Is Rove on Vacation Again?

Like just about everyone else in America except Jimmy Carter, I was pretty alarmed when I heard that the Treasury Department had approved a deal to let UAE controlled Dubai Ports World (DPW) become the operating company of six US ports.  Without knowing any of the particulars, it struck me as a remarkably bad idea.  Michelle Malkin, as well as many security experts, seem to agree. Up till now, I have assumed that the administration was aware that the deal was out of the question and simply needed political cover in order to say no to the UAE, one of the warmest of our lukewarm Middle Eastern allies.  Although I still think that's a possibility, Bush's stated intention to veto any Congressional efforts to scrap the deal does make me wonder.  I'm also pretty freaked-out by this comment by Bush:

"I want those who are questioning it [the deal] to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."

The different standard for Middle Eastern companies has to do with the fact that we aren't currently fighting a war against Anglo-fundamentalist guerrillas intent on expanding the British Empire and particularly keen about striking America at home. Given that we are fighting just such a war with Islamo-fundamentalists, exceptional caution is required.  I deeply resent the suggestion of the Bush administration, some bloggers, and "moderate" Arabs that such caution is racist.  To the contrary, it is an unfortunate consequence of a war that America didn't start and has to deal with. Accordingly, it isn't for objectors to explain why a "different standard" is warranted, its for supporters to demonstrate why America's security would not be compromised by the deal.

There is no dispute about the popularity of radical Islam and America-hating in the UAE and Middle East in general. According to a June 2004 Zogby International study, 73 percent of people polled in the UAE had an unfavorable view of the U.S, while only 14 percent had a favorable view. These sentiments explain why the UAE has had to show its support for the US and its objectives in a mostly behind the scenes manner. Given this reality, how can the UAE be expected to have the ability, much less the will, to ensure that Jihadist sympathizers are not a part of, or are not otherwise able to gain access to, the DPW organization? 

For the same reason that, during the Cold War, a janitorial company owned and operated by Russian-Americans probably wouldn't have gotten the contract to clean the bathrooms at NORAD, DPW probably shouldn't be permitted to operate six US ports. This may not be fair, but that's the practical and political reality.  In breaking the bad news to prince/sheik/sultan whoever he is, the Bush administration can just shrug its shoulders and explain that, given the strong public opposition to the deal, it really had no choice.  No doubt the US has heard that same excuse from the UAE many times.

Maybe Bush is hoping the deal gets bogged down in litigation. Fighting six politically charged lawsuits in six separate US states would probably be enough to scare off anyone.  That way, the deal gets scrapped, Bush saves face with the UAE, and Republicans will be able to distance themselves by asserting that they tried to stop the deal. Other than Karl Rove and Dick Cheney being locked in a closet somewhere, this is the only explanation for the Bush position that makes any sense.