This agrees in large part with what I've been saying for some time. We cannot afford to take on Saudi Arabia in any seriously confrontational way until we have other options. In fact, the removal of our military personnel from Saudi Arabia may, just may, have gone too far.

It's difficult to judge how much we are propping up the general economy of the country. I suspect that most of the "ordinary" people are getting by on their own subsistance efforts, the money that the pilgrims bring in, and Western spending in the Kingdom. Much of the wealth of the House of Saud is abroad.

I wrote Fixing Saudi Arabia on May 15. In it I wrote "Saudi Arabia's nuclear weapon is the trillions of dollars that it has, right now, at the disposal of the Princes." Provoked, seeking revenge, coupled with a willingness to go broke to obtain that revenge is a House of Saud that I would not like to face.

" did not come back with a liking for either country or culture, frankly"

Not surprising. Israel has many virtues, but its culture is famously abrupt (some folks use the term "rude"). Other comment most frequently heard: "you don't go there for the food."

I think Israel is like, Martha Stewart's worst nightmare. Some call that a flaw. I call it a feature.

Excellent post - thank you for throwing the spotlight back onto the economic and realpolitik aspects of our cultural anti-jihad.

Terrific post. I've emailed the link to my friends and family. I appreciate the hard work that went into your thoughtful and convincing essay and I hope you will post here again.

Please forgive the long post.

You make strong points Robin Burk, and perhaps the best approach will be found somewhere between my preference for immediate redress of the Saudi funding machinations, and your more tempered and long term approach to solving the terrorist problems.

First, I have no direct experience in the middle east. I do travel in Israeli circles here in New York, and have a very good friend (Druse) from Lebanon, - all my analysis is based on relatively extensive research and instinct, but I have not been in the region. I would love to go.

Eliminate the WMD factor from the mix, and there are many more options and much more time. The world, and the Bush administration is successfully dismantling the jihadist networks now through the very kind of police actions I propose, and if given enough time, I am confident these gangs of mass murderers will eventually be vanquished completely. Yet, do we have enough time?

Time is the dread concern. The jihadist mass murderers, particularly al Queda, WILL access and deliver a WMD event to a theater near you sometime soon if we let them.

My *initial" approach is targeted at the funding supporting these gangs to prevent anyone of them from acquiring a deliverable weapon. If such an event were to occur in the US, or Europe the economic impact alone would be catastrophic to the nation, and the world and it is this grave threat that compels my call for immediate action.

I do not see Bush addressing the Saudi’s in any meaningful way presently.

Doing nothing, or continuing on the same political trajectory is in my opinion a recipe' for disaster. America must move quickly to neutralize this singular and unholy threat. Eliminate the WMD factor, and as I stated in my essay, the jihadist mass murderers will be reduced to packs of sexually repressed religious fanatics throwing stones.

The Saudi "oil weapon" used with devastating impact in the 1973 oil embargo drives American Middle East policy. We both accept and recognize this reality. Without delving into the incestuous interpenetrating relationships with the Bush family, the oil and energy cartels, and the House of Saud, - the larger issue centers on how America can counter this weapon. I view simply recognizing its' existence as defeatist, and propose an altering of US/Saudi relations.

America cannot be held ransom by the threat of the "oil weapon" and must make every effort to neutralize that threat. I believe this is not happening fast enough because certain American interests profit obscenely from the status quo, and do not want the dynamic altered for singular and narcissistic interests. This agenda may have been acceptable prior to 9/11, but it is no longer possible to tolerate oil and energy profits dictating policy and agenda.

I hold a few assumptions that I believe support my approach. You point out the size of the royal family, (30,000 members by sources) and that correctly as I linked in my article the royal family is rife with divisions and internal conflicts. The Faustian arrangement the Saudi royals have with jihadists affords the House of Saud immunity from the harsh and primitive oppression of sha'ria and wahabism, by paying the depraved wahabi imams a king’s ransom, financed by American petro dollars.

Does the House of Saud actually support wahabism, or are they simply cutting a deal to remain in power, and suppress the Saudi citizenry?

Are there elements in the House of Saud who are willing to work with America, (and I fear a serious conflict of interest exists with Bush particularly) - toward cutting off the funding of jihadist mass murder gangs?

Does greater Islam truly support and seek jihad?

The redress of Saudi Arabia as you point out is a very complex matter. My fiery rhetoric and the promise of American military response clouded the central message, - that the Saudi funding of mass murder gangs must stop, and every available diplomatic and political approach must be exhausted to achieve this singular objective. War must be the LAST RESORT option, but the certainty of that fact must also be well understood by all parties.

I think the primary divide we hold, and I see you basically supporting most of what I suggest in my essay with subtle changes in tactics and timeframes - concerns this line in your conclusion.

"Fasten your seat belts - it will be a long, tempestuous ride for the next 10-20 years."

I disagree. My appreciation of the current WMD vectors convinces me that America does not have 10-20 years before something truly horrible is delivered to a US city.

We must crush this enemy now and completely. There are many complex issues involved in this conflict.

1) The simple message is that any nation, organization, or individual aiding and abetting jihadist mass murderers and terrorism will be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. That message does not involve invasion and occupation, or militarily enforced democratization or religious reformation of sovereign nations or peoples. Military action must truly be “the last resort” option for all parties, particularly America.

2) Islam is ripe for delegitimizing the jihadist’. If individual mass murderers and the depraved perversions of wahabism and the jihadist can be isolated, distanced, divorced, or decapitated from greater Islam, Muslims the world over will have the opportunity and the religious duty to choose either the protean perversions, malignant depravity, and bloodthirsty insanity the wahabis’ and jihadist proselytize, - or evolve a more tolerant, progressive, peaceful, and ultimately prosperous Islam.

3) Americans must also make a choice.

