Buried in the usual flood of Tony's rhetoric, we search for the concrete proposals promised and find .... nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Search for Tony's analysis of what the Bush administration is actually doing with respect to Saudi Arabia ( of which there are enough news and analysis reports that one could at least form an outline of the administration's behind-the-scenes policy ) and what do you find? Nothing.

In a piece that repeatedly refers to the Saudi as a source of funding for terrorist organizations, a concrete analysis of the Bush administration's efforts to attack the various funding networks would be a crucial topic.

Tony gives us nothing.

I would summarize the key points of this essay thusly: Bush is evil; the predominant source of terrorism in the world (via sponsorship)is Saudi Arabia; the US should expose the Saudi's princes' nefariousness; turn up the diplomatic heat on them by, primarily, going to the UN, and threatening; if the Saudis turn off the oil supply, there "may" exist alternative sources; then the pressure will be too great on the Saudis; they will stop sponsoring by-proxy terrorism; and then the Saudis will capitulate and the terrorism dominoes will all fall because the Saudi's are the big kahuna.

Utter, utter hogwash.

So what will the rest of the Mideast do while we conduct non-military war against the Saudis. Ever hear of the oil embargo? Know what Jimmy Carter's misery index is? If you think Dubya's economy is bad, try inflation and unemployment over 20%. Does that the fact that Western hating Mideast militants are willing to kill themselves in perpetuity attacking the West suggest to you that the Saudis are open to persuasion/bluster?

And just who in the UN will do anything to help us? The same ones that helped us in Iraq? Will the UN set up a 15-year Saudi compliance timetable, which if violated, will be enforced with ever tightening "tut-tut, bad Saudis" sanctions?

And what about this alternate source of oil or energy that "may" exist? Would you pardon us if, before we put millions of Americans out of work because of a radically slumping, oil-deprived economy, we get a little more info and something more than "may".

And you believe in the terrorist domino theory? You don't think a US effort directed against a very traditional, strongly religious kingdom might not motivate other terrorists and their wealthy backers? Libya?

And how would you maintain stability in an "overthrown" or supposedly reformed Saudi Arabia? What's the stronger sentiment in that country? Westernism or Islam?.

No, the problem is very hard. But an all out blame terrorism on Saudi Arabia campaign is clearly not the answer. Comparatively - comparatively - the Saudis are a friend in the Mideast. They gave us military bases which we have used in Mideast actions and have been a long time trading partneer. There's no doubt that some private sponsorship of terror is going on there. We need to keep persuading them to do something about that while we have some modicum of influence - as a friend. This is about like the war on drugs - it defies simplistic answers. Beware those who proffer the same.

Everything proposed here simply gives the enemy more time (lots of time) to prepare an answer to the eventual military solution we'll have to employ. War was the option the enemy chose, not us. Better to settle the conflict quickly on our own terms, than wait to implement a "perfect" solution (involving the UN, reduced oil consumption, etc) that never comes.

The most important reason to liberate Iraq was to provide an alternate model to the Arab shiekdoms and facist states. You can't replace what is currenlty a well-entrenched establisment in the Middle East, no matter how onerous it is, without creating a better alternative that common Arabs and others living there can go to. The worst stereotype we have of Arab peoples is Koran-memorizing sadist homicidal killers, but the reality is that most Arabs don't share in such petty dreams and would gladly jump on the alterntative, provided a real choice. They actually have that now in Iraq, which is nothing short of a miracle.

Don't knock Bush, not at all! He's got to be the only leader of any stature that has actually made the effort to change a region that is a cesspool of deceipt and murder into a place where people have a say in their own lives. Perhaps the execution has not been smooth or perfect, but the willingness to try more than makes up for it.

If Clinton was President, would the criticism be the same? I wonder.

If you look at projected Russian and Iraqi oil output, 2005 is the pivotal year, I think. It would be nice if we could get some of Venezuela's lost capacity online agian, too.

And I'm becoming more and more convinced that some of al Qaeda's most dangerous operators are/were Iraqi intelligence agents on semi-permanent loan. This is above and beyond the well-documented problems with Iraqi diplomats. So I don't share the view that the Iraq war does not address the Jihad problem.

Most of the folks reading this blog would agree that something must eventually be done with Saudi Arabia. Tony, can't you see that our presence in Iraq increases the pressure on Saudi Arabia?

With respect to gaining UN support for pressuring Saudi Arabia, it ain't gonna happen. We tried the UN route on Iraq for 11 or 12 years. What did it get us? The UN undermined it straight from the start, especially UN members France and Russia with their pursuit of economic deals with Saddam, mostly oil related. This will accrue in spades to pressuring Saudi Arabia, because 1) they haven't invaded another country, 2) they don't overtly opress their own people, 3) they have even more oil to bribe other UN members, and 4) they’ve never pursued WMD’s.

For all these reasons there's no way that'd we'd ever get UN support to go after Saudi Arabia, diplomatically, economically, or militarily; in fact, the dizzying cries of "US imperialism" and "it's the oil" would even be even louder.

Even if we throw out all other reasons for invading Iraq, doing it to increase pressure on Saudi Arabia to toe the line seems reason enough. It is at least a good first step.

Most of the folks reading this blog would agree that something must eventually be done with Saudi Arabia. Tony, can't you see that our presence in Iraq increases the pressure on Saudi Arabia?

With respect to gaining UN support for pressuring Saudi Arabia, it ain't gonna happen. We tried the UN route on Iraq for 11 or 12 years. What did it get us? The UN undermined it straight from the start, especially UN members France and Russia with their pursuit of economic deals with Saddam, mostly oil related. This will accrue in spades to pressuring Saudi Arabia, because 1) they haven't invaded another country, 2) they don't overtly opress their own people, 3) they have even more oil to bribe other UN members, and 4) they’ve never pursued WMD’s.

For all these reasons there's no way that'd we'd ever get UN support to go after Saudi Arabia, diplomatically, economically, or militarily; in fact, the dizzying cries of "US imperialism" and "it's the oil" would be even louder.

Even if we throw out all other reasons for invading Iraq, doing it to increase pressure on Saudi Arabia to toe the line seems reason enough. It is at least a good first step.

One thing to consider, is that even if all the Saudi funding of jihadis were to completely dry up tomorrow, all the jihadis would do is go somewhere else for their funding.

I can think of lots of countries where they could turn to for support. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebannon. Do not think there are not wealthy corrupt despots in these countries too, that would not gladly step in and provide the funding.

Sure, we need to dry up the Saudi funding of jihadis, but it will not miraculously fix the problem.

One other thing to consider is that one of the factors, that has driven gas prices up lately, is the Bush administration has been quietly diverting oil from the public supply, to top off the strategic oil reserve.

I forget exactly how much the reserve holds, but there is enough there to run the entire country, even at our current burn rate, for like 2 or 3 years I think. If you fact check me on this, and I'm wrong, don't vilify me since I'm just talking off the top of my head.

My main point is, I think the Bush administration has been quietly setting the US up, so that we can get off of Saudi oil as soon as possible.

My main contention with Tony, like so many other opponents of the war, is their patent inability to recognize any Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda, which as some enterprising folks over at Free Republic discovered, we knew from 1998.

The Saudi role in formenting terrorism against Western interests is largely in the ideological/financial department - not the armament, training, and WMD expertise. Iran and Sudan provide the latter, and Iraq until recently the former. More to the point, the vast majority of al-Qaeda's leadership isn't in Saudi Arabia - they're in Iran.

Criticism over the post-9/11 US policy towards Saudi Arabia takes a variety of forms, but liberal criticisms of it only recently reached new heights. I have my own criticism of the policy, but a lot of this is politics@work, the ideologues and policy-makers in Washington should have known that al-Qaeda was in league with Saudi Arabia since 9/12/01 if not beforehand. It's the same reason that people patently refuse to acknowledge al-Qaeda's connections to Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the Chechens on similarly intellectually dishonest grounds in order to pander to set political worldviews. Of course, the fact that MILF still has al-Qaeda training camps up and running two years after 9/11 and that they receive arms from North Korea also catches few eyes.

Even after Saudi Arabia is gone and House Saud is expelled to the ashbin of history the damage has already been done. One of the reasons that the Bush administration has so far failed to attack Saudi Arabia largely deals with the fact that they are attempting cushion the impact of the explosion the Saudis have created. Look at Hizb-ut-Tahrir, for example.

Even stipulating that the Saudis are an irreplaceable souce of funding for the Islamist movement (which I tend to agree with), I don't see anything here but attempting to 'shame' them into stopping.

I don't begin to see how acting 'to bring the Saudi issues out of the close and into the glaring light of day' solves the problem of people who are convinced that we're evil and that if we don't change to suit them and their views, they will go on killing us.

Tony, you've gotta do a whole lot better than this if you want to have any impact at all.

A.L.

You see. This is what I'm talking about:

*Yemen Next Afghanistan*

It's a much larger and tougher problem than just drying up Saudi funding of jihahdis.

And when you say things like this, "...Bush is primarily concerned with the profits of his papa's buddies in the oil, energy, and military cartels...", that's when you lose me. You have just crossed the line from valid opinion, to just another whacko conspiracy nutbag.

Do you really think that is what Bush is primarily concerned with? Making sure that men who are already worth tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars become even wealthier? To say that Bush went into Iraq, and is ignoring Saudi Arabia for business advantage, well that's just sad, and only brands you as a Bush hater.

You can say a lot of things about the Iraq war, but it should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention, that Bush laid his political career on the line for a war, that he thought was necessary in order to protect America's national security. The risks were huge, compared to what we have ended up with. Chemical attacks on our troops, door-to-door fighting in Iraq, sucicide squads trained and recruited from other countries, I even heard comparisons that likened Baghdad to Stalingrad. None of it happened. The truth is the psy-ops war worked, and most of Saddam's generals either simply went home, or surrendered and didn't fight. The truth is they were waiting for us to return; for 11 long years. Many of them are still in POW camps South of Baghdad in fact.

This Iraq war could easily be the political undoing of Bush. But he did not do it, to distract attention from Saudi Arabia, and retain business advantage their for his Papa's friends.

Why are you giving this nutjob space on your site?

Tony, If you are going to make specific policy proposals then it helps to bullet them to make each distinct proposal easier to identify. When writing posts I find doing so helps to clarify my own thinking as well.

As far as I can tell Tony wants the US to lean harder on the Saudis. Not sure how we are supposed to measure compliance with our demands. Also, I doubt that the Saudi government knows the identity of most of its own citizens who are working in support of terrorism. So it seems to me that Tony's expectations what will be achieved with his policy prescription are a tad optimistic.

There are no easy answers. But I do think a more complex view of US national interests would help us reason better about what ought to be done.

please use fewer metaphors. they make it difficult to understand with precision what you are saying at several points in your article.

"I believe Bush is primarily concerned with the profits of his ..." to merely throw out an accusation this serious without any proof casts your whole article in a bad light. My goodness, its not even in a sentence, it's in parenthesis for heaven's sake! You at least provided a few links to bolster some of your other arguements.

Actually semm, many of his links do not bolster the arguments that they are associated with. He purports to support factual claims with links to wild-eyed myth-laden opinion pieces from discredited sources.

And notice that the deeper he gets into his "argument" the fewer the links.

This piece is about what I expected from Tony. Thin on facts, thin on logic, thick on silly rhetoric.

Fascinating and original take! Even if I don't agree with a word of it. A bit nutty, but hell, we're all a bit lost, aren't we? Virtues: refocuses some of the issues re: sources of terror and use of our (limited) resources in fighting terror within an (attempted) realist framework. You've just got to lose the conspiracy aspects (Bush is in Iraq for Daddy's friends) and wishful thinking (the French are going to rush to our aid in combating the Saudis).

Otherwise, a refreshing analysis that has the beginning of, er, something?

We will all get what we deserve.

While I am disheartened by the predictable partisan personal attacks and shameless evasion of issues, - I am not surprised at the truebeliever response to the points of this article. I had hoped there would be more focus on the Saudi's, and Bush shielding of the Saudi’s, and less on me personally, but alas - this attacking, sliming, and demonizing is typical and expected rightwingideologue response to alternate opinion or dissent, especially when backed by truth and facts.

I know you want me and anyone questioning your leader to shut up and go away, - but you can forget it.

I understand how difficult it is to accept the hard realities we all must endure. You guys go ahead and keep supporting Bush's deceptive, exceedingly costly and ill-conceived nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims; and go ahead and believe the 87b dollar, US soldier every other day, many innocent Iraqis’ killed and injured, everything is moving according to the perfect Pax American plan, and all is fine and dandy myths and propaganda, - and we will all see what happens in the end. We do not share your enthusiasm.

You succumb to the RoveBush mindwarp and hold the delusion that another attack is being prevented by the valiant boy warrior compelled into an epic righteous christian crusade against the "evil one", - ignoring the fact that your own leadership and intelligence apparatus from every quarter of the world warns of, and is preparing for a terrorist event more devastating than 9/11.

I will remind you gentle people of the left and right shock and awe caused by the 87bn dollar supplemental, - none of it - NOT ONE PENNY - being accounted for in Bush’s 2004 budget, which I view as a gross and reckless miscalculation, - if not outright deception, and worthy of inquiry, review, and accountability.

I know you truebelievers want to ignore this ugly truth, - but the rest of us want disclosure and accountability.

The entire Iraq war is a book cooking cloaked nonaccountibility deception masking loss as profit and sticking the working people of America with the exceedingly costly and blood drenched liability after the fact.

I know for you guys, theendsjustifythemeans, - but you might want to pay a little less attention to Iraq’s security and prosperity and more to America’s, - which is sorely lacking.

The comparisons to Viet Nam are not quite accurate in my opinion. Rather, Iraq is more like the American Palestine, and terrorism will always be a part of the equation in Iraq under this construct.

This sad reality of course works well for Bush and his oil, energy, and private military cartels and cronies singularly profiteering from theneverending Iraq, Afghanistan and terror wars, because it both ignores the real problems in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan aiding and abetting wahabist depravity and jihadist insanity, - and instead mis or dis focuses attention and resources on exploiting Iraq wealth and resources - and also singularly benefits the oil, energy, and private military cartels and cronies.

Buttressing the neverendingwar agenda favored by the righwingideologues in the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy ignores the real threats to America in largely funded and nurtured by Bush's "good friends" in Saudi Arabia.

