Today's Washington Post has a couple of paragraphs that just leap off the page:Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.) said last night that he will convene his panel today for a public briefing to be led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt and five other administration officials involved in the security review of the deal. Warner was briefed yesterday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The senator said he was satisfied that proper procedures were followed on the deal.Translation--sell US ports to the Dubai government or else Dubai might make difficulties for the US Navy in the Persian Gulf.
But he said he would withhold judgment on the deal's national security implications until after today's briefing. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region, Warner noted. He added: "If they say they have not been treated fairly in this, we run the risk of them pulling back some of that support at a critical time of the war."
Even obvious business connections to Bush administration officials are not enough to explain the commitment to Dubai that President Bush has put into this issue. Contrary to today's ridiculours Washington Post editorial, this is not about "promoting democracy," for Dubai is an Emirate ruled by Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum (pictured above)--that is, a monarchy. Last time I checked, the Emir had not been elected by the population who live in Dubai (many of whom are not permitted to become citizens, in any case). And it's not about "capitalism" either, because Dubai Ports World is owned by the government of Dubai. That is, it is a state-run--or socialist--operation. So, if President Bush were claiming to promote monarchy, or socialism, the Dubai deal might make sense. But it obviously has nothing to do with either. At least the clueless Wall Street Journal editorial didn't pretend this is about democracy or free enterprise. For them it seems to be a simple matter of lockstep loyalty to the Bushes.
On the other hand, the national security angle does seem important. It may be a payoff to the emir in exchange for US docking rights. If that's the case, unfortunately, it fits in with Howard Dean's description of the US-led "coalition of the willing" as the bought, the bribed and the bullied--and bodes ill for America's ability to lead the world, because it appears that the country is being sold off to pay for the war in Iraq, piece-by-piece...
I hope Bush loses this one, just like he lost the Harriet Miers nomination.