That's not the kind of cooperation we need, and it's too high-profile support. I'm talking about behind-the-scenes cooperation to identify and target individuals and groups who are a terrorist threat to us. There are lots of things we can give them, including the bone Bush threw them with the independent Palestinian state remark, technology, military equipment, trade agreements, forgiveness of loans, and cash.
A current post says that the allies called off a first attack because of cold feet by Saudi Arabia (and 2 others).
I don't buy it.
Rumsfield is personally going over there to investigate. That means it's serious.
No, that means Rumsfeld is desirous of or willing to have it seen as serious. It may or may not be. Remember that most of what you read about U.S. military actions before the fact will be deceptive, and although we are not the primary targets of the deceptions, we can be fooled also. Claiming we wanted to attack from Saudi Arabia and that they wouldn't let us accomplishes two things:
1) Constitutes a military feint;
2) Allows the Saudi leadership to appear (to their own citizens and to other Muslim countries) that they are being tough with us and not willing to provide assistance which isn't "proper."
bin Laden has said that one of his principal goals is to destabilize friendly Arab regimes.
It is his primary goal and the primary goal of the fanatical jihadists about whom we have to worry most. What they probably hoped for was our over-reaction -- attacking Muslim civilians in retribution -- and the "exposure" of Muslim regimes which wouldn't join a coalition against us in response to that.
I'm not a fan of GW, but so far he has wisely avoided several possible pitfalls and traps in our reaction to WTC2.