Jay Reding.com

ISG Report Released

The Iraq Study Group report has been released. I won’t have time to do much analysis for a while, but here are a few preliminary observations:

As far as I can tell, there’s no major shift in strategy. There’s no call for immediate withdrawal, which will undoubtedly annoy the radical anti-war left.

At the same time, most of the recommendations seem mushy. I’ve heard the ISG report as being “a 360 degree about-face” — so far, that seems fairly accurate.

Solving the Arab-Israeli conflict has nothing to do with Iraq. The Palestinians are mere pawns and justifications for Arab anti-Semitism. Short of Israel being destroyed, there won’t be a solution to this problem until the racism of the Arab world subsides. That will take generations. Any hope of a negotiated settlement is utterly futile unless there’s a radical change to Palestinian attitudes — and the chances of that are slim to none. I know that this is Secretary Baker’s pet cause, but it doesn’t belong here and it represents a major strategic distraction to the real issues.

Negotiating with Syria and Iran is likewise pointless. Their interests are in carving up Iraq, not making it a pluralist democracy. We can’t expect them to negotiate in good faith, and unless they make some move (like closing their borders with Iraq to terrorists) then the whole point of negotiations is futile. Iran is part of the enemy we face, and we need to realize that fast.

The Executive Summary argues that if the Iraqi government doesn’t shape up, we should ship out. That’s all well and good, but if they don’t succeed we can’t leave Iraq a petri dish for terrorism. If we’re going to make that threat, it has to be credible, and al-Maliki knows that we can’t make a credible threat without hurting ourselves.

32 responses to “ISG Report Released”

  1. Mark says:

    “There’s no call for immediate withdrawal, which will undoubtedly annoy the radical anti-war left.”

    By your definition, 59% of Americans now qualify as the “radical anti-war left.” Things are even worse for you guys that I thought.

    I’m not surprised there’s no call for an immediate troop withdrawal. I wouldn’t support that. It seems the only person in a position of leadership to endorse the Murtha doctrine is outgoing Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld whose parting shot was a quasi-endorsement of “redeploying to the periphery”. If nothing else, it made for some entertaining TV watching Tony Snow squirm at the press conference trying desperately to bridge the disconnect.

  2. Seth says:

    A lot of this is what the Democrats have been calling for. Phased withdrawal. The people writing this were very careful not to put it in those words, but that’s what it is.

    Saudi Arabia has the same interests–carving up Iraq, placing religious militias in control, etc–as Syria and Iran have. Except they give us lots of oil so they have to be at the table in the neocon world. It is 100% foolhardy to take countries out of the peace process because we don’t agree with them.

    A poll released yesterday shows 9 in 10 Iraqis are fearful of American troops. 2/3 Will feel safer when Americans leave. 19 out of 20 say security was better under Saddam. That already is a petri dish for terrorism. More of the same doesn’t help anything.

  3. Eracus says:

    You two are simply amazing. The Iraq Surrender Group is suggesting we jettison American support for Israel and turn instead to a “Palestinian national unity government” to “stabilize” the Middle East. That would be Hamas, fellas, with whom the Democrats have reportedly already begun to negotiate. The Israelis, in a return to the “land for peace” policy that has never worked, are to unilaterally surrender the Golan Heights to Syria, return to its 1967 borders, and trust the United States for assistance should the borders thereafter be violated. And these are the “realists?” So, to put it bluntly, “what the Democrats have been calling for” is to align more with the Arabs against the Jews now, and to abandon the Iraqis altogether later. That’s quite some plan…

  4. Mark says:

    Eracus, in a rare display of bipartisanship, I will extend an olive branch to you guys and embrace the Murtha/Rumsfeld doctrine of “redeploying to the periphery”. I defer to Mr. Rumsfeld on matters such as this….at least the new and improved Mr. Rumsfeld who is no longer tied to the Bush administration train tracks. It’s amazing how people’s IQ’s rise at least 50 points when they break the administration’s chains….the same way a hopeless drunk sees things much clearer in the morning staring at the dame he brought home the night before without the beer goggles.