America can support the deceptive, predatory, exceedingly bloody and costly, woefully misguided horribly mismanaged, crony capitalist, fundamentalist Christian Pax Americana war agenda of rightwingideologues in the Bush oligarchy – or America can demand a change of agenda and pursue internationalized, less predatory, and more intelligent policies and responses to thwart the real jihadist threats confronting America. link

Ms. Burk,

This is a very informed reply and it is much appreciated. The middle east is, and probably always will be a difficult place for western interests but there are elements within the Saudi royal family that fund and export a vile brand of hatred towards the west that can no longer be overlooked in a post 9/11 world. Many who would argue that we should bear any burden and pay any cost to secure a democratic Iraq are quite willing to overlook the Saudi issue because....because it will cost a lot and the outcome is uncertain. The war in Iraq is tangential to our goal of defeating global terror. Certainly a more direct connection to the funding and support of Al Qaeda can be made with the Saudi's than has ever been made to Saddam's Iraq. Given that, why is it that we cannot confront the Saudi's in more indirect, non-military terms? For example, we can begin to identify and freeze the assets of Saudi individuals or organizations that fund the Madras' which turn out terrorists the way MIT turns out engineers. We can find and fund some opposition group either within or from outside the kingdom as we have done with Ahmed Chabali and his Iraqi National Congress. We can offer incentives to OPEC and NON-OPEC oil producers to pick up any slack in production that would result from a Saudi Oil imbargo. We should do all of this and do it very publicly so the message is recieved loud and clear. Maybe the Saudi royal family purges those within their ranks that we cannot tolerate and maybe they don't but we would have put them on notice that they will have to either adapt to a new relationship or lose our protective umbrella.
Sure, there are risks involved in this strategy but there are also risks involved in doing nothing about the Saudi problem. As we speak, Saudi money is funding those that hate us and wish to destroy us and training young minds to do the same. Cutting off that funding is of vital importance. We cannot claim to be serious about fighting a global war on terror if we are willing to give a pass to the chief fundraisers and recruiters of terrorism.

Nick Foresta

How appropriate that this should run on the same day as my Iran article, therefore. It would appear that we have a clear threat, from a country that arguably does more to fund & support jihadist terror than even Saudi Arabia, and which seems to be the new base of operations for a number of al-Qaeda bigwigs.

"all mankind must at least entertain - with sincerity and I fear urgency - alternate diplomatic and peaceful options, policies, and constructs, - and ultimately pursue a peace, rather than war agenda."

Diploacy and urgings to pursue peaceful paths of international verification have been tried. The result is an Iranian nuclear program that now appears close to fruition. With consequences as described in my article.

They do not have a peace agenda there. They never have. They believe, based on Saddam's example, that simulating that agenda may buy them enough time to finish their war agenda. Now what?

"The fundamentalist religious zealots perverted desire for world domination and never ending war will ultimately destroy the world."

Yes, this is very possible, at least for large parts of it anyway. But here the kicker, Tony... the fundamentalists in question may not be ours. And the only way to stop someone determined NOT to pursue peace remains war. Parts of the Iranian regime seem quite eager to not only have these weapons, but to use them. How do you propose to prevent that from happening without changing the regime of which they are a part?

Sometimes the world forces you to choose. Sometimes you don't get to arbitrarily "reject" options - unless you're prepared to see other things happen that are equally dire. The world is not a sitcom with scriptwriters in our employ, even at America's present level of power.

So... EITHER America doesn't have 10-20 years of cushion, OR America may entertain diplomatic policies, approaches and constructs that take years to work even with general agreement. But you can't have both.

You MUST choose. In Iran's case, your choice horizon may even be under a year.

Oh, and here's the kicker. Indicators currently point to an environment in which differing agendas make sufficient agreement for diplomacy to work unlikely. Your odds of success - because all the world ever gives you is odds, and not always even ones at that - would appear to be low with that approach. So what's Plan B if diplomacy fails? And when? And at what extra cost given the situation that will prevail at that point in time?

Before any of your suggestions can be accepted, these are questions that require answers.

It's the presence of detailed plans and the suggestion of concrete policies, scenarios and if...then alternatives, rather than vague general prescriptions for what ought to happen, that separates the serious, actionable analysis from stuff that isn't.

To Joe Katzman,

Now, a quick defense of Israeli food...

I have been to Israel on several occasions and I happen to like the food. At least the fruits and veggies. Some of my fondest memories of Israel revolve around the food. We ate a magnificent meal at a small restaurant on the Kineret where the grilled fish was the best I've ever had. I also enjoyed sitting along the beach at a cafe in Tel Aviv, eating Watermelon, Feta cheese and freshly roasted almonds and drinking turkish coffee. I live in NYC and can occasionally get my hands on an Israeli tomato. It is never a dissapointment.

Nick Foresta

Great comment Joe, but the Iran nuke problem actually supports my approaches, and proves the necessity of urgent redress. Iran is fully aware that any use of WMD on their part would be swiftly answered with “massive retaliation”, and Tehran would be reduced to vapor and glass.

Iranian nukes are a deterrent. More disturbingly Iranian nukes are a threat to America and a prized jewel Iran could sell to their pals in the jihadist mass murder gangs, like bin Laden who harbor no constraints.

How, and against whom would America retaliate if al Qeda or Hezbollah, or Hamas, or Jaama Islamaya attacked us with WMD. We must act to eliminate that threat. This ugly reality in no way alters my opinion that the Saudi “situation” must also be redressed. I personally (and my father gave his life to the Nuclear Weapons testing industry after 30 years work in the barren lands 125 miles North of Las Vegas) are not our most serious threat, - and that it is B and C W that present the most serious and immediate risk and concern.

My approaches include diplomacy, forceful political and economic redress, and striking at and rendering harmless any and every jihadist threat, regardless of where it may be found.

I agree that the Iranian nuclear program must be put down, and I would fully support a cruise strike tonight, targeting specific facilities to neutralize that threat.

If jihadist threats exist, America must destroy them. I believe we do not really have a choice.

However, Bush's brutish reckless hubris, predatory nationalism, and empire agenda are discediting and undermining America's credibility and support all over the world, and here in America, - and the does not provide for any venting or any avenue for the release of pressure. Islam must be afforded a way out and diplomatic options first.

My beliefs are based on two assumptions.