Ultimately I seek 1/16th of the attention focused, (in my opinion) on the wrong Muslims in Iraq, directed, instead on those other Muslims in the House of Saud, who (in my opinion) represent the life and blood of our true, (as opposed hyped) enemies, who proselytize jihadist islam, the slaughter of all infidels, and jihadist world domination.

With no substantiated refutation or meaningful retort, - and instead only the typical rightwingideologue slime and demonizing tactics attacking the messenger, while - tragically - ignoring the message, - the point is unfortunately lost.

I understand how difficult it is to face the hard realities we all must endure. You guys go ahead and keep supporting Bush's deceptive, exceedingly costly and ill-conceived nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq, against the wrong Muslims, and we will all see what happens. And months from now these questions will be raised for the first time and left and right will wonder where America is moving, and why

The comparisons to Viet Nam are not quite accurate in my opinion. Rather, Iraq is more like the American Palestine, and terrorism will always be a part of the equation in Iraq under this construct. This sad reality of course works well for Bush and his oil, energy, and private military concerns singular profiteering from the Iraq war, because it both ignores the real problem stemming from Saudi Arabia, and buttressing the neverendingwar agenda favored by the righwingideologues
If you are right and I am wrong, then we will all live happily ever after in Pax Americana splendor and I deserve the repercussions. If however I am right and you are wrong, we are all in deep ca ca.

In the end, I am questioning Bush shielding and insulate the House of Saud from investigation into strong evidence of at least complicit involvement in the horrors of 9/11, and certain financial and political attachment to wahabism and the funding and nurturing of mass murder organizations.

You guys can choose to ignore this ugly reality, and parrot the Rove “good friend” hagiographic liturgies, and walk lockstep with the Bush rightwingideoloug party line, - but I request, and with plenty of solid evidence on my side – an investigation, and ultimately a redress of the House of Saud. All we need is an inquiry.

I know you fly like bats from any hard scrutiny of your leaderships policies, but the facts are heavy on our side and airy on yours, - and the potential impact is huge. Erase WMD, as we did basically prior to 9/11, and all of these debates loose significance.

You guys ignore the warning of your own leadership, and all the world intelligence organizations who are universally, and clearly concerned, about the sequel to 9/11.

You think because another attack has not been executed on America, that everything is fine and dandy, moving according to plan. Well its' not. You guys can bury your head in the sand and bow to Bush ignoring obvious failure and neglect, - be we intend to implement new leadership that will correct this wayward course and pilot America into a future of peace and prosperity. All Bush, the fundamentalis repulican oligarchy, and you truebelievers seek is neverendingwar.

I'm so glad that we're all evil (and you gotta love the obligatory moral equivalence between Christian fundamentalists and al-Qaeda) and otherwise irredeemably suckered by Karl Rove's propaganda machine.

That being said, you still have yet to explain what you plan to do other than bringing more attention to the Saudi role in formenting Islamic terrorism. Do you favor economic sanctions? Military action, even if it means attacking Mecca or Medina? I can continue onwards with the numerous problems inherent in any action against Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of the fact that my own contention is that they've bought off just as many Democrats as Republicans.

One of the main problems I have here is not with your analysis of the situation in regards to Wahhabism, but rather with your repeated claims about the situation Iraq all the while dancing around the ample evidence of the Iraqi/al-Qaeda connection that you can find readily available on this site. You don't counter the evidence, explain why you think that Zarqawi isn't a global threat or why Saddam wasn't providing assistance to his chemical weapons plots in Europe, you simply dismiss all of the evidence as lies, lies, and more lies concocted to justify what you already perceive as an illegitimate war. That's all well and good, but it's about as fundamentalist a mindset as one can find regardless of your own religious preferences or lack thereof.

I also take issue with your analysis of Iraq as a America's Palestine. The current citizens of Iraq currently have access to far more religious, economic, and political freedom than any denizen of the West Bank or Gaza could ever dream of. They aren't ruled by a kleptocracy (the PA) that is so inept that fundamentalist organizations provide the only legitimate source of social services. More to the point, if there's any equivalent to the KDP, the PUK, and Ayatollah Sistani in the West Bank, I see no sign of it at this point. And then course there is the fact that ~60% of Baghdad resident supported the war against Saddam Hussein. A similar number in the Palestinian territories support suicide bombings, according to most polls I've seen. Different mindset, different results.

There is also the whole idea of national (and politicized religious) self-determination in the Palestinian territories that is wholely absent from Iraq. The US is not planning to make Iraq part of our country. Inhabitants of the West Bank who end up on the wrong side of the security fence might be able to argue differently about Israel.

Regarding additional terrorist attacks, you're probably right on this Tony. OTOH, if Zarqawi was still free to give his goons Iraqi-sponsored WMD training and tech, sooner or later one of his cells would succeeded and we would be looking at hundreds of dead people. Throw in a crop duster over a major metropolitan area. That's the imminent threat for you from Iraq, as I noted a couple weeks ago, entirely apart from the WMD concerns. By going to war we nipped that threat right in the bud - before it could carry out a successful strike against us and our allies.

This is also something the anti-warriors are quite aware of, which is one of the reasons why their inacceptance of the al-Qaeda link to Iraq is matched only by flat-earthers in a patent refusal to acknowledge the evidence. Same thing with al-Qaeda and Iran, the Chechens, ect. If Iraq was helping al-Qaeda the way that evidence would seem to indicate they were, they were a threat, Saudis or no Saudis. Saudi money you can stop and freeze after it's been transferred, but I doubt that works with ricin, cyanide, or sarin ... to say nothing of the reports on what happened to the Iraqi VX.

Actually, Tony, most of the folks in this section would be more than happy to see the Saudis go down hard. Most are also more than worried about another attack - they see it as a "when" question, not an "if" question.

A wise debater would have built on that. "Know yourself, know your opponent..." With respect, you did neither in this response - and frankly, I'm disappointed in you.

Worse, here we go back to the predictable pattern of Bush, Bush, Bush. You would have been FAR better off defending the nuts and bolts of your proposed plan to deal with the Saudis as principal backers of the jihadist threat, and addressing the legitimate questions raised by participants here. Starting with a 1-2 paragraph summary of your action proposals to reset the terms of debate, then moving on to "why would the U.N. help America in any way", and "...so, what if this doesn't work? What then?"

I gave you the guest blog for a couple of reasons. One was to give you the best opportunity I could to show our readers that there's substance behind your comments. Alas, whatever points the column may have won you were probably just wiped out by this response.

As the Frantics' hilarious Tae Kwan Leep skit notes: "anger is a weapon only to one's opponent."

When you decide that you want to investigate and communicate a forward-looking and necessary course of action more than you want to hate George W. Bush, your ability to convince people of your ideas will improve about fivefold. And if this stuff matters as much as you believe it does, why won't you make that small scarifice in order to help avert the threat? Or will your fears come to pass, in part because you couldn't be bothered to put in the effort to change?

Think about it. Seriously.

Tony,

I'm not sure what your personal experience of the Middle East is, if any.

I did a limited amount of business there in the 1980s, both with Israel and indirectly with the Saudis. I did not come back with a liking for either country or culture, frankly, but one thing I did gain was an appreciation for some of the approaches that do and do not work there.

I'd like to address two different dimensions to your post & comment: first, the analysis and then, the proposal for action.

Re: the analysis, there is no doubt that some members of the (very large) Saudi royal family have directly funded the spread of Wahabi Islamicism and therefore also terror acts. Some of those princes are at cynical secularists, some religious fundamentalists, most (but not all) dream of somehow magically recovering Arab supremacy across the world. They hate the West for the mirror it holds up to their own weaknesses while also sneering at its "decadence".

There is also no doubt that the oil industry is multinational first and foremost, that its major players have concerns, interests and perhaps loyalties that MAY in any given situation go beyond their countries of origin.

But what your post totally lacked is any recognition of the factors, interrelationships and motivations that constitute the reality on the ground in the Middle East. For instance, the Saudi leadership are sitting on a demographic and economic timebomb. There are something like 14000 members of the royal family alone, most of whom have little power, less motivation to accomplish anything in life through work/ scholarship/ philanthropy and -- significantly -- diminishing wealth as well. You want to put pressure on the Saudi crown prince??? Get in line -- there's nothing you could do that comes close to the internal pressures in that place right now. If you think Bush et al are somehow corruptly in cahoots w/ the Saudis, wait until you see more Saudi money go to subvert any diplomatic or economic pressure brought to bear on them by the US. Talk about blowback potential -- our economy has already suffered from our use of economic sanctions in places like Iraq (not to mention the high expense of all those years of enforcing no-fly zones). You think our current economy is awful?? I lived through the stagflation of the 1970s, when interest rates reached 20% on mortgages and more on consumer loans, when you could only buy gasoline on alternate days at high prices and when the US dollar dropped greatly in purchasing power overseas. With the current debt load of the federal govt, we are far more susceptible to unintended consequences of this sort today. And before that, as a child I lived through the unemployment of the 1950s, when there were far fewer safety nets than today, even after recent budget cuts in our states and counties. So please to put things in perspective .. today's economy is facing structural challenges due in part to global trade & the impact of technology, but things have been much worse in living memory.

Re: proposed actions .. have you ever played the kid's game Pickup Sticks? Sometimes the best way to get at the central problem is to work from the edges in. That's especially true when there are dangers and risks to balance ... the risk that an oil price shock would send Western economies into massive depression being one of them. I've been following the macroeconomic trends for a decade now. If we can get through the next 10 years or so with nothing worse than limited recessions in the major economies, then global trade should even out the economic landscape sufficiently for all countries to be better off. But that won't happen automatically & the possibility of a major world wide depression is very real. It's utterly irresponsible to suggest attacking a major oil supplier as if there were no predictably harsh economic consequences for the poor in the US and elsewhere. Those alternate sources of oil? Take a hard look at how long it will take to bring them on line. Ditto for constructing new nuclear power plants. We should be pursuing all those things plus serious conservation plus new technologies, but that takes TIME. In the meanwhile, there's a complex, dangerous world situation to confront. Or rather, there are several interrelated threats to be dealt with, any of which could blow up in our faces tomorrow if handled with the kind of all-or-nothing emotional response you demand.

Yes, Iraq is going to be long, hard, expensive, risky, ambiguous and a mess ... more of one than this Administration came close to predicting. And yes the Bush tax cuts are unsustainable in the face of rapidly ballooning public deficits which, given the amount of dollar-denominated Treasury debt still out there from the Reagan & Clinton days, threaten the value of the dollar in serious ways. And yes, I'm really concerned about Pakistani Islamacists with nuclear weapons, Iran's successful pursuit of the same & the murderous intent of Islamacist fanatics. And yes, yes ... Saudi funding of these networks has got to stop.

But it is incredibly naive -- I'm sorry, there's no better word, unless it be "uninformed" -- to think that the Saudi ruling princes can be openly, unambiguously and successfully pressured into massive repentance and reform by the US. It is equally naive or uninformed to think we have many viable military options for accomplishing that goal directly or that other countries would join us in such an effort. (Among other things, do you know how much smart weapons cost, how long it takes to replenish stocks of them for another war, how many trained military specialists we can deploy as needed? Answer: lots and lots of money which will go to corporations you probably hate, 6 mos to a year & not enough.)

Should the US try to pressure the Saudis overtly, you can be sure that massive amounts of Saudi wealth would go into pockets in Europe, Africa, Asia ... some US politicans opposed to whichever administration was in power ... to influence others against us. Take into account as well the impact of a likely decision on the part of OPEC to refuse to sell oil to the US if we do. And remember the not so small fact that Mecca and Medina are recognized major holy sites and that endangering those sites would indeed trigger a world war ... against the US and its interests, on the part of pretty much every other country. All of which suggest that pressure on the Saudis is not a one way street and must be applied with precision and care.

I really sympathize with the frustration, fury and demand for action in your post and your comments. My daughter was near the World Trade Center on 9/11. My neighbors include the families fire fighters who worked in the city. And I'll be damned or dead before I allow my country, my way of life, my daughter to be destroyed by Wahabi fanatics. It's because so much is at stake that our response must be both strong and effective, not just emotional or based on the fantasy that we could just go in and blow things up. The real world isn't a video game, there are lots of complexities and we only get one chance to do it right.

Wrong again, Tony. In fact, your return to the whacky, confused, insult-laden rhetoric is expected. Your posting was criticized by me for being filled with nothing and your response only confirms my comments.

As Joe says, I have zero interest in defending the Saudis. As for defending President Bush's actions toward them, I'm not even bothering because you've done nothing competent to attack his policy with respect to them as I noted. Your screeds do not even attempt to describe the administration's actual actions with respect to the Saudis.

Finally, the most annoying part of your screeds remains your completely false claim to be full of facts, evidence, etc. when you actually present none. Your hydrophobic frothing about fundamentalists rightwing ideologues demonstrates that your only interest is maintaining your clown routine no matter how much Joe wastes his time on you.

"backed by truth and facts"

You should rephrase this to "backed by op-eds written by Bush haters"

You were heavy on opinion, rhetoric, and maetaphor and extremely light on facts.

For example, you didn't even address any of these facts:

1. Saddam actively sponsored Hamas, and sent tens of millions to provide for the families of Hamas suicide bombers. He even bragged about it.

2. Terrorists figures Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, of Achille Lauro fame, were given refuge in Baghdad.

3. The key figure in the 1993 bombing of the WTC twin towers, that was not apprehended by the FBI, his buddy Yousef was caught, was given haven in Baghdad. There is considerable evidence, that links Saddam to this bombing.

4. A Palestine Liberation Front terrorist training camp was maintained outside of Baghdad, complete with airplane chassis for hijacker training.

5. US and Kurdish forces destroyed a base and training camp for Ansar-al-Islam, an Al-Qaeda terrorist group, during the war. The camp had a crude poison lab, and evidence was found that indicated that the group had made the deadly toxin ricin.

6. Remember the assasination attempt of Bush 41 that was thwarted by Kuwaiti security? Those were Iraqi security agents they caught.

7. Recently, another major terrorist facility in the desert of central Iraq was destroyed by US forces.

8. Recently, Iraqi intelligence documents uncovered in Iraq indicate that Iraqi officials traveled to Sudan in 1998 to meet with OBL, for the purpose of seeking an alliance against America.

9. Remember, that OBL released a tape that urged jihadis to flock to the defense of Iraq?

10. A high-level Al-Qaeda associate who was in Baghdad receiving medical treatment after fleeing Afghanistan was captured there shortly after the fall of the Iraqi capital.

When you look at the FACTS, it is clear that Saddam supported the 9/11 attacks, and while there is no hard-evidence yet, he may have even provided funding for them.

US forces found murals, cigarette lighters, paintings and all kinds of memorabilia celebrating the 9/11 attacks that were proliferated throughout the country. While this proves nothing it certainly shows that Saddam had no qualms about terrorism against the US.

Where to start.

Tony proposes police actions instead of unending war. Sounds good to me. I think he should explain how he proposes to police Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Without defeating them. In war.

The oil problem. We just start using oil sands etc. Tony fails to explain the logistics of ramping up production from 10,000 BPD to 10,000,000. Not to mention the economics of the deal. Actually Tony didn't do too bad here. The direction is already set. Tony just leaves out time and cost. The infrastructure Tony wants could take 10 or 20 years to build. The war is on now. Shall we ask the Saudis to hold off until we are ready?

If a politician gave such a speech as an opening gambit to policy change I might applaud.

As a serious stastement of what to do though this statement is no help.

Tony if you are out there. Please explain how police action would work. To start.

One point about Saudi acceptance of Wahhabism has always stuck out in my mind (kudos to Derbyshire over at NRO for making it): Why does a religion that is reportedly so overwhelmingly popular require such a totalitarian police state in order to stay entrenched among the general populace?

I won't argue with Tony's writing here, but my only itch is why does he remove spaces between certain words? For example, "rightwingideologue."

While I disagree with a number of Tony's arguments, both with regards to his suggestions for dealing with the Saudis and on other issues, he does make one useful point that's being overlooked: The Bush Administration isn't getting anywhere as much heat as it deserves for the devil's bargain it has made with the Saudi government.

Anyone who takes a close look at the Bush-Saudi relationship will quickly realize that there's much more than realpolitik at work. That the Bush Administration is thoroughly in bed with the House of Saud, and that the intimate nature of this relationship clouds their judgement when dealing with this odious regime. Just piece together the following facts:

1. Bush Jr. made his first millions in an oil venture that involved a number of Saudi investors, including, coincidentally, members of the Bin Laden family.

2. Bush Sr. continues to do extensive business with the Saudis, in both the oil and defense industries, by means of his relationship with the Carlyle Group.

3. Halliburton, the oil exploration company that Dick Cheney was once CEO of, has extensive ties with the Saudi government, and has won a number of development contracts from them over the years.

4. Colin Powell considers himself a good friend of Prince Bandar, the current Saudi Ambassador to the United States, and at one time was even a racquetball partner of his.

5. James Baker, Secretary of State under Bush Sr. and a close friend of the Bush family, has done extensive consulting/PR work for the Saudi government.

6. Robert Jordan, who until recently was the US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, is a friend of Bush Jr., and was previously a personal lawyer.

7. Bush Sr. also considers himself a close friend of Prince Bandar, and his wife Barbara once quipped that the only people allowed to smoke inside their home are Bandar and Bush Jr. Also, when Bandar's wife, Princess Jaffa, made headlines due to her inadvertent funding of a couple of the 9/11 hijackers, Barbara personally called Jaffa to console her.

I'm not trying to float a conspiracy theory here. The story is pretty straightforward. The Saudis, by means of forming various business and personal ties, have bought out the support of the Bush Administration. And I consider it unfortunate that, in spite of all the much-deserved condemnation that the Saudis have received from conservative circles since 9/11, much less condemnation has been directed towards the Bush Administration for refusing to take the hard line against the Saudis that's needed for the war on Islamist fundamentalism and terrorism to be taken seriously. One doesn't have to agree with Tony's proposed remedies to see that there is a serious underlying problem here.

if we take down the house of saud this very instant, the funding they provide to nations like pakistan and countless others will disappear. later in this decade, later in this war, i think we all agree this is needed. but to do so now pretends that we have already solved the pakistan problem. what exactly would happen if we cut off that much of the status quo from propping up pakistan? would that nation continue in the delicate balance it has been in or would it finally fall to the jihadists we are afraid of. if the latter were to happen, what would stop the need for an american war in the dense multimillion person cities of that potentially hostile nation? we could rely instead on india to do the dirty work for us, but then we have a hot nuclear south asia... and i thought that was part of what we are trying to avoid?

i dont mean at all to imply that this is only about that region and about what happens if we pull the plug on funding before we have other things in place. an even bigger concern on my part is what happens to the will of the western world in general, and the american public specifically, to change the entire middle east and islamic world? will we still be able to honestly reform a nation like iran or syria or countless others if we attack saudi arabia first? or should we take a longer view of our campaigns and keep the saudis on the fence while we clean up the rest of the neighborhood?

if we are going to cut off the flow of all of this money so totally, we better well develop the alternatives first. textiles, free trade, an end to farm subsidies, and alternative energy growth all need time... and there wont be a war on terror of any merit if bush doesnt win reelection.

i agree with others here that 2005 is a pivotal year. i dont think we are going to see another major american lead war until after the 2004 campaign. north korea may be the exception to that, but i am of the opinion that a chinese lead "humanitarian" intervention with american approval would be the best way of dealing with that. for military and political reasons, north korea should be resolved within the next year and before november of 04, one way or another. what im really watching out for is what we are going to do about syria/lebanon and iran. if there is not sufficient nonmilitary induced change in those regimes between now and the summer of 05 i think that is where the next big front in this war will take us.

after that, we can begin to talk seriously about bringing down the scimitar on all of the heads of the house of saud.

one exception to what i said above...

i think if things are going well enough in iraq and afghanistan that determination to continue this critical war begins to falter in the minds of the public and of world leaders, the timetable for lebanon may speed up. a marines heavy cleanup of the hornets nest that is hezbollah and syria dominated lebanon could be a small enough deployment, yet high enough return action that could really shake things up in the early summer of 04.

First I apologize for my rushed retort. You are all right and correct to slap me down for that response.

There are so many points I want to argue and refute, and many that I accept as sound, that I do not know exactly where to start, so I beg your indulgence in allowing me to return to the key points I hoped to make in the article.

1) Elements of the House of Saud are the primary funding and nurturing source for jihadist islam.

2) Human rights violations as a result of the Faustian arrangement between the House of Saud and the depraved wahabi jihadist imams are pervasive in Saudi Arabia. We just don't talk about it.

link

&

link

No one is allowed to talk about these abuses, or to make any deep investigation into wahabi sha'ria crimes against humanity backed by the House of Saud.

Bush especially shields the House of Saud.

You can refer to opponents as flat earthers, but the al Queda / Iraqi links prior to the war were thin and airy, and basically not credible. If we were allowed investigation and disclosure into the use or misuse of intelligence prior to the war, - perhaps these issues could be settled permanently. Alas we all know that will never happen, so we are left with me doubting your partisan claims, you doubting mine.

I will skip any more discussion of the Iraq war in this context.

Jihadist want to kill us, and we cannot negotiate any resolution. Jihadist only respect and understand the sword and we must give it to them.

I do not believe in the war constructs, and would like the entire "war on terrorism" reframed into prosecuting mass murderers and those that aid and abet them for crimes against humanity.

These freaks (including the Saudi's)

link

are pursuing, will acquire, and will use WMD against us if we let them.

Key to preventing this single and critical catastrophe in my opinion is cutting off the abundant funding flowing out of the House of Saud.

How exactly this should be done, is obviously open for debate. Some of you raise important points about the possibilities and pitfalls of certain approaches, - but I am more concerned with putting these issues on the table first, and begining a vigorous debate on how best to redress this problem now. Practical solutions will take time and planning, - but ignoring or exusing the issue is in my opinion a resipe for disaster.

Thanks for your responses.

i dont think anyone is ignoring the house of saud or its siginificance in funding global terror or maintaining a human rights nightmare in saudi arabia. assuming that the discussion and attention you want for this issue is happening, then you no longer have any substance to your comments tony. it is not enough to say over and over again that we have to talk about something but then when we do you dont have any actual thoughts on what we should be doing. back up what you want to see.

we are paying attention.... where is your suggested solution?

One Thousand thanks for your rich and eloquent comment rbk. I would like to learn more about the (impending?)"housing bubble" I keep reading about and would value your insight.

The “suggested solution” I make is the inspiration to begin a discussion in the first place and then investigating, analyzing, and formulating and ultimately implementing a plan to redress the Saudi issue. Obviously, I do not have all the answers. Yet, this discussion and finding and finally implementing solutions is the suggested solution I hope to provide.

Let me correct some mis-conceptions. I'm just a poor concerned father living in New York asking questions. Formulating solutions to these complex combustible issues will certainly require the expertise and wisdom of many individuals far more qualified than I

I do NOT support attacking Saudi Arabia, or anyone. I do support striking at and rendering harmless legitimate threats. I want to make a clear distinction and mark a divide between the reigning policy and agenda, and the diplomacy, global cooperation, and peace minded approaches I seek. Yet - if, - IF as a last resort, after exhausting all diplomatic efforts, or in the face of imminent threats – military response is necessary then we shall unleash the dogs of war, and the full force, ferocity, precision, and humanity of the unchallengeable US military upon those threats. War should always be THE last resort option, never the first. I view rapid response strikes at threats and police actions as distinct from War.

When and if military response becomes warranted, then I would prefer quick strike rapid response hit squads, or clean teams, or predators utilizing some of the 30+ Billion dollar a year blackworld technologies at our disposal - sent where ever necessary, when ever necessary, and against any legitimate threat any where, any time. (The case and justification for strikes and and/or targets must be valid, legal and open, and US actions must accord with international and Constitutional legal and judicial framework.)

The argument that we could start a war with Islam by striking at Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh is moot in my opinion because jihadist are already engaged in a declared and open war with us, - the jihad is ON - and there is nothing these freaks could do, that they are not already doing if and when we did strike at targets in Saudi Arabia and the heart of islam. Diplomacy first, but should greater Islam choose the jihadist way- they will have jihad, and woe to us all.

I reject the D Day, huge land force presence invasion occupation scenarios. Israel is the model I would employ. Moussad is very cunning and patient. They locate targets, plan a mission, execute the Mission where ever the target may be including in the heart of, or most intimate redoubt in enemy territory, poof said target, and return home.

One magical sniper, one predator, or a cruise missile can resolve many problems much more efficiently then a massive land force. There are indeed events that would necessitate invasion and occupation scenario's but this bloody, costly, and destructive response should be the last resort and option, - not the first.

First we have to realize – and in my opinion we do not now - that there is very serious conflict and danger with regard to certain elements of the House of Saud (remember the Saudi "dirty dozen"?) providing the primary funding source for all the jihadist mass murderers.

One last issue I must put to bed. Princess Jaffa, aiding and abetting the San Diego al Queda cell partly responsible for 9/11 was certainly not "inadvertent"; and the fact that "Barbara personally called Jaffa to console her.", is cold comfort.

You may believe the airy Rove homily that her San Deigo minder just happened upon a couple of al Queda and fellow Muslims who at fate would have it just happened to be planning the mass murder operations of 9/11 and that this chance encounter, was “inadvertent” and pure coincidence – but the ugly truth is that large sums of money flowed from her personal accounts into the hands of the San Diego cell involved in the mass murder of 9/11. LET's INVESIGATE the rather important matter.

Again investigation and disclosure will reveal the facts, shine light on the activities and connections, and either vindicate or damn Prince Bandar and his wife, and investigation is what I seek.

this attacking, sliming, and demonizing is typical and expected rightwingideologue response to alternate opinion or dissent, especially when backed by truth and facts.

...after reading the rest of Foresta's response to all you awful people who dared to disagree and dissent with him, I find this statement by Foresta to be incredibly ironic.

With that comment, Tony, you admit that in fact you have NO CONCRETE PLAN. Nothing concrete to contribute at all.

Here's a hilarious example of why you can't be taken seriously, Tony. These two consecutive paragraphs:

Jihadist want to kill us, and we cannot negotiate any resolution. Jihadist only respect and understand the sword and we must give it to them.

I do not believe in the war constructs, and would like the entire "war on terrorism" reframed into prosecuting mass murderers and those that aid and abet them for crimes against humanity.

Those two paragraphs alone demonstrate your lack of credibility.

Another example of your incoherent writings:
"I do NOT support attacking Saudi Arabia, or anyone. I do support striking at and rendering harmless legitimate threats. "

With that statement, you contradict your entire case against Saudi Arabia.

Further, you often say you "reject" things ... amusingly, you cannot refute the arguments in question. So all we get is a silly sentence in which you "reject" something.

The bottom line Tony is that I don't consider you any better than a troll because when your silly rhetoric is stripped away, when your contradictory and confused statements mutually destruct, there is nothing left.

I gave you the guest blog for a couple of reasons. One was to give you the best opportunity I could to show our readers that there's substance behind your comments. Alas, whatever points the column may have won you were probably just wiped out by this response.

You mean you didn't anticipate Foresta would respond in that manner? Or were you just hoping he could make a rational posting, and that he'd be able to respond to criticism without wailing about them being rightwingidealogues, entranced by Rove, unable to see Foresta's imperial vestments, etc, etc.?

Well, it was nice of you to let him try, but I think he let you down.

Americans may feel that nothing is being done with respect to Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis don't seem to share that view.

Why did Jordan resign? Did he really 'express a preference' for Abdullah as successor? Did he really object to the educational curriculum, and to mosque incitement?

The knee-jerk response to mere comments, as seen in the english language and the arabic language (via MEMRI) press is to view any suggestion or criticism as arrogant imposition of values. Many of the royals share that view. A few, perhaps Bandar, perhaps Abdullah, are aware of the box they're in. The Riyadh bombing may have helped, tactically; likewise the lawsuit (which State and the WH have not blocked).

No perceived "American puppet" will take or consolidate power in Saudi Arabia, but we can hope for and very quietly work toward the better outcome.

Your excellent comment Alene Berk cuts to the heart of the initial focus on diplomacy approaches I suggest. If the Saudi's truly do not share America's perceptions it does not matter.

No one imagines either party can hide from the fact that members of the Royal Family aid and abet terrorist organizations. If you are so sure of the necessity of attacking Iraq based on shapeshifting, thin, airy, and far fetched intelligence, how can any of you deny redress of Saudi funding and nurturing of jihadist mass murder gangs, including al Queda, and complicit involvement with the horrors of 9/11?

We all recognize that the many converging and intersecting issues regarding Saudi politics, the lurid intrigues and abuses by the royal families in Saudi Arabia and America, and the fact that Bush shields these “good friends” from any scrutiny, review, or redress, are of significant concern, and directly impact the security and prosperity of America.

The only relevant measurement and action is an immediate massive reduction in the flow of money pouring out of the House of Saud and into the hands of jihadist mass murderers and terrorist gangs. That's not happening fast enough, Baker's expensive PR and spin does not change that fact, nor will America sit quietly any longer while Saudi aiding and abetting mass murderers and crimes against humanity, continues.

It’s complicated and dynamic issue yes, but the Saudi problem is rather important in the context of increasing accessibility to WMD.

America cannot ignore, excuse, or forget the Saudi funding and nurturing of mass murder and jihadist terrorist gangs.

The point of the article and why I feel vindicated, (though I will wear a few stings and welts for many days) is that we agree and many core and pertinent issues.
For example:

1) The Saudi's are not "good friends" of America.

2) Saudi’s fund jihadist terrorist organizations.

3) America’s addiction to Saudi oil (oil in general) is a kind of Saudi weapon the US must neutralize. We divide here at tactics, and while I see many varied idea's I think we all agree solutions will be complex, and the subject warrants more discussion and investigation.

4) The American military is unchallengeable, and capable of achieving any military objective and prosecuting with exceptional ferocity, efficiency, and humanity any mission necessary to secure and defend America, American interests, and our allies.

We divide again here on when and how the US military should be employed, and on the tactics necessary to achieve the various objectives.

We divide also on America's capability of achieving the much more epic, far more costly and bloody, separate, and different military objectives of nationbuilding and democratization

5) Jihadist access to WMD would be bad for business.

6) These several issues warrant our focused attention and redress.

Thanks for the surgical commentary, and many great points and ideas

Tony, thanks for making another attempt to respond here. I'd like to comment on several points you make.

First, regarding our military capability. As some of you know, for the last 2 years I have been teaching on a visiting or adjunct basis at one of our military academies and my husband is a retired officer. So although I myself am a technical / business person, I've been around a fair number of military people and have experience with some military technologies. It is absolutely true that our capabilities are unmatched. But what isn't true is that we can apply those capabilities everywhere / anywhere we want. Our volunteer forces are heavily strained right now, we have to resupply smart munitions which will take time, we have to build new launching places for rapid deployment and covert operations (a major effort of Rumsfeld, by the way, and one he should get far more recognition for than he has to date). I am very proud of our armed forces and of the technology lead we have, but I also know that others are working hard to try to catch up and that we do have some very real limits regarding how much we can take onto our plate at once. You're right to note that the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq places a great strain on us in the short term.

A major limitation we have is the number of special ops forces, translators and psych ops specialists we can deploy with expertise in Asian, Middle Eastern and African Islamic countries. I've been fretting for years about the tendency of many American students to blow off foreign languages and culture studies & we see the results right now. One reason Mossad is so successful is that they can deploy people who have spoken Arabic since they were children and who can move among other groups as if they were natives. Without that kind of covert cover, and the intelligence it can produce, Mossad would be a lot less successful at what they do.

I tend to agree that we should execute rapid strike operations where/when possible, but they are not a panacea. Can you spell out why you prefer these to "war" and how you see them as different from "war"? Again, Rumsfeld has been fighting to shift the focus of our military staffing, training and planning towards more flexible arrangements, but this takes time and my Army friends insist there are real costs and risks associated with this approach.

I have grave reservations about the possibility of responding to terror through international "legal" frameworks. I put "legal" in quotes because I think that the moral and treaty-based nature of international forums is at best very muddled. With a few exceptions, there really is NOT such a thing as international law governing military operations, in my opinion and that of experts I've talked with. Whether diplomacy can deal with terror networks and the funding activities of, say, Saudi princes is also in my opinion very questionable. By and large, diplomacy only works when both sides have something to gain by it. We should do what we can through diplomatic channels, but inevitably they will fail because so many players like France and Russia have things to gain (or think they do) from the status quo that threatens us.

On a second issue, namely economic impact of pressuring the Saudis, once again our massive foreign-held debt leaves us vulnerable. A lot of the Treasury bonds and bills outstanding today are held by Saudis and others around the world. A deliberate sell-off of them would cause the value of the US dollar to plunge disastrously. Such a sell-off has not happened (very much) in part because right now it does not make economic sense for those who hold the bonds -- but a wealthy group who were willing to take financial losses in order to harm the US economy could do a whole lot of damage.

Here is, I think, the irony in this discussion. Tony, my sense is that you are greatly frustrated at what seems to be GWB's inaction regarding Saudi complicity in terror networks. You want their role to both be acknowledged and also to be dealt with in the context of various international agreements and relationships. I have sympathy with both desires, but think neither will have the effect you want.

From my perspective it seems likely that the Bush administration is indeed both pressuring the Saudis and also doing so in various ways that DO take into account the potential international consequences of that pressure -- especially the economic ones. In the short term, we need those Saudi princes who are NOT fanatics to work with us to slow down the flow of money to al Quaeda and other Wahabist networks and to identify immediate threats of terrorist violence that are being planned. We also need, if possible, to prevent a major price hike for oil (going into winter in the northern hemisphere) and/or a dollar sell-off. And we had better be careful not to leave a power vacuum that the most fanatical Saudi clerics could fill, with a regime that is even less helpful to us.

The biggest weapon we have with which to take down the corrupt Saudi princes is the Iraqi oil industry. Not so that we capture or expropriate that resource for ourselves unjustly, but simply so that Iraqi is producing and selling oil at the rate their reserves could support. That action would significantly curb both Saudi wealth and influence. For that reason, I believe our occupation of Iraq and our difficult, expensive and dangerous work there is actually the most effective resonse the Administration could make to your call for action against the house of Saud. The terror networks know that -- it's why so many sabotage acts are being carried out against the Iraqi pipelines.

A final thought -- it really is the case that Halliburton is by far the most likely organization to be able to get the Iraqi oil industry rebuilt and working again. It was for this reason, as well as because of their existing logistics master contract with DOD, that I am not overly bothered by the role Halliburton is playing in Iraq. I'll be furious if they don't do a good job, and they should not be allowed to make a really outrageous rate of profit (allowing for risk), but so long as they do a decent job, they are directly answering your call to take down the power of the Saudi princes who are directly and indirectly responsible for terror and repression.

Tony's summary is deeply unconvincing, on a couple of grounds:

1). Our problem is not just the Saudis. In 1981, Arab students at my university stood in the television lounge of the student union and applauded the news of Anwar Sadat's assassination. Challenged, they made it clear they had little use for his peacemaking. These were men of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's generation. There is an appetite for war there that you and I can scarely imagine. My working assumption is that America has no friends in the Middle East, only enemies, or, at best, neutrals who are biding their time before becoming enemies.

2). The American military is not "unchallengeable," as I'm sure the Vietnamese could explain. The fact of the matter is we don't now have a force adequate to the task at hand. We conducted Gulf War I with the equivalent of a WWII field army, 500,000 troops; Gulf War II used the equivalent of a corps, 125,000, and we settled for that few not because more weren't needed, but because more weren't available. We have almost nothing in the way of a combat-ready strategic reserve.

3). Tony's preference for Israeli-style pinprick raids is a recipe for defeat. It is already a recipe for Israel's defeat -- it's losing, not winning. I'll believe otherwise when I see Arafat sue for peace. Israel lacks the wherewithal to fight to victory, so it has to fight for stalemate. Unfortunately, it's in a struggle where it can only lose once, and is fighting people who only have to win once.

Viet Nam is the wrong comparison. It is more like the Gaza, where the occupying Army is viewed with hostility, and terrorist activity is an ongoing and constant relentless concern and occupation. Again this is the question we must ask, - is the Iraq war helping or harming America's security concerns? And is it a good idea to ignore and actually shield the House of Saud from culpability in aiding and abetting mass murder and other crimes against humanity?
Bush defenders, - against and in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, - evidence America is denied the right to know, or be privy to, or have any investigation into relating to the many questionable activities regarding intelligence used as justification for, and selling of, the Iraq war.

America was "shocked and awed" by the first installment of the Iraq war, and the very first honest appraisal of the cost and immensity of American commitment to Iraq. We question the agenda, and the tactics, and we demand disclosure, and investigation, and transparency from your leadership.

And we want an investigation into the funding and nurturing of jihadist mass murderers by the House of Saud.

I believe the name of Prince Bandar's wife is Haifa, actually.

The reason I brought the Iraq evidence into play is because I think it does make a significant difference because ultimately what we are dealing with here is a question of targets as far as which poses the gravest threat to the United States. Saudi Arabia is unquestionably tied to al-Qaeda, as is Iran, as is Sudan, as is Somalia, as do some elements of Pakistan, as did Iraq and all of these nations (or in Somalia's case, failed nation) need to be dealt with in some fashion or another. If you consider the Bush's administration's evidence to be insufficiently convincing, I would recommend that you read my latest special analysis that links to information dating back from 1998 claiming ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Are the Saudis a threat? Undoubtably. However, the access of al-Qaeda to WMD as a result of Iraqi training can (legitimately, IMO) be considered an even greater threat and one that requires a swift and necessary response.

Why is this relevant? Because it deals with the fundamental argument against the current US policy. We can probably both agree that attacking Afghanistan and destroying al-Qaeda's base was a good idea, but it is after that point where differences of opinion crop up. You feel that they should have immediately gone after Saudi Arabia in some fashion, while I see Iraq as being more of the key issue here. Still others see Pakistan or Iran as the chief enabler of the global jihad. These are legitimate differences of opinion, but they also go to the crux of the matter as far as what the US should do.

iraq was critical for putting some real fear into all of the other sources of terror support that have been mentioned (saudi arabia, pakistan, iran, etc). they know now we are serious about change and not just about striking back at alqaeda in afghanistan. the problem now is that they dont think we can do it twice. that is what the next war will be for.

I will read your special analysis Dan Darling, but you might want to read this

link

You are both partly correct in that our problems and gnarly trouble spots in the middle east extend well beyond Saudi Arabia, and with the notable exception of Jordan and Israel, maybe the entire middle east, but my point is focused on the funding of mass murder and terrorist organizations, and while money does flow out of all the nations I mentioned in the article, - Saudi Arabia provides by far the lions share, and this must stop.

We cannot stop in Saudi Arabia, and indeed must, as I stated in the article deliver the exact same message to any and every nation aiding and abetting mass murder and terrorist organizations.

"There is an appetite for war there that you and I can scarcely imagine. My working assumption is that America has no friends in the Middle East, only enemies, or, at best, neutrals who are biding their time before becoming enemies."

Exactly Ray Gronberg, and precisely why we should deliver a forceful, and fiery ultimatum to the Arab world, directly at the heart of Islam, explaining in no uncertain terms that aiding and abetting, and certainly - Allah forbid - any direct involvement in mass murder, and terrorism constitute grievous crimes against humanity, and will be prosecuted at all costs.

The US military IS unchallengeable. Our military is capable of crushing any Arab army in matter of days, and this without our "A" stuff. Colonization, religious reformation, and world domination through military force is however impossilbe and patently un-American. Focus on eliminating threats, and forget about Pax Americana.

Ultimately, we have not progressed beyond our most primal ancestors emotionally and continue resolving our differences and disputes by beating each other over the heads with sticks, and - Allah be praised - America has by far the most terrible stick.

Placing large land forces and the logistic streams necessary to support them in the heart of hostile territory is indefensible. I do not have all the answers, and certainly lack the expertise of many of you with outstanding military and government experience, but I do not believe I am naive to suggest there are less costly and less bloody, (though certainly less profitable to the Bush oil, energy, and private military cartels and cronies) strategic and tactical options and trajectories toward defeating our enemy and destroying these threats.

Israel has many enemies. They also have the best Intel on the planet, and a military industrial complex rivaling America's in sophistication and technological advancement, though of course much smaller scale, and they have plenty of nukes, bugs, and chem. The US, the UN, and the world restrain Israel, - curtail Israeli military operations, forces Israel to back off, and contains Israeli military ambitions. Let the leash loose and our problems in the Middle East would be over very quickly. The heart, the blood, the brains, and the source of sustenance nurturing and sustaining the jihadist monster alive must be targeted, attacked, and subdued or destroyed. Israel has warned the world of this grim reality since 1967, and the world must come to grips with the sad fact that for the jihadist - there is no peace. They seek the sword and we must give it to them.

Diplomacy first to allow greater Islam the opportunity to recant, reject, renounce, and divorce from the jihadist insanity and bloodlust. Then, if all else fails - we must deliver the terrible swift sword and let it fall first and hardest in Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh and the heart of Islam.

Islam must make this choice. Do they follow the jihadist fiends into a future of fire and destruction, or can Islam evolve into a more tolerant, peaceful, and progressive future and a become a welcome participant in the progress of humanity.

America must choose as well. Are we defined by predatory, isolationist, brutish, fundamentalist christian, crony capitalist warmongers, or will America change our course and return to the guiding principles of peace, freedom, and justice for all.

Tony, my head is starting to hurt reading this. You say:

"...a forceful, and fiery ultimatum to the Arab world, directly at the heart of Islam, explaining in no uncertain terms that aiding and abetting, and certainly - Allah forbid - any direct involvement in mass murder, and terrorism constitute grievous crimes against humanity, and will be prosecuted at all costs."

I've asked, and others have asked..."What's in the ultimatum?" ... and from closely reading all your stuff, I still don't know.

Is it:

1) Stop doing the things we don't like or we'll occupy Mecca and Medina?

2) Stop doingthe things we don't like, or we'll identify the people we think are responsible and launch a Hellfire on them?

3) Stop doing the things we don't like or we'll perform a 'precious cargo' operation, snatch you, and put you on trial in the Hague?

4) Stop doing the things we don't like or we'll stop bying your oil?

Because the answer to that question determines how seriously we take your arguments. EVERYONE wants the radical Islamists to stop fomenting terror (well, almost everyone, but everyone worth talking to...).

The question is, how?

A.L.

Simply, I question and reject the morphing of the waronterror, and America's just response to the horrors of 9/11 - deceptively, under the radar, and behind Americas back into the much more epic, far more overarching and predatory imperialist ambitions of the Pax Americana war agenda.

The simple answer A.L. is a combination of "2" and "3". Target those responsible for mass murder and other crimes against humanity, and those who aid and abet them and hunt, capture, or kill every single target.

Thanks rkb for providing another expansive series of points and commentary, and in answer to these responses, - let's find some common ground. I appreciate your insight.

First, Halliburton's cloaked activities and no bid contracts reach into many more realms and enterprises than oil services. I simply cannot trust the book cookers at Halliburton, and with no bid, no review, no recourse, or remedy for failures, excessive cost overruns, and other abuses, - and suggest that Halliburton’s awards, activities, and ACCOUNTING, warrant an investigation.

This comment -
“. but a wealthy group who were willing to take financial losses in order to harm the US economy could do a whole lot of damage." is particularly chilling.

Is this not exactly the problem we face in Saudi Arabia?

If I understand you correctly, and forgive the harsh framing, but America (Bush) intends to maraud the Iraqi oil to reduce strain on Saudi supplies and help finance and gain a toe hold in the Middle East, by lodging a huge military force in the region to allow for the advancement of some larger, (as yet unspoken, and it better not be Pax Americana) political and economic agenda, and hopefully sending of fear through-out the Muslim world, who will then reverse thousands of years of religious and cultural evolution and adopt secular democracies through-out the middle east??

First, I question the moral integrity of such ambitions and divide here forever on ever tolerationg piracy,imperialism, and empire as acceptable America policy.

Second, the costs in blood and money makes this kind of epic undertaking impossible

This is why, and I accept responsibility for my inability to articulate the message, - the language, policies, and objectives must change from war constructs, to police actions, criminal prosecutions and manhunts for mass murderers and those that aid and abet them.

War is a conflict of nations, and clash of arms to decide ideological, economic, political, or sometimes personal disputes that have failed diplomatically.

Police actions are specific missions targeted at specific criminals, based on good evidence, legal jurisprudence, and thorough investigation proving criminal activity or serious or imminent threats.

The unspoken objectives define our course. Do we want to defeat our enemies, or do we want to reform the Middle East, and that will hopefully defeat our enemies.

My opinion is that colonization and religious reformation require war, and military states to keep the peace. Eliminating threats require intelligence, investigation, and police action targeting specific individuals, systems, or gangs.

The difference is not a question of what weapons are employed, and I would expect that the entire conventional arsenal, and every blackworld devise and system at American disposal would be brought to the field to eliminate specific threats, - but remaining in the field is a far more epic undertaking requiring many systems, much more complex logistics, and many more boots.

Yet, and there could be a time when war is inevitable, I still stand in total rejection of the Iraq war. Wrong Muslims. Iraq is the only secular Muslim society in the Middle East and has 20% of the world’s conventional oil.

Those other Muslims, - the wahabi freaks in Saudi Arabia who fund and nurture all the jihadist mass murder gangs, including al Queda sitting on 40% of the worlds oil, and in the heart of Islam, are - or should have been the primary target.

I reject the war constructs, but even if war was necessary, - it should be in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If all your economic and political justifications are valid in Iraq, how much greater would those same justifications be for the exact same mission in Saudi Arabia.

Lastly - and I appreciate all of these great comments, and the spirit of debate in this thread, so forgive me for holding divides, but trust that we seek the same ends, and I value your insights.

Bush and Rove conducted a relentless information war, and marketing campaign demonizing Saddam and (in my opinion deceptively) justifying war with Iraq for almost a year.

Until that level of political pressure is exerted on Saudi Arabia, - I will continue to doubt Bush commitment toward redressing his "good friends" in the House of Saud, and demand that attention be paid.

Most of the Gross-Harnan letter appears to deal primarily with the lack of human intelligence on Iraq in the WMD area according to the article. The WMD question and human intelligence is a certainly a big one, but it doesn't relate to Iraq's relationship with al-Qaeda or the variety of sources that I have been able to amass over the course of the summer to that effect.

Claims that intelligence was politicized must sufficiently account for a number of factors ranging from known European intelligence distortions (which I think caused a lot of the anonymous claims by the US), the fact that Iraq was supplying Russia with information on al-Qaeda's activities in Chechnya, Zarqawi and his rather substantial array of activities, Ansar al-Islam, and the 1993 WTC suspect who was harbored by the Iraqi government. Claims that it was all smoke and mirrors (which is what I gather you're reading from the article?) simply are not at all credible because they do not square with the facts at hand. Any claims about US intelligence distortion must sufficiently account for all of these factors. I don't expect the senators in question to do that, it isn't there job, but some clarification would be nice.

This is why, as I said, US intel on Iraq is really at the heart of the war on terror as far as priority targets go. If the intel on Iraq was accurate at least as far as the regime's complicity with al-Qaeda goes, then I would argue vehemently that such actions by the Iraqi government in of themselves constitute casus belli for the war entirely apart from the WMD question.

("If the intel on Iraq was accurate at least as far as the regime's complicity with al-Qaeda goes, then I would argue vehemently that such actions by the Iraqi government in of themselves constitute casus belli for the war entirely apart from the WMD question.")

What if the intel on Iraq was inaccurate, (as I believe, and more and more evidence appearing everyday would indicate) or even more alarming, what if that intel was manipulated, and deceptively used to justify the war in Iraq?

Let's look into it in earnest, share openly information and determine some common understanding of the facts.

I appreciate your opinion and accept that some contact between Iraq and al Queda may have occurred over the years, (although my reading of available intelligence proves the linkage airy and not credible).

The more closely and seriously this important issue is examined, - the more disclosure, the more transparency, the more we the people demand and receive an accounting and an explanation from our leadership - the greater will be our understanding of this singularly critical issue.

I suspect based on the available evidence and a long ugly legacy of secret policy, cloaked activity, book cooking, and profiteering, that the Bush administration will resist and make every effort to avoid this scrutiny and review. The choice is yours.

My mind is made up. America has the right and duty to know for certain if the President manipulated suspect or not credible intelligence to deceptively justifying the war and nationbuilding enterpise in Iraq.

Responding the rbk's comment again, we both agree that presently our military commitments are seriously strained and stressed by the huge force presence and enormous financial commitment currently focused in Iraq, - we divide however on why we are being forced to swallow and burden this costly and bloody commitment against the wrong Muslims in Iraq.

Avoiding, stonewalling, and dismissing investigation and disclosure of the current leaderships' conduct, policies, and agenda is the party line, - and necessary to keep what I refer to in all seriousness and in the most accurate and potent terms I can musters as – the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy operating business as ussual without constraint, review, or accountability. I want to alter that dynamic.

The subversive fiction that daring to question this president will in some twisted way harm or undermine the troops is simply not credible.

Our troops are best served by leadership whose policies and agenda are based upon and defend the core principles defining America, not the narcissistic oleaginous interests of the oil, energy and private military cronies and cartels, and the rightwingideologue fantasies of the Pax Americana war agenda.

The endsjustifythemeans retorts admonishing the greater good of decapitating a realy nasty tyrant and liberating the good people of Iraq, do not involve, and can in no way excuse the hyping of intelligence this leadership used relentlessly for more than year to justify the war.

We want answers, and we demand disclosure, and accountability from the leadership.

What do you want?

Here you go again, Tony:
"I reject the war constructs, but even if war was necessary, - it should be in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq."

For Tony, 'I reject ...' is a code word for 'I have no rebuttal for ...'.

Well at the very least you are acknowledging that some contact took place between Iraq and al-Qaeda. That at least is some progress as far as an eventual understanding between the two of us goes.

If I might be permitted to selectively reply to some of your comments:

"What if the intel on Iraq was inaccurate, (as I believe, and more and more evidence appearing everyday would indicate) or even more alarming, what if that intel was manipulated, and deceptively used to justify the war in Iraq?"

Then the individuals responsible for it need to be dealt with. Severely. They jeopardized our national security and their idiocy cost the lives of numerous servicemen both in the actual war and now in the guerrilla conflict. My position is simply that I do not believe that this occurred because most of the evidence presented appears to be coming either from anonymous sources whose credibility we have no real way to judge or from individuals who appear to have an axe to grind against the administration. And don't pretend for a moment that all of those who are making this an issue do not stand to gain from such a situation. But by the same token, this does not make their charges inaccurate or any less important.

Most of the cooked books allegations generally stem from the issue of the still-elusive WMDs, which is justifiably so. However, attempts to paint Zarqawi as a leader of a Jordanian terrorist group entirely unconnected to al-Qaeda ... are simply not plausible for the reasons I have taken great care to document here as well as due to the fact their ultimate source (Shadi Abdallah) is hardly the most trustworthy of individuals.

"The more closely and seriously this important issue is examined, - the more disclosure, the more transparency, the more we the people demand and receive an accounting and an explanation from our leadership - the greater will be our understanding of this singularly critical issue."

I tend to agree, and I suspect that this may surprise you. As the Iraqi regime is no longer in a power it would strike me as though some declassification is in order to help us ascertain the truth in such matters.

"I suspect based on the available evidence and a long ugly legacy of secret policy, cloaked activity, book cooking, and profiteering, that the Bush administration will resist and make every effort to avoid this scrutiny and review. The choice is yours."

This is entirely possible, though I doubt it for a number of reasons. As far as the broader question of strategy as well as morality (I myself am a devout Catholic and as such if there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq I see very little way that this could qualify as an example of Just War as defined by St. Augustine, especially when juxtaposed to US behind-the-scenes involvement in Liberia) - was what we have been told about the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda true?

To date, about the only real explanations that I have heard is that Zarqawi was not al-Qaeda or that the whole thing was made up by Bush and Co "for domestic consumption." You can read my latest analysis to see how I define that.

"The subversive fiction that daring to question this president will in some twisted way harm or undermine the troops is simply not credible."

I don't believe that I ever implied that it did. Certainly these are all very important issues that need to be addressed.

"Our troops are best served by leadership whose policies and agenda are based upon and defend the core principles defining America, not the narcissistic oleaginous interests of the oil, energy and private military cronies and cartels, and the rightwingideologue fantasies of the Pax Americana war agenda."

Unfortunately, here is where you lose me. I am a registered Republican, but I am an American first and a Catholic even before that. Speaking as a representative of at least three of the groups you single out (a right-winger, probably a "fundamentalist" regardless of the idiocy of applying the term in application to my faith, and an ideologue in the sense that my screeds are posted on this site and my own and presumably read by somebody somewhere), let me be quite frank on this.

I don't really care for an empire because I doubt that our political culture or general populace can sustain it (see Niall Ferguson's "The Empire Slinks Back" for more on this) in the immediate to near future. I care even less about the benefit of corporate America except in the general sense that I desire for the economy to stay within a certain level so that I can enjoy the lifestyle to which I am attuned.

But above all else, I want to keep myself and my country safe. There is right now an exceptionally beautiful woman attending Vanderbilt University's music school in Tennessee whom I love. I don't want either myself or her to have to live in world where a non-state entity has access to the most hideous weapons ever conceived by humanity and to put it shortly - I don't want an American version of Halabja in Nashville because some jihadi with a crop duster decided to make Senate Majority Leader Frist pay for supporting US action in the war on terror.

You must understand that most Westerners, even most American right-wingers, only vaguely perceive the threat from al-Qaeda and its ilk. Aside from 9/11, they see only anecdotal evidence for what the organization intends. You go to Dagestan, or Algeria, or the Maluccas, or Mindanao and you'll start seeing it a lot clearer. This is why constant bitching about progress in the war on terror is so asinine - this is going to be a long war and there is no magic solution or single engagement that will bring al-Qaeda down. Saudi Arabia is a major cog in the global network, so is Iran, so is Sudan (which may be slated to be taken off the terrorist list according to the Pakistani Daily Times, if you want another talking point that I would be inclined to agree with you on, there you have it). If Iraq was a cog, then it needed to be taken down. Even the absence of a war against Iraq, Ansar al-Islam and its chemical weapons labs had to be destroyed.

As I said, to date I have seen no real evidence that is able to contradict the evidence at hand. The headline of the link that you cited, for example, contains this memorable line:

"Goss believes the judgments were not deficient and were properly couched to reflect the incomplete nature of the intelligence. A congressional source said Goss 'does not believe that [the intelligence] community's judgments were inaccurate.'"

So which is it? Were the books cooked or weren't they? The whole subject the article is a letter that was signed by representatives Goss and Harman. Of course, Goss is the chairman and a Republican, so one might conclude that party loyalty is causing him to shill for Bush. Does that mean by the same token that Harman is making the statements that she is in order to score points against Bush politically because she's a Democrat?

It is this type of ambiguity and others like it (for example, the CIA stands by its judgement) that leave me somewhat doubting when one talks with absolute certainty about the manipulation of US intelligence during the run-up to war. I fully agree that answers to any number of vital questions are needed - I simply don't use that agreement to reach the same conclusion that you did.

Addendum:

"although my reading of available intelligence proves the linkage airy and not credible"

Eh? Either there was contact between the two or there wasn't. Either Zarqawi was at an exclusive clinic in Baghdad or he wasn't. Either Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden in the late 1990s or he didn't. Either Saddam was in contact with an al-Qaeda affiliate (the Allied Democratic Forces in Uganda) or he wasn't.

You can't have it both ways here. There is at least as much anecdotal and detainee-based intelligence centering around al-Qaeda and Iraq as there is between al-Qaeda and House Saud (the royal family, not private individuals within the Kingdom). You are free to consider these links not credible as you desire but let me ask you this: if, just if, the intel was accurate (as Representative Goss seems to believe - see above), then would that then justify the war in your opinion in terms of providing a casus belli?

as many have made clear, war in iraq is the first and best front in a larger war against saudi arabia and the rest of the sources of terror. those of us who support this approach can back up our support with actual plans and reasoning rooted in clearly defensible reality. it would be nice if those like tony who are so keen on telling us what they "reject" would extend us the same curtesy of well thought out and backed up functional reason as they demand so vehemently of us.

I have been looking diligently, but have yet to find the "...actual plans and reasoning rooted in clearly defensible reality" that would justify the Iraq war, - would you, could you pretty please link me Balagan?

The larger war against Saudi Arabia? Where is that even discussed outside of Quick’s' "blogsphere", and Wind of Change?

If there was actually a larger war against Saudi Arabia we would not be having this discussion. There is no larger war against Saudi Arabia, who are "good friends" of Bush and the oil, energy, and private military cartels and cronies, - but we all know there is something rotten in the House of Saud..

I raise this issue and call attention to this neglect or abuse because Saudi involvement in the mass murder of 9/11 and abundant funding of jihadist mass murder gangs directly impacts the security and prosperity of America, and the people deserve and have the right and duty to demand disclosure, transparency, and accountability from our leadership.

