This article is part of a Townhall.com Point/Counterpoint with Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. The entire article can be viewed here. James K. Glassman's comments are below.

On Thursday, March 2, the shareholders of P&O, the venerable British shipping company that now operates terminals in ports around the world, will officially complete the sale of their company to a group called Dubai Ports World (DP World), based in the United Arab Emirates.

Among P&O’s assets are contracts to operate container terminals in six U.S. ports, a relatively minor part of the business, generating about one-tenth of P&O’s profits.

The sale, however, has provoked what can only be called hysteria, among politicians of both parties, and the transfer of U.S. assets is being set aside at least temporarily. Gov. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) said the deal was a threat to “national sovereignty.” Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), a member of the Republican leadership, wrote to President Bush: “"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO--but HELL NO!"

In fact, no ports are being sold.

DP World will be leasing space at terminals in order to load and unload ships. The ports themselves, owned by local governmental entities like the Port of New Orleans and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, will be policed, as always, by local authorities, U.S. Customs and the U.S. Coast Guard. This is an unremarkable transaction that has few, if any, national security implications. It’s a deal between two staunch U.S. allies, approved by an administration with a perfect record over the past 53 months of keeping the U.S. safe from attacks.

A superficial reading of the sale might be cause for temporary alarm. After all, we have heard for years that a dirty bomb or nuclear device might be shipped to the U.S. by sea. In fact, when it comes to shipping, as my colleague Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise Institute, writes, “security begins abroad.” What the U.S. must do is stop nukes from being placed on ships in foreign ports--not simply detect them on U.S. soil, when, in many cases it will be too late. The Bush strategy of fighting the enemy abroad so that we don’t have to fight them at home applies in this case as well.

The truth is that opposition to this sale is driven, not by security considerations, but by political expediency--including the desire of Democrats to appear “tough” on terrorism and by Republicans to respond to that posturing. Politicians are also exploiting fears of globalization.

The idea that foreigners--Arabs at that!--are buying parts of our infrastructure is troubling to many Americans. The U.S. is running massive trade deficits, which means we are sending dollars abroad. That’s no problem as long as this nation remains an accommodating place for foreign investment. But in thwarting the sale of the U.S. oil company Unocal to the Chinese firm CNOOC and now in trying to stop the deal between P&O and DP World, Congress is threatening to disrupt flows of capital here in a significant way. If that happens, capital will simply go where it’s wanted. The result will be higher interest rates, lower stock prices, lower employment and a lower standard of living.

Should we risk a poor economy in order to stay safe? I think so. Without security, we won’t have a thriving economy. But in this case, we’ll have better security if we allow the deal to go through. To reject the transaction would not only hurt the U.S. economy, it would be a slap in the face to a nation that has been a strong supporter of the United States. Why back us, if we turn on you?

Safeguards? The U.S. part of the sale was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S., a group, established by an act of Congress, that includes the attorney general, the secretaries of Treasury, State, Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security and six other top administration officials. Press reports say that U.S. intelligence agencies also backed the deal.

The approval should not have been a surprise. First, DP World, like P&O, will primarily be staffed with U.S. employees (the chief operating officer of the company is an American, Ted Bilkey, a Yale graduate who was previously vice president of the largest container terminal operator in the New York area) and engage local stevedores to load and unload containers.

Second, DP World is very good at what it does. The firm is already one of the five largest terminal operators in the world, working in ports in, among other places, Australia, Germany, Romania, China, and the Dominican Republic. Just last week, the company was named “container terminal operator of the year,” by Lloyd’s List, the shipping newspaper.

Third, since the attacks of 9/11, the UAE has been a fervent ally of the United States in the war on terror. True, the UAE recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan before U.S.-led forces overthrew that regime, but, since then, the UAE has acted the way we wish other nations would act in deterring terror.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that the U.S. has a “superb” military relationship with the UAE. “In everything that we have asked and worked with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners.”

DP World has provided services for 700 U.S. Navy ships a year at the UAE ports of Jebel Ali and Fujairah. In fact, the UAE is the number-two international port for the U.S. Navy, and Dubai is a popular port for sailors on leave. As former secretary of the Navy Will Ball wrote on TCSDaily.com: “In a region of the world not previously known for "liberty ports" that compete with their Mediterranean and Western Pacific counterparts, the new Dubai is fine, fine indeed, according to the sailors of today. Harbormasters, citizens and yes, even port security officials there afford an especially warm welcome to American warships--aircraft carriers in particular.”

DP World is also the primary support contractor for U.S. Air Force assets at Al Dhafra Air Base, where refueling and reconnaissance flights originate for southwest Asia.

The best that can be said for the uproar over the Dubai ports deal is that it might help Congress and the Administration focus on the real problem: stopping nukes from getting on ships in the first place. But, all in all, the reaction of politicians and much of the media is foolish and embarrassing--far out of proportion even to any imagined threat.

James K. Glassman is a resident fellow at AEI.