Sorry I hadn't heard of the university.

Turkey was asked to be a land base for us and explicitly refused. So again we are back to the "experts" absurd claim that being in Saudi Arabia served no "military efficiency". Since his thesis rests fully on this point, it rather collapses rapidly from there. It was a nice try. The other flawed point that remains is the idea that if we didn't have a presence in Saudi Arabia that Bin Laden and ilk wouldn't hate us. Doh.

You say Iraq's military has been shattered, I'd say he's a proven threat who openly seeks the downfall of the Saudi regime.
Our being there is the best deterrant, and our presence is radically reduced from war levels.

I admit our being there doesn't help the average Saudi vote, but them being toppled by radicals probably wouldn't get them a vote either, would it? The idea that the primary threat to the Saudis is internal is interesting? Lot of wealthy people with strong feelings I'm sure. Same thing outside of the country, though.

By the way yes Iran is a threat, a factory and haven for the most extreme and successful terrorists in the world. They're building reactors, so maybe they'll be more of a threat later on. The theocracy still calls us great satan, and would love to topple the Saudi royal family. But the average people are pretty mellow these days.

I agree it is good to minimize foreign involvements, and would say increasing domestic oil and nuclear sources is a good way to do that. Would have been nice if the author mentioned excessive reliance on foreign oil and some alternatives instead of vaguely blaming "oil policy" without a proposed solution.

The real irony is that the people most vocal about getting us out of the middle east, are often the same ones sabotaging our efforts to increase domestic oil production and nuclear power.