Wretchard has (as usual) some very good points in this piece.

Offering up the objective of more United Nations legitimacy or adopting an "exit strategy" in Iraq, as the Democrats have done, does not amount to a strategy. But neither does the open-ended formula of bringing freedom to the Middle East constitute an actionable agenda. It may be a guide to action, but what is needed is a set of intermediate goalposts against which progress can be measured. Some of these might be:

1. The desired end state in Saudi Arabia: whether or not this includes the survival of the House of Saud or its total overthrow;
2. The fate of the regime in Damascus;
3. Whether or not the United States is committed to overthrowing the Mullahs in Iran and the question of what is to replace them;
4. How far America will tolerate inaction by Iraq security forces before acting unilaterally;
5. The future of the America's alliance with France and Germany;
6. The American commitment to the United Nations.

Each of these hard questions must be weighed according to its contribution to the final goal of breaking the back of international terrorism. Somewhere in that maze, if it exists, is a ladder to victory. Leading the horse to drink presumes that we know what purpose watering them serves; what paths we will travel. Answering these questions will be a heuristic process, one that moves towards progressively better solutions. Finding ourselves in the place we first began is equivalent to defeat. Whether we are further along in Saudi Arabia in May 2004 than on November 2003 is one of the indicators of whether we are winning or losing. But someone has to keep score.

This would also make it easier to sell to the American people, because it would show that we have a plan, and that we are making progress in it. The problem, of course, is that it's a plan of which much of the world (particularly the dictatorphilic part of it, including some of our "allies" in Europe) won't approve.

I think people are generally aware that there is a public face to what we're doing that is mostly tactical. If you asked anyone who was intelligently looking at what this administration was doing, its rhetoric over time, and other much quieter actions going on 'under the radar', it would seem obvious that these goals have already been stated, just not publicly. Stating these goals publicly and as a matter of policy would probably make it nearly impossible to actually implement some of them.

Yes, that's the problem. WMD was actually a minor reason that we removed Saddam, yet because we couldn't formally state the primary ones, many assume that it was unjustified, and based on "lies."

How do we influence the end state in Saudi Arabia?

What if civil war breaks out and it looks like the radical Wahhabi are going to win? What forces do we intervene with? Another infantry division or two now seems more valuable that missile defense.

This essay (linked in the above) is fascinating.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83105/michael-scott-doran/the-saudi-paradox.html?mode=print

The attack on 9-11 was conducted as part of a plan to win Saudi Arabia for bin Laden and his supporters include the current head of the Saudi secret police, who is a bin Laden sympathizer.

Point taken. It's akin to getting your child to do something you know they won't like by diverting their attention with a palatable lie.

Too bad most adults must be treated like children. To quote Nicholson "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth."

Another infantry division or two now seems more valuable that missile defense.

The notion that we have to make a choice is, frankly, bizarre. We can easily afford both (though it's not clear that infantry divisions are the solution to that particular problem). If we don't have enough infantry divisions, it's because someone has decided that we don't need them. There's no practical relationship between that and missile defense.

The extra infantry will be coming from the already proposed drawdown of troops in Europe and Korea. Rumsfeld wants a 10% reduction in force in Korea by next year.

Missile defense or more infantry or tax cuts. Sooner or later we gotta choose.

And who said we don't need more infantry? Rumsfeld. And he fired those generals who disagreed with him.

If it's sooner or later, then it's later. It's not an immediate issue. As I said, there's no more relationship between missile defense and the number of divisions than there is between number of divisions and any other budget item. If for whatever strange reason you don't like the idea of being able to defend ourselves against missiles, fine, but introducing it into this discussion is just a non sequitur.

Yes. Well the Great and Powerful Oz has spoken! There will be a reshuffling of assets to make it appear that no new divisions need to be created to prosecute the war on terror.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! At least until AFTER the election.

Read the Foreign Affairs piece linked to in the post Rand quoted from. The article assets there are two contenders for the Saudi throne after the current ruler dies.

One is pro-western and more willing to compromise with secualrists. The other is radical Sunni and a supporter of bin Laden. Today, those two factions exist in an uneasy balance.