  5. Jay Reding says:

    From the ISG Report, page 37:

    Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

    So much for the Murtha doctrine (which Rumsfeld only partially enjoined). An arbitrary withdrawal is suicide, not only for the chances of a stable Iraq, but for us as well. Only a fool would argue that things in Iraq would get better were we to leave, and sooner or later the situation would spiral out of control, forcing us to return.

    A responsible person would not allow Iraq to become another Afghanistan pre-9/11, which is just what we’d get if we followed the majority Democratic strategy of “cut and run.”

  6. Nicq MacDonald says:

    Eracus:

    I’m not going to go into the rest of your statement right now, but I don’t see what the big deal is about giving back the Golan Heights. As a former Middle East studies professor of mine (who described himself as being “to the right of Netanyahu” on Zionism) once noted, it’s a piece of land that Syria and Israel fought over in order to use for the deployment of now-obsolete artillery, is of little value to either country, and should probably revert to its prior owner.

  7. Seth says:

    Jay–
    False dichotomy. Of course a ‘precipitate withdrawal’ would be bad. Democrats are not arguing for such a thing outside of the National Review world of yours.

    That line was in there to help Bush and the hard-liners. Much of the report focuses on the need to set standards for success (a novel idea to this administration), redefine success (yet another novel idea), and either begin the process of taking our troops out of harms way or at least setting some benchmarks for what the situation will look like when we can begin bringing Americans home. It’s common sense to everyone outside of the crazy foreign policy world you live in.

  8. Jay Reding says:

    False dichotomy. Of course a ‘precipitate withdrawal’ would be bad. Democrats are not arguing for such a thing outside of the National Review world of yours.

    1) That’s not what a false dichotomy is.

    2) Rep. Murtha, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Kennedy, and Sen-Elect Webb have all publicly stated that they would prefer an immediate unilateral withdrawal from Iraq. That such a position is the majority position among Democrats may be subject to some debate, but to argue that no Democrats have said such a thing is completely false.

    That line was in there to help Bush and the hard-liners.

    No, that line is in there because it’s completely true, and the consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be nothing short of disastrous for the Iraqi people and our nation as well. Only the blind like Rep. Murtha seem to be incapable of understanding that concept.

  9. Seth says:

    Jay–
    Simply amazing. Some lawmakers have called for beginning to bring some troops home immediately. That’s far from a ‘precipate withdrawal.’

    If the only options are ‘precipitous withdrawal’ or sending more troops and “staying the course,” as you are implying, that is precisely a false dichotomy.

    If the Democrats are calling for an immediate withdrawal, and this plan is not an immediate withdrawal, then why are the Democrats so happy about it? Just a clue: the answer has something to do with the fact that Democrats have never called for an immediate withdrawal.

  10. Eracus says:

    Nicq, your wacky college professor is wrong. No sane nation concedes the high ground unilaterally to its enemy. Why should Israel? And why would Syria want it back if it is of no military significance? In a world of IEDs and suicide bombers, there is no such thing as “now-obsolete artillery,” which the Israeli military quite well understands even if your nutty professor does not. I assure you the Israelis have no intention of paying for the same real estate twice, and would be fools to accept another disastrous round of “land for peace,” which is exactly what Herr Baker is attempting to foist upon them once again. Call it “Jews for peace” this time, or more accurately, “Jews for oil.” From what I’ve read and heard so far, this is a despicable strategy, unworthy of a great nation, and James Baker and his nitty-gritty little dirt band ought to be pubicly flogged for suggesting any such thing. But of course the people have spoken and the Democrats are now here to save the day. Bi-partisanship is breaking out all over, even on the Jay Reding blog. Will wonders never cease??

    For those of you buying into this euphoric Democrat utopian fantasy, try to keep in mind this is nothing but a dog and pony show meant to “change the tone” in Washington by taking the option to “change the course” in Iraq. And how to do it? Why, by further abandoning the Jewish state and its people to the tender mercies of the Syrians and Iranians, to Hezbollah and Hamas, even to Al-Qaeda, of course, and all in return for their magnanimous cooperation in allowing the United States an honorable retreat from Iraq, a dignified surrender as it were, as we abandon the democratically elected Shia government in Baghdad.