1) If greater Islam, for whatever reason - chooses jihad, the world is in for an exceedingly bloody and unstable future and the constant ominous threat of terrorism and neverendingwar.

2) I do not believe greater Islam will support the jihadist, and if given the diplomatic option of divorcing from and rejecting jihad, moderate or progressive and what I hope is greater Islam will choose a future of tolerance and peace.

The issues before us our complex, and I fully admit to not having all the answers, - but I know what is not working, what has turned most of the world against America, what is costing America dearly in blood and money, what has bogged a significant portion of our war fighting capabilities in a woefully misguided nationbuilding enterprise that is actually strengthening our enemies, and what is not being done to force an end to funding and nurturing jihadist mass murderers by Bush's "good friends" in the House of Saud.

Solutions are exceedingly complex and will require internationalized cooperation, intelligent pursuit and articulation of policy and agenda, and nuance statecraft - all necessities that preclude any involvement by the brutish Manichean rightwingideolouges in the Bush oligarchy.

Cut off the funds, exhaust all diplomatic efforts, eliminate specific threats, - and forget about the visionary rightwingideologue pipedream of the Pax Americana war agenda.

Freezing funds is somewhat helpful, but only if [a] the Saudis cooperate, not happening so far or [b] these funds can be positively traced (again hard, esp. without cooperation), or go through charities with counterparts in the USA (not often). The best that can be said is that we're trying this. You may have noticed that it hasn't been a booming success, but we'll keep trying.

We've also put the Saudis outside the protective umbrella. No U.S. troops there any more, and all that. A declaration would be nice, but I can't see it changing anything.

You could fund opposition groups, of course. Don't expect much cooperation on the madrassa funding front after that. Do expect economic countermeasures, too, while the Saudis cozy up to Europe - I believe Robin Burk noted this downside. Is America prepared for that? And with Europe working for its own interests, will the move accomplish anything? (hint: no) And unless you plan to invade or encourage a guerilla campaign of your own, they're unlikely to accomplish much with this opposition. So what did you give up, and what did you just get?

I've dealt with Nick Foresta's other suggestions (like OPEC), in the thread of Tony's original article. The OPEC suggestion is an exampe of doing publicly what should be done in the background so it will attract fewer countermoves. The point is not a message, it's removing Saudi economic power via OPEC over America.

So, all this stuff feels good, but does it work? Basically, no. The point about Israeli food, I'll give Nick. The rest I'm more than dubious about.

Now... Tony, did you read my post? It seems impossible that you did.

[a] Iran has openly stated that deterrence doesn't apply to it, or at least to certain factions within it. Your whole thesis about deterrence goes to smoke instantly there - but it does demonstrate tyour penchant for personal conviction over inconvenient facts.

[b] All diplomatic options have been tried on Iran, only thing not done in your prescription is "eliminate specific threats" (like what? Khameni and his supporters?). Result to date? None. Serious support from key players like Russia? Little to none, ambiguous words and no actions.

© You can't do cruise strikes on underground facilities. You may not even be able to use bunker-buster bombs, depending.

So what can you propose, then? Nothing. You mouth the platitudes of being eager to do something, but when the rubber hits the road the answer is "nothing." So we get to wait while Iran gets the bomb. While we hope a propaganda campaign will somehow depose the Saudis and prevent the Europeans from colluding with them.

Yeah, great priorities and strategy. Why am I glad you're not in charge of this war?

"striking at and rendering harmless any and every jihadist threat, regardless of where it may be found."

Uh huh. Which, conveniently, is never explained. Assassination? War? Bombing of enemy leaders we don't like? What? How?

These are, coincidentally, the same flaws upon which your Saudi analysis has foundered, and which Robin Burk has pointed out. Timing not thought through. Threats not prioritized. Prescriptions based on belief not evidence of effectiveness. Little appreciation for the dynamics of how international relations work in practice.

You don't earn the right to demonize your enemies until you clearly show that you really know what you're talking about and have thought the issues through. Otherwise, they aren't the ones looking silly at the end.

Tony, my head is really hurting now. You say:

"I agree that the Iranian nuclear program must be put down, and I would fully support a cruise strike tonight, targeting specific facilities to neutralize that threat.

However, Bush's brutish reckless hubris, predatory nationalism, and empire agenda are discediting and undermining America's credibility and support all over the world, and here in America, - and the does not provide for any venting or any avenue for the release of pressure. Islam must be afforded a way out and diplomatic options first."

Don't you see the contradiction in that?? You're proposing actions that are more unilateral, more reckless, more adventurous than anything Bush has done, and yet, somehow, you think that the world would look on it in a different way.

You want to immediately neutralize the Jihadis; great - how would that be different than war?

Help a brother liberal out here...

What am I missing that makes those two positions hang together?

A.L.

The critical difference A.L. is the realities of striking at and eliminating specific targets and threats, as opposed to invasion occupation, and subsequent nationbuilding enterprises.

Israel put Saddam out of nuclear business for a decade in 1981 with precisely the kind of strike I propose, and America spends more than 350bn tax payer dollars on defense, (or war making) and we better, and I trust we do - have tactical solutions to underground facilities.

You are not missing anything, A.L., Tony's position doesn't hang together - as I've repeatedly pointed out. And history has shown that you don't end WMD programs with air strikes. Tony once again creates the illusion of a "solution" when has nothing.

" I trust we do - have tactical solutions to underground facilities." We do, Tony, they are called nuclear weapons and I look forward to you justifying their use to "crush jihadis". Good lord.

Tony what you don't get is that there comes a point when a nation obtains real working nuclear weapons, and you run out of all solutions, even the "brutish reckless" ones you so naively sneer at.

Tony, I admire your faith in our intel and tech, but don't share it.

I think that we'd be lucky to eliminate 50 - 60% of the assets that way, and we'd kill a lot of innocent bystanders in the process...and aren't you the one who was unhappy about the collateral casualty figures??

So what you're proposing a) isn't likely to work; b) is likely to kill a bunch of innocent people; c) will feed the Jihadi machine as we fly over and blow shit up. Doesn't sound like a winning combination to me...

