In yesterday’s Washington Post, neo-conservative editorial page editor Fred Hiatt has a panic attack over the (imagined by him) possibility that President Obama is in his second term beginning to ponder some of the limitations of US interventionism world-wide.
On the proposed withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan next year, after 13 years of war, Hiatt claims:
“To say the war will end because U.S. troops are gone is like the toddler who imagines no one can see him when he closes his eyes. But it fits with the foreign policy of a leader who is on track, astonishingly, to preside over a sharp turn inward.
“I say astonishingly because when he ran in 2008, Obama presented himself as a man who would lead the United States into a new era of international engagement, idealism and cooperation.”
Who really is the toddler in his little vignette? Actually, a foreign policy of nonintervention would have likely avoided creating the very problem that the neo-cons demand we now solve. As we know, the forces that Hiatt urges we keep fighting are largely the same “freedom fighters” armed by the U.S. to fight the Soviets. And even a toddler would probably understand that bureaucrats living on the other side of the world should not be seeking to remake Afghanistan in their own image.
Hiatt is an historical revisionist extraordinaire, and his rewriting of events to suit his ideological agenda is pure conspiracy theory. According to Hiatt, it was not intervention itself but in fact a lack of sufficient intervention that has left Libya a bloody, gaping, and dangerous wound two years later: