01-18-2019, 02:57 PM
(01-18-2019, 02:28 PM)Dill Wrote: Better said, you could argue that our REMAINING in Saudi Arabia was one trigger for 9/11. Our support for the Saudi regime, and Mubarak in Egypt, were probably more substantial causes. These governments suppressed Al Qaeda with US munitions, drove them from their countries, and become central pillars (along with Iraq and Kuwait) of an international economic order extracting value from Gulf countries to the detriment of their populations. That, plus the "pollution" of Arab Muslim culture by Western commercial and lifestyle mores, has always been primary to Al Qaeda's appeal for justice and its own legitimacy in the region.
I think Desert Storm is still a model for successful foreign intervention. That I separate from other bad policy choices, beginning with the overthrow of a democractically elected Mossadegh in Iran and support for dictators like Mubarak, and, worst of all, the invasion of Iraq.
Rather than just throwing up our hands and saying "we can't ever get it right" and "nothing works," we might take a bit more time understanding the politics and history specific to each of the countries we are dealing with, for once listen to regional experts, and finally side with democracy where the choice actually presents itself--even when that doesn't help our oil companies.
Bin Laden flat out didn't want us there. In his interview he did with CNN he referenced the fact we were staging troops in Saudi Arabia during the war as one of the reasons he put a Jihad on us. Us staying didn't help, but us being there was a problem in itself.
My point was, we can't not intervene but our intervention at all could drive the next Bin Laden to come after us. It's possible that not all problems have realistic solutions.
