Disagree, completely. What defines "doing jack" about the Saudis or Paks in your book? Military action against them? Is not the fact that our insurmountable military power is multiplied by it's judicious application too slow a process?
Everyone knows the Saudis are the prime $$$ movers behind wahhabism, but not many give deeper thought to other realities within the Saudi regime. Their very timidness in the military world is a weakness; this has been clearly betrayed by their devils bargain with the islamist radicals wherein they "paid them off" to export their violence rather than direct it against them in their homeland. Witness how our successes in Iraq & Afghanistan have contributed to those fanatics striking out in Saudi, and witness how (albeit reluctantly...) the Saudis begin to take them on more forcefully.
The Saudis have money, oil, influence... but no backbone. Theirs is a society that - sitting upon all the countless wealth bubbling up beneath their feet - they chose to live a life of princely royalty... not earning their way or building their society, instead choosing the life of elitism and priviledge being catered to by their obvious inferiors. This is a fundamental weakness that it seems to me does not yet merit confronting militarily... especially when we know that we can clean them up when and wherever we so choose.
Pakistan, the other fermenting trough of terrorism, has been flip-flopped into supporting the war on terror. Yes, initially it was a reluctant change, but can anyone doubt that it is paying dividends at an increasing rate? I'm sure that Musharraf knew the game was up when 9-11 occurred - we needed bases to hit the taliban, Pakistan was closest, and as for not joining up with us/continueing to breed terrorists within their borders in defiance of the US??? A quick glance at our overwhelming military power coupled with nearby India surely convinced Musharraf that he'd better grab this bull by the horns, take advantage of this golden chance to rid himself of his radical opponents and move his country forward.
We're doing these things without recourse to military conflict - whereas Iraq definitely had it coming, and - an almost universally overlooked fact - we were already at war with them since among the 18-odd resolutions Saddam defied, the 5th or 6th one basically stated that the pre-existing condition of war which had been put on hold by the cease-fire was then reinstated due to Saddam's non-compliance with the cease-fire requirements.
Military strength lies not just in the successful application of might, but in the judicious and firm advancement of strategy that is backed up by military might. Defeating an enemy by force of arms is fine, but ultimately means that all other means of coercion short of bellic exchange have failed. Turning him into first an impotent enemy, then reluctant accomplice, finally an important asset contributing to your overall strategy is even better. The Saudis are now impotent, and the Paks are reluctant accomplices moving towards the latter category. I'd say that's pretty good for 3 years into this WOT.
CGVet58
Your comments are right on. Tsun Tzu said the best victory is the one that comes at the least cost, and if you can get your enemy to commit suicide, so much the better---or words to that effect. While I don't think we've been as aggressive with SA as we should be, I fully understand the "one-enemy-at-a-time" approach. This was how the Mongols conquered most of the known world, not by simultaneously pissing off every one on every frontier.