Do we have any doubts left at all the Riyadh is an enemy capitol?

No doubts here, Stephen...except about whether Bush II will be any better than Bush I at ending the disgrace and corruption. (And I'm talking about us here--not even mentioning them.)

Great commentary by Pipes. Especially loved the phrase: "the massive preemptive cringe of American officials."

One thing this war is showing us, which I never appreciated in thinking about previous wars, is how strange things look prospectively. Just imagine what it must have been like in the pre-WWII period, say, right after Stalin and Hitler signed their non-aggression pact. Who could've foreseen the way the war would look in retrospect, as a collaboration between the U.S. (and U.K.) and the Soviets, against the fascists.

I mentioned in comment earlier in the week about an article in last weeks National Review about US diplomats going to work for the Saudis after they finish their "service" to our country.

I think Pipes is on to something when he states that Congress needs to eliminate the incentive for our diplomats to be courted by Saudi's.

There are some very simple ways to do it. We pass a law stating that it is illegal for any diplomat to accept gifts from a foreign citizen or government or special interest group representing the interests of any foreign citizen or government. We make it a crime punishable by large fines and even jailtime. Further, each diplomat should be required to sign a "non-compete" type of restrictive covenant whereby they pledge not to work for, nor receive money from any of the above listed entities, for at least ten years.

The get rich quick on the Saudi's school of prostitution, er I mean diplomacy would soon end (of course the administration would have to have the courage to enforce it).

The other way is to simply only staff Jews in the American embassy to Saudi Arabia.

No doubt that Riyadh is an enemy capital.

The real question is Washington.

Do you think Colon Powell is looking for a job?

The problem is not limited to the Saudi's. I remember similar claims regarding diplomats working with Japan back in the early 90s and China in the late 90s.

While I certainly don't dispute that the Saudis are the enemy, I think this line of thought is a red herring.

Former diplomats are private citizens, and they can take employ from whomever they choose. I worry much more about the behavior of current diplomats and staff, which is so far unimpressive.

Yes, I know, one has influence over the other, but I place most of the responsibility on the acting occupants of the White House and State Department. (Who, to answer Mr. Vodka Man's question, still seem to consider Riyadh to be a friendly capital.)

>Former diplomats are private citizens, and
>they can take employ from whomever they
>choose. I worry much more about the
>behavior of current diplomats and staff, which
>is so far unimpressive.

Retired American military officers are also private citizens. Yet if those officers dealt with a contractor on financial matters for the government. They are forbidden to work for a contractor on those issues/contracts for the rest of their lives.

A similar ban can and should be applied to former American diplomats representing foreign powers.

Well, this is basically another form of "constituent capture", where a regulatory agency becomes an arm of the industry it regulates. (Generally for easily understandable reasons - the experts on the issues to be regulated are naturally to be found in the industry, there's going to be a lot of going-back-and-forth from one to the other in the normal course of events.)

Has anyone come up with any good solutions to regulatory capture? They might apply here.

It's also worth remembering that this is probably not just a phenomenon pertaining to Arab countries. It likely happens with every country we deal with, we're just noticing it here in sharp relief because these people are de facto at war with us, and our State Department is pursuing their interests rather than ours.

Former diplomats are private citizens, and they can take employ from whomever they choose. I worry much more about the behavior of current diplomats and staff, which is so far unimpressive.

In part, I'd say, because they know doing the Saudi's bidding improves their retirement. It's corruption -- but done in a way that avoids the law.

Yes, I know, one has influence over the other, but I place most of the responsibility on the acting occupants of the White House and State Department. (Who, to answer Mr. Vodka Man's question, still seem to consider Riyadh to be a friendly capital.)

Absolutely. The constant dithering and two-faced talk coming from the White House is getting old.

(Jeez. And I voted for him.)

the only brightside is if Bush gets any balls than he'd be able to totally blindside the Saudis.

Wake up people this is not a New Thing. Steve
Emerson pointed out the influence of the Bedouin lobby in the American House of Saud;
back in 1983. Sen.Fulbright, former pol bosses
like Fred Dutton, George Ball, Fmr JCS chair
Moorer; of course theirs the BCCI crowd from
Clark Clifford, Andrew Young, & Bert Lance,
Bechtel's reps in Schultz & Weinberger, (although either would be an improvement over
Powell) What is your solution. Suppose we took
Miles Ignotus; aka; Edward Luttwak's suggestion
& we seized the oilfields and deposed the House
of Saud, to which we have bound since 1945, under FDR. Who would we put in their place, who would not be worse.
,

Over at Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds wondered why the Dems aren't using this as an issue. The reason is quite simple: the ambassadors they've appointed, the State Department they ran for eight years, the foreign policy establishment they ran, are all just as corrupt.

For Trent,
Unless the rules have changed very recently, there is not a lifetime ban on retirees going to work for contractors. There is a two year ban which only applies where the official was involved in making procurement decisions from the particular vendor. At any rate, even a lifetime ban cannot stop the Lawless greed alluded to by Mr pipes.

Let's see what happens if Bush gets the Senate in the fall.

Hmmn, aiding a hostile power in exchange for money & influence? During a time of war, no less? I'd say that this fits the definition of treason if it can be proved. The catch is that with so many high-muckity-mucks involved, it'll be real hard to prove...

But don't you know Cybr, Saudi Arabia is our "Friend." Just like Europe, except they beat women in the streets.

When i see how the state department "experts" assisted by the Eurocrats are working hard to sell Israel over to the islamofascists of the house of Saud using the old and time tested "Salami method" of methodically slicing away larger and larger slices of Israel's security and freedom to operate in the middle east in exchange for vague promises of peace which are ( as plainly addmiteded by Arafat himself) intended to be broken at the convenient moment as is customary to those practising Islam and well documented in their holy scripture.
Boy, am I glad we have plenty of nukes, because this is the only thing that is going to save us after all the deals with the saudi's turn sour and the iran/Iraq/arafat coalition show their real face.
I am not sure Colin Powel is on the Saudi's payroll but I have to admitt that the whole schtick we're being lately fed by the state Dept. people makes me very worried to say the least.