A.L.

Alas A.L. this is what we are already doing, only we have the added costly and bloody waste in Iraq, and shielding of the House of Saud.

If we discover threats, we target them and we eliminate them. Again, my approach would focus more intensity, but not singularly on the Saudi funding and nurturing machinations, and include everything we are already doing with the exception of the devolving quagmire in Iraq.

If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, the jihadist will have the ultimate bargaining tool, and they don't really bargain, and so "Houston we have a problem." I worry as well about Musharef and Pakistan being one bullet away from a jihadist nuke.

Jihadists are focused on destroying America, Israel, and all infidels. We must strike at this threat where ever it lucks, and by whatever means necessary, and immediately Joe, using every tool in the shed. . The invasion occupation, and resulting nationbuilding enterprises are extreme last resort options, and not necessary and efficient strategies countering and defeating the asymmetric 4th Generation Warfare jihadist threats to America, Israel, and the world.

Again military response should be the very last resort option, and every available diplomatic possibility must be initiated and exhausted. At the same time American and the world will continue vigorously hunting, capturing, or killing specific jihadist threats (as we are already doing with the help of our allies) and prosecuting global police actions against mass murderers and those that aid and abet them, for crimes against humanity.

We justified the dropping of two nuclear weapons on civilian populations - which supposedly saved American and Japanese lives, although I doubt the Japanese share that belief.

While I doubt the good Iranians in or around Tehran would feel any different than the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or Vegas for that matter which endured hundreds a blasts only 125 miles due north over the years, - after the blasts, - the hard reality is that we either kill the jihadist, or they kill us.

The critical quotient is a product of how many true jihadist are willing to die slaughtering infidels. You are jumping to the end of the story and leaping past the story itself, the epic struggle of the human heart, and the choice all mankind must face now between the diverging vectors of fundamentalism, domination pathologies, war, and destruction, - or a future of tolerance, liberty, and peace. Tolerance, liberty, and peace.

Lastly, your concern for collateral damage is touching, but ignores and justifies the many innocent Iraqis’ killed or maimed or injured by the war, that many of us view as deceptive and unnecessary.

Iraq is a deceptive war fought for the wrong reasons against the wrong Muslims, and it is extraordinarily costly and bloody for Americans, and most disturbingly, - fails completely to address the most imminent threat to America posed by those other Muslims, those jihadist freaks who seek jihad, world domination, and the blood of all infidels, - it is these jihadist freaks, and their royal generous enablers in the House of Saud that America and the world must destroy completely.

Conclusion:

America must change direction, before all hell breaks loose.

I'd like to propose some vocabulary that might be useful as we debate these issues. What I'm hearing in these threads is a huge confusion between levels and types of warfare, which contributes to our talking past one another.

Levels of warfare

Military analysts distinguish 3 levels of war: strategic, operational and tactical. To quote from some training materials: "The strategic level is that level at which a nation, often as one of a group of nations, determines national and multinational security objectives and develops and uses national resources to accomplish them. Strategy is the art & science of developing and employing armed forces and other instruments of national power in a synchronized fashion to secure national and multinational objectives. ... Military strategy, derived from policy, is the basis for all operations.

The operational level of war is the level at which major campaigns and major operations are conducted and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or areas of operations ... The focus at this level is on operational art -- the use of military forces to achieve strategic goals through the design, organization , integration and conduct of theater strategies, campaigns, major operations and battles ... a major operation is a series of tactical actions (battles, engagements, strikes) conducted by various combat forces of a single or several services, coordinated in time and place ...

Tactics is the employment of units in combat. It includes the ordered arrangement and maneuver of units in relation to each other, the terrain and the enemy in order to translate potential combat power into victorious battles and engagements."

It is critical to distinguish these levels. Tactics are deployed to effect operations. Operations are conducted to accomplish strategic objectives, which in turn are devised to carry out national policy. Thus, it is our policy to resist Islamacist terror. Our strategic objectives include: dismantle terror networks while minimizing the economic impact on the US and enhancing the transformation of the Islamic world into peaceful democracies. Major operations we've undertaken so far include: military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, intelligence and police actions to disrupt existing networks, financial and diplomatic action to disrupt funding flows to the networks. Tactics include: domestic and international "terror organization" lists with associated financial embargos, sharing intel and the arrest of cell members, Australian interception of North Korean drug smuggling ships, diplomatic pressure on e.g. Yemen to halt weapons smuggling into Iraq, etc. etc.

It is a truism that tactics do not accomplish strategic objectives. A given tactic may be useful, but only as part of sustained operations that themselves are part of larger strategic initiatives. Here is where I think Tony and many others have misunderstood how best to reach our goal of ending Islamacist terror. To do so requires broad strategic initiatives which will result in many operations, supported by a variety of tactics. Dealing with the Saudis is at best an operational level issue, not a strategic one.

Types of warfare
Traditional warfare pits the armed forces of one state against another. What we face today, however, is asymmetrical warfare. Asymetrical warfare challenges our armed forces with the sort of tactics we see in Iraq right now. Those who initiate asymmetrical warfare hope to use our very strengths against us, tieing down units through guerilla style attacks, using bombings to intimidate both troops and civilians, sabotaging major economic assets etc.

The primary response of the US to the challenges of asymmetrical warfare is the doctrine called Effects Based Operations. EBO acknowledges that our policy objectives go beyond traditional military ones to encompass political, economic and social goals. A key characteristic of EBO war planning is that objectives are defined in a variety of areas, broad strategies are identified, major operations may be launched -- but operational decisions and especially tactics are flexible and left up to the commanders in the field. Thus, Secy Rumsfeld was absolutely correct when he asserted during the pause on the way to Baghdad that there were no changes in the war plan. Our plan for Iraq was EBO-based. Progress is measured in terms that include the morale of the opposing army (most of them fled or surrendered), preservation of the economic infrastructure (no major destruction of the oil infrastructure, rickety and subject to sabotage though it is) and social issues (support from the Shia majority).

Putting it all together
I suggest that as we assess what can and should be done re: those members of the Saudi royal family who support Wahabist terror, we keep in mind the larger strategic goals and the fact that this Administration is working from an effects-based orientation in all of its planning and execution of the war on terror.

One thousand thanks again rkb for another excellent and deep analysis. I also appreciate the framing of definitions and language that will better help us all communicate.

Agreeing with your general assessment I believe one little phrase marks the divide between acceptable strategic objectives, and in my opinion the current agenda which affectively undermines American credibility.

"...enhancing the transformation of the Islamic world into peaceful democracies."

This is a very subtle but profound statement and use of language. This noble and worthy objective requires a social and religious reformation and cannot be achieved militarily. Individual societies must have the right and the freedom to self-determination, and their individual governments, and while some kind of democracy may preferred and the best option for peace and prosperity, - America or any nation does not have the right to impose governments on sovereign nations.

In fact, military enforcement of any form of government including democracy is tyranny. Please correct me if I am wrong but our strategic goal of "..enhancing the transformation of the Islamic world into peaceful democracies" is being morphed into a larger and far more epic undertaking as outlined in the Project for the New American Century, and the neocons, (I refer to them as rightwingideologues) visionary Pax Americana war agenda, and their ultimate strategic objective is American world domination, through military superiority.

Strip away all the glossy marketing, and the patriotic lovethebabyjesus speak platitudes, and this leadership is exploiting 9/11 to impose America's will and way upon the world through brute force and military superiority.

Unfortunately for all of us, the fictions and completely false ideological assumptions have exposed glaring problems in the secret plan and the overall strategy is fatally flawed, by wild cost miscalculations, and a complete and total lack of understanding of, or respect for the Islamic world they wish to transform.

I would prefer American strategic goals reframed, refocused, and returned to eliminating jihadist threats and focus tactics and EBO's toward that narrow, though very challenging objective. The middle east must transform itself, and America should be the guiding light and partner in this transformation, but we cannot afford, accomplish, or in good conscience countenance militarily imposing democracy on any nation. Forcing any form of government upon a sovereign people militarily is tyranny, not democracy.

I fully comprehend that America’s ultimate goal of ending (jihadist, as opposed to Islamist) terrorism “requires broad strategic initiatives which will result in many operations, supported by a variety of tactics.”

I prefer these strategic initiatives focus primarily on eliminating threats, and not on the epic ambitions of the rightwingideologues Pax Americana war agenda.

Following up on rbk's comment:

"Dealing with the Saudis is at best an operational level issue, not a strategic one."

Agreed, but it is an operational issue that is being curiously ignored and undervalued, and one that is critical to achieving the larger strategic objective of defeating the jihadist terror gangs.

Tony writes: "This noble and worthy objective requires a social and religious reformation and cannot be achieved militarily."

Why not? Japan had a social and religoius reformation, and it was achieved militarily. Or, we could go back into Europe's history for a few potent examples.

Once again we have an assertion here, not an argument, and furthermore an assertion that seems to be contradicted by historical experience.

Then he adds:

"America or any nation does not have the right to impose governments on sovereign nations."

Why not? This is something America has done throughout its history. Are you saying it was illegitimate when done to Germany and Japan, for instance? Why? And in a world of WMD threats that you describe, you are once again paralyzing yourself with an incompatible set of premises:

[1] Sovereignty is absolute and must not be interefered with;

[2] All means should be used to stop WMD proliferation.

You can have one or the other. You can't have both. Especially in a world where many of the key funders and conduits for same are nation states. They either have sovereignty, and hence immunity, or they don't.

a) re: transformation in the Islamic war, while democracy cannot be imposed militarily, it does NOT follow that military intervenion has no place in this transformation. The American Revolution certainly had a military component as did the Civil War here. Sometimes military action can remove barriers to transformation and democracy, in the form of tyranny or of chaos. I submit that that is a critical contribution of the coalition forces now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's ludicrous to insist we are unilaterally imposing our way of life on other countries militarily. And it is simply untrue and uninformed to insist that we are acting with "complete and total lack of understanding of, or respect for the Islamic world they wish to transform".

One example: An acquaintance of mine was asked to come out of retirement in order to help the Iraqi governing council design their banking system. He is a former bank president (no, I don't usually travel in power circles, we met when he bought a show dog from me) with experience dealing with Arab and Middle Eastern businessmen, leaders and bankers.

He assures me that the Iraqi system will not necessarily look or work like ours. On the other hand, it will indeed have the benefit of "lessons learned" here and will be intended to provide honest, transparent accounting to the Iraqi people.

That is not "imposing our will and way through brute force". If you care to say we are hoping to instill our meta-way, i.e. that we intend to help the Iraqis organize a banking structure that is built on basic principles like honesty and accountability necessary for representative government, then I not only agree, I make no apologies for our doing so.

b) re: dealing with the Saudis, again I disagree that this is being either ignored or undervalued. On the other hand, I do think you are underestimating both what is being done and also the need to pursue that operation covertly, indirectly and with care due to its central importance and because of the potential side effects of precipitate, untimely or overly public action.

I am curious about one thing, tho: how exactly do you know that the "secret plan" is failing? I'm impressed that you're in the inner circles who know the details.

Sarcasm aside, the number of broad and unsubstantiated assertions in your last two posts takes my breath away, Tony. I don't mind debating what should be done, but it has got to have SOME basis in facts and specifics!

Reforming American intelligence to be as effective as Tony Foresta wants is a pipe dream on the scale of American energy independence and a return to the gold standard.

The only way the American intelligence bureaucracies can be successfully reformed is if the capitol gets nuked during a state of the union message. Then and only then will Congress do what is necessary to get us a successful intelligence establishment. Only the combination of the survival instincts of the incoming Representatives and the lack of hooks the national securty establishment would have in them would allow it to happen.

The reason Bush is concentrating on the military solution to terror problems is because it is easier to apply American power over seas than at home. The political and government bureaucratic factions won't allow anything else and they are resistent to even that.

I've never been certain that a plus b equal c. If Iran has nukes, does that "of course" mean that terrorists will have them?

In a tyranny, North Korea or Iran, being a nuclear power means that you have a toy that only the "big boys" have, and therefore you must be a big boy, and the big boys must treat you like a big boy. Schoolyard stuff, but recall that in those nations we are actually only dealing with a handful of people, five or less, that hold the real power. How willing would they be to give away a symbol of their new prestige and power? I will grant you that once they have a quantity, say ten or more devices, selling one or giving it away becomes much more likely, because it does not reduce their apparent prestige and power.

I used to believe that the threat of retaliation would have some significance in the issue. I no longer believe so. Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein have demonstrated that dictators can be so blinded to their own self-interest that they will gladly throw away their power. It has become apparent to me that numbers of world rulers just plain do not believe that the United States will do what it says it will. The Liberation of Iraq may change that, but I shall not ever underestimate the ability of a dictator to delude himself again.

A nuclear Iran is first and foremost a regional threat. Since the Shah, Iran has sought to dominate the Gulf, and a nuclear Iran would continue to do so. It may threaten and bluster at Israel, but I am not at all convinced that an Iranian nuke would ever be used on Israel. For blackmail, yes, but actually used, no.

Iran is too far away, geographicly, and its anti-Israel ideology works best at a distance. Those nations that border Israel have a much clearer perspective and and are much lower in volume and tone. Indeed, several have chosen to accept the necessity of living with Israel as a neighbor. Iran chooses to speak loudly, but I don't believe the mullahs would also choose to engage in direct combat with Israel. Giving Hezbullah a nuke would cause issues with Syria and Lebanon, who would both actively try to prevent such a transfer in their own, non-radioactive, self interest.

Now... would the Shia mullahs have an interest in nuking any part of Saudi Arabia? Becoming the protectors of the Holy Sites may have an allure for the mullahs, beyond any other goal. Certainly the Wahhabi Arab Sunni sect and the Persian Shia of Iran could be very likely to come into conflict in the region. With the growing instability of Saudi Arabia and the removal of US troops from the country, perhaps this goal will become increasingly attractive, and a "big boys" toy would help in that regard.

Japan and Germany were defeated militarily after a devastating global war which they started, and The Marshal Plan, (which by the way did not center on the will of the White House, but was a congressional mandate, with broad representation, and congressional funding, review, and oversight) helped to orchestrate the establishment of democracies in both nations.

It was a different world, a much different war, and far different enemies, so I do not accept your assertion regarding Japan and Germany as defeating mine regarding Iraq.

Preemptively targeting and attacking sovereign nations, based on hype and deceptions and who actually posed no imminent threat to America - with the intent of imposing a puppet government favorable to the interests of the Bush oligarchy cannot be achieved militarily. Bush and truebelievers may think this is a reality, but they are learning now in the first "toe hold" "fly on the wall" nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq, that the victim nation does not support, and actually will resist this effort.

The only way America can maintain a democracy in Iraq favorable to the best interests of the Bush oil, energy, and private military concerns, is by implementing a police state.

Short term, of course we can topple governments, but nationbuilding and democratizing sovereign peoples is overarching, unsustainable economically and politically, exploitive, and patently un-American.

You may disagree with me and assert that referring continuously to the Saudi's as 'good friends" and openly shielding the royal family with close ties to the Bush oil, energy, and private military cronies and cartels from scrutiny, review, or remedy is NOT ignoring or undervaluing a serious problem, - but I beg you to show me where, or how this issue is being meaningfully addressed by the Bush administration. I do not underestimate anything, or any one, but rather it is my belief that Bush refuses to redress the Saudi's in any meaningful way for reasons directly relating to the profits and best interests of the oil, energy, and private military cronies and cartels, and nothing Bush has done, or anything offered by defenders on the right alters that belief, and assertion.

I would be curious to know your banking friends attachment to the Bush regime, because from where I sit, - said Bush regime alone is implementing a government, a banking system, and all the administrative and logistical structures in Iraq that overtly favor and fall under complete control of the Bush regime, without review, accountability, or oversight. The executive is not afforded those rights in the framework of our Constitution.

Turning the tables, when and how will you hold Bush accountable for the plan (whatever it is) which according to the administration and truebelievers is absolutely perfect and moving along exactly as intended? When will you hold Bush responsible for failures, deceptions, abuses and neglect?

Will you blame the sequel to 9/11 on anti-War activists or Clinton?

Will you explain to America’s children why Bush poured billions of their parents tax dollars into rebuilding Iraq, while subtracting from, reversing, or under funding basic services, and infrastructure here in America?

Will you explain how 87bn dollars installment for Iraq is accounted for in a budget with half a trillion dollar deficit?

The American taxpayers have just been blindsided by your leadership with an 87bn installment on very bloody and costly nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq that was based on many admitted and well documented deceptions or misrepresentations. This 87bn number by the way was either purposely concealed from the American people, for no one in this administration ever admitted to any accounting prior to the war, - or the accounting was so radically miscalculated, or underestimated, as to be negligent and reckless.

I know Bush is a man of business acumen, but someone in his administration grossly underestimated the costs of Iraq. Of course we also know this is all part of the grand super plan and someday down the road, the fuzzy math will all work out, and we can all live happily ever after. No one in this government could possible be held accountable for anything? The mere idea is unimaginable.

The basic divide we hold, (and I accept your insults, rebukes, and unsubstantiated assertions about my intelligence in good faith) is marked by your blind trust in Bush and my well warranted distrust.

I do not believe Bush is pressing the Saudi royals covertly or in anyway. I do not believe Bush is concerned about democracy or liberating tyrannized peoples, or any noble patriotic or christian undertaking - but rather that everything this leadership does, and has done before and after 9/11 is singularly intent on benefiting and protecting the oil, energy, and private military cronies and cartels.

Frankly - (the-you-are-childish-stupid- despicable-and-uninformed, and Bush-is-a-genius- man-of-business-acumen-compassionate- conservative-valiant-Christian-warrior-embarked- on-a-crusade against-the-evil-one-sanctioned-by- thebabyjesus; - so-keep-your-mouth-shut-don’t- dare-challenge- or-question-anything-Bush-does or-says, and- blindly-trust-that-truebelievers- and-Bush-are taking-care-of-business- for-the-good-of-all) speak - is wearing hollow and thin.

