THE NECESSITY OF ALLIES, EVEN THOSE WHO ARE QUESTIONABLE - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY

As the debacle known as the, "Dubai ports deal," began drawing to a conclusion and the President continued to stress the importance of the UAE as an ally in the War on Terror there have been many who have questioned the reasoning behind having allies such as the UAE. After all the UAE though attempting to mirror the United States in many ways is still a form of dictatorship since the Leader Sheikh is not elected and he in many ways determines the direction of the country. Because of their Islamic beliefs certain human rights are not prevalent in the nation even causing the UAE to be on certain human rights watch dog lists. So the question arises, "should the United States be allied with nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, who has a similar record ?" Additionally both nation contributed to the manpower in the 9/11 attacks and there are still those within both countries that support Islamic extremist who consider America the , "great satan." Keep in mind that even in this country there are Islamic extremist who believe the same. Why then does the United States ally with countries who are also potential enemies because of political and religious situations in that country ? There is an old saying that,"necessity sometimes causes strange bed fellows." This is one of that type of allied situation. The UAE and Saudi Arabia need the United States and, yes we need both countries. Though I do not agree with a foreign country such as the UAE having operational control of our ports I do believe in the necessity of this questionable allied relationship. The UAE is a vital strategic location with Dubai having ports that service U.S. naval vessels. In fact the only country that has more U.S. naval dockings than the UAE is the United States. Additionally the Al Dhafra Air Base just outside of Abu Dhabi is a strategic base which has been the starting point for a majority of the sorties that have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan. The UAE is also at the eastern side of the Straits of Hormuz which is a vital water passage to the Gulf of Arabia and oil passage out of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and yes even Iran. The UAE government is allowing the United States to use the country as a watch point for Iran in the nuclear crises. The UAE provides a strategic and close local to the Iranian border on the gulf and if military action becomes necessary a vital base of operations.

Throughout our history the United States has been allied to countries who at the time could not have only been enemies because of their political status but situations within the country were contrary to U.S. beliefs and policies. Beginning as far back as the Revolution the United States allied with France whose King Louis the 16th was not exactly the show piece in human rights yet because of the bitter hatred between the French and Great Britain, France became and ally during the Revolution not as much because of the nation as a whole backing the war but because of their hatred of England. There were many in France who fully believed in the idea of liberty and freedom that we were fighting for but most of the elite French leadership were not among them. France backed the Revolution more as an affront to England than in support of liberty. Benjamin Franklin our Ambassador to France realized this and used it to his and our advantage. Another prime example of allied because of necessity is the relationship in WWII between the United States and the Soviet Union. Josef Stalin was a brutal dictator who during the course of his reign as Soviet leader governed over the killing of 20 million of his own people in Gulags, political assassinations, reprisals on disobedient villages among other atrocities. Yet because of his strategic location on the eastern side of the German Third Reich and the fact that Hitler double crossed Stalin making Germany an enemy of the Soviet Union, this brutal dictator became a necessary ally to both the United States and Great Britain. Did we completely trust Stalin ? Absolutely NOT ! Throughout this , "friendship of necessity, " both FDR and Churchill continually had great misgivings about the Soviets and Stalin in particular. At times FDR to the anger of Winston Churchill would embarrass the British Prime Minister in order to attempt to endear himself to Stalin as a political ploy to assure Stalin's cooperation in certain allied decisions. But ultimately the might of the Soviet military was needed and greatly assisted in the fall of Nazi Germany as the three powers created a vise that crushed the Nazi war machine.

The unfortunate problem about allies of necessity is that the relationship can come back to haunt the United States. Our allied relationship with France caused our entrance into Vietnam then France abandoned the country leaving us to clean up the mess. This is just one example among other problems that our relationship with France has caused throughout our history. The Soviets began a communist expansion after WWII which resulted in the communist take over of Eastern Europe and more than forty years of Cold War with the Soviet Union until 1989 and the collapse of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe. Will the relationship with the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries come back to haunt us as past allied experiences have. Quite possibly. This is one of the very reasons why allied relationships are precarious and extremely frustrating. While standing for principles and the truest meaning of the United States Presidents are faced with the leadership decision of seeking those who may not have the greatest record in world politics in order to achieve an ultimate goal. FDR faced this dilemma, Eisenhower faced it, Truman faced it, Bush 41 faced it in Desert Storm, Reagan faced it with Iraq against Iran in the 80's and today George W. Bush has had to face a leadership decision of necessity. Weighing the pros and cons and making a Presidential decision as have his predecessors that have the security of the nation and the interests of the United States as their goal knowing that future consequences may have to be dealt with in a different manner. That is the unfortunate responsibility of leadership and just as previous President's have President Bush has made tough decisions necessary for tough times.

Ken Taylor