LOL. You think pulling most of our forces out of Saudi proves some point you'd like to make about failure of US policy? That's a hoot, GST. Don't you know why the Saudis asked us into their country to begin with? Here's a clue - his initials are SH. Well, GST, in case you haven't noticed, due to Bush's policies and our fine military, SH is no longer a threat to Saudi and they no longer need a large US presence to deter him. We also have no need, any longer, for an air base in Saudi to patrol the southern no-fly zone - there is no no-fly zone any more.
They are right to be concerned that this not look like a win for bin Laden, but it surely is not - it is a win for all those opposed to Saddam Hussein. The Saudi people, like any other in the world, are not naturally inclined to want foreign military forces on their soil unless they feel threatened or have some other reason for inviting their presence. There is no longer any need for US forces to defend Saudi against the threat that brought us there. Any remaining presence will be to maintain relations between our militaries - we are allies, after all.
You are delusional if you seriously think that removing troops from a region because they are no longer needed is proof of any kind of policy failure.
From the article you posted:
Needless to say, the Saudis here have been enormously hospitable to us," Rumsfeld said today. "Now that the Iraqi regime has changed, we're able to discontinue [patrolling the no-fly zones] and those forces will be able to be moved to other assignments and other requirements around the world." |