Here is my assertion: Your leadership is awash in controversy, deceptions, and perfidy, that we are not allowed to discuss or investigatin. Your leadership has America bogged down in a costly and bloody nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims, refuses to redress his “good friends’ in the House of Saud who abundantly fund and nurture our real jihadist enemies, is bankrupting the nations economy, leading America in the wrong direction economically, politically, militarily, and morally, and heaping the enormous costs, and rivers of blood upon the shoulders of our children.

Great essay.
I think Trent has indicated (I hope overly pessimistically) what may have to be a major component of Western strategy - the use of intelligence agencies; or rather, of using intelligence and analysis as a basis for covert operations - 'war in the shadows'; assasination, abduction, infiltration, blackmail, coercion.

The gloves have got to come all the way off. This requires a transformation in the political arena, the acceptance that morally questionable means may at times be essential, and that the secret sevices must BE SECRET. No leaks. No Conressional inquisitions. Absolutely NO briefing of the media.

This may be crucial to averting either nuclear pre-emption or a nuclear response to WMD terror. I suspect it is the best chance of cutting the linkage of Saudi money, wahhabi madrassas and mosques, radical islamism, WMD and terrorist groups. Fanatics would probably have to be killed, but such deniable but well known to those concened actions could have salutary effect on ideologically less comitted donors, bankers, technicians etc.
In particular, to break the linkages between Saudi money and Pakistani islamists and their positions within Pakistani military/ISI/nuclear programme.

Whether this is politically possible for the USA, as Briton I would not like to try to guess.

Tony, outargued again, decides to go on the personal attack with "I would be curious to know your banking friends attachment to the Bush regime..." - great job, Tony.

Tony, you actually misrepresent the history of the Marshall Plan. The real history was almost 90 degrees from your characterization. Contrast with FDR's own favorite, the Morgenthau Plan.

You also misrepresent that amount being requested for Iraqi infrastructure. You imply that domestic programs are being cut to pay for it - another false statement from you.

You attempt to shift the burden of your argument to your critics again, amusingly.

Finally Tony writes: "Frankly - (the-you-are-childish-stupid ... -of-all) speak - is wearing hollow and thin. "

Pot, meet the Mother of All Kettles.

Flinging silly insults, unsubstantiated retorts, and partisan assertions Robin Roberts does not win an argument. Here's the funny part. I'm not arguing. I am making assertions, forwarding opinion, and defending those assertions and opinions. Your assertions and opinions may seem more important or triumphant in your mind, - but not in mine. All you offer is slime and shape shifting evasions.

I am posing questions or forwarding opinion and profess no expertise in these matters. Yet I read, and pay attention.

You trust Bush, - I do not. I have no idea what inspires your loyalty to Bush, but with all due respect there are plenty of facts, assertions, and evidence warranting investigations into deceptions, abuses, failure, perfidy, and neglect on the part of your leadership, and we want disclosure and a change of direction. Bush is destroying and redefining America from the inside out.

Sliming all opposition, any questioner, or voice of dissent as anti-American, - outing a CIA operative, - hurling America to a costly and bloody war and nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims based on deceptions and hype, - shamelessly shielding the “good friends’ in the House of Saud who fund and nurture mass murder gangs, including al Queda, - and stonewalling and refusing to cooperate in good faith with the 9/11 investigation - on principle alone - are grievous radical acts of treachery, and Bush will be held accountable.

You excuse and ignore the wayward course your fraudulent and secretive leadership is piloting America, pathologically defending admitted deceptions and misrepresentations and leaping to fantastical realms of imagination in justifying a bloody and costly war in Iraq, - while simultaneously ignoring and excusing obvious, well documented, and grave threats born out of the abundant funding and nurturing machinations of Bush's "good friends" in the House of Saud.

And I'm not naive, or misunderstanding or "underestimating both what is being done and also the need to pursue that operation covertly, indirectly and with care due to its central importance and because of the potential side effects of precipitate, untimely or overly public action."

It's not enough.

Week and airy intelligence is hyped deceptively for war and profiteering, - while strong and solid evidence is cloaked and shielded for more profiteering.

Bush expects American's to sacrifice now and don't mind the massive sucking sound of American wealth being funneled into the off sheet accounts of oil, energy, and private military cartels of the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy, - and ignore the missteps, and those embarrassing reversals, and admitted misrepresentations - and spurn every other nation and people on the planet including your fellow Americans who either fear, distrust or despise the Bush clan - and then blindly trust in the promise of a visionary and oh so perfect Pax Americana mythical place and time and future of corporate freedom and injustice for all. Praise Jesus.

My opinions and assertions(may be?)wrong – But the Bush policies and agenda particularly with regard to Iraq and the House of Saud are most certainly NOT right.

Tony writes: "Flinging silly insults, unsubstantiated retorts, and partisan assertions Robin Roberts does not win an argument. "

Again, the Mother of All Kettles.

Too busy tonight to respond to all of the comments since my last post, but I do want to address Tony's question re: my banker acquaintance's putative "attachment" to the "Bush regime".

It is my understanding that he was approached based on his reputation and experience in the banking world, including directly relevant experience working with Arab counterparts, colleagues and customers.

Tony, I've tried to engage the substance of your comments with respect. Now, however, I'm just pissed off and disappointed. Your snide implications about my acquaintance were waayyy out of line. That was unworthy of you. It adds neither credibility nor substance to your arguments.

However, in another way, your jab at this person does fit into the main thrust of your posts. As far as I can tell from this thread, the real center of your position has to do with character: you are convinced that this administration is corrupt; that all who are in the oil, military and other industries are corrupt; that our presence in Iraq is for hidden, corrupt purposes. And at the same time you long for, you even demand, that we somehow be able to destroy the house of Saud (all of them, you are sure they all deserve it) surgically so as to keep our moral hands clean of "war".

