We have all had the questions: If Trump and Q are doing something, why don't we see it? If something was going to happen, it would have happened by now, etc... right?
I think I figured out how to explain it better.
World War II, we had Blitzkreig "Lightning War", with Panzer tanks zooming across Europe.
Desert Storm we had "Shock and Awe" - overwhelming firepower and rapid advances across the desert.
With the Internet we are so accustomed to instant gratification: immediate answers, exactly what we want, RIGHT AWAY.
With this WORLD WAR that we are in, everything is very subtle. Most people STILL don't even realize we are AT WAR.
This is the tactic the Pentagon chose. Remember the time lapse movie clips of a flower blooming or grass growing? You never see it happening, but all of a sudden, you need to cut the grass, or you went from a seed to flower, without ever realizing it happened in real time. By moving SO DAMN SLOWLY, the Pentagon has chosen an invisible tactic. They are accomplishing every objective, one by one, but so slowly, it is a form of STEALTH Warfare. This slowness is a STEALTH tactic, and damn, it is GOOD.
It is so good, even we who know it is happening all around the world, and yet we still have followers that doubt, or get discouraged. It was a master stroke of genius - whoever planned this operation. Everyone expected a quick snatch at election, then after the election, then at the inauguration. Seemingly nothing, right?
But when you look at the dozens and dozens of "wins of the day", for every day that we have been waiting for "something to happen", we can add it all up, and see how tall the grass has grown. We can see the flower growing.
Amazing to me. We are all so tuned to instant gratification, that the very act of just slowing everything down, and have objectives met in seemingly random areas of the globe, from country to country, state to state, in no apparent order, and it all becomes invisible stealth technology.
A number of years back, on the site freerepublic.com, there was a person who posted day by day bulletins of WW2. The front page of the then New York Times was a daily reference point along with all sorts of other information about the pace of the war. We knew how the 'movie' ended as we sat on this side of time and WW2 was a historical event for us. But what can be a blip in a history book was a daily slog for those alive at the time. Consider the setbacks. Invasion of Czech. Invasion of Poland. Invasion of France, Dunkirk. Defeat in Norway. Loss of the HMS Hood along with sinking of the Bismark. The multi-year loss then victory of the convoy campaign which ultimately resulted in the winning of the war. Defeat in Greece, Defeat on Malta, wins and losses in the Med. Victory in Egypt, defeat in Egypt.. rinse and repeat in Egypt. Pear Harbor. Fall of Singapore. Fall of Philippines. Invasion of New Guinea. Mixed victory at Coral Sea. Huge win at Midway. Guadalcanal; a lot of losses before final victory in that theatre. Victory, defeat, victory in North Africa. And on and on. It is not just a short attention span. It is a view of history which air brushes the losses and can potentially paint the wins as the minimum requirement for a successful operation.
Stay the course.