Either way, it removes a threat from the Saudi government. They go off to Iraq to fight, most of them die or are captured, so there's one less opposition member to worry about.
Of course, this is a delaying action. Enough of them will come back to Saudi in time to create problems. But the short term results benefit the House of Saud just fine.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
Originally Posted by Ski
I think you've nailed Saudi strategy. They rely on us to kill their excess militants for them. And it irks me to no end that we play along.
Agreed. It is much the same with government policy in Egypt where radical venting against the West and Israel is allowed to bleed off any pressure on the government.
Tom
All true, but then, we've played sucker along that
line numerous times in our history. Penalty of being nice guys. That's fine and we should be like that but we could sure be a bit smarter about it...
line numerous times in our history. Penalty of being nice guys. That's fine and we should be like that but we could sure be a bit smarter about it...
I don't think that we're in the Middle East because we're "nice guys."
The Middle East serves our economic strategic interest ... the question is "how much of this interest are we willing to take?"
You're partly correct and so am I. We are there on
both counts with only a slight tilt toward your version. I think a far better question is "why did our lack of strategic vision allow this to come to pass?"
And they get the side benefit of killing Shiites and potential Iranian allies in the process. Two birds with one stone.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks