<Senior Saudi rulers believe the United States has "overstayed its welcome" and that other forms of less conspicuous military cooperation should be devised once the United States has completed its war in Afghanistan, according to a senior Saudi official.

Pure crap.

* the war is not “our war in Afghanistan.” the war is “our war against global terrorism.” at the moment, it just happens to be confined to Afghanistan -- and Pakistan -- and the Philippines -- and we’re looking at Iraq and India (one day the Post just might get the label straight)

Saudis give several reasons for deciding that the Americans should leave, beginning with their desire to appear self-reliant and not dependent on U.S. military support.

* then they’ll need to up their own very limited defenses against certain aggressors -- like Iraq.

The American presence has become a political liability in domestic politics and in the Arab world, Saudi officials say.

* a “political liability” from a religious standpoint. there’s not a whole lot we can do about a nation that refuses to look ahead to the future of its own logical prosperity, and allows itself to be swayed and led by purely, religious emotion.

The Saudi government has also become increasingly uncomfortable with a role in U.S. efforts to contain Saddam Hussein, and earlier ruled out use of Saudi territory as a base for bombing raids on Iraq.

* and that’s okay. we’ve already shown our long-range, “over the horizon” capabilities. in-country bases are crucial for deterrence, but not an immediate necessity in the defeat of an invading force.

"We need a base in that region, but it seems to me we should find a place that is more hospitable. . .‚. I don't think they want us to stay there."

And I suppose the right honorable Carl M. Levin has a solid suggestion?

Probably not.

"The Saudis actually think somehow they are doing us a favor by having us be there helping to defend them."

We were not defending the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We were defending the cartel from very possible attack, as well as the global economy from a sure oil-price spike that would cripple the international oil industry to its very core. This is one of the many reasons the U.S. is researching alternatives to imported petroleum.

Saudi Arabia was never colonized by a foreign power, and has long been sensitive about its independence.



[ ... ]

Crown Prince Abdullah has taken the lead of the faction within the royal family arguing that the kingdom would be safer without the U.S. military presence, Saudi sources said.





The above 2 comments come together very well. The kingdom was never colonized because it was always considered a parched desert (and it really is, btw). That same kingdom “would be safer without the U.S. military presence,” if only it had remained simply a parched desert. Well, it’s not. There’s a whole lot of raw petroleum under those sands, and this, my friend, is buried treasure, just waiting for some jolly old pirate -- um, a certain ‘Captain Hussein’, who proudly flies his own version of the Skull & Crossbones over the Persian Main -- to walk in and dig it up.

The U.S. military presence at Prince Sultan Air Base, they say, is crucial to Washington's entire security system for defending America's oil-wealthy Arab allies against Iran and Iraq.

And, finally, reality rears its ugly head.

Thanks, Ed!
Dan