Last month, DPW, a ports operator owned by the Ports & Customs Free Zone Company (PCFC) and the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, won a bidding war against Ports of Singapore International (PSA) when it offered $6.8 billion for the purchase of P&O. Shortly thereafter, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which is made up of representatives from various departments including Homeland Security, approved the deal. The governments were in accord on the takeover. The politicians, however, were not.

American politicians from both parties raised questions regarding the deal based on fears that American ports if operated by foreign governments would be more susceptible to terrorist attack. New York senator Chuck Schumer and New York congressman Peter King were two particularly vocal critics of the deal who threatened to advance legislation making it illegal for foreign governments to operate American ports. The political pressure caused President Bush to re-think his promise of a veto and just a few weeks ago, DPW acquiesced and backed off the deal.

With midterm elections occurring this November, politicians used the port deal to shore up support within their constituencies to show that they were tough on security. Moreover, Democrats perceived a weakness in what has been a stronghold of Republican policy: national security - and they took advantage. With a majority of Americans against the deal, Democrats felt they couldn't lose. They may not have but maybe the country did.

Lost in all the political rhetoric was the fact that the UAE is a close ally with the United States in the war on terror so much so that the United States Navy and Air Force both have bases in Dubai. Moreover, the UAE is a member of America's Container Security Initiative, which insists that American customs agents inspect all cargo prior to shipping. The security question surrounding American ports is an important one but the larger question has to center around whether or not this issue has reified the terrorists' message.

By publicly eschewing a strategic ally in the war on terror, American politicians have hand delivered al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks as well as state sponsors of terror like Iran a public relations weapon. American enemies can point to the UAE and cogently profess that even the lackeys of the West are mistrusted because they are Muslim. In the war on terror, a war largely fought over the interpretation and symbols of religion, a win at home may have been a loss abroad.