1. You said it yourself, Osama's pissed because the US is in Saudi Arabia. That has to do with their foreign policy, doesn't it? Note that I wasn't arguing that Osama's actions would or even were intended to force a change in the US's policy, just that they had some causal role in Al-Qeada's attacks. Wether directly, or simply by getting people pissed off at the US in general and therefore more likely to join such terrorist groups, one cannot deny that US foreign policy has SOMETHING to do with this attack. It might therefore be a fruitful exercise, should one wish to avoid similar attacks in the future, to think about this cause.
2. Your challenge is loaded with assumptions. In your first sentence in this point, you say 'wage this campaign'. The thrust of my argument is that the whole campaign may have been unnecessary. I use uncertain language because no one can possibly know what 'might' have happened, only what did. For example, the Taliban was making offerst to hand over bin Laden, provided the US gave it evidence of wrongdoing. The Taliban might have been lying through their teeth, but we'll never know. The US never tried that route. It begs the question, why not? Moving forward, the UN never gave the US explicit permission to attack - and it was an attack, not 'self-defense' - Afghanistan. The US had wide support, it could have gotten such permission had it asked. Again, the question is, why didn't they ask? Maybe, as I alluded to before, the US was not interested in negotiating - with the Taliban nor with the UN - because they're the biggest and can simply take what they want. To do anything but take it undermines their power; to unilaterally make decisions and remain unchallenged increases it (at the expense of International Law and many Afghani's lives).
As for removing the Taliban from power, there were elements already searching to overthrow them. The people would have loved to be rid of them. The US could have given them diplomatic support, monetary support, maybe more limited military support. Bombing everyone only restricted opposition to the Taliban to military terms. As you said yourself, terrorism (read 'bombing' 'violence') is the stupidest way to alter policy.
Keep in mind, the US put them there in the first place, leaving their savage dogs of war to do as they would in a country no longer important to them.
And finally, that you consider the price 'relatively small' shows that you do not realize the extent of what many international aid groups are calling a humanitarian catastrophe. Do you have any idea how many millions of people are starving and dying as a result of the bombing, which severed aid to that country?
If someone burned your house down, and you think you know who did it, you don't have the right to go after them with an Uzi, even if you are rich and have a gang behind you. Mowing down the guy, his buddies, and his landlord for good measure, not to mention the stray bullets that hit the neighbours, isn't an acceptable way of solving your differences. Especially when the only results you can claim are that you nailed the landlord, but actually missed the house burner, who's hiding somewhere with the rest of his buddies, even more pissed at you.
...Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.
[ Parent ]