former U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the "war on terror" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.""

Clearly, the goal as articulated in 2001 has not been met.

Almost 10 years later, Obama realized that the above was not within grasp so he drastically changed the goal. He explicitly said that a "Jeffersonian democracy" was an unrealistic goal for Afghanistan and that the US was not in Afghanistan to do "nation building". This is contrary to dozens of statements from US officials at the highest levels.

Here is the reference:

'Modest goal' set for Afghan war - Washington Times

The net-net is that the US hasn't been able to achieve the goal as stated by Bush, and has been compelled - due to numerous reasons - to restate the reasons for why it is in Afghanistan. And today, rather than eliminate the Taliban, NATO is providing safe passage to the Taliban to attend negotiations, while the US installed President of Afghanistan is obtaining a "slush fund" from Enemy #1, Iran.

If you call this "success", then I shudder to think of what your definition of defeat might be.

 

[Markus]

^^ Because of the failures NATO has been faced with in Afghanistan, these goals have shifted continuously.

From Wikipedia:

"Former U.S. President George W. Bush articulated the goals of the "war on terror" in a September 20, 2001 speech, in which he said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.""

Clearly, the goal as articulated in 2001 has not been met.

Almost 10 years later, Obama realized that the above was not within grasp so he drastically changed the goal. He explicitly said that a "Jeffersonian democracy" was an unrealistic goal for Afghanistan and that the US was not in Afghanistan to do "nation building". This is contrary to dozens of statements from US officials at the highest levels.

Here is the reference:

'Modest goal' set for Afghan war - Washington Times

The net-net is that the US hasn't been able to achieve the goal as stated by Bush, and has been compelled - due to numerous reasons - to restate the reasons for why it is in Afghanistan. And today, rather than eliminate the Taliban, NATO is providing safe passage to the Taliban to attend negotiations, while the US installed President of Afghanistan is obtaining a "slush fund" from Enemy #1, Iran.

If you call this "success", then I shudder to think of what your definition of defeat might be.

The main initial US mission in Afghanistan was to work with Northern Alliance and throw out the Taliban government from Kabul, which they succeeded in doing, didn't they?

A democratic setup in a country like Afghanistan will tale sometime to stabilize, allegations of corruption does not mean a democratic way of life cannot be implemented in Afghanistan.

For where Afghanistan is today, would it have been possible without American involvement?

Uprooting Taliban from Kabul was game enough, the next challenge lies in preventing it from coming back.

For me, the Americans have very much succeeded in what that initially came here for, the only mistake they need to avoid is to leave Afghanistan in hurry as they did after Soviet collapse.

SOme more years under partial American presence and results will show on its own.

 

[Markus]

Are you for real. Please dont compare Afghanistan with Iraq. Democracy is very fragile there and the only way out is to put taliban in with some sort of compromise.

Afghanistan needs some time, maintain partial US presence for next few years and we will see the difference.

 

[Bhairava]

Russkies are enjoying their moment (looking at US in a similar position,they were 2 decades ago) now.

Let them.

 

[Areesh]

Russians said something similar when US attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and they had even mentioned of an embarrassing defeat for US but the US held its place for almost 10 years and have installed a democratic government in Kabul.

It may take time but the American way is working.

About the bold part this might help.

NATO's bloodiest days in Afghanistan

It isn't working dear. You won't be saying the same thing if IA would be facing what NATO and America are facing in Afghanistan.

 

[Areesh]

Afghanistan needs some time, maintain partial US presence for next few years and we will see the difference.

Ten years are more than enough for powers like America and NATO. With resentment and frustration among the troops their isn't any chance of improvement. Taliban aren't going to back off after struggling this far.