If the wrong side wins, we either occupy Saudi Arabia or suffer an oil crisis far worse than any we have suffered before. There is not enough infantry in all of Korea or Germany to sustain an occupation of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

= = =

Missile defense? If we had solid proof the North Koreans had missiles capable of reaching California, I'd have no real problem with Special Forces or JDAMs destroying those launch pads.

Besides, I love the idea of laser equipped 747s flying figure eights off the Korean coast ready to accomplish boost phase intercept. No problem.

Missile defense against China or Russia? Now that is a pipe dream.

If the wrong side wins, we either occupy Saudi Arabia or suffer an oil crisis far worse than any we have suffered before. There is not enough infantry in all of Korea or Germany to sustain an occupation of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

We wouldn't have to occupy Iraq indefinitely. Saudi Arabia would actually be fairly easy to occupy, at least the parts that were needed for oil production. If those hostile continued to wage war on us, ultimately, they'll get the martyrdom they desire, and then the place will be much easier to manage.

Missile defense against China or Russia? Now that is a pipe dream.

That's an interesting opinion, I guess, but one not backed up by the evidence. You certainly haven't made a case for it, compelling or otherwise.

A more immediate problem than missle defense for the homeland is a North Korean ABC attack on our tightly concentrated troops in Korea, mostly in the greater Seoul area. That is why we have already started shifting troops further south of the DMZ and Seoul. (1) to protect our assets in case of war, and (2) to move the target areas away from a huge population center.

Some speculate that if we didn't have many troops in Korea, Kim would be less likely to launch the inventory southward in the event we performed some surgical strikes against his nuke facilities.

The added benefit is more troops where they are really needed. Same goes for Europe. Europe is going their own way, and building their own army in competition to NATO.

1. The desired end state in Saudi Arabia: whether or not this includes the survival of the House of Saud or its total overthrow? We need to find a way to resolve the feelings of hopelessness and resentment that perpetuate themselves throughout the Arabian peoples. Whether we can do that by getting the current house to reform their social order to promoting good will amongst their own people I do not know. But something tells me that anybody going in and forcing a change a la Iraq wouldn't produce the desired effect in that region. I believe in sticking with the current house and working with them the best way and hardest we can to help change their peoples image that we are fat lazy and greedy but that we want the same things they want -- respect.

2. The fate of the regime in Damascus? lets send the current regime the way of its fabled steel ... into obscurity.

3. Whether or not the United States is committed to overthrowing the Mullahs in Iran and the question of what is to replace them? Hell yea go into Iran and lets get our F-14's back dammit! I say we let the Iraqi gov't control Iran :) sort of a "sorry for all those bombs on your head, here have a country," gift - throw in Syria as well.

4. How far America will tolerate inaction by Iraq security forces before acting unilaterally? Well here's to hoping that Iraq can steer right on this once in a history oppurtunity and make the most of there new found freedom. That means working with and taking the best considerations of their alliances with the United States. That means never having to put the United States in a position where it can be said we are acting unilaterally.

5. The future of the America's alliance with France and Germany? They are our brothers and we are allowed to cheap shot eachother, but we know deep down we have eachothers back, I don't really see that big a problem. We drink their wine and beer, they each our hamburgers, everyone pats their tummies all the same in the end.

6. The American commitment to the United Nations?
How about the United Nations commitment to the U.S. one could name a great many countries that behave unilaterally yet our profile and control over the U.N. is such that we have to deal with greater pressures. Yet look at what we have now with Iraq, for all their moaning and groaning they have fallen in place into the best position that I think we could have hoped for. We delivered on everything we promised and now the ball is in their court to make this work out for the best.

What do we do about Saudi Arabia? Well, we let them self destruct without intervening since any involvement in the land of mecca would make the Islamists even crazier.

We don't just sit still and let it happen though. We do our best to get other sources of oil online, and get a large military presence into the area so we can secure the Saudi Oil fields if we really have to. It would be best if that military presence was composed of Arabs. The final thing we can do is create a flypaper situation where the wackier, bloodier, Saudi's can go to die, giving Saudi Arabia a bit more time.