2009/10/15

Late-bloomers

.
I love it how all those late bloomers suddenly discover that waging the war in Afghanistan is NOT a war of necessity and only peripherally related to Al Qaida and the prevention of new terror attacks.

This is 2009, though!

The mess began in 2002 (invasion in 2001, but it wouldn't have been a mess without the nation building project that begun in 2002).

Seven years. Seriously, nobody should earn credit for an insight that took seven years.

We knew in 2002 that AQ had almost entirely fled the country and found refugee in Pakistan.
The public knew in 2003 that AQ did not consist of one major conspirator and a training organization in Afghanistan. AQ became a label that got slapped on dozens of cells that had at least minimum ties with AQ or adopted the brand for greater public effect of their stunts.


We knew by 2002 that the 9-11 strike was prepared more in Germany and Florida(!) than in Afghanistan. We learned in 2001 that the vast majority of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi-Arabians.

So why did it take that long?
Maybe not enough strain? The Taliban intensified the warfare in 2006. Did their level of activity only reach uncomfortable (for the pundits) levels recently? That would tell us that the pundits lack foresight. Even inept Wall Street 'chart technicians' could have predicted the rise of activity in 2006.


Seriously, I have no respect for such late bloomers. A time lag of three to seven years for grasping reality in face of overwhelming evidence is simply embarrassing.

There's no doubt that the late-bloomers with access to TV shows and newspaper columns will get a lot of credit for not being completely blind. It has almost become a fashion in certain U.S. media outlets to be skeptical of the current involvement in Afghanistan.

Sven Ortmann
.

No comments:

Post a Comment