I jumped when I heard about the impending port operations deal between the U.S. and U.A.E. It had to be a bad deal for the U.S. Too much risk to our security.
Now I'm asking myself if I didn't jump too quickly and in the wrong direction.
Here's why.
In the last few days people I respect such as Glenn Reynolds and Charles Krauthammer (See Feb 22 Special Report with Brit Hume transcript) have moved from the "No" column to the "Let's take a closer look" column.
Then there's this from Jonah Goldberg at NRO Online(Scroll down to PORTS AND THE PRESIDENT):
I've been very rough on Bush of late and I agree entirely with the now-obvious consensus that the UAE deal is bad politics. I'm even somewhat convinced that it's bad policy.Can you see why I'm stepping back?
But I can't help but get the whiff of hysteria in all of this. Hillary Clinton's getting to the right of Bush, talk radio's going through the roof, Republican presidential wannabes are lining up to distance themselves from the president.
There's even a convenient patina of anti-Arabic feelings in the mix as well as the usual lefty-populist paranoia about secret deals behind the scenes between oilmen and rich Arabs. And, of course, overnight everyone has become an expert in port security.
All this in response to a largely paper transaction (longshoremen will keep their jobs, the coast guard will still handle security, etc) between a British-owned and Arab-owned firm.
In fact, it doesn't seem overwhelmingly obvious to me that Jihadis would have a much harder time infiltrating a British firm than an Arab one.
But mostly, I'm skeptical that this is the security disaster everyone claims because domestic national security is one of the few areas where I really do trust this White House to err on the side of safety.
For five years, liberals have been saying that Bush is an obsessed madman when it comes to the terror threat. And for five years conservatives have been saying, trust him. Suddenly, all of that goes out the window.
Again, I think Bush is probably wrong on the merits. But, I somehow doubt he's as wildly wrong as the mob claims.
I'll read and listen the next few days. Then I'll post.
Meanwhile, what you think?
3 comments:
I've got no problem with Congress asking for more detail on this. It's prudent.
However, I'm with you. The more facts that come out the more 'no big deal' this sounds.
The other thing that gives me pause is the left's hysteria itself. None of it makes sense. Why be this upset when you don't have the facts? Why risk looking like a fool (not that that stops them all that often)? And why contradict your vehement anti-profiling positions?
That is, none of it makes sense, until you look at it through the anti-Bush prism. If you see it as the left reflexively opposing Bush damn the facts, there you go. And in that case it does make sense not to wait on the facts. In that case it's better to be first and to be loud.
I have very strong objections. Like it or not Dubai is an Islamic nation. Islam allows no separation of church and state. The state is subordinate. Some places the state has its say only because it controls the religious community. Lose that, the state loses. Saudi Arabia fits that mold.
Does it not follow that the manager of a business can hire whom he wants? Would it not be easier to hide terrorists and soon to be terrorists if you have management on the inside?
Or just their agents in an intelligence gathering capacity?
I don't necessarily think every rattlesnake around my place is dedicated to biting me or mine, but I don't bring them in the house, anyway. Same thing here.
To those that view the denial of this deal as economic and political isolationism, I would say this. View it from the strategic perspective.
China runs the ports on the western coast of the U.S. and the Panama Canal. If this deal goes through, UAE would control ports from NYC to New Orleans. Can no one see a possible situation wherein world events put us at odds with these people (pretty difficult if you realize that situation is recent)or their closer allies?
Bearing in mind that those that control the ports have dominion over the physical plant, can we not see how at THEIR volition we can be strategically isolated and placed at a military, tactical, and strategic disadvantage?
There is the argument that we could physically take control under emergency power or war powers, but at what price to the physical facility if management wanted to deny us its use. There are many ways to disable or impair the operations of a port without physically destroying it, but still make it physically inoperative or severely restricted in operations. At least for the short haul, and that may be long enough.
UAE may never be inclined to participate in such an endeavor against us. But just like the rattlesnake above I don't want them in bed with my grandchildren. The nature of the animal (strictly an illustration) must be considered. They are muslim. As such they are bound by sharia and fear of the radicals in their religion. They have no bond with us on any level other than financial. I think I would rather trust a used car salesman.
If that makes me a bigot, so be it. However, please note that I have not sworn to kill all of them if they don't worship my way, nor do I condone it in others of my persuasion.
They can hire whomever they desire in management. Or to run the computer operations. Put a glitch in the computer program and the port comes to a stop. Been there, saw it done, though unintentionally. The result was no freight in or out. Unintentional glitches are easier to cure, though not necessarily easy, than intentional glitches intended to disable. Think of the problem of opening a cargo container supposed to be loaded with 105mm arty shells and find lacy DD cup bras, instead. Not interchangeable. One keystroke or a few more. Ask any driver that delivers to the ports, or picks up at them, how reliant they are on the computer. Huge security risk, right there, that would be undetectable until utilized and then it would be too late. Not to mention critical shipments loaded on ships to the enemy's destination. One keystroke. Even if the instigators are caught it could cause a lot of American death.
Losing shipments is easy if you control the flow of data, as is disguising shipments. Those are just two possible scenarios, there are many more, but we probably shouldn't go further. You can see farther up that trail if you look.
As I said previously, it may be that the UAE would never entertain thoughts of harming us. But, I don't want to rely on what they might not do when I have seen no evidence that they stand with the civilized world against the muslim terrorists. Nor have I seen it from any muslim nation. Nor for that matter have I seen it from any American muslim organization or mosque. I have seen a few brave highly visible muslims stand against and condemn muslim terrorism, and they have been roundly criticized and threatened with death by their muslim brothers that claim they are peaceful and moderate.
Do we really want to chance that management of the ports will be of the caliber and courage of the dissenters now under fatwah of death for them and their families. Especially in the face of the demonstrated rarity of such.
Huh uh! We have been threatened with submission or death. There is no middle ground. I must assume that those that don't stand with me, either stand with the other side or are afraid enough of the other side to not stand in opposition to them. Since the other side does not even tolerate neutrality, the continued existance of those not aligned with me and sharing a religion with them that requires their fealty to them, is not a friend I can trust.
Upon such flimsy basis I would not project any desire to do them harm, but neither would I advocate putting them in a postion to do me harm.
I take a different view of things of this nature than most. For instance the holocaust is laid at the feet of Hitler and his crew. They deserved plenty of blame, but the largest share of blame must be laid on the people who saw what the Nazis were about and did nothing to stop them as long as they were not the target of the hatred and atrocity. Those are the real guilty. Without their acquiescence Hitler would have been an unemployed ineffectual crackpot that never accomplished a damn thing.
Because he was bowed to and given free rein to do as he pleased, whether through agreement, or lack of concern or more often fear, he plunged the entire world into one of the darkest periods in history. It is not too strong a statement to equate today's moderate muslims that do not take back control of their religion from the murderers with the enablers of Hitler, without which he could not have ever appeared on the world stage.
Ergo, I cannot place my trust in a people that will not stand against terror and murder, whatever their reason.
I do not want to bring them into the house.
Post a Comment