[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Well, I'm not sure that it's this kind of thinking that got us attacked. Al Qaeda had a reason--and it was a policy-based reason--but it was not so much our internal dynamics than it was our external actions. The thing is, bin Laden made it *clear* why he felt the US should be attacked in a 1998 fatwa. In that statement, it was the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, our complete and utter control of the waters in the Persian Gulf, our support for Israel and our propping up of some of the most brutal dictators around while talking about democracy and human rights.

The great strategic stupidity of the Bush administration is that in invading Iraq, they made bin Laden right that the United States would, without provocation, invade a Muslim nation and he played right into it making bin Laden appear both correct *and* prescient. One should not let terrorists dictate the terms upon which foreign policy is played out and the Bush administration certainly did that.

They don't hate us for our freedom and they don't hate us for generally libertine ways. I'm not even sure that they hate us--they take a very dim view of our government's foreign policy but most international surveys I've seen on the topic suggest that both America (the ideas of our nation) and Americans (all us ordinary schmucks) are actually thought of pretty well globally. US government foreign policy? Not so much with the love.

I think that there are things we could do that would actually go quite a ways toward giving us firmer ground to stand on, defang some of the terrorist rhetoric and help us withdraw from our empire at the same time. There's no strategic region to be in Saudi Arabia so we should leave. While we're on our way out the door we should cut the House of Saud loose and let them work it out with their own people. We should, in fact, cut loose Mumbarak in Egypt and perhaps King Abdullah in Jordan unless they hold free, fair and UN monitored elections. I'm not suggesting these things because I think that they will prevent another attack--I don't. I'm suggesting we do these things because they're strategically smart things to do. The fact that these moves would likely reduce the energy behind the next attack is something we get 'for free'. Oh and it goes without saying that we should get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If I can make a suggestion--when thinking about why the opposing force is doing what they are doing, try to get in their heads. You can start by looking at why your nation does things. Have we *ever* attacked another nation because we didn't like the way they ran their internal politics? No. Not that I am aware of, at least. We *have*, on the other hand, attacked other nations in pursuit of strategic policy goals. Assume that the OpFor is at least intelligent and sane enough to operate in much the same manner.

Cheers
Aj

Oh, I see what your saying. I just feel that the US has always been so Christian focused, it has influenced how we treat, interact and make policy about non-Christian nations which has caused so much alienation. The only country I can think of in which this different is Israel.

I also feel that the US lacks the capcity to understand governments in which religion is central to policy and their societal structures and values. I may not agree with them, either, especially in terms of the role and treatment of women in particular, but, I think our Christian focus (blindness?) keeps us from contributing to the kinds of things that can bring glocal piece. Although, this just isn't a simple situation. Looking at oil for example, certainly brings up a lot of things and most certainly was in play during Dub'ya's terms! Cheny as VP made that very clear.