Bloodless Coup

Armand,
You must need sleep, because this is too easy. First, you ignore the good news within the article, "So little has been achieved in Saudi, and most of the jihadis in Saudi went to Iraq. But in the coming months, the Iraqis will turn against them." Apparently, the Iraqi insurgents-terrorists are fixing to lose a lot of support. Second, you've lamented for months how Bush isn't taking a stronger stand against the Saudi government, but now it's bad that there will be an actual threat to that government against which you think Bush should stand (and without which the Clinton library wouldn't have gotten finished)? Third, the article talks about a few hundred battle-hardened terrorists, but if this kind of experience is as valuable as the article suggests, we're going to have a few hundred thousand soldiers with this kind of training in our own army to fight them.

Morris. Point by point. 1) I didn't write that the Saudi regime was on the verge of collapse. It might very well be - but not directly from these johadists. 2) What here implies that I personally care about the maintenance of the Saudi regime? I'm simply writing about possible consequences for Saudi - not my opinion of them. (And as to your parenthetical - You do realize they've given money to EVERY presidential library and that no presidential family is closer to them than the Bush family, right?)3) You want US troops to set up shop to protect the Saudi king? Is that what the Saudis want? Not last time I checked. Are we going to invade and force protection upon them? If so, who do we get to say is the "sovereign" government? Just wondering.

Armand,
I'm just saying that whatever advandtage the terrorists gain in having battle trained warriors, we have that advantage ten or even a hundred fold, I'm not suggesting we do or do not use our soldiers to protect the Saudis. Yes, I realize that the Bush-Saudi connection was big with the Howard Dean/Michael Moore types as an election issue, and I'm simply suggesting that it applies to the Clintons and their presidential hopes in 08, but I don't think you'll hear Howard Dean or Michael Moore mention it in the next four years.

phew! and here i was, wondering if we'd lost the ability to kick hell out of desperate peasants in a failed state. good to here that we can still wreak havoc for our $3B/month (or whatever).

Of course the Saudis give money to both parties. They've done that for years. But if you really think that the Bush/Saudi ties are just Michael Moore paranoia you don't know much about the Saudis (or I suppose the Bush family). They are very, very close - and I for one find it at least unseemly for presidents to cozy up to odious Chistian-hating and Jew-hating tyrants.

And Joshua is right, we hardly need this war to know that the US has a strong military capable of over-running all sorts of weak countries.

Armand,
What exactly is the point of your post in the first place if military power is irrelevant? If it's relevant, then this conflict has helped us more than it has them, and if it's irrelevant then there's no reason to bring it up in the first place. Are we supposed to apologize for being a stronger country?

The point of the post was to note that the Saudis are worried about the number insurgents who are becoming battle-trained and might set their sights next on taking out that corrupt regime. I would have thought that was clearly stated in the 2nd sentence.

The point has nothing to do with US military power, which thankfully (at least for now) is not the same thing as Saudi military power. They don't want us there any more than they want the insurgents there.