Burning Allies.... And Ourselves

[NATO AIR]

A fiasco whose true cost we won't understand or "get" until its too late.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030902291.html

Burning Allies -- and Ourselves

By David Ignatius
Friday, March 10, 2006; Page A19

DUBAI -- Officials here heard late Thursday that Karl Rove had decided to pull the plug. President Bush's political adviser was said to have conveyed to a top manager of Dubai Ports World in Washington that the White House couldn't hold out any longer against congressional pressure to kill the Arab company's plan to acquire freight terminals at six U.S. ports. The initial response of one Dubai executive was: "Who's Karl Rove?" But in the end, political leaders here recognized that it was time to fold a losing hand.

Until Rove's decision, Dubai's business leaders had insisted they would fight on. The chairman of Dubai Ports World, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, told me emphatically on Wednesday that his company would do whatever was necessary to convince Congress that the deal posed no security risk -- new investment, additional equipment, more scanning of cargo, special checks of UAE personnel, including himself. But that was before the House Appropriations Committee voted 62 to 2 to kill the deal.

I suspect America will pay a steep price for Congress's rejection of this deal. It sent a message that for all the U.S. rhetoric about free trade and partnerships with allies, America is basically hostile to Arab investment. And it shouldn't be surprising if Arab investors respond in kind. One could blame it all on craven members of Congress, if the opinion polls didn't show that Americans are overwhelmingly against the deal -- and suspicious of Muslims in general. Those poll numbers tell us that America hasn't gotten over Sept. 11, 2001. If anything, Iraq has deepened the country's anxiety, introspection and foreboding.

To appreciate how cockeyed America's Dubai-phobia is, you have to spend a little time here, as I did this week. The truth is, this is one of the few places in the Arab world where things have been going in the right direction -- away from terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism and toward an open, modern economy. That's why congressional opposition came as such a surprise here. People in the UAE think they're America's friends.

The ports deal was part of the UAE's embrace of things Western. Wednesday night, I traveled with the minister of higher education, Sheik Nahayan bin Mubarak, to the dusty city of Al Ain to attend a Mozart festival at which the Vienna Chamber Orchestra performed. And I visited the American University of Sharjah, created nine years ago as a beacon of liberal arts education. On a wall next to the chancellor's office is a photo of the twin towers in New York, taken by one of the students on June 8, 2001. "There are no words strong enough to express how we feel today," reads a statement signed by UAE students.

It's hard to imagine an Arab more pro-American than Sulayem. He earned a degree in economics from Temple University in 1981, and he's still a fanatic about Philadelphia cheese steaks. He described a pilgrimage last New Year's Eve from New York to Pat's King of Steaks in South Philly, only to find the place closed. Before the deal collapsed, Sulayem had a free-trader's conviction that good business judgment would prevail over political rhetoric. "We are businessmen -- we don't understand politics -- but it is a surprise to us. We have been cooperating with the U.S. We are their best friends."

Many of the UAE's political leaders, including the crown prince, Mohammed bin Zayed, had grown increasingly convinced this week that the wisest course would be to pull out. But that view was resisted until almost the end by the business leadership in Dubai, including Dubai's ruler, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid.

Arab radicals will be gloating, admonishing the UAE leaders, "We told you so." But officials here recognize that they're in a common fight with us against al-Qaeda. And unlike some Arab nations, the UAE really is fighting -- reforming its education system to block Islamic zealots and taking public stands with the United States despite terrorist threats. They have created one of the best intelligence services in the Arab world, and their special forces will be fighting quietly alongside the United States in Afghanistan tomorrow, and the day after.

President Bush tried to do the right thing on the Dubai ports deal, but he got rolled by a runaway Congress. The collapse of the deal was a measure of Bush's political weakness -- but even more, of America's traumatized post-Sept. 11 politics. The ironic fact is that the UAE is precisely the kind of Arab ally the United States needs most now. But that clearly didn't matter to an election-year Congress, which responded to the Dubai deal with a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism. And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us.

[email protected]

 

[dilloduck]

A fiasco whose true cost we won't understand or "get" until its too late.

Pitiful---We scream for moderate muslims to stand up and help fight the terrorists and what do we do when they do stand up? Smack em back down. Hopefully there wil lbe no more calls or expectations for moderate muslims to do anything.

 

[ekrem]

Pitiful---We scream for moderate muslims to stand up and help fight the terrorists and what do we do when they do stand up? Smack em back down. Hopefully there wil lbe no more calls or expectations for moderate muslims to do anything.

United Arab emirates is not that important. It is very very small in geography and population. It is the symbol-effect.

 

[dilloduck]

United Arab emirates is not that important. It is very very small in geography and population. It is the symbol-effect.

Not important ?? It's strategic location on the Straight of Hormuz is vital. The Us war effort would be seriously hampered without the ability to use it for a staging area.

 

[ekrem]

Not important ?? It's strategic location on the Straight of Hormuz is vital. The Us war effort would be seriously hampered without the ability to use it for a staging area.

Iran is able to hinder ships going through Hormuz. This revises importance of UAE in the gulf. And for Airforce i don ot see importance for UAE.

 

[ekrem]

And where is CENTCOM? was it Kuwait or UAE?

 

[midswat]

Well I guess since David Ignatious (who the hell is he) said it it must be true.

 

[trobinett]

Well I guess since David Ignatious (who the hell is he) said it it must be true.

A little research will take you a long way.

