Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Look, I don't like the idea of the UAE having anything to do with our ports, either, but I'd like to know when Schumer and Clinton suddenly got religion. So now we're finally getting around to profiling Arab countries and their businesses and citizens? Good, I guess, but I can't help but feel this is opportunism disguised as rational policy. I know this, Bush may be right, and he may be wrong, but he's gonna get hammered either way.
Here's the Wall Street Journal's take:
Ports of Politics - How to sound like a hawk without being one.
So the same Democrats who lecture that the war on terror is really a battle for "hearts and minds" now apparently favor bald discrimination against even friendly Arabs investing in the U.S.? Guantanamo must be closed because it's terrible PR, wiretapping al Qaeda in the U.S. is illegal, and the U.S. needs to withdraw from Iraq, but these Democratic superhawks simply will not allow Arabs to be put in charge of American longshoremen. That's all sure to play well on al Jazeera.
Yesterday Mr. Bush defended his decision to allow the investment to go ahead, and he threatened what would be his first veto if Congress tries to block it. We hope this time he means it.
I think it's an unfortunate battle to pick -- or have thrust in your lap...take your pick.
(via Pawigoview)
Edeit: Michelle Malkin has a decidedly negative view, but Glenn previews that Jim Dunnigan thinks it would be a mistake to stiff the UAE.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ports of Politics.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/5740
1 Comment
Leave a comment to: Ports of Politics
Comment Info and Policy:
1) You must have Javascript enabled in your browser in order to comment (blame the spammers). If you don't know what that is, you're probably fine.
2) HTML is on, so basic html should work. Raw links will be made auto-clickable, too, so even if you don't know html you can just paste in the link and it should work fine. Keep the "http://" in it.
3) Comments are generally unmoderated, which means I don't necessarily agree with the tone and tenor of everything posted. In fact, sometimes people post things they don't really mean just to make other people look bad. The internet is an anonymous place for the most part. That said...
4) I welcome you to post here. I'd love to have your input, agree, disagree or just offer a different data point, really. If I didn't want any participation, I'd turn off comments. Be aware, however, that this blog and the comments section exist for my entertainment. Therefore, I reserve ALL RIGHTS here, including the right to remove any or all comments on nothing more than a whim. Please don't even bother complaining. I'm the one providing the space and the free news and thought buffet. I don't owe anyone anything.
Anyone who posts here will be treated as my guest. That means I'm happy to be polite as a default, but if anyone is rude to the host they'll be unceremoniously shown the door.
It may pay to recall a famous line from the Tom Selleck magnum opus, Mr. Baseball: "Jack-san, you want Yoji's advice about the babes, you come to Yoji with respect."
5) Enjoy your stay!
After all that the UAE has been involved in with regards to jihadist activities over the past few years I think it very naive to treat this latest venture on purely business grounds.
While not being in a position to question the behaviour of your politicians I can certainly question the understanding that many Americans appear to have of Arabs, Islam and Muslims and the recent historical context.
As an example I quote Tigerhawk
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2006/02/uae-ports-kerfuffle-part-ii.html
"Remember that: Nine times out of ten, it is going to take and Arab to catch an Arab."
Has the guy forgotten the problems that cropped up with FBI Muslim operatives refusing to record Muslims whom they were supposed to investigate?
"I stand by my basic point:
It may very well be that it is unwise for the United States to hire an Arab company to manage some of its key ports. Or it may be very wise. The harsh reality is that there is no evidence that the United States is better at detecting jihadi infiltration than the government of the United Arab Emirates, or a company owned by it that happens to be expert in port administration'
That seems a very silly gamble when it could mean thousands of lives at stake.
So instead of improving US detection techniques he is going put the job into the hands of those who will have to choose between the religious jihadists and his business interests.
Very naive given the latest forays of extremists even against Muslims - Sunni/Shiite attrition in Pakistan and Iraq for starters. Of course we won't consider the Iranian influence on the gulf states.
Citing the WSJ:
"Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; ..."
just shows the fatuous arguments to support the writer's agenda.
The current "foreign-based company" is British for the moment but who is going to gamble that it has not already been subverted to some degree or will remain that way under the surface after the take over?
The British bombers might have been homegrown but the roots came from all the jihadists the British gave asylum to, even those the French sought for terrorist attacks.
When America has a system in place to correctly monitor its ports and borders than it will be in a better position to gamble on business ventures that outsources its security.