There should be a larger war on Saudi Arabai, but alas there is not, and all the bad Saudi news is curiously swept off the radar, - and America will suffer for this abuse, - because the Saudi's are enemies, not friends of America.

the only reason you dont notice the clear reasoning is because you refuse to listen. like many have said, its not a matter of whether with saudi arabia and the others... its a matter of when. if you want total and cleary linked proof of plan and reason beyond all that is readily available, please do us all a favor and offer the same in kind for your suggestions and beliefs... or hell just match the reasoning exhibited by those you demand so much more than yourself from.

There is no stated plan Balagan. If there is, with all due respect, please link me. There is no document or set of documents detailing any plan or ultimate objective in Iraq. There is much soothsaying and prognostication, and Herculean acts of mental gymnastics on the part of Bush defenders imagining or conjuring some justification, or explanation for Bush policies and agenda with regard to Iraq - but Bush has no plan, no accounting, and if an objective exists, - it's end is kept guarded, cloaked, and secret.

We hold many common opinions Dan Darling, but in answer to your inquiry, if Iraq was actually dealing with al Queda in terms of arms, intelligence, or WMD, this would weigh heavily on my decision making. I would strike at specific targets and any imminent threat.

First, I never said the intelligence was valid, I said there “may” have been contacts, and mere contacts do not rise to the level of threat severity warranting an invasion and occupation.

I would still reject, (with all due respect to Robin) the war constructs, and attack individual and specific threats.

The entire Zarqawi al Answar link is suspect to me, because their bases were in Northern Iraq in the no fly zones, and well within American striking power. If these threats were so serious, and Zarqawi was posing an imminent threat - why did Bush not poof his bases before the war, as effortlessly as we did during the war?

No credible intelligence exists linking Iraq to al Queda in any meaningful way. Zarqawi and Al Answar were pro Palestinian terrorists, and were once removed not and directly attached to either either Iraq or al Queda.

Again, we can circle around all day and night, and you can dis my links, and I can dis yours, - but the only way we can know for certain is by demanding disclosure, investigation, and review. Why would Bush refuse this request if he did not have something to hide?
We are not asking for something partisan or trivial. W\e are asking for disclosure and accountability for intelligence used to justify the 87bn, soldier every other day, many innocent Iraqis killed and injured war, and nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq.

Why would the Bush administration out an agency operative to punish Joe Wilson for speaking the truth? This despicable crime and act of treason deserves investigation and review, and of course we all know herr Ascroft will never allow an investigation or review - but the crime will not be forgotten. Trust me.

Again Ron, for me - an airy Saddam/al Queda link would come nowhere close to justification for a war and invasion and occupation of Iraq. I would support and cruise missile attack, or a Task Forst 20 operation, but a war is a waste of time blood and money, and overkill.

It is amusing to see Tony, who cannot articulate his "plan" for Saudi Arabia falsely claim that the Bush administration has not articulated an "ultimate objective in Iraq".

Then Tony just ignores all the evidence that people like Darling have produced by arrogantly proclaiming his own ignorance with:
No credible intelligence exists linking Iraq to al Queda in any meaningful way. Zarqawi and Al Answar were pro Palestinian terrorists, and were once removed not and directly attached to either either Iraq or al Queda.

Of a kind with "I reject"...

Tony,

1st post: bad

2nd post: very bad

3rd post: wrong but reasonable

What would your analysis looklike if you made the assumption that Bush is not evil (just could be mistaken)and actually wants to do right for the country? The answer is that you would have no analysis. The Bush=oil=Saudis is it for you. Like every Bush hater I know, when you have to discuss actual realities, your "analyis" topples like a house of cards. Always underlaying it: Bush is evil.

Tony said:

"The simple answer A.L. is a combination of "2" and "3". Target those responsible for mass murder and other crimes against humanity, and those who aid and abet them and hunt, capture, or kill every single target."

Uh, Tony the problems here are so large as to be beyond discussion.

Practically, finding enemy operatives ina country that does not support our search isn't something I would believe is terribly feasible except in very limited circumstances.

Legally, killing or capturing someone in a country without the explicit support of the country involved is an act of war.

Israel targets terrorist leaders in the West Bank and Gaza...in practical terms, those geographic areas are currently stateless, as no agreement exists on who controls them. Note that I haven't heard of Israel targeting someone in Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon.

Morally, I'm ambivalent at best about 'targeted killings' when Israel does them in the West Bank and Gaza; I'd be adamantly opposed on moral grounds (because of the extent and necessary secrecy involved) if we were to propose it as a strategy in the ME. Do you really want to live in a country that supports secret kidnappings and executions of it's enemies abroad?

In short, what you're proposing wouldn't work, and if it did work would in any circumstance I can imagine lead to an out-and-out war, and would probably be rightly condemned as immoral and illegal. It may be the stuff of Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum novels, but any politician who proposed a set of policies like this would be out of office pretty damn soon.

A.L.

Again the analysis I put forward offers some suggestions and possible alternate solutions to what I consider a far more serious threat born out the House of Saud's funding and nurturing of mass murder and terrorist organizations, then any of the hype relating to Iraq prior to the war.

The Iraq war, and the occupation leave far fewer choices for America now. We have to suck it, and fork it over, and we all know there is no turning back now.

My point, and again, I value criticism and alternate opinion, is that America must redress the House of Saud, or all our activities everywhere and most particularly in Iraq will continue to fester, because the real enemies of America, - the jihadist mass murder gangs including al Queda - are abundantly funded by individuals in the duplicitous, fractured, and dysfunctional House of Saud.

I welcome your ideas, as I accept that many of you reject my ideas. The main point I hope to accomplish is focusing a white hot light on:
· Saudi funding and nurturing of mass murder gangs, and complicit involvement in 9/11;
· Bush shameless shielding of his "good friends" in the House of Saud, and why;
· And demanding disclosure and a much deeper investigation into these several interconnected issues.

Israel cleans enemies everywhere on the planet including in Iraq. You are also failing to recognize that assassination is only one of many available options I propose, and that the first approach should be diplomatic in nature, and combined with a mass marketing campaign detailing the facts and truths about Saudi funding and nurturing mass murder gangs, and complicit involvement with 9/11 and justifying redress with the same level of relentless political pressure used by Bush for more than a year to falsely hype and justify the Iraq war.

Following up on A.L.'s last comment, the US already has a long, bloody and checkered history of such activity and we all know America covertly "...supports secret kidnappings and executions of it's enemies abroad."

The curious little CIA debacle in Venezuala recently is good example.

The morality issues are hypocritical in light of your support of the slaughter and colonization in Iraq, against the wrong Muslims.

Criminals, rapists, child abusers, mass murderers anywhere (including royal families or religious organizations) must be defined, marked, and prosecuted as criminals and be subjected to the various repercussions for their crimes, including assassinations or executions. They have the option of surrender.

I do not support *war^ on moral grounds because the destruction and the costs are so huge and encompassing and simply not worth the price in blood and money, unless their is an imminent threat, or some extraordinary justification, which is not the case in Iraq.

I find the Pax Americana war agenda morally repugnant, and Bush's rightwingideologue empire ambitions both illegal, and patently un-American.

More nonsense, Tony. There is no "empire ambition". And no one can find any difference between your vague nonsensical "solutions" to terrorism and what you misleadingly refer to as "Pax Americana".

You claim that these nonexistant goals of President Bush are immoral and illegal and in the same post you endorse assassination. Your inability to write a single posting without contradicting yourself got old months ago.

And of course you have nothing on which to base your claim that the aborted Venezuelan coup was CIA run.

In reply to Tony's recent comment: (I'll respond to the next one later)

"We hold many common opinions Dan Darling, but in answer to your inquiry, if Iraq was actually dealing with al Queda in terms of arms, intelligence, or WMD, this would weigh heavily on my decision making. I would strike at specific targets and any imminent threat."

My basic opinion is one of the same. As I said, most of the accusations of distorted intel are directed towards the question of WMDs and the like. As I said, I have yet to hear a definitive explanation that accounts for all of Zarqawi's activities and yet explains away the administration's position on the intelligence. I'm not going to sound off on all of the data linking Iraq to al-Qaeda (scroll up, I think that somebody made a pretty good start), there's too much of it.

I also agree with you that one should strike at the targets concerned. In February 2003, Collin Powell went before the UN and basically laid out the entire al-Qaeda connection (and according to Newsweek, while he disagreed with much of the information that he was initially intended to present he agreed wholeheartedly with the final product) for the world to see. If Saddam had any sense in hell he would have immediately conducted an internal probe, tossed the 1993 WTC suspect to the dogs, and had the streets run red with the blood of every al-Qaeda operative in Baghdad, including folks like Shakir. Whether he was involved with al-Qaeda prior to that or not, he should have almost certainly conducted an internal probe to see whether or not these people who were supposedly vehemently opposed to his regime were operating freely in Iraq. Instead, we get warnings from the CIA published in the NYT that al-Qaeda has cells set up in Baghdad, Mosul, and Irbil - the first two cities under tight Baathist control. Shakir and Abdul Rahman Yassin continued to live and operate freely, as did the Zarqawi deputy who was arrested by the US in Baghdad in mid-April 2003.

This leads to one of my core judgements, namely that the only thing that could convince Saddam Hussein not to associate with and assist al-Qaeda was the downfall of his regime and removal of his power base. CIA and Special Forces attacks, airstrikes, and the like are all ultimately irrelevant so long as Iraq was able to continue providing support to people who would do the United States irreversible harm if they had only the means to do so. They had tried to kill hundreds (thousands?) of people in Europe between November and January. Those plots were thwarted, thank God, just like Oplan Bojinka was during the mid-1990s. But just because Bojinka was thwarted didn't make it go away - witness 9/11. We cannot allow ourselves to make that kind of a mistake again ever and I think that there's an imminent threat if you should desire one, entirely apart for the question of Iraqi WMDs.

"There is much soothsaying and prognostication, and Herculean acts of mental gymnastics on the part of Bush defenders imagining or conjuring some justification, or explanation for Bush policies and agenda with regard to Iraq - but Bush has no plan, no accounting, and if an objective exists, - it's end is kept guarded, cloaked, and secret."

Rhetoric aside, the Bush plan is fairly straight-forward in regard to his policies in Iraq and how it relates to the war on terror. Powell laid most of that out at the UN back in February 2003. The problem is that the media was so caught up in such things as the ins and outs of the Franco-American feud of a uni versus a multipolar world, Hans Blix, UNMOVIC, and the search for a "smoking gun" that the substance of the case got lost - something I think that the administration was actually quite happy to have occur as it allowed their main detractors to focus all of their attention on WMDs that any number of them had made a great many embarrassing statements upon in years past.

"First, I never said the intelligence was valid, I said there 'may' have been contacts, and mere contacts do not rise to the level of threat severity warranting an invasion and occupation."

My apologies then, I just interjected Representative Goss's opinion from the article you linked to at the onset of the comment thread and assumed that you agreed with it. No, contacts do not rise to the level of an invasion - but you have to admit that isn't it a little disturbing to find any sovereign nation in talks with the most ruthless terrorist network on the planet? Talks don't rise to the level, but they are still indefensible. OTOH, training al-Qaeda operatives in chemical warfare, providing sanctuary and safe harbor, providing quick transit, allowing money to change hands - all of this in a totalitarian police state - somebody remind me what the Taliban's crimes were again ...

"The entire Zarqawi al Answar link is suspect to me, because their bases were in Northern Iraq in the no fly zones, and well within American striking power. If these threats were so serious, and Zarqawi was posing an imminent threat - why did Bush not poof his bases before the war, as effortlessly as we did during the war?"

I have several analyses on this subject that document Zarqawi as plotting from well outside of northern Iraq. The US backed the PUK against Ansar al-Islam before the war, but the Ansar were too tough for the Kurdish peshmerga to handle. The other reason is that Ansar was essentially a replaceable entity and the whole al-Qaeda WMD operation could easily be moved to another location that would be even more difficult to locate and disrupt (like the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia or Somalia or Ein al-Hilweh in Lebanon). There are also political problems to deal with in that Ansar al-Islam was backed by Komala Islamiyyah, which sent annual tribute to the PUK. Any operation against Ansar al-Islam had to include going after Komala (which we did during the war), but that would require far more than a CIA or special forces operation. You think the Iraqi garrisons at Mosul were planning on sitting back and letting US forces mass in their country?

"No credible intelligence exists linking Iraq to al Queda in any meaningful way. Zarqawi and Al Answar were pro Palestinian terrorists, and were once removed not and directly attached to either either Iraq or al Queda."

Again, read my analyses and you can see a refute of both contentions entirely apart from the Iraq link that you find so distasteful. Zarqawi is a high-ranking leader within al-Qaeda who runs his own mob the same way that all the big boys within the network do. He also gives marching orders to affiliate groups in Libya, Jordan, Chechnya, Algeria, and other parts of the world. To claim that he doesn't directly work for bin Laden is also put to lie by a recent article in the Washington Post explaining how he had regular meetings with al-Qaeda military commander Saif al-Adel in Iran before and after the war in Iraq.

"Again, we can circle around all day and night, and you can dis my links, and I can dis yours, - but the only way we can know for certain is by demanding disclosure, investigation, and review. Why would Bush refuse this request if he did not have something to hide?"

Because he thinks that any such an inquiry will become a political bully pulpit for people like Bob Graham? I agree that an investigation is needed to clarify matters (if nothing else, you and I should be able to agree that we need accurate intel to fight this war), but the willingness of many individuals to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot to lie to the American public in order to achieve economic or corporate enrichment tends to put to lie pretenses of objectivity on this subject.

"Why would the Bush administration out an agency operative to punish Joe Wilson for speaking the truth? This despicable crime and act of treason deserves investigation and review, and of course we all know herr Ascroft will never allow an investigation or review - but the crime will not be forgotten. Trust me."

The Wilson situation will be investigated, either by the Justice Department or some other presumably competent entity and we should all know its findings as soon as they are completed and made available to the general public. I would also point out that Wilson is hardly an objective observer in this matter - he has conceded to dissimulation before on ABC's "Today Show" and has at least one axe to grind against the Bush administration if his articles in The Nation are any indication. Again, this doesn't mean what was done to him is correct or that his claims are untrue - but it is something to keep in mind here.

"Again Ron, for me - an airy Saddam/al Queda link would come nowhere close to justification for a war and invasion and occupation of Iraq. I would support and cruise missile attack, or a Task Forst 20 operation, but a war is a waste of time blood and money, and overkill."

