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