I don't think we should have molded a foreign policy around the wishes of just Osama bin Laden, but there is clear evidence that his distaste for American presence in Saudi Arabia was enough for the most spectacular terrorist attack of all-time, among several others. Surely, this belief is held amongst other Arabs too. So, after 9/11 happened, one should re-examine the worthiness of having a base in Saudi Arabia, correct? I would analyze that base(s). Might as well reflect upon our relationship with Israel while I'm at it too, since that was another major bin Laden/Arab reason for hating America. IIRC, both reasons were present in the '93 WTC bombers rationale as well. So at the very least, our entangling relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel has cost America dearly on more than one occasion, with Arabs, including Osama bin Laden. No?
But that's right. **** them. Who cares what Arabs think.
2) Yes, **** the extremists who have demands that are completely unreasonable, outside their sphere of legitimate control, and that we have no pressing need to cater to.
Of course their limited ability to attack the U.S. shapes our foreign policy. Bin Laden is directly responsible for our 10 year stint in Afghanistan.Their limited ability to attack the US doesn't necessitate that we allow them to shape our foreign policy. We clearly have other options
We don't have any other priority tasks for our carriers and we should have one in the region anyways. It is probably not a bad idea regardless considering that the bases in Saudi Arabia are much more vulnerable to attack.Isn't that a massive amount of resources to dedicate to the operation, when we can just use assets in SA? I'm not military, so maybe I am missing the obvious here
Your whole argument is based on petty desire to say "Al Qaeda can't tell me what to do ". The correct argument is "what are we sacrificing in response to Al Qaeda's actions"? If it was something valuable like our oil deals or civil liberties, then its not worth it. There simply isn't enough importance in the bases to justify even a potential attack.No, it's directly expressing my opinion about allowing such groups to shape our foreign policy. Because I really don't care what they thing, see no reason to change that, and would rather see them feel a need to challenge the US military and die
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
The distinction is meaningless other than soothing the ego. You wish to avoid being viewed as "weak" for "giving in to AQ demands", which is understandable given the massive insecurity of American foreign policy. The truth is we have let terrorism utterly reshape our foreign policy, civil liberties and airline travel for the worse. The only question is whether you think its better to accept the reality of situation or act like a wannabe tough guy.It was rather clear my post concerned the demands of AQ directly dictating the wheres and whens of US foreign policy. This is drastically different to basing things like troop movements to counter their interests and activities
We have 11 carrier battlegroups, sparing one to perform drone strikes is an entirely reasonable use of resources.again, I'm going to question the basis you are making this argument on. It seems rather pointless to tie that amount of assets into what seems a periphery concern of our operations in the region
When somebody has both the ability and the willingness cause, you either to listen to them or face the consequences. Now maybe its worth accepting the consequences, but you can only decide that after carefully considering them.No, it's based on the fact that there is seemingly no reason to listen to them ...
It avoids the highly problematic political consequences. Aside from the "Holy Ground" issue, the drone strikes are massively unpopular and cause dissent against the Saudi government. Jeopardizing the stability of a major oil supplier is not something to be done lightly.We covered that above. You seem to think dedicating a carrier and it's support ships to the operation is preferable to operating a small group of assets out of SA.
Like I said, reason has nothing to do with foreign policy. North Korea gets lot of money for making utterly insane demands simply because they are serious threat.If you go back and read the OP, the objection to the program was based on AQ's displeasure with a US troop presence in SA, not possible collateral damage further fueling an insurgency. Again, as I said at the beginning, there are plenty of reasonable points to challenge US foreign policy on. Not adhering to the religiously radical demands of AQ isn't one of them
The War on Terrorism was well and away raging by 2003, so maybe bin Laden had more important things to think about? The Middle East was engulfed in War. I would believe, though, that Muslims in general would rejoice if the United States made certain concessions in foreign policy decisions. The alternative, is mad, upset Muslims that do stupid, moronic things. Right? Look at your hands, do the weighing out motion. That's what our foreign policy is like. On one hand, it is good for us, but, on the other hand, it is bad for someone else, somewhere in the world. That obviously and naturally upsets people. What really upsets people is when the offense revolves around religion. Knowledge of this anger would have pre-dated bin Laden's '96 fatwa.