The Dubai Ports Deal Reprised, and Other Things

I find myself in agreement with David Ignatius of the WaPo, who says in an editorial today:

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.

The entire Dubai ports affair leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost is the absolute incompetence displayed by the administration in handling this deal, from beginning to end, assuming this deal is indeed dead. While I have few doubts the business transaction was completely vetted by competent analysts from every government department involved, e.g., Homeland Security, Defense, Commerce, the fact that the analysts failed to appreciate the political implications of the deal astounds me. If it is indeed true that no Cabinet level official was briefed on the deal while it was being evaluated and after the decision was made, then some heads need to roll. One always keeps The Boss informed of things that might bite him. Always. Failure to do so means you don’t understand the nature of your job; either you need to find another line of work or get the necessary management experience in a more junior capacity.

One the president was informed of the deal and became aware there were some ignorant knee-jerk reactions by congressional idiots, the proper response would have been to discuss the issue with those folks privately and quietly. If your first statement on the subject is “I’ll veto any attempt to override this deal…” then you’ve displayed sheer arrogance. Perhaps Dubya assumed the deal’s critics were simply playing politics and responded in kind. Whatever his motive, it sure didn’t demonstrate competence, in my eyes. Subsequent actions by the administration to educate, explain, and rationalize the transaction to its critics, and more importantly, to the American public, were far too little, far too late. I blame the President for this failure, because by this time it was up to him to get the Best and Brightest strategists and tacticians to work on the problem. He failed to do so.

The second part of the issue that doesn’t sit well with me is the utter lack of backbone displayed by the congressional majority and the rank opportunism displayed by the minority. This is an election year, to state the obvious, and it seems getting re-elected takes precedence over doing what’s right for the country and its allies. It’s probably naïve of me to continue to be shocked by reprehensible behavior on the part of Congress. Silly me. The WaPo has another Op-Ed on the Dubai deal that specifically addresses Congress’ role in undermining and ultimately defeating this transaction. Better yet, the Post also clearly articulates the possible consequences of this huge error:

But our brave new Congress has achieved more than the irrational spiking of one business deal. It has also sent a clear message to the Arab world: No matter how far you move along the path of modernization and cooperation, Americans may be unable to distinguish you from al-Qaeda. Dubai welcomes hundreds of ship visits every year from the U.S. Navy and allied ships. It has worked with U.S. agents to stop terrorist financing and nuclear cooperation. But none of that mattered to the craven members of Congress -- neither to the Democrats who first sensed a delicious political opportunity nor to the Republicans who then fled in unseemly panic. As to long-term damage to the United States' security, economy and alliances? Not of concern to the great deliberative body.

You really should read the whole thing.

I’m disappointed by those bloggers on the right who piled on, and remained in the pile, even after people like CENTCOM commander General Abizaid made the point perfectly clear that the UAE is a staunch ally, not “the enemy.” And, finally, I’m disappointed the great majority of the American public seemed to be both xenophobic and incapable of recognizing that we do have some allies in the Middle East, allies that are helping us at great risk to themselves.

We’ve made strategic mistakes in the past, and we’ve recovered from those mistakes. No doubt we’ll be able to overcome this one. This is a hard war, and it’s gonna be a long one. We damned sure shouldn’t make it harder than it already is.

From The Remedy, the blog of The Claremont Institute (entry dated March 9^th): “On March 8, 1946, Winston S. Churchill arrived in Richmond, Virginia, to give a short address on the importance of Anglo-American unity. Yesterday, exactly 60 years later, the Old Dominion State made Sir Winston an honorary Virginian. He is one of only four to have received the distinction. (Read the Virginia-Pilot’s report to see who the others were.)” As most Churchill fans know, JFK made Sir Winston an honorary US citizen in 1963, two years before the Old Lion’s death. There is also a USS Winston S. Churchill, an Arleigh Burke class destroyer. From the USS Churchill web site: “As a courtesy to the ship's namesake country, a member of the Royal Navy is assigned to the ship's crew at all times.”

Wind update: The trees are still doing their frantic rumba—twisting, turning, and waving their branches all over the place. The atmosphere is still dust-laden, as is every flat surface in El Casa Móvil de Pennington. And it’s gonna stay this way through tomorrow. We will endure, we will.