There are so many tentacles in the Dubai Ports World story, that anyone who is not engaging in a knee-jerk reaction has to feel like a diver in the movie 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Whether you think so or not, this is not a one-sided story. Moreover, the issues involved are deeply-rooted and will remain for years to come, no matter how this one turns out. So get used to it.

 For instance, when was the last time you had Jimmy Carter and President Bush agree on anything? How about never. And when was the last time Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton demanded that we racially profile an entire country, while attempting to stand to the right of George W. Bush? Despite the fact that this is all a political stunt to get in front of cameras and cure their implicit anti-Americanism, something very fishy is going on here. When President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the two biggest national security hawks in the administration don't know about the deal on the one hand, and have no concerns about it on the other, you have got to wonder whether the security risk is all its cracked up to be by the opposition. So Dubai Ports World has now delayed the deal. But remember, they are not really "taking over" the ports. The ports themselves are still owned by local entities and DPW will only manage six of them. Two out of fourteen in Baltimore. In New York and New Jersey, it's one out of five, and that together with a Danish company. ( No Cartoons please!) The real threat is foreign ports anyway, not US ports. According to Rich Lowery of National Review Online, detection technology should be deployed overseas for best results.

 Let's face it. There are arguments on both sides regarding the UAE. On the one hand, Al Qaeda has threatened the UAE with attack. In a 2002 letter, Al Qaeda clearly sees them as an enemy and threatens them if they cooperate with the U.S.

 On the other hand, the same letter claims to have "infiltrated your security." According to Charles Krauthammer, the real threat is that a terrorist could infiltrate security disguised as a UAE employee and disclose security procedures.

 Here's another problem. Terrorism is not a country-specific threat any more. There are and were terrorist states. Iraq was one. So was Afghanistan Syria and Iran are terrorist states now. Perhaps the Palestinian territory too. But more terrorism has been committed in the west by British citizens than any other country since 9/11.

 So by all means, let's review the UAE deal. Let's guarantee security as much as possible. But let's not say because the UAE owns it, that is a deal-breaker. Here is why.

 We have just come through a period when radical muslims are killing people over cartoons. The west does not understand it and we will not accept it. But here is our problem. We say we want free trade. We praise the global economy. We say we want allies in the Muslim world who will fight with us in the war on terror. But when we betray our principles, like we are threatening to do now, we send the wrong signal. The truth is, the non-terrorist Muslim world needs us and we need them. We are training them in Iraq. We ought to be strengthening the ties that bind us, not turning our backs on our principles. The truth is that the UAE manages ports around the world without incident.

 For those of you who want to pull up the drawbridge and keep everyone out of America, here's what will happen. Our economy, which depends on a growing population, will die. If we have learned anything from Tom Friedman's The World is Flat, it is that globalism is here to stay and it is mostly a good thing.

 So what do we do with the Dubai Ports World deal? Charles Krauthammer suggests we 1) Let it go through 2)give it heightened security scrutiny by assigning a special team 3) Report periodically to a congressional oversight committee. But the issues here between national security and free trade are not going away. The truth is: we will need a measure of both to win out in the clash of civilizations.

  John Pendleton