"A Moment Of Truth For Zealous Liberal Aggressors"

By Steve Hynd

"A moment of truth for zealous liberal oppressors", that's what Simon Jenkins, former editor of the London Times, calls the Afghan election.

During the last Afghan elections, a UN official outside a polling booth grabbed a voter's blue-stained finger and raised it before the cameras. "Look," he said ecstatically. "This is what it's all about."

No, it isn't. Even in its present belligerent stance, the western world does not go about bombing and killing people just so they can vote.

The path from attacking Al Qaeda's leaders, who are no longer even in Afghanistan, to a massive nation building adventure is simply one of mission creep. Not even effective mission creep, at that. Jenkins adds that "voting is one thing, elections another" and notes the massive amount of corruption surrounding this election upon which Coalition military psyops will hang so much. The chances are that this election will simply further alienate the Pashtun majority in Afghanistan, strengthening the Taliban's hand. Luckily, the Taliban are no direct threat to US or British security. But when will the interventionists ever learn?

Jenkins:

Even if the Taliban cared to disrupt the streets of Britain, which they do not, the Afghan operation must constitute the biggest incitement to global mischief ever invented. As the Guardian's Ghaith Abdul-Ahad has been writing this week, a nation that under the Taliban was introverted and passive (save for its unwitting role in 9/11 as host to Bin Laden) is now a magnet for international killers and fanatics. British policy, whatever it was, simply has not worked. It has failed. No amount of platitudes from London or Washington can alter that.

This election should be a moment of truth for liberal interventionists everywhere. To cruise the world instigating elections at the point of a gun may have conferred neocon street cred on George Bush and Tony Blair. It has met its nemesis in the partition of Yugoslavia, the reversion of Iraq to feuding religious rivalry, and the chaos of Afghanistan. Other theatres of this missionary zeal � Pakistan, Palestine, Sudan and, in a different sense, Iran and Burma � are not glowing advertisements for the policy. Who knows where it will next bless with democracy at the blast from a drone?

But being a true neocon or neoliberal means never having to admit you're wrong. The worst example may be Tom Ricks, who can't even admit he's wrong somewhere when arguing with himself that the Surge in Iraq was both a success and a failure. But that doesn't hinder any of them, after all the other Very Serious People are all neo-whatever interventionists too and they are the only people who matter.