Bill Clinton's primary rationale for the cruise missile strike on the al-Shifa facility in Sudan because it was believed to have ties to both al-Qaeda and Emad Husayn Abdullah Ani, the father of the Iraqi VX program. You can read a defense of this judgement in "The Age of Sacred Terror" which you should be able to find at any bookstore. I am agnostic as to the nature of the claim, but my point is that if the administration intelligence was accurate, the formula of percision strikes and special forces operations had failed to deter al-Qaeda and Iraq from their collaboration in the chemical weapons area. The Ansar al-Islam enclaves at Sergat and Khurmal (though Khurmal they controlled in concert with Komala Islamiyyah) were underground facilities located in hamlets that were protected by a force of between 800 to 1,200 fanatical defenders (though reports were that this number may have gone up to 2,000 according to the UK Daily Telegraph). We fired 50 cruise missiles at them during the first night of the war and their facilities survived both the initial strike and subsequent attacks to be captured by US and Kurdish forces.

The problem is that we are so used to viewing these people through the lens of their Bronze Age mentalities to recognize just how damnably cunning that they can be on a practical level. More to the point, any such operation would ultimately be futile because it would be a band-aid solution to the problem, just like Bill Clinton's was in 1998 if his intel was accurate on al-Shifa. As long as Ansar al-Islam and Komala Islamiyyah were still intact, the network would simply regenerate again, get more assistance from the Iraqis, and start the whole process all over again. And sooner or later, they would succeed in one of their plots in Europe and we would be talking about hundreds if not thousands dead. The crop duster imagery comes to mind once again - and keep in mind that one jihadi with a sufficient quantity of chemical or biological weapons in one of those could kill as many if not more civilians than US bombs ever did in Iraq.

I'll respond to your next post as soon as I have the time.

It probably wasn't CIA run. If the CIA had run it, it's reasonable to assue that Chavez would be dead just like Allende and our problems there would be much less serious now.

Re: the "targeted killings" strategy as the only strategy of force... Option #2. I think the best way to describe that one is "all the downsides of war (except for fiscal cost), with none of the benefits." The ultimate chimerical example of war on the cheap - and it would be very cheap indeed if you insist on better intelligence than we had in Iraq.

Reality is that the world doesn't usually give that to you. Which means, Tony, that in practice your prescription would be implemented as "do nothing".

If you're truly serious about making a dent, the USA would need to run targeted assasinations, regularly, and run more of them on the money men. After all, they're people with soft lifestyles and lots to lose. They're more likely to let fear modify their behaviour than a trained jihadist terrorist is. Further to that point, you'd need to run them on a probable cause basis, rather than full criminal standards which are deeply unrealistic in these situations.

Put all that together, and you could indeed make a real dent in the Saudis' network. Screw around with B.S. like ridiculous standards of proof, and all you accomplish is giving the Saudis both a free pass and one more reason to laugh at you.

Note that this approach will have costs and risks. The USA will lose operatives: soldiers, intel agents - and some will be arrested, too. Expect that up to 50% of the initial missions will fail, and 20% will fail badly. Building this capability takes time, and the U.S. is not good at it right now. Indeed, compared to professionals like the KGB/Bulgarians and Mossad, it has never been really good. There could be publicity and diplomatic backlashes along the way, of a kind that will make world headlines and stir up anti-American sentiment abroad. The Israeli experience with these has not been an unbroken success by any means. So - either the USA and folks like you need to be prepared to tough that out, accept that, and publicly back this strategy if confronted with it in the press - or you'd need to stop pretending this is an option and adopt another strategy.

Those are the costs if you want to use this approach on the Saudis. Are you willing to accept them?

None of that works for state sponsorship of terror, however. Which is where your argument goes from bad (ineffective) to worse (lets them off the hook).

To Dan Darling,

Early on, you wrote the following...

"The Saudi role in formenting terrorism against Western interests is largely in the ideological/financial department - not the armament, training, and WMD expertise. Iran and Sudan provide the latter, and Iraq until recently the former. More to the point, the vast majority of al-Qaeda's leadership isn't in Saudi Arabia - they're in Iran."

Where is your proof of any Iraqi training facilities? If you mean the group (I forget the name) that was based in the North, they operated under the protective umbrella of the "NO FLY zone" set up after the first gulf war. There has never been any proven links to Saddam.

About the Saudi's, they are undeniably a source for funding. If you want proof, State has a canceled check from the wife of the Saudi foreign minister that flowed directly into one of the 9/11 hijackers account.

My problem with the Saudis as they relate to the Bush Administration is that Mr. Bush wants credit for "moral clarity" but is loathe to practice it anywhere other than Iraq. If you are "either with us or with the terrorists", where does that leave the Saudis? Sure there are other sources of funding available, just as there are other bases for Al Qaeda to operate out of other than Kabul.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't deal the the problem at hand. It is true this saudi problem is bipartisan. Bush isn't the first president to try and finesse this issue. He can't have it both ways however. Either his doctrine has meaning in the broader political landscape or it doesn't. If he cannot confront the threat that the Mullahs of Saudi Arabia pose, with a wink and a nod from the Royal Family, then his rhetoric about the war on terrorism cannot be called a doctrine.

We need to get serious about this problem. We may feel safer but it's an illusion. Just as a world at peace was an illusion before we were struck on 9/11. These guys are still out there, planning and scheming to cause us more heartache and anguish. The next time they strike, will we still be debating the cost of confronting the Saudi's? That's the wrong question. What will be the cost of NOT confronting them?

I've been to this site rather infrequently but it's obvious that you can't get away with defining an issue without also offering some solutions here so...

1). Prepare the American people to deal with an eventual disruption in Saudi oil. This won't be a hard sell. The hardships would be managable and this is the only real card the Saudi's can play.

2). Isolate them internationally. Offer assistance to other OPEC nations to encourage them to pick up any slack in Saudi production. Drive a wedge between the Saudi's and our allies.

3). Seek to destablize the Royal family's grip on
power in the kingdom. Find a Saudi Ahmed Chabali and give him similar support. Freeze any assets the House of Saud has in the U.S. and seek to get our European allies to help.

This may or may not be effective but I think they will get the message. At the very least, they will not be able to operate their two-faced game
so easily. It would also send the message to other regimes in the region that our strengths are not strictly military. We can effectively use our
financial and political clout to make life miserable for those that would harm us.

Nick Foresta

Cool, Nick actually proposes that we support Bin Laden's attempt to destabilize the Saudi royal family.

I'm astonished at the bizarre "solutions" the Foresta clan comes up with.

Outstanding comments Dan, Joe, and Nick. I am revisiting the Irag/al Queda links with an open mind. You know my stance thus far on the existing intelligence, as well as the natural ideological aversion the two mass murder gangs hold, but your insistance compells a deeper "investigation".

Again, it is more the hot light and the discussion ways to neutralize the Saudi threats that concerns me, - then specific tactics, which I admit will require the expertise of individuals far more qualified than I. We do agree though that a problem exists, it deserves a much closer look, and that is not happening yet.

I would also answer Joe, that every available option is open. That, we have to accept responsibilities for our actions mo matter what they are, and it is my belief that there are options, (many of which have been brought to light in this thread) that would be far less costly and bloody than invasions, occupations, and nationbiulding. America can adapt to the changing threat environments and still hold true to the guiding principles upon which this country was founded and which we all defend.

Finally, Robins hysterical blindness aside, the Project for the New American Century, otherwise known as the Pax Americana war agenda, is no conspiracy, and is in the opinion of many of us, - the exact agenda Bush is advancing.

what exactly is wrong with a new century in which the ideals and spirit and freedom and prosperity of america are ascendant?

would you have rathered a plan for a new soviet century?

or maybe a plan for a new chinese totalitarian technocrat century?

how about a plan for a new frankenreich century?

or better yet, a plan for lilliputian-utopian global hegemony... er... i mean a new united nations diplobrat dominated century?

Tony,
What do you see as the ulitmate conclusion that Bush is advancing? Assume that ALL his evil 'Pax Americana' plans succeed, then what does the world look like? Will it be the Americans as morlocks versus the rest of humanity as Eloi? What exactly is this dark vision of the future that you see?

The proof is in the pudding. The anti-Saudi Arabia position was used to characterize the neocons as expansionist nuts, bent on empire. What, you don't remember that whole thing with the Defense Policy Review Board briefing calling SA an enemy of the US? You don't remember the hot water that Richard Perle got into for it?

• Iraq is the tactical pivot
• Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot
• Egypt the prize

Hmmm, almost sounds like a center of gravity....

First to Tony and then to Nick.

Tony:

"The curious little CIA debacle in Venezuala recently is good example."

And given Chavez's apparent support for FARC (you'll see a UPI link on my last Winds of War) and the Venezuelan protests it would seem that the demise of Comrade Hugo would hardly be a controversial one. Of course, Militares Democraticos had stuff to that effect up on their website over a year ago but it was all dismissed as Venezuelan right-wing paranoia.

"I do not support *war^ on moral grounds because the destruction and the costs are so huge and encompassing and simply not worth the price in blood and money, unless their is an imminent threat, or some extraordinary justification, which is not the case in Iraq."

I tend to agree and my religion demands nothing less - though it places the moral responsibility for coming to such conclusions on those policy-makers who have access to the relevant information by which to base such decisions. The difference is that I feel the criteria for these items was fullfilled in Iraq and the removal of a brutal dictator (we can all agree on this) was an extremely beneficial side-effect.

"I find the Pax Americana war agenda morally repugnant, and Bush's rightwingideologue empire ambitions both illegal, and patently un-American."

I am against the concept of American imperialism on the simple grounds that I don't think our society can accomodate such a project (re: Niall Ferguson) for better or worse; we don't have the collective national will. OTOH, any ulterior motives on Bush's part are IMO immaterial to the question of whether or not Iraq posed a material threat to the United States. The US actions against the Barbary Pirates were in all likelihood conducted by people who took a dim view of Muslims and African civilization in general, but they were nonetheless able to remove a potent threat to US national security at the time.

However, I don't view occupying a nation with the stated intention of returning it to the vanquished as being akin to imperialism. A real imperialist society would have annexed Iraq in toto, handed direct control and ownership of the Iraqi oil fields over to the US government, put every imam or ayatollah who questioned the occupation to death, established or co-opted pro-US Muslim leaders and made sure that they were the only ones who were able to speak during Friday prayers. Every male inhabitant of Fallujah between the ages of 15 and 50 would have been shot, the children or younger brothers, or wives of every jihadi from Tikrit to Ramadi would be in US custody as an insurance policy, and the heads of Sadr and the Hakim brothers would be on pikes outside of Bremer's compound right next to those of Udai and Qusai. You want to run an empire, that is how you do it. Some folks may even argue that this general approach is the correct one, but that is how you run an imperialist enterprise - with an iron hand. I don't think it goes without saying that this isn't happening in Iraq.

"Where is your proof of any Iraqi training facilities? If you mean the group (I forget the name) that was based in the North, they operated under the protective umbrella of the "NO FLY zone" set up after the first gulf war. There has never been any proven links to Saddam."

The PUK, which was Ansar al-Islam's principle opponent, begs to differ with you in that respect. However, the training I was referring to was that which took place at Salman Pak and other facilities formerly occupied by the Palestine Liberation Front. There have been numerous claims by Iraqi defectors that multi-national groups of Islamic extremists were being given training there and during the war a large number of foreign fighters were based in that general area. Moreover, multiple captured al-Qaeda detainees (including one Zarqawi deputy and a training camp commander in Afghanistan) have stated that they received training in the manufacture of chemical weapons from Iraq with the understanding that they would be used against Western targets. There was likewise a CIA report quoted in the Washington Post in December 2002 that Iraq had sold VX to al-Qaeda. I can cite multiple sources and defectors for these type of allegations and each piece of evidence appears to fit into place with everything else that we know about al-Qaeda and Project al-Zabadi, the organization's WMD program.

"Outstanding comments Dan, Joe, and Nick. I am revisiting the Irag/al Queda links with an open mind. You know my stance thus far on the existing intelligence, as well as the natural ideological aversion the two mass murder gangs hold, but your insistance compells a deeper 'investigation.'"

Good luck with that. One thing I would note, however, is that the whole ideological differences claim has never held a lot of water given that there is indisputable proof of a link between al-Qaeda and Iran and the blood feud between the Shi'ites and the Wahhabis goes back over 200 years. If al-Qaeda can conquer that, then I would not under-estimate their ability to overcome the secular/religious divide.

Another point that comes to mind is that prior to his exile, al-Qaeda maintained an extremely profitable relationship with Charles Taylor in Liberia. Now Taylor is a "Christian" (the same way that Saddam Hussein is a "Muslim") who has entertained such figures as Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson and his primary rebel opponents included a large number Muslims within their militias. Nevertheless, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, al-Qaeda's top man in East Africa, saw no ideological problem between aligning with a Christian dictator in order to enlist his help to the organization in obtaining diamonds and weaponry on the international markets. If one is to believe LURD (the Liberian rebels), the formerly Liberian-backed western rebels in the Ivory Coast are an al-Qaeda trained affiliate organization. This is one of the reasons why I am of the opinion that the dimensions and borders of this war go far beyond Dar al-Islam.

"Again, it is more the hot light and the discussion ways to neutralize the Saudi threats that concerns me, - then specific tactics, which I admit will require the expertise of individuals far more qualified than I. We do agree though that a problem exists, it deserves a much closer look, and that is not happening yet."

I think our difference is probably one of conclusions on the evidence at hand. My own opinion is that the administration is working in an incremental (spelling?) method to reduce the threat posed by al-Qaeda as an organized force that can strike at the West with WMDs rather than conventional terrorist attacks. If you accept the intelligence as it was presented as accurate (and I understand you don't, but just bear with me here) I think that this is the logical conclusion that one comes to apart from the question of WMDs.

Removal of the Iraqi regime, combined with the loss of key commanders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Tawfiq Attash Khallad put the organization very much on the defensive. Because the intended counter-attack to the Iraq war (the chemical plots in Europe and bombings in SE Asia) died on the table, the organization was forced to devise an improvised counter-offensive in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Chechnya. These attacks have very much compromised the infrastructure in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Salafi Jihad has been thoroughly dismantled and over 600 operatives are now in Moroccan custody - they'll never be able to harm anyone ever again. The consequences of the Riyadh bombings have been even more costly - over 200 operatives lost and key commanders like Ali Abd al-Ghamdi and al-Ayyeri captured or dead. More to the point, the issue of the Iran-based leadership has now been brought to the forefront and the Iranians are working themselves overtime in their doubletalk until they have their own version of the bomb. The most recent loss of Hanbali has further weakened their operations in SE Asia, as has the capture of the students intended to serve as Jemaah Islamiyyah's next generation of leaders.