Check it out:

http://www.davidignatius.com/ie4Newspaper.html

:baby4:

 

[Nienna]

Not important ?? It's strategic location on the Straight of Hormuz is vital. The Us war effort would be seriously hampered without the ability to use it for a staging area.

Yeah... I'm beginning to get the feeling that the port deal would have been a good thing. I have had mixed feelings about it until now.

:runs out before RWA finds me:

 

[midswat]

WoW I guess it has to be true then, I mean this guy writes for the wash post so he must be bang on.

A little research will take you a long way.

Check it out:

http://www.davidignatius.com/ie4Newspaper.html

:baby4:

 

[trobinett]

How`s the old saying go, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can`t make it drink", seems` appropriate in this case.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

And where is CENTCOM? was it Kuwait or UAE?

neither.Centcom is in Fla but there is forward base in Qatar

 

[Annie]

While I disagree with Kudlow's main point, I love the Halliburton part, (so will Dillo, but that can't be helped! ):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/03/a_political_surrender_to_prote.html

A Political Surrender To Protectionism? - By Larry Kudlow

So the White House arranged a sale of Dubai Ports World that will transfer its port operations to a yet-to-be-named U.S. entity. We don't even know if it is a private American company or a government agency of some sort.

Here's something Sen. Schumer can fume about -- one of the very few private American firms capable of running a bunch of port terminals is HALLIBURTON. That's right, Halliburton. Remember them? Every Democrats' favorite.

But the big question is whether foreign investors are being repelled by neo-protectionist American politicians who are using phony national security reasons to advance an anti-trade, anti-investment, xenophobic agenda. This is a point that Steve Moore over at the WSJ is putting forth and it is vitally important. Do we really want to tell foreign capital not to come here? Do we want it in China? Russia? Brazil?

An international think tank estimates that U.S. jobs from foreign direct investment average over $60,000 per job; 34 percent more than U.S. capitalized jobs.

Today's stock market opened up, but at precisely 2:00 p.m. EST when the Dubai Ports World sale was announced, stocks turned tail and closed down 33 points on the day. What does that tell you?

Do we really want to send a message to world investors that we don't want their capital? Do we really want a political surrender to protectionism? Do we really want to emulate the political economy of Smoot Hawley of the 1930s? I don't think so.

- Larry Kudlow, Host of CNBC's Kudlow & Co.

 

[dilloduck]

While I disagree with Kudlow's main point, I love the Halliburton part, (so will Dillo, but that can't be helped! ):

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/03/a_political_surrender_to_prote.html

I promise not to giggle too much :funnyface

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Look at all the logical fallacies used to defend this turd of a deal. "if you don't support Terrorist enabling nations operating our ports, you're a protectionist" -That's utter nonsense.


SO UAE helps us in the war. I'm sure they get paid a pretty penny for it.

The bullshit floating around on this one is impressive in volume.

Look at the complete lack of representatin on the other side of this argument in the mainstream media. The only way to counter the arguments against this deal is to insult the arguer with charges of RAAAAAYCISM or the assinine "You're a protectionist" twaddle.

And for the "this sends a signal posse", it only sends a signal that america is turning protectionist as long as the bush dick bobbers spin it that way.

 

[dilloduck]

Look at all the logical fallacies used to defend this turd of a deal. "if you don't support Terrorist enabling nations operating our ports, you're a protectionist" -That's utter nonsense.


SO UAE helps us in the war. I'm sure they get paid a pretty penny for it.

The bullshit floating around on this one is impressive in volume.

Look at the complete lack of representatin on the other side of this argument in the mainstream media. The only way to counter the arguments against this deal is to insult the arguer with charges of RAAAAAYCISM or the assinine "You're a protectionist" twaddle.

And for the "this sends a signal posse", it only sends a signal that america is turning protectionist as long as the bush dick bobbers spin it that way.

you still don't get it ,do you? The logic regarding the port deal was used to refute arguments against it. We never even got to hear what the deal consisted of. For a country that was just damned and determined to blow us all to hell, they certainly backed off on all operations and management of the ports quickly.

 

[Gunny]

Iran is able to hinder ships going through Hormuz. This revises importance of UAE in the gulf. And for Airforce i don ot see importance for UAE.

Yeah they can. I STILL remember those little speedboats getting as close as they dare to our carrier group.

The ports in UAE are currently critical for ship maintenance. And the fact remains that an ally in a sea of enemies is an ally.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

you still don't get it ,do you? The logic regarding the port deal was used to refute arguments against it. We never even got to hear what the deal consisted of. For a country that was just damned and determined to blow us all to hell, they certainly backed off on all operations and management of the ports quickly.

Yeah. They want to drop the whole issue before we pass a law to ban all terrorist nations from controlling our ports. you don't get it.

 

[Nienna]

I still don't understand this whole issue very well. But it seems to me that it hinges on UAE's motivation. Are they more motivated by money, or are they more motivated by religious beliefs? If it's more about money, the deal might be considered "safe enough." But if it's more about religious beliefs, of course they are dangerous. I don't see how to make a judgment about that without more information on DWP.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying. I'm no strategist.

 

[ekrem]

Yeah they can. I STILL remember those little speedboats getting as close as they dare to our carrier group.

The ports in UAE are currently critical for ship maintenance. And the fact remains that an ally in a sea of enemies is an ally.

Does US Navy have a military NAvy port in UAE? And is USA allowed by UAE to station their troops and military material?