Replies

If the criticism of DPW is valid, then the safety of our military and of our civilian contractors has been jeopardized in a major way,since DPW holds almost total control of the support of our naval vessels and aircraft in the region. I would expect the Chairman of the House Armed Forces Committee to address that danger, but so far, he has not.

Indeed, they may well have been jeopardized. In a "major way." A risk was run. A balancing act if you will. While they could hit our Navy hard, as did Al-Queda in Yemen, they also know that our troops are right there to go after them. Furthermore, the Sultanate is not going to be happy if any nukes went off in their own harbors. That doesn't mean that it can always control the powder-keg population it sits over.

It is reasonable to surmise that everyone, including those with the larger misgivings such as Duncan Hunter, may have stayed mum on the risks being run. Exposing our troops and sailors to those risk... And it was done likely with the very best of intentions. It was done in order to "win" the War on Terror vis-a-vis Iraq and Iran.

And similar dangerous 'alliances' have been risked before. Just as we have heard so much the last week from the spin-control done by Prager, Medved and Hewitt. The famous "we allied with STALIN!" example of WW-II.

Yes we did.

But
(1)The alliance was made without the American public ever being fully informed what was known about Stalin's monstrousness. (FDR seems not to have wanted to know either, likely with help from the Soviet Moles).

Indeed, the public was knowingly MISINFORMED via the New York Times. Covering for Stalin.

And similarly, there seems to be a serious effort on the part of the DWP proponents and Dubai regime to sweep under the rug the very real security issues and concerns that need to be addressed not just in private or "under the table"...but in public for our system of government to work. The Executive Branch does need to build support for its radical position, not just peremptorily 'execute' and then seek to justify it post hoc. Clearly, there has been process damage done by the proponents, who have attempted to evade the substantive intent of the vetting process...and deploy a different standard than we would expect for other and closer 'allies.'

(2) Furthermore, the example is inapt, because we didn't let Stalin take over our own port-side terminal operations as a gesture of solidarity. Stalin was notably impatient with the whole "Second Front" delay of the Allies...and needed coaxing and reassurances. Yet we still never gave him any such concessions. Yet here we are presently doing just that with DPW, with suspicious signs that the politics of the WOT are overwhelming the judgments of those evaluating the critical nagging details of the approval process.

There also 3 interesting "atmospheric issues" that may also bear on the Administration's adamance on the deal. As discussed elsewhere,
(1) the Commerce Dept. has been attempting to induce the UAE into a "free trade pact" and
(2)the fact that the UAE is running out of oil...and needs some alternative lines of business for an income stream for their futures. This would explain (albeit it still may not warrant our accepting) their energetic acquisition efforts, and
(3) We have given their air force a hell of a lot of the newest-generation F-16s.

All of these are fraught with the hazards of not just diplomatic embarrassment, but alienation, destabilization, and security 'blow-back'.

The administration is truly frightened beyond pant-wetting stage if the Congress pulls the plug, and the Emirates perceived that they have been "snubbed."

It should not have been allowed to come to this brink of crisis. It should have been headed off at the pass...rather than letting politics trump process.