The UAE ports thing: Screw your buddy

In the military, it is customary for unit members to look out for one another, to share the burden and sacrifice for the common good.  From time to time, however, the opportunity arises for one member to benefit at the expense of the others.  For example, a private may have misplaced a piece of gear immediately prior to inspection.  Seeing someone else's gear that is unsecured, he helps himself, fully aware that his friend and comrade will now be punished.

The term for this is "screw your buddy," and it correctly refers to the fact that this behavior is ultimately self-defeating.  Taking advantage of someone on whom your life may someday depend is always a bad idea.

Which brings us to the horrific treatment of the UAE in regards to the ports deal.

Laying aside the rank hypocricy of the Democrats reinventing themselves as fierce hawks, demanding answers and proudly positioning themselves to the right of the administration on Homeland Security, this affair is a disaster for American public diplomacy.

Let there be no mistake, we generally like Michelle Malkin, but here she is clearly out of her depth.

She - and many of her fans - are no doubt thrilled that they've managed to throw some sand in the gears, but ultimately they are operating against American interests.

The UAE is a key American ally.  This does not mean, as Malkin and others imply, that they should be sycophants who operate on our beckon call.  Allies, even close allies, will disagree from time to time.  So for her to point out every area of disagreement is highly disingenous.

The degree to which to the UAE may have helped Iran's nuclear program is unclear, but what is clear is that the UK, France and Germany have done even far more harm with their foot-dragging and unwillingness to take a harder line.  It is also clear that the UAE lives within easy missile range of Iran, which makes its diplomacy a lot more complex.

And as the Strategy Page notes, the UAE is no more prone to producing terrorists than the UK or the US itself.

The entire debate has an unsavory undercurrent to it, namely that all Arabs are suspect and that the only "good" one is either dead or 6,000 miles away.

Perhaps the most laughably notion is that the British would take security more seriously than the UAE.  Funny, we think the UAE would have a lot less scruples about dropping the hammer on Muslim terrorists than the p.c.- obsessed British.  A company at the UAE would probably laugh itself silly at the notion of being sued for anti-Arab bigotry, but a British one would take it quite seriously indeed.

The Posse looks at it this way: if our goal is to separate radical Islam from the moderates, we will have to run some risks; we will have to, at some point trust our Arab and Muslim allies.

In Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, we are asking Muslims of all walks of life to trust us.  Each day they put their lives in the hands of our troops.  Many are running horrific risks because of their alliance with us.

Our question to Malkin is this: at what point to we put our lives in their hands?  How much do Muslims in the Middle East have to risk before we trust them?

Does Dubai have to endure a sustained bombing campaign before it is worthy to transship our commerce?

Unless she suggests the Sith-like foreign policy of Ann Coulter ("Wipe them out - all of them") there has to be a point where the US is willing to trust its alleged partners.  Trust is a two-way street.

If Malkin and her mob manages to put the kibosh on this ports deal, we should not be surprised if Dubai decides that its interests lie elsewhere. 

UPDATE:  Mudville Gazette has more on why the deal should go through. So does LT Smash, but his site seems to be down.