    In return, the new Democrat Congress will receive the Arabs’ risible assurances we Americans will remain first on the list of OPEC customers, and that those barrels of oil will continue to be priced in dollars, not euros, so that our own tax-and-spend government can continue its expansion in this Brave New World where America once again abandons its allies and its principles in exchange for lower interest rates and a little more time to party on. Meanwhile, Herr Baker gets to amend his disastrous performance in that last dog and pony show, the Oslo Accords, which is the origin of this entire mess in the first place, so as to finally secure his historic legacy as a Great American Statesman by rescuing the Sunni investor dynasties in the House of Saud from ever having to confront a Shia border state capable of avenging generations of Sunni barbarity in Iraq and beyond.

    So when you see Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi step up to the microphones and declare how much progress is being made now with the new tone of bi-partisan unity in Washington, ….as you watch the Baker-Hamilton traveling minstrel show make their celebrated curtain calls while Jimma Carter peddles his contemptuous new book describing the state of Israeli apartheid, make certain you completely understand what it is they’re all actually talking about before you help ’em turn the ovens back on: We’re going to give the Arabs what they want, which is to kill more Jews and continue their reign of global terror, while the United States will in return continue to receive the market price for oil from the House of Saud.

    As long as it’s bi-partisan, it’s all okay, right? We support the troops, but not the war, right? And no blood for oil unless it’s Jewish blood, right??

  11. Eracus says:

    PELOSI: It’s not about the Democrats in Congress forcing the president’s hand. The American people have spoken. It’s important for us to work in a bipartisan way with the president, again, to solve the problem, not to stay the course.

    That’s not working. That’s clear. And if there is anything clear in the election results, it was that the more the president campaigned on the war, the fewer votes the Republicans who supported that got, and that took its toll on the Republicans.

    So the campaign is over. As I said, Democrats are ready to lead. We’re prepared to govern. But that means in a bipartisan way, in a system that is self-evident.

    The president is the president of the United States. I hope that he will listen to the voices of the people, and that, again, putting aside partisanship and looking to a partnership to end this war.

    We’ve written to him in the past on the subject, Senator Harry Reid and I, the leader in the Senate, and the leadership of the committees of jurisdiction on this subject, and said that we want to work together in a bipartisan way to send a clear message to the Iraqi government and people that they must disarm the militias, they must amend their constitution, they must engage in regional diplomacy to bring more stability and reconstruction to Iraq. And that we must begin the responsible redeployment of our troops outside of Iraq.

    We’ve said that over and over again.

  12. Jay Reding says:

    Just a clue: the answer has something to do with the fact that Democrats have never called for an immediate withdrawal.

    The top House Democrat on military spending matters stunned colleagues yesterday by calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, while many congressional Democrats reacted defiantly to President Bush’s latest attack on his critics. (Emphasis mine)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700794.html

  13. Eracus says:

    Jay, I’m sure what was meant was “responsible redeployment of our troops outside Iraq,” and that the failure to parrot Ms. Pelosi’s distortion of language regarding the Democrats’ intention to surrender and retreat was the fault of some understaffer being late with the memo.

  14. Erica says:

    Funny, the article says that’s what Murtha said (one Democrat, by way of explanation for the logic-challenged, does not constitute “Democrats”), but nowhere in the article do they actually quote him saying “I’m calling for an immediate withdrawl.”

    Sounds like more distortions from the Washington Post.

  15. Jay Reding says:

    Funny, the article says that’s what Murtha said (one Democrat, by way of explanation for the logic-challenged, does not constitute “Democrats”), but nowhere in the article do they actually quote him saying “I’m calling for an immediate withdrawl.”

    Sounds like more distortions from the Washington Post.

    Yup, it’s all just a big lie. I guess even even Rep. Murtha is lying about what he himself said. I bet Karl Rove made him do it…

  16. Erica says:

    One democrat =/= “democrats.” It’s pretty simple logic, Jay, that I think we’d all like to see you address.