What is my point to all of this? The events of the Iraq war have sent the global terror network into disarray. The Saudi threat is still there, as is the Iranian one - but my point is that al-Qaeda is losing far more of its foot soldiers fighting in Iraq (and yes, the war there did assist the group in its recruiting efforts, but there are still only so many would-be jihadis and only so many places to train them).

My basic opinion is that the best way to neutralize the al-Qaeda network is to start focusing more on where the organization has been endeavoring to regroup. Knocking out the training camps is every bit as important as knocking out the leadership and those camps are still open in Somalia, Sudan, Georgia, and the southern Philippines. That fact needs to change. So does the Saudi funding and the Pakistani tolerance of all the folks who don't give a rat's ass about Kashmir but think that India would make a nice piece of the global caliphate, ect, ect.

The problem is that you can't accomplish all of this at once. If we could, US forces would have attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, the Ferghana Valley, Chechnya, Mindanao, Georgia, Liberia, Burkina Faso, Margarita Island, Ein al-Hilweh, Sulawesi, the Triple Border, the Allied Democratic Forces enclave in the Congo, Saudi Arabia, and at least three provinces in northern Yemen. You want to deliver a coup de grace to the network, that would pretty much do it. The problem is that we can't for a number of reasons, so you take things step by step to accomplish the same eventual goal. This is what I see Bush as having done since 9/11 and I could care less whether he's following the NAC agenda, the Bible, Left Behind, or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You remove those threats and you make sure that civilization wins this fight so that all of us right-wingers and left-wingers to squabble over the planet. I also don't think of this as a partisan issue as Bayh, Biden, and Lieberman at least seem to understand what we're up against. Hope that helps to clarify my perspective.

I agree with each of Nick Foresta's 3 points (how about that?) - if they're done at the right time.

1). Prepare the American people to deal with an eventual disruption in Saudi oil....

Yes. This would happen after I've quietly built up both the strategic reserves to cushion the blow, and we have alternative energy research that's beginning to pay off in at least some "wins". Americans will stay the course - but only if they see encouraging signs so they know it isn't useless. Hmmm... isn't Bush topping up the strategic reserve? Wasn't there a $1.5Bn set aside for alternative energy research in the last State of the Union?

Based on activities to date, suggestion #1 could well be an agenda item in 2006. The ingredients for success aren't there before then. Whether the inheritor is Bush or a Democrat, we'll see.

2). Isolate them internationally. Offer assistance to other OPEC nations to encourage them to pick up any slack in Saudi production. Drive a wedge between the Saudi's and our allies.

That seems to be happening in Iraq, interestingly enough.

You don't really want to make this a public campaign too soon, and in fact what you really want to do is weaken OPEC in toto given the Saudis' clout there. Plus, you want to create another pole for the various smaller members of OPEC to coalesce around - because Hugo Chavez is actually the most bothersome member of OPEC, and would back the Saudis to the hilt, and that's a tough combination.

Hmm, Developing Russia as an alternative source? Check. Lots of exploration in West Africa's Gulf of Guinea (Mauritania et. al), which we covered here? Check. Both will have interests that conflict with the Saudis? Check. Both either non-OPEC or not strongly so? Check.

Meanwhile, Iraq is a natural counter-pole for many of the Gulf Emirates once it gets going - and they have strong motivations to produce a lot and chisel on any OPEC production caps because they need to rebuild. Bring down the Iranians from within, and they'll have similar motivations. Iraq + the Emirates alone is interesting, Iraq + Iran = a full check move on the Saudi king.

And as I look at this scenario, why would I need to publicize any of it? In fact, I'd probably deny it the whole way until it was a fait accompli. That way, when the Saudis et. al. rave about it, they just sound paranoid.

America should be like the Chesire Cat in this scenario - utterly invisible, except for its ear to ear grin.

3). Seek to destablize the Royal family's grip on power in the kingdom. Find a Saudi Ahmed Chabali and give him similar support. Freeze any assets the House of Saud has in the U.S. and seek to get our European allies to help.

This must be the last phase, after #1 and #2 are executed. Otherwise, the situation can easily spiral out of control and then we really may have to put boots on the ground in Islam's "Holy Nation" to secure the oil wells, or sit back and see them destroyed or seized by a fundamentalist counter-revolution. THAT'S a crappy set of choices.

Besides which, the Europeans are not allies, and will not help. The French have a positive and determined preference for dealing with dictators, and so do many other Europeans. Recall, too, that Europe's economies suck, and it needs investment. That's a matter of political survival for many of the parties in power. If they think they can get that by crossing the USA and kissing the Saudis, expect Europe to give the Saudi princes the full deep throat treatment.

So do this - but this is your checkmate move, not your opening. If everything else there is going to hell on camelback there and colluding with the Saudi regime is obviously a wasted effort, Europe will take America's lead to curry favour with the potential new regime rather than put itself on the outs later by taking the royals' side. Or at least they'll stay neutral, which is good enough. That's the minimum required for this last move to work.

This is how it all works in practice. Timing matters. In strategy, it's one of the top determinants of success. Just because you can't see obvious signs, doesn't mean nothing is happening. Of course, you may be right. Maybe nothing is happening. Point is, you can't really know.

So the question becomes a different one... Is America, broadly speaking, making the kinds of preparatory moves that would allow some future Presidential term to set options like this in motion? Are people right (i.e. the neocons) and left (Tony & Nick are examples, and I've seen others) beginning to grok that the Saudis are 2-faced non-friends with or without President Bush's encouragement?

What I see is yes, and yes. Which means I sleep well at night. Because as long as those 2 things are true, Saudi comeuppance is a matter of when, not if.

Meanwhile, I'd back a targeted assassination strategy. Don't think the Democrats would, though - in fact, they'd be the first to point fingers and threaten trials first time something became public. It's a pattern we've seen from them very consistently over the last 25 years (Tony, Nick - do you see any signs the Dems "get it" enough to do a full 180 and back something like this? If so, point me to them).

Sooo... guess that leaves Plan B (preparation & patience) instead. Not my first choice, but we've gotta work with what we have, not what we wish.

I agree Joe with almost every point you detail above, however "...Plan B (preparation & patience) instead." is exactly the dynamic I want changed.

In fact because of the urgency resulting from the converging vectors of WMD and jihadist mass murderers total lack of restraint, - I believe it is a dynamic we may soon regret ignoring for so long.

After all the arguments and aired, and am left with exactly the same message.

"It is time to alter the course of American/Saudi relations."

Agreed.

that was perfect joe. totally right. cept id call it plan A, not plan B.

Tony,

I think we'll regret ignoring it too. But until the Democrats get it and are on board, you'll have no action on the ground, orders or no. No-one wants to be the sacrificial lamb for Sen. Byrd and Sen. Kennedy's grandstanding if things go wrong. Not to mention Howard Dean.

If you want targeted assassinations in the Saudi fundraising network, the folks you need to convince are on the left. Large sections of the right would go for the idea in a New York minute.

"What is wrong with a new century in which the ideals and spirit and freedom and prosperity of America are ascendant?"

Nothing.

But that is not the agenda Bush is implementing. That is the sell job, the subversive marketing, the boiler room pitch, the myth and disinformation rightwingideologues mass market to advance Empire, neverendingwar, colonization, usurpation of the government and wealth and resources of sovereign nations, and religious reformation.

Your description Dan of "A real imperialist society" up to the point where - "Every male inhabitant of Fallujah between the ages of 15 and 50 would have been shot, the children or younger brothers, or wives of every jihadi from Tikrit to Ramadi would be in US custody as an insurance policy, and the heads of Sadr and the Hakim brothers would be on pikes outside of Bremer's compound" - is precisely, exactly what Bush has actually accomplished, in marked contradistinction mind you, from what he promised.

This is imperialist, predatory, illegal, visionary, completely unsustainable, and patently un-American activity and America will not tolerate this Pax Americana war agenda.

What I term as the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy, (who is above reproach and beyond any scrutiny or review, and never makes a mistake, or admits to any wrong doing, or accepts or offers any accountability), - in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary - is singularly focused on military, political, and economic power and has absolutely no concern for "...the ideals and spirit and freedom and prosperity." Their ends are much more narrow and narcissistic.

America cannot democratize nations militarily.

"What do you see as the ultimate conclusion that Bush is advancing?"

WORLD DOMINATION through overwhelming military superiority.

Blistering comment Blaster, thanks.

Joe sums it up best Dan, and you both offer great insight and compel deeper investigation:
("Is America, broadly speaking, making the kinds of preparatory moves that would allow some future Presidential term to set options like this in motion? Are people right (i.e. the neocons) and left (Tony & Nick are examples, and I've seen others) beginning to grok that the Saudis are 2-faced non-friends with or without President Bush's encouragement?")

Many of you trust and defend Bush policies and agenda at least partly.

With respect, we disagree - and we are and will remain proud and loyal Americans sharing ultimately the same ends as you.

We however do not share blind unquestionable trust in this leadership, and we want disclosure, investigation, scrutiny, review, and ultimately accountability from Bush, with regard to -
* Saudi Arabia,
* the hyped WMD threats,
* the enormous afterthefact costs and bloodshed in Iraq,
* stonewalling of, and lack of cooperation with the 9/11 investigations,
* outing Joe Wilson’s wife,
* who framed the energy policy?
* why Halliburton is given a no bid blank check with at least 8 zeros,
* why Ken Lay is living in luxury and not on trial,
* why 3 million Americans have lost jobs,
* how tax cuts overtly favoring the super rich and .5 trillion dollar and growing deficits are fiscally responsible,
* why religious zealots and christian fundamentalist are being packed into the court system,
* why decorated veterans, longtime public servants, and our fellow Americans were savagely slimed as anti-American for asking legitimate and pertinent questions,
* why Bush has engorged the largest government in the history of America,
* why herr Ashcroft and herr Ridge are redefining the Bill of Rights, and who gave them that right,
- and many many other terribly important and quite critical questions?

Bush created a very large and rowing "credibility gap".

We hold absolutely zero trust in anything Bush does or says, and we have many serious critical questions that never get answered and are relentlessly swept off the radar, and mounting abundant evidence warranting investigation, review, and accountability on several issues, including, but hardly not limited to, shielding the duplicitous "good friends" in the House of Saud and the topic of the original article.

We demand disclosure, accountability and a change of agenda.

"If you want targeted assassinations in the Saudi fundraising network, the folks you need to convince are on the left. Large sections of the right would go for the idea in a New York minute."

According to documents recovered from the IIRO in Bosnia and UN findings, al-Qaeda's global finances are controlled and managed by at least a dozen key Saudi financiers that are known within the organization as "the Golden Chain." The main reason why the P-Tech offices were raided up in Massachusetts lies with the fact that the company was owned by Yassin al-Qadi, a member of the Chain. The same Bosnian documents also make reference to "the bin Laden brothers," which would tend to put to lie that Osama's family isn't involved in his terrorist operations. Then there is also the matter of Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, bin Laden's brother-in-law who bankrolled both Oplan Bojinka in the mid-1990s and the Bali bombing. I can go on to name several others, including Sheikh Saiid al-Masri, who are still at large.

My point is that while House Saud donates to and provides support to al-Qaeda, it does not control the network's finances, some of the most powerful men in global business do. Just something to consider when you start talking about assassinating these people.

"But that is not the agenda Bush is implementing. That is the sell job, the subversive marketing, the boiler room pitch, the myth and disinformation rightwingideologues mass market to advance Empire, neverendingwar, colonization, usurpation of the government and wealth and resources of sovereign nations, and religious reformation."

I explained before why I do not believe that the US is engaged in any of this - if it were I would oppose it. I think the claim of a never-ending war is also exceedingly wrong-headed because it turns very real warnings about a long-term conflict against an enemy whose stated goal is the annihilation of our civilization into a cynical exercise to control the masses. The other claims likewise rest, IMO, upon similarly shaky grounds.

You also go on to state after reciting my description of a real imperialist venture in Iraq would look like:

"... is precisely, exactly what Bush has actually accomplished, in marked contradistinction mind you, from what he promised."

This is demonstrably untrue. The male inhabitants of Fallujah are alive and well and are able to rant against us on a regular basis every time we go in to take away their arms caches. Sadr is still alive, as is the younger Hakim, and both are free to express their views and even organize protests demanding the US withdrawl from Iraq. The bodies of Udai and Qusai were not transformed into a monument to the superiority of the coalition, nor are their heads on pikes outside of Bremer's compound. These are not subtle distinctions to be made, nor is the fact that the US has the stated intention of leaving Iraq ASAP - something that no colonial nation would ever claim.

"This is imperialist, predatory, illegal, visionary, completely unsustainable, and patently un-American activity and America will not tolerate this Pax Americana war agenda."

I explained before that I do not, and I feel that I am about as right-wing as you'll find on the internet. Our nation cannot sustain an empire for reasons of political culture and national will alone. But if those same aspects of our society can not afford to react to an imminent threat then we are in a great deal of trouble indeed.

"America cannot democratize nations militarily."

No, you can't. However, you can remove a regime that maintained an alliance with an entity whose stated goal is our extermination and in the process of doing so create the conditions wherein a nascent democratic society or constitutional monarchy or whatever the Iraqis want has a chance to form. The difference is that unlike before, they now have a voice in determining their future.

"WORLD DOMINATION through overwhelming military superiority."

Were that the case, US moves to date have been rather odd. A real imperial society would have annexed Afghanistan and placed under full military rule ... thereby negating the current situation in regards to the warlords. Iraq would similarly have been annexed and the coup in the Philippines supported to give us a foot-hold there. The current US forces in Yemen and Georgia wouldn't be assisting its governments, they'd be plotting their overthrow to replace them with eventual pro-US leaders who would serve to facilitate their eventual incorporation into Pax Americana. US foreign policy is many things, but it is hardly consistent with imperialism in this day and age.

At the end of the day, I think that you and I share many common values and even many common goals as far as the survival of the United States as a viable political entity goes. And if nothing else, that is at least a start.

I am not George Bush, but I will be more than happy to address at least some of your concerns later today.