Dubai, or Not Dubai?

Dubai, or Not Dubai?

Well, now that the Dick Chaney fiasco has settled down, the Bush administration has lurched into yet another public-relations disaster. This time, it's the leasing of our five biggest ports to a company from the United Arab Emirates. This has caused a firestorm on both the Right and the Left. This deal has left pretty much every American shaking his or her head about what Jay Leno called last night, "Crazy George's Fire Sale."

My own opinion is that the company's UAE origin doesn't matter a whole lot. While one of the 9/11 hijackers came from there, the vast majority were Saudis, and we don't see any attempts to boycott Saudi business. Even the recent cartoon riots don't seem to have touched Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

The real story here is two-fold. The first is the Bush administration's penchant for secrets. The deal smells fishy. The company in question has dealings with the Bush family. Was the whole thing a quid pro quo for Bush-family private business? The seething firestorm could have been avoided, if the administration had just bothered to seek congressional advice ahead of time. In that respect, it sounds a lot like the NSA wiretap scandal. Second, Bush complained yesterday about the "double standard" in our dealings with port-operating companies. Nobody complained when a British company had the contracts, the President pointed out. This is true, but then again, Britain is our second-oldest ally (after France), and hasn't attacked our soil since 1812. Why shouldn't we play a bit of favoritism with our closest friends? That assumes, of course, that no American company is competent enough to operate our own ports.

It seems to me that the best way to operate our ports--and maintain national security--is not to outsource the operations. But we can't expect much from an administration that has stood idly by while whole native industries are sent packing to India and China. The controversy ultimately devolves into the continuing story of the Wal-Mart-ization of America.