  17. Jay Reding says:

    One democrat =/= “democrats.” It’s pretty simple logic, Jay, that I think we’d all like to see you address.

    http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/pa12_murtha/PRleaders.html

    Democrats are so funny these days — on one hand they’ll cry out for immediate withdrawal, then the next they’ll say how they don’t really mean what they said, but really meant something else. It’s like a game of intellectual Twister…

  18. Mark says:

    “Democrats are so funny these days — on one hand they’ll cry out for immediate withdrawal, then the next they’ll say how they don’t really mean what they said, but really meant something else. It’s like a game of intellectual Twister…”

    You mean kind of like when our Commander-in-Chief told us on November 2 that Donald Rumsfeld would remain Secretary of Defense for the rest of his term, only to announce on November 8 that a replacement for Rumsfeld had already been selected. Looks like intellectual Twister is a bipartisan game, huh Jay?

  19. Jay Reding says:

    You mean kind of like when our Commander-in-Chief told us on November 2 that Donald Rumsfeld would remain Secretary of Defense for the rest of his term, only to announce on November 8 that a replacement for Rumsfeld had already been selected. Looks like intellectual Twister is a bipartisan game, huh Jay?

    So, can I state that you’re now calling the President an intellectual? :)

  20. Erica says:

    Quick quiz, Jay – under Murtha’s so-called “immediate withdrawl”, how long after the start of the withdrawl does the last troop leave Iraq?

    Still thinking?

    Twelve months. That’s right, the “Democratic plant to cut and run” takes at least a whole year to “cut”. And that’s an immediate withdrawl to you? Substantially, that’s not much different than the White House’s position on withdrawl. Here’s the intellectual Twister – Jay’s assertion that Democrats plan to (apparently) teleport our troops out of Iraq in one fell swoop.

  21. Jay Reding says:

    Saudi Arabia has the same interests–carving up Iraq, placing religious militias in control, etc–as Syria and Iran have. Except they give us lots of oil so they have to be at the table in the neocon world. It is 100% foolhardy to take countries out of the peace process because we don’t agree with them.

    I can’t let that one pass. The Saudis, odious as they are, have no interest in seeing Iraq split up. Look at a map of Iraq – the Shi’ite areas are right on the Saudi border. The Saudis want to pump their oil and be left alone — having a dangerous Shi’ite rump state on their borders is not even remotely in their national interest.

    Twelve months. That’s right, the “Democratic plant to cut and run” takes at least a whole year to “cut”. And that’s an immediate withdrawl to you? Substantially, that’s not much different than the White House’s position on withdrawl. Here’s the intellectual Twister – Jay’s assertion that Democrats plan to (apparently) teleport our troops out of Iraq in one fell swoop.

    Evidently you fail to understand the difference between “immediately” and “instantaneously.” The majority of Democrats support the immediate withdrawal of US troops on an arbitrary timeline. This is bad, because it leaves Iraq in a state of anarchy. The White House position is that we do not withdraw until the situation is stabilized. The McCain/Reyes position (which I support) is that we add more troops to Iraq to stabilize the situation before we even contemplate withdrawing our forces.

    Your attempts at spin keep getting more desperate. Cutting and running in slow motion is still cutting and running, and an argument that we should draw down troops at this point remains an argument for defeat. We have an obligation to stabilize Iraq, and we need to do whatever it takes to meet that obligation.

  22. Erica says:

    The majority of Democrats support the immediate withdrawal of US troops on an arbitrary timeline. This is bad, because it leaves Iraq in a state of anarchy.

    Anarchy is what it’s in, now. Arguably, it’s an anarchy caused by the US presence.

    The White House position is that we do not withdraw until the situation is stabilized.

    Which nobody believes is going to happen, ever. “Stay the course” brings the same results as withdrawal, only more slowly and at the cost of a lot more American lives. (Read the ISG report.) But, by all means, tell us how you’d ask an American soldier to go and die in Iraq just to postpone the inevitable.

    The McCain/Reyes position (which I support) is that we add more troops to Iraq to stabilize the situation before we even contemplate withdrawing our forces.

    Never mind, of course, than neither McCain nor Reyes has any idea of where those extra troops are going to come from. Even the Army’s own leaders don’t see any way to increase troop levels with the military as depleted as it is.

