...we must invade and conquer Saudi Arabia. Too extreme? Consider:
1. Once we control Saudi Arabia, we have a clear path to Iraq and Syria.
2. Once we control Saudi oil, we can cut off the money flow to terrorists.
3. Once we control Saudi oil, the Europeans will start sucking up to us, instead of the Arabs.
4. Once we control Saudi Arabia, we can use control over the Haj, and oil money, to reshape Islam in ways that are more to our liking. Just as the Saudis have.
As Instapundit himself has noted, there has been strong critique of this even from within the warblogsphere, notably from Sgt. Stryker :
I would have to disagree with you [Instapundit] on most of these points. I favor gutting the House of Saud and smashing Wahabbism, but physically conquering Arabia with our forces is not the way to do it...
...Contrary to popular blog belief, not all Arabs and muslims hate us. The worst elements make the most noise and therefore receive most of the attention, but there are moderate muslims to be found and my experience shows that they are in the majority ...
...If we were to occupy Arabia, the consequences would be disastrous. It would be an event on a level similar to Sept. 11th for them. Any moderates left would most likely be radicalized and they would have a legitimate reason to declare jihad on us since we would be the unarguable aggressor in that instance.
And what of the non-Arab muslims? Occupying Arabia may cut off the funding for the fundamentalists, but that benefit would be offset by the radicalization of all Islam against us. We will have made enemies with a good portion of the world, and no amount of "reshaping Islam" on our part will negate the basic fact that we will be occupying the Holy Places...
...Lastly, I believe with every fiber of my being that such a scenario would fundamentally change who and what we are as a nation. We are an empire to be sure, but it is an empire of ideas propagated through free trade, not an Empire that occupies others to secure it's borders to ensure peace and security. I'm not a fan of Roman comparisons to America, but in this case, your scenario would lead us on the same road the Romans trod down. I'm not willing to sacrifice the freedom and liberty of my descendants to secure some oil fields.
and a well-thought post by Quasipundit arguing that we still do need the Arab world.
What few pundits seem to realize is that "Saudi" is only an adjective to "Arabia". Some of the critiques compare a potential invasion of Mecca by the US to 9/11 in its psychological impact. The comparison is woefully understated, in fact it would be the equivalent of nuking New York, DC, and Hollywood. It would be big enough to even make committed patriots of America like myself truly question their allegiances and loyalties. Though some warblogs have already advocated a first-strike, so go figure.
I'd love to see the Wahabi influence diminished, the House of Saud marginalized in political influence, and heck why not really dream and hope for Fatimi Shia Ismaili Islam to dominate Mecca Medina once again. Or at least, a resurgence of Mu'tazila theologic school. But none of this should happen at the hands of the USA. It's colonial-imperialist meddling of precisely this sort that created the problems we face, from the British meddling with Palestine, to the US funding Iraq, to Israel supporting Hamas. These are historical facts which of course are completely ignored in the punditsphere and so we are doomed to repeat these mistakes.
and recognizing that severe stress tends to radicalize people is essential in formulating a foreign policy that doesn't leave time-bombs for the future. That's true in Palestine and that will be true in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Some self-reflection by the pundit elite might actually make them realize this.
 Which states that as a group of people face threat to their liberties, they become radicalized. Here are links to the original post and my own commentary.