That's precisely the point!
These people are not us, and insofar as this regime has any Western characteristics at all it is in opposition to its people-the natives, not the millions of imported, non-Muslim workers-not because of them.
It is an unrepresentative, undemocratic, dictatorial monarchy, just like every other country in that region, with the exception of Yemen, which is an undemocratic, unrepresentative, quasi-military dictatorship.
This is why the Sabahs had to force women's suffrage through the parliament in Kuwait, which would have never passed it on its own initiative.
This is the problem with basing our strategic partnerships upon such flimsy pretexts as which despotic sheik or sultan or military caudillo happens to be in charge of a nation at any given moment in time.
Trouble is, we need to be helping strengthen the right side of things in that part of the world. The UAE royal family, like the Kuwaitis, DO push through democratizing measures to the extent politically feasible. They do not have absolute control over their populations and cannot be held responsible for the existence of a sizeable radical Islamic component, any more than the Bush administration can be held responsible for the existence of our homegrown radical anti-war movement. The question for the US, and for civilization is, at this point in time, are we better off with or without the UAE royal family in power? And the answer is most definitely WITH, because the available alternatives are clearly aligned with radical Islam. Any actions by the US government which would tend to weaken the control of the UAE royal family, would be strengthening the radical Islamic forces in the UAE. I'm afraid this storm of opposition to the ports deal is just giving ammo to the radical Islamists in their fight against the Western-sympathizing royals.