    An Iraq strategy that relies on 50,000 imaginary troops? Would it be possible to get an adult in here to discuss this?

  23. Nicq MacDonald says:

    ‘Call it “Jews for peace” this time, or more accurately, “Jews for oil.”’

    Jews for oil? Sounds like a good trade. I’ll take it.

  24. Jay Reding says:

    Anarchy is what it’s in, now. Arguably, it’s an anarchy caused by the US presence.

    Which assumes that we’re the cause of the violence, which simply isn’t true. The anarchy in Iraq is being caused by a combination of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and years of repressed sectarian tensions. Those can’t be fixed until a responsible government has the monopoly on violence in Iraq — and that requires us to set the conditions for the Iraqis to train their troops. That requires more of our soldiers embedding in Iraqi units to train an effective NCO corps necessary for a good military.

    Which nobody believes is going to happen, ever. “Stay the course” brings the same results as withdrawal, only more slowly and at the cost of a lot more American lives. (Read the ISG report.) But, by all means, tell us how you’d ask an American soldier to go and die in Iraq just to postpone the inevitable.

    Page 37 (quoted above) of the ISG report says the exact opposite. The disintegration of Iraq is not inevitable unless we fail to finish the job, and if we do, we’ll pay the price years down the road.

    Never mind, of course, than neither McCain nor Reyes has any idea of where those extra troops are going to come from. Even the Army’s own leaders don’t see any way to increase troop levels with the military as depleted as it is.

    An Iraq strategy that relies on 50,000 imaginary troops? Would it be possible to get an adult in here to discuss this?

    We can’t extend the numbers indefinitely, but we can for a period of time. We have 38,000 US troops in South Korea whose presence is no longer necessary towards patrolling the DMZ. We can shift troops from Germany, Korea, or elsewhere to make up the difference if we have to.

    Sen. McCain is on the Senate Armed Services Committee and Rep. Reyes is the head of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I’d imagine they know a hell of a lot more about the military situation of the US Army than you. Indeed, General Pace has not ruled out the possibility of troop increases.

    Sen. McCain and Rep. Reyes are both right. We can’t allow the current status quo in Baghdad to continue. We need to stop the anarchy there before the diplomatic, political, and other initiatives can succeed. That requires more troops. We can’t sustain those troop levels over the long term, but we can for at least six more months, which is all we should need to get the situation under control if we’re willing to commit to it.

  25. Seth says:

    Jay–
    Murtha wants some troops home immediately. It does not follow that he wants all troops home immediately, which is why all but about 2 Democrats voted against immeditately bringing all troops home.

    Quit politicizing this and wake up to the fact that your policies have failed and will continue to fail.

  26. Seth says:

    Wait–
    Saudi Arabia, a devoutly Shia-led state, is going to sit by and do nothing as a civil war breaks out between the Shias and the Sunnis? As Iran and Syria pump money and possibly troops into the conflict for opposing militias? You’re telling me that in a sectarian war on its border, a state like Saudi Arabia will be content to just “pump their oil?”

    You’ve said a lot of stupid things, Jay, but that might just be the winner.

  27. Jay Reding says:

    Saudi Arabia, a devoutly Shia-led state, is going to sit by and do nothing as a civil war breaks out between the Shias and the Sunnis? As Iran and Syria pump money and possibly troops into the conflict for opposing militias? You’re telling me that in a sectarian war on its border, a state like Saudi Arabia will be content to just “pump their oil?”

    1) KSA is majority Sunni, not Shi’ite. Southern Iraq is majority Shi’ite, which is why the Saudis don’t want Iraq to be destabilized. The Saudis just want to make money and keep their country together, which is why your argument that KSA is involved in destabilizing Iraq is wrong.

  28. Seth says:

    “To turn a blind eye to the massacre of Iraqi Sunnis would be to abandon the principles upon which the kingdom was founded. It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s credibility in the Sunni world and would be a capitulation to Iran’s militarist actions in the region.”

    –Nawaf Obaid, who just happens to be the managing director of the Saudi National Security Assessment Project in Riyadh. You can read the whole thing here.

