Certain poli sci profs were used as an example of what an actual Saudi thinks about whether reform pressure is actually there. That particular one thinks there's so much pressure it amounts to a "regime change" attitude. That's all the quote was ever intended to show but it was never evaluated in that light.
There has been US pressure on the Saudis to reform. The evidence is there, particularly in some of the "FU" comments made by the "religious" faction of the House of Saud.
Obviously, recent events (in the last year or so) have put internal pressure on the ruling monarchy to reform.
Terror attacks put pressure on rulers Prince Saud al Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said in an interview Wednesday that the protracted terror campaign linked to al-Qaida was uniting Saudis behind reforms outlined by Saudi leaders in May 2003, days after the first terrorist attacks in the kingdom.
“We are not experimenting with reform,” said Prince Saud, a graduate of Princeton who is considered one of the most pro-Western members of the Saudi royal family. “We are moving with all deliberate speed.”
If they can't, they aren't trying.Let's agree that they operate under slightly different real-world restrictions than the US and Canada, OK?
If either of our countries put an Alpha Strike on an A-Q camp in North America, there'd be rejoicing and happy wallowing in it on all our news networks. There'd be no negative religious reaction.
In SA, that not true. There clearly is a militant Islamic presence in SA and there is support amongst Muslim clerics and faithful for radical Islam.
I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't go after A-Q; rather, they have to do so a bit more carefully than we do. They have negative political considerations to deal with that are non-existent in our popoulations.
By not trying to exterminate terrorists within their borders, they are harboring terrorists within their borders.By not actively hunting them with a level of enthusiasm judged by whom?
I agree basically with what you are saying, but where how do you determine at what level of enthusiasm we should say they are cooperating?
Imagine for a second Bush announcing "Country X is not pursuing A-Q with enough enthusiasm to satisfy us. A state of war now exists between the US and Country X."
Tell me what the UN/SC would say if we went there and made the "lack of enthusiasm" case for going to war with SA.
This all has to be tempered with reality, a knowledge of what's possible and what's not possible.
Further, even in WW2, enemies have to be prioritized. For example, FDR made the decision to put the most effort against Germany with the Pacific theater taking a decidedly lesser role with far less support.
Now, it's pretty obvious how our "two major wars at the same time" military is stretched thin by Afghanistan and Iraq on top of oru other commitments like South Korea and Bosnia.
So, even if we wanted to try and make the "War on SA" case in the UN/SC, I seriously doubt we could do it right now.
What then? Well, as long as they are moving the way you want them to go, why not wait see if they'll improve their "level of enthusiasm" to something acceptable?
Especially if they are helping you economically by stabilizing oil prices, another key factor in your ability to wage war at all, anywhere.
Either we don't realize we're in a war..... OR.... we do realize we're in a war but we don't know who we are at war WITH.I think you can make the case for both of those statements. It may not be "black and white".
I doubt the American people fully realize the extent of this war. Perhaps another major strike or two in the US will focus the population.
Also, it's more than clear that the rest of the world doesn't see this as a widespread war against Western Civilization. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I think the terrorists themselves will have to confirm that. I also think that will take time. If they enjoy success, I'm sure they will dare greater things for Allah.
But also consider one other addendum to your statement. Perhaps we (the government) knows we're at war and knows exactly who we're at war with. Yet, they have to prioritize their threats and select appropriate courses of action for each. Given that the Saudis are beginning to move against A-Q, beginning to see the threat to their own royal necks, perhaps the government has decided to lower their priority and see if perhaps the need for war can be reduced/eliminated.
In short, just because you have a long list of enemies, that doesn't mean you should attack them all equally or even immediately. Some may need immediate direct military force. Some may be neutralized in other ways.
Don't have a target? I disagree. Right now, the major effort is in Iraq. Whether that was the best choice or smartest move is obviously debatable and has been beaten to death on this BBS. The secondary effort is in Afghanistan where we continue to hunt OBL, a worthy target IMO. Then I'm sure there are other more clandestine political and minor military operations going on that we don't read about in the news.
So, we have a target. I suspect as time goes by, some targets will be sufficiently neutralized and then attention will turn towards others that are currently further down the list.
