The question was posed about how supportive Saudi Aeabia would be (can't quite remember who or when, and I don't want to re-read everything). I would say that in spite of it being the spritual home of Islam it will, at least for as long as King Fahd is on the throne support the west. I say for as long as he is on the throne, because he is ill and his grip on power weakening. Since the late 60's Saudi has recognised it's tribal populous and it's dependance on oil for it's wealth. Ibn Saud had the foresight to realise that oil is an expendable commodity and fickle in price. He did 2 things to counter this. First, he started a cartel, OPEC, to control prices of oil at betweem $18-22 per barrel. When price dips below $18 a barrell, production of crude oil is cut, and vice versa. The second thing he did was institute the 5 year economic plan. Every 5 years a new plan is rolled out and concentrates on parts of the economy that need developing. The current 5 year plan is 18 months into it's cycle and is focussed on technology, Saudi Arabia having got it's first ISP in 1998. Secondary industries like services are also being developed, and the Offset run by Crown Prince Abdullah is still concentrated on aerospace and engineering. However, Saudi has a recognised problem, that of over-rich and over-idle youngsters who do not have to work at a professional level, let alone a menial one to have money. Many become playboys and wasters through their family wealth, and others become political agitators and some turn to terrorism. With the need for menial jobs to be done there is an ever-present demand for external labour markets, such as the Phillipines to take the roles of domestics, nannies, cleaners, cooks, and factory workers. The paradox is it is this reliance on infidel workers that has upset OBL so much. This influx of westerners, and the remaining UK/US forces on Saudi soil has led OBL, with all of that wealth and time on his hands, to distort the true meaning of Islam, as in his mind the holy cities of Mekah and Medinah have been defiled and are no longer pure. The less important holy city of Jerusalem has, in his mind, also been defiled by Israel and the Christians of the west, funded by the US Dollar. So intent is he on returning Saudi Arabia to the Islamic fundamentals of the middle ages through Sharia'h law, that he sees that there is no other way to win than to destroy America. In his mind, destroying America would remove the last stumbling block to returning the world to an Islamic world of the 10th Century. For as long as there is McDonalds, US TV, US Industry, US style democracy, US cars, US aircraft, US anything, the world will be soft and will not listen to (his) reason. If America, the Great Satan, is softening the minds of muslims, it must die. If people of free will do ot accept his brand of Islam, they too must die as corrupt infidels unable to see the truth (sic) for the poisoning of US brainwashing.
So why should we show restraint, mercy, and understanding? Because no matter how hard that is we must demonstrate to the Islamic world that we as westerners, and mainly Christians do not seek the destruction of Islam. We must show that we care for the Islamic world, we must win hearts and minds, we must show that we want to prevent death and aid life (very Islamic principles), and that we are both tolerant and just. This makes the job of OBL much harder in trying to spread his propeganda that the west is decadent and Satanic. We also have a moral duty and obligation to help those Afghans who are fleeing their home towns in fear of US reprisal. We must show, in the west, that they have nothign to fear but fear itself. We must show that the perpetrator of that fear is OBL, and we must not let him turn his people against us. If we fall into the trap of using the language of revenge we play straight into his hands. If we wage war on innocent civilians, we play into his hands.
Yes, Desp, I do think that we should try and understand our enemies. Remember, keep your friends close, and your enemies closer! The reason that the attacks against the US were so "successful" is simply because the CIA, and the FBI misunderstood the nature of the threat and the likliehood of attack. They misunderstood the militancy and fanatacism of the attackers. They misunderstood the culture, the language, the promise of eternal life, and the attraction that held over a life of penury to the 19 hijackers. They also misunderstood the importance of both folklore and fudalism in Arabic culture. With a folklore hero united against a common enemy, there is purpose to the Koranic principle of Jihad, which all muslims must face. By defining an enemy with whom to embark on Jihad, paradise was assured. Unfortunately, OBL misunderstands that Jihad, or Holy War, is a war against personal vice and the fight for virtue. Islam understand God to be universally merciful, and that he does not wish to see death and destruction in His name. I am sure that should God wish to destroy nations and worlds, he would do it in a stroke of His devine hand rather than have his devout followers kill in his name. I am sure that he is quite capable of destroying nations on his own without the aid of fallible man, if that is what He wants. In this way, we fail to understand our enemy at our peril.
I never for a moment said that our American cousins were stupid. They differ from us British as much as they do the very people who attacked them. The most common mis-understanding (on both sides of the Atlantic) is that the British and Americans share a culture. This could not be further from the truth! The Americans have more in common with the Israelis than the British in this respect, and this is where my worry came to be. The talk in the first week was of retribution, revenge, attack, of not being destroyed, resolve, of crusades, of wars against terrorism, all of which serve to paint a picture of an immediate reprisal come what may. Justice served the American way, cold, swift, and hard. This is all well and done when it is a nation that attacks nation. Had Afghanistan as a country attacked the US, it would be far easier to talk in these terms and act as the words are spoken. However, it is a network of terrorists that we are talking about, possibly state sponsored, but not a nation in their own right. The danger that was faced was simply the US and the UK having to act on the words they spoken without a foundation for doing so. If the US can't prove beyond doubt that OBL had been behind the acts, that the Taliban had colluded, and could not pinpoint OBL exactly, define it's objectives, and carry them out without the ever-pervasive mission-creep taking hold, then it would have been an act of in-justice. It would have been an act of terrorism in and of itself.
So where does that leave us today? The war on terrorism still hasn't begun in real terms. If it had, the loyalists and republicans in NI would be under house arrest. McGuinnes and Adams would have been kicked off the NI Assembly. Murderors, bombers, and quartermasters would be back inside the Maze with their assets frozen. But they aren't. I could take Blair more seriously if he could remove the splinter from his hand after he removed the plank from his eye. I would take the "war on terrorism" more seriously if it were even handed and no respector of ideologies, but it seems that in this war, some terrorists are more terrible than others. If this so called "war" is to have any effect in the ME, then it has to begin at home.