    So if Jay says one thing on the subject, and an advisor to the Saudi government says another thing, I wonder who we should believe. I don’t expect concrete evidence to change your mind, though.

  29. Jay Reding says:

    Seth:

    You argued:

    Saudi Arabia has the same interests–carving up Iraq, placing religious militias in control, etc–as Syria and Iran have. Except they give us lots of oil so they have to be at the table in the neocon world. It is 100% foolhardy to take countries out of the peace process because we don’t agree with them.

    The article you link to says the exact opposite of that:

    Because King Abdullah has been working to minimize sectarian tensions in Iraq and reconcile Sunni and Shiite communities, because he gave President Bush his word that he wouldn’t meddle in Iraq (and because it would be impossible to ensure that Saudi-funded militias wouldn’t attack U.S. troops), these requests have all been refused.

    He’s referring to the insurgency asking for Saudi help. The Saudis aren’t funding the violence in Iraq like Syria and Iran are.

    For one, Obaid isn’t reflecting Saudi policy. The Saudis aren’t stupid, they don’t want to involve themselves in a war in Iraq when it would risk destabilizing their border. Why the hell would the Saudis want to “carve up” Iraq when the result would the Iranians gaining more power? Your argument still doesn’t make a lick of sense, and all the evidence you’re using to support it only shows why it isn’t true.

    Furthermore, he’s talking about if the US leaves, not current Saudi policy. The article proves my point, not yours, and had you read and understood it you’d see why.

  30. Seth says:

    The Saudis aren’t funding the violence in Iraq like Syria and Iran are.

    It’s not exactly like Syria and Iran, but the similarities are pretty interesting.

    I’m not sure what world you’re living in, but thinking that Saudi Arabia will just sit around and watch a bunch of Sunnis get slaughtered is just ridiculous. The article talks about how the Saudis are willing to get involved and a being pressured to get involved to protect the religious factions loyal to them. So what I said. And it pretty much hits your assertion that “The Saudis just want to make money and keep their country together,” right on the head.

    You are talking about the Saudis not wanting to destabilize Iraq. Ummm newsflash, the whole destabilization thing has already been accomplished. And given a choice between Sunnis controlling part of the counrty and Sunnis sharing control, Saudi Arabia would most likely prefer Sunnis being in control. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

  31. Jay Reding says:

    Read the first paragraph. *Private* Saudi citizens are assisting the insurgency. Aiding terrorism in Iraq is *government policy* for Syria and Iran. The Saudi government is not assisting the conflict in Iraq, and doesn’t want Iraq destabilized because that would mean that there would be a hostile Shi’ite Iranian satrapy right along their border. The Saudis have absolutely no reason to want that to happen, which is why they’ve been warning the United States about the consequences of leaving Iraq.

    Your argument remains incorrect. The Saudi government is not acting like Syria or Iran, they don’t want Iraq to fall apart, and it makes no sense for the Saudis to want a dangerous terror state along their northern border, especially one connected to their Syrian and Iranian rivals. Especially since al-Qaeda regards the Saudis as apostates and has called for their regime to be overthrown. Some individual Saudis may be supporting the insurgency – but it’s questionable whether they even know where their zaqat is going, and it certainly isn’t official Saudi policy.

    Your argument is still completely and utterly at odds with the facts, and you’re only digging yourself deeper into the hole.

  32. Seth says:

    You might actually read the article that apparently proves your point.

    “Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region.”

    “…therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance — funding, arms and logistical support — that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years.”

    “Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias.”

    “But while both sides share responsibility, Iraqi Shiites don’t run the risk of being exterminated in a civil war, which the Sunnis clearly do.”

    There is pressure from Saudi citizens and regional players for Saudis to get involved. Saudi Arabia wants to expand its influence and curb Iran’s. Sunnis are being murdered and the Saudis want to gain influence among Sunnis.

    I’ve not seen one person outside of you that doesn’t think there are strong indicators and powerful reasons for why the Saudis can possibly get involved. It’s already been going on. Many, many people are alarmed at the prospect, and Jay Reding thinks they just want to hang out and make money.

    I can’t really argue with someone that won’t open his eyes.