Replies

President Bush is getting a bad rap on the port deal. Such deals are worked out by non-govermental groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, and other world supra-bodies.

Our foreign policies are much the same no matter which party is in power. remember when the Dems were in power we bombed Libya, the Balkans and otherwise carried on our foreign policy just as if the Republicans were in the White House.

Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money. But as for hiring an Arab country to "manage" anything, it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport.

Reply to FReeper R.W.Ratikal's post (#254). Post addressed to most FReepers who addressed me on the original post. Some rambling thoughts:

"Naturally, foreign countries want to invest in America where their investment is safe. I say take their money."

I agree.....enhanced foreign investment is a sign of a booming economy and confidence in the American democratic system (and legal protections).

"But as for hiring an Arab country to "manage" anything, it surprises me that we would look to a culture that has not advanced very much in 2000 years to manage a high-tech operation like a modern seaport."

The bulk of the white and blue-collar force in the Middle East (be it Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or even Qatar) consists of Americans, Europeans, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, and other Asians). Americans, Europeans, and Indians make up a bulk of the executive ranks (in that order of preference). Asians and poorer Arabs like Egyptians make up almost 100% of the labor force. As a result, the barbarians are quite confident that they can manage high-tech operations (they do have the necessary manpower and that may include some/several Al-Queda sympathetic Arab suits).

Re: the port deal specifically, the UAE should have expected this backlash from the public. They should have also thought twice about recognizing the Taliban, financing AQ Khan's nuclear blackmarket, funding Hamas, and supporting every Wahabbi cause in he last 30 years. You reap what you sow; nations and people, and not just Arab ones, have long memories. The Arabs are paying the price (justified IMO) for their past sins.

There will be retaliation from the UAE; let us make no mistakes on that point. However, these retaliations will be in the form of canceling a few contracts (like the one with Boeing) rather than any demands that the US leave UAE ports or stop using their military facilities. The security relationship is symbiotic and I doubt that the UAE would be willing to harm diplomatic or trade relations in the long run.

That said, this issue was mishandled in its entirety by both the Executive and by Congress. The President's aides let him down in this case by not preparing an effective case for the American people. The WH paid the price for the lack of communication. That said, the president accomplished a LOT in February on the foreign policy front. It will up to him to placate the UAE and prepare for the coming crisis in Iran.

Congress screwed up this issue up too. Their knee jerk and highly politicized reactions do not speak well of their competence. The Democrats used the DPW deal to get to the right of the Republicans on security; they demagogued this issue from the very beginning and spread lies in order to mislead the public. The Republicans had no other option but follow the Democrats on an important political issue in an election year.

IMHO, this entire fiasco is an event in which there are no winners. Everybody lost to varying degrees and not a single side distinguished itself with its behavior.

What do y'all think?