I have a couple of observations about the Sunday Times article. Firstly there is no doubt that the U.S. is a hugely successful country and I am personally grateful to be living in one of the far flung outposts of its empire. This success however has, in no small part been fuelled by the supply of cheap oil from the Middle East. In the seventies, while Bin Laden and the West were getting rich on construction projects and cheap oil, the tensions began to rise in Saudi society over the American presence. As the article concedes, the final turning point for many a moderate Muslim was the Gulf War. The article reflects the marketing campaign which was administered to the people of the West citing the liberation of a sovereign state as the reason for intervention. Let's face it - the Gulf War was about securing oil supply. Maybe Saddam Hussein was allowed to live because an emasculated tyrant in the region would justify a continued U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia thereby securing the oil supply for a good many more years. An alternative energy source may be the only way to ease those tensions.
Why the unblinking U.S. military support for
Israel? What if the military support was cut off and instead the U.S. helped fund a U.N. peacekeeping force to defend both sides' territory and security. This wouldn't completely stop the fighting but it would probably help stop extremists from looking further afield than their own neighbourhood.
The partition of Palestine into Arab and Israeli States was the U.N.'s instinctive decision in 1947 and, short of the total annihilation of one of the parties, seems the only option.
I don't believe in Yank - bashing, I think we owe them big time but at the same time this latest attack did not come out of the blue.