[OPE-L:6049] RE: bombing

[mongiovg <mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.)

Gary