Dean Cheng emailed me some terrifically insightful comments recently on the "Dubya sucks" rants from the pro-war Bush-Bashers of late, and I'm going to quote from them here at some length:

...some believe that Dubya is corrupt. But these are warbloggers, NOT the anti-war crowd. (Isn't it ironic that THAT crowd believes that Dubya WANTS to go to war for precisely the same reason??)

Personally, I think it has much more to do w/ a misperception of the nature of war. Clausewitz, of course, viewed war as an instrument of national policy. But for some, such as Mr. Quick, I suspect that wars are much more gut-level---it is a crusade, not a religious war, but a crusade in the sense of finally settling the issues once and for all. In this regard, these folks remind me of TR---they see a problem and figure that they should move smartly to tackle it. But wars are big things, they are rife w/ unintended consequences. And even if it IS a crusade rather than primarily an exercise in realpolitik, it still requires the application of strategem and perspicacity.

Dean is basically correct I think. But it should go without saying that all persons named Dean are as wise as Solomon. ;-)

Mr. Cheng further says:

I think that Bill, Moira, and company DO want the Administration to do some things differently:

1. Cut off all links w/ the Saudis...

2. Expect to declare war on them after settling Iraq's hash.

3. At a minimum, move to topple the House of Saud, possibly through sanctions and blockade, definitely through diplomatic isolation.

Very well. That's three separate answers, but each is clear and specific enough (and, amazingly, under twenty-five words--who'd have thought it was possible?).

If these are the options they wish to pursue, then let them say so, clearly and unequivocally. Better that than farting around with childlike carping and innuendo. Let them be willing to say openly that this is what they want, and face constructive criticism of their choices.

Let them also point to politicians who will lead the way on these options.

That Saudi Arabia is far less isolated than Hussein, that the Saudis, w/ no small amounts of money, could probably buy their way out when Saddam cannot, that the Saudis could probably rally Muslims to them (as the guardians of the Muslim holy places) seems to be less of an impediment than they give it credit for.

That being said, however, I believe that there IS something to the argument that the American public views the Saudis as a necessary evil, and that we have more leverage than, perhaps, the Administration recognizes. Poppy's view is NOT the same as Dubya's, and the former is, almost certainly, more cautious than the latter's [and it is the former that is sparking what controversy there is w/in the GOP---to the detriment of the Iraq effort].

But the separation of realpolitik-ers from the crusaders has been a problem on the Right-side of the foreign policy aisle for decades. Thus, conservatives (and now neo-cons) are often uncomfortable w/ the likes of Henry the K---precisely because of the cold, calculating nature of Kissinger's actions and his general discomfiture w/ the moral side of the equation.....

All quite perceptive, and hard to disagree with. It may well be that we have more leverage with the Sauds than we think. In fact, I'm pretty sure we do. Nevertheless, I also see facing them down as a gamble we don't need to take just yet. Yes, if we call their bluff they may fold. But if they don't, they could easily touch off World War III in a very real sense, and we might well lose all our gains in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the process.

This does not seem to be a necessary gamble at the moment.

I continue to argue that you should not make demands if you aren't ready to back them up with force. Insulting or threatening the House of Saud would be viscerally satisfying, but would carry risks. It is also, for the moment anyway, unnecessary. Placating them in order to get a few things that are useful to us seems much wiser for the moment.

The game changes once we have a firm stronghold in the Middle East, which is why I believe we should pursue that as our primary goal for now. If smiling at them and keeping them close helps our long-term goals, then we should continue to do so.