Warblog free zone: Again, I am glad this is not a warblog, because I would be ranting again about the desire on the part of those who are running and covering this war, including especially the green reporters and the retired generals, to drop MOAHBs (Mother of All Hyperbole Bombs). Are others who read history, even a little, as dumbfounded as I am? And I’m only catching the radio coverage and scanning the daily newspapers. I unplugged the TV a week ago and avoid any Internet coverage beyond that which is on newspaper sites. This morning, I ran across an insightful piece on the front page of the WSJ which at least tried to explore historical precedents for the current war and its skirmishes.
My major complaint also is the obsession with the desire to know the duration of the war. History about the duration of previous wars is foggy when you’re depending merely on your recollections, as it appears many of the greenies and military retirees are doing. For example, check out this handy timeline regarding the War in Afghanistan. That war, which seemed to be over quickly, began on October 7, 2001 and the last Taliban stronghold fell on December 16. That’s ten weeks or 70 days. This war is near its end. It may take a few more weeks, but in a broad historical context, it will be recalled as being over before it began. And I’m glad, because I want to quit posting about this not being a warblog.