However, the UAE has been pretty solidly on our side and apparently already services most of our navy in the region.
They have as sophisticated a banking and business structure as can be found outside of the major western countries and in that manner have much to lose from the spread of either backward looking fundamental islam or the crises it has engendered.
They do have radicals in their society, just as does Canada and most of europe; there is virtually no place on the globe that can guarantee that no one can buy a rubber boat and load it up with explosives.
Immediately prior to what I consider a near criminal vote in congress we saw growing evidence that this was a business deal - not a national security issue.
We've also seen that both mainland Chinese and other islamic states already have very similar access ('ownership') in US ports.
We know that 'security' is largely a matter of controls at the ports of origin - including the UAE.
This was a business deal and the UAE is a business oriented assembly of smaller (presumably more homogeneous) entities.
It is THEIR interpretation that is now critical - how should they react to an openly anti-muslim turn of events between them and a western power that they have been building trade ties with & which many of their regional neighbors are just as overtly at war with?
Finally, it's for darn sure that others in the area will eventually use this 'insult' as a means to pressure UAE and to stir up both overseas & local islamists...lots more significant than a couple of cartoons.
"Growing evidence" is all well and good, but what Bush failed to explain is why, if this was not a security issue, the security organs were involved in vetting it. We needed to hear less bland assurances from him that the UAE is a good ally, and more explanation as to what really is at issue with these port deals. If, just assuming for the sake of argument, someone who ran these port operations really wanted to do us harm, would they be in an enhanced position to do so?
If the answer is no (as some have alleged), then that would settle the issue. If yes, then we really need to be scrutinizing the UAE a little more. Their decision to cooperate with us in certain areas could be purely tactical. I'm concerned about their refusal to recognize Israel, and to even refuse admission to people with Israeli visas on their passports. I want to know why they were one of only a tiny handful of countries to recognize the Taliban. I also want to know why the place seemed such an attractive hub for terrorist operations.
When the President doesn't want to get into these issues, preferring instead to just talk down to us and say that they're good allies, and expect everyone to take that at face value without question, then he only has himself to blame for the failure of the deal.