This part I agree is true now. Saddam was a major source of funds before we took him out.
However, the "official" government of Saudi Arabia was not the "official" source of funds. Sometimes you have to keep your friends close and your enemies closer till you are in a position to solve a problem permanently.
But there are truly a lot of governments, including especially the nonMiddle Eastern country of Russia, that are running ops against us.
Past mistakes, past unrecognized enemies, are not an excuse for shirking reality today. The only way out of the Middle East is through development of a reliable source of alternate energy. Any plan short of that is just cutting our economic and military throat, and inviting the vultures home to feed on our undefended corpse.
Beyond that we have to understand that the genie is already out of the bottle. Even if we packed up and went home today, the forces there that hate us will get a nuke and take us out at home if we don't keep them on the run on their home turf. We will need footholds in the Middle East for a long time to come, or we will pay the consequence. But bombing indiscriminantly will not solve the problem.
Under Clinton we had a 50% cut in our forces in the Pacific, and we are still struggling back from that nadir. Griping about it won't solve the problem. Working to elect Representatives, Senators and a President who will continue to correct that is the only way to go. Third party voting is a knife in the heart of our armed forces.
Continue? They never started it to begin with. Bush is still in the downsizing mode. Cheney as Sec of Def was as bad as Rummy. Someone who did not need to be in that position. He was no Cap neither was Rummy. Bush and congress messed up Big Time immediately after 9/11 by not calling for and raising troop levels. Had these simpletons did as much deployments would be shorter and fewer for current troops. We can not continue on our present military course without great harm coming.
Gulf War One and the carrier deployment and post deployment maintenance mismanagement that came with it cost us a carrier. Not an oldie but one approaching mid service life. Actually it was the newest of the Kitty Hawk Class. I know it for a fact because it was ran three deployments in three years then at the end of the third when back at the base had a major boiler room explosion. God help us if they think they can do nukes this way and get by with it. No a nuke can't take such abuse either. They can not deploy indefinitely or actually any longer than a conventional. The reactor is not the issue the axillary and support equipment is. Both have 1200 PSI steam systems that run the screws and generators etc.
The Kennedy and Kitty Hawk fiasco that came later was another example. I think that was a first for any carrier to fail INSURV. There is no excuse for the military shortfalls and the GOP after 1994 is to blame for it remaining that way. They had the houses and ones like Warner sat on their chairs and did absolutely nothing.
If Bush and congress doesn't start addressing manpower issues the Bush legacy will be much like the mess created Post Nam by Ford/Rummy and Carter/ Brown.. People will walk away. I served in that one and saw it happen. I did some of my four years under Ford and most of it under Carter. I got out in time to vote for Reagan at home.