One Man’s Retreat Is Another Man’s Heroic Disengagement

June 19, 2010

R.F.Wilson writes: I have it on good authority that the people in the Defence Ministry in London are already thinking hard about the appropriate name for the retreat of British troops from Afghanistan. The idea is that the word ‘retreat’ just doesn’t sound right in the context of the massive effort that has been put into building a viable democracy in Afghanistan. Or was it fighting the drug trade, or maybe keeping the streets of Britain safe from terrorism? The mission has been redefined many times over, to suit the momentum, so to speak, so it might be anything at the moment. Although people, who are in the know, say that fighting the threat of terrorism is the correct description at the moment.

So what is it going to be then, the name for the retreat, I mean? Could it be ‘heroic disengagement’, ‘victorious redistribution of resources’, ‘triumphant exodus’ or some other uplifting name? Considering that deep down in their hearts the military knew from the very start that the war was unwinnable, they probably have had enough time to think of some fancy name for the term ‘retreat’.

What I find particularly ironic is that during David Cameron’s recent visit to Afghanistan, which was cut short out of security considerations, the Prime Minister was informed by the commanders on the ground that the terrorist threat to Britain emanating from the groups operating over there has been greatly reduced. And Mr Cameron, on hearing that good piece of news, allegedly said: ‘Well, if that’s the case, people, then we can proceed with the heroic disengagement.’ Or something along those lines.

But hold on a second, you might say. What about the recent revelations that the Pakistani intelligence services are giving serious support to the Taliban in Afghanistan: doesn’t it prove that the threat is actually greater now than it was, say, three or four years ago? Well, you would be wrong in assuming that little things like that can interfere with the big flow of things. The big man in the White House has set his sights on pulling out his boys by 2011 – in time for the big race in 2012 – so it’s time to beat the retreat, or conduct the ‘heroic disengagement’, and nothing will stand in the way of the big plan. Especially as the Americans are now saying that the Afghan army will soon be capable of providing the security all over the country.

But what if Afghanistan falls into anarchy again, some cynic with no consideration for the feelings of the politicians, who have been bagging on about the need to keep on fighting in Afghanistan, might ask. How would you explain the heroic disengagement then? Well, the answer would be quite simple, really: the military on the ground were saying that things were going swimmingly and politicians responded to their estimates in good faith. Who could have though that the generals could get it so wrong?

So there you have it: after nine years of war everything would soon start getting back to ‘normal’. The Taliban would get back into power, officially, as it is controlling most of the country anyway, and the drug lords will have to move most of their operations abroad, as it would no longer be safe to grow record poppy crops like it was under NATO’s presence. Terrorists will once again train in camps in the mountains and valleys and Western governments would express their alarm at the possibility of attacks against their citizens. And the Afghans will get back to living in the 13^th century proper, without NATO telling them that they should strive to live in a modern democracy, whatever it’s supposed to mean.

Still, one man’s retreat is another man’s heroic disengagement.

– End –

Category: Let's Be Cynical · No Comments »
Tags: Afghanistan, British troops, David Cameron, pull-out