[OPE-L:6049] RE: bombing

From: mongiovg (mongiovg@stjohns.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 09 2001 - 11:28:49 EDT

Has anyone else noticed how subtly the focus of US policy has shifted, over 
the past two days, from getting Osama bin Laden to destroying the Taliban?  No 
one appears to have pointed out that not a single one of the targets being 
bombed by the US and British has ever posed the slightest threat to anyone 
outside the borders of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a loathsome bunch, to be 
sure.  But they have never posed a threat except their fellow Afghanis (and a 
decade or so ago Russian soldiers).  Osama bin Laden is now pretty much an 
afterthought, to judge from the NY Times coverage: success of the mission now 
means getting rid of the Taliban.  Where I see this episode heading is that 
Bush will claim victory when the Taliban are destroyed and the (almost equally 
loathsome)Northern Alliance are elevated to power, whether Osama bin Laden is 
nabbed or not, and he'll be off the radar screen until the next terrorist 
attack. I don't get the rationale for this: it seems not to be in line with 
Bush's own neo-isolationist ideology. Can someone shed some light?

Bush has an MBA from Harvard, doesn't he?  The only things I remember from the 
management course I took in college are Maslow's heirarchy of needs and 
"horses for courses": suit your strategy to the problem you're trying to 
solve.  Was he not paying attention (ditto everyone who's advising him) or did 
Harvard drop the ball?  (Of course it's possible Bush wasn't paying attention 
AND Harvard dropped the ball.)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Nov 02 2001 - 00:00:04 EST