In other words, you want the benefits without taking responsibility for the reality of military intervention.

I won't bother telling you how that plays with the men and women who would have to do your dirty work for you -- cleanly, surgically and in accordance with international consensus while also striking hard, effectively and without collateral damage or unexpected results and problems, please.

Let's just say that they aren't likely to be impressed by what you clearly regard as your own high moral ground.

Insulting an older person about whom you know virtually nothing does not motivate me to slog through the rest of your words to find the portion worth thinking about and absorbing, I'm afraid.

And that's a shame, because I think we need all the clarity, insight and common purpose we can muster for the coming years.

My apologies for pissing you of all people off rbk, but I defend my positions and concerns which you happen to hit precisely on the head accept for the "...contention that you(I) even demand, that we somehow be able to destroy the house of Saud (all of them, you are sure they all deserve it)"
- which is only partly correct.

I fully promote striking specific threats, and reject a blanket attack on every member of the House of Saud, or Saudi Arabians in general, or greater Islam. I promote exhausting all available diplomatic options while, simultaneously conducting vigorous police actions hunting, capturing, or killing every single jihadist mass murderer, and those that aid and abet them on the planet.

It is the EMPIRE AMBITIONS, or the stupid PAX AMERICA WAR AGENDA, - the noticeably different, exceedingly more costly and bloody, markedly divorced, far more logistically complex - and completely strategically different and separate - invasion and occupation and subsequent nationbiulding enterprises SINGULARLY BENEFITING THE OIL, ENERGY, AND PRIVATE MILITARY CARTELS AND CRONIES - that extends far beyond and overarches mere threat prevention into the realm of military imperialism or the predatory colonization, religious reformation and exploitation of the resources of sovereign nations - that totally distorts, warps, and confuses America's objectives.

Striking threats good.

Nationbuilding and democratization of sovereign nations by military force - bad.

It is precisely exactly and specifically because I am concerned with "how that plays with the men and women who would have to do your dirty work for you" that I reject all of Bush's narcissistic policies and agenda wasting the lives of the unchallengeable US military in a deceptive war against the wrong Muslims, based on hype and deceptions, and the profiteering and rightwingideologue fantasies of the oil, energy, and private military cartels and cronies in the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy

I'm sure your concern for American troops baking in the Iraqi sun amongst a hostile population and claims of patriotism are appreciated, - but the most patriotic act, and the greatest honor America can offer our troops is removing their responsibility for, and participation in a deceptive and hyped war against the wrong Muslims.

You are 100%, completely, totally, fully, and exactly accurate in stating that I am 'convinced that this administration is corrupt; that all who are in the oil, military and other industries are corrupt; that our presence in Iraq is for hidden, corrupt purposes."

I do not however support the Pax Americana insanity, and promote police actions against specific jihadist threats, and most immediately the funding and nurturing of jihadist mass murder machinations of the House of Saud.

And misdirects regarding "collateral damage" have no validity since you support or ignore the slaughter and maiming of many innocent Iraqi’s in Bush deceptive and hyped war.

Let's be fair. All American options are narrowed and fewer now that Bush has stupidly lurched America into a quagmire in Iraq. And yes of course there are many successes, and the unchallengeable US military is executing their difficult mission with efficiency and humanity, - the long-term commitment to Iraq is huge and enormously costly - and a terrorist threat will always remain as long as American troops occupy Iraq.

Truebelievers trust that everything Bush does, no matter how abusive, or stupid is somehow sanctioned by thebabyjesus, and uncontestable.

I beg to differ.

That difference is noted by all. The question is, whether having it repeated in long comments on every thread actually gets readers of this blog anywhere.

It certainly doesn't seemto be advancing the discussion here. I've tried everything I can think of, but given the way this set of posts & threads has developed, I don't see that ever changing.

Tony, I think it's time for you to take these comments to a blog of your own, and participate in these discussions via links as a blogging equal. It's past time that you had one.

Truebelievers trust that everything Bush does, no matter how abusive, or stupid is somehow sanctioned by thebabyjesus, and uncontestable.


I beg to differ.

Gosh, what did that strawman do to warrant such a thrashing from you, Tony?

It's little comments like the above that lead people to not take you seriously at all. HTH, HAND.

I am quite used to people attacking me personally and "not taking me seriously" and crying for suppression or silencing of my commentary Patrick Chester, - but until Bush defenders actually begin to examine these many "questionable" issues in earnest, and quit resorting to the time honored "slime and evade" tactics pushing attention away from the core question and onto the credibility of the questioner, - I will continue to challenge the abuses, failures, deceptions, acts of malfeasance and perfidy, and neglect of your leadership, and the facts and truth are heavy my side. You can run, but you cannot hide from the truth.

I am inspired by the deserved and necessary increase of heat on Bush policies, and trust that once any one of these several issues are truly investigated, vetted, and brought to light, - the little credibility remaining for Bush will evaporate in a New York minute, - and America can begin to right the wrongs of Bush and the neocons (rightwingideologues), demand a change of leadership and agenda, and return honor and integrity to America.

Tony Foresta is right. Saudi cancer should be treated preventively, or very early.

jaime,

The problem as always is to kill the cancer without killing the patient.

All American options are narrowed and fewer now that Bush has stupidly lurched America into a quagmire in Iraq. And yes of course there are many successes, and the unchallengeable US military is executing their difficult mission with efficiency and humanity, - the long-term commitment to Iraq is huge and enormously costly - and a terrorist threat will always remain as long as American troops occupy Iraq.

I am concerned with "how that plays with the men and women who would have to do your dirty work for you" that I reject all of Bush's narcissistic policies and agenda wasting the lives of the unchallengeable US military in a deceptive war against the wrong Muslims, based on hype and deceptions.

I fully promote striking specific threats, and reject a blanket attack on every member of the House of Saud, or Saudi Arabians in general, or greater Islam. I promote exhausting all available diplomatic options while, simultaneously conducting vigorous police actions hunting, capturing, or killing every single jihadist mass murderer, and those that aid and abet them on the planet.