Well put... I have been bouncing around the blogosphere reading various points of view on this and haven't made up my mind...
about the so-called stick.
You're being silly.
What will really happen if there was a terrorist attack through a Dubai controlled port is:
US to Dubai Ports Authority: Naughty naughty.
Dubai Ports Authority to low level employees, probably American citizens or at least American residents: naughty naughty. You're fired.
US to DPA: Good boy. Now don't let it happen again, or I might actually cancel your contract.
I live about a forty minute drive from one of those ports, and can affirm that at least in this case, any change in security oversight would be an improvement. Even if al Qaeda turned out to be the oversight.
Is that a really big solid, or are you just happy to see me, Tom?
Shame on you.
I'm pretty much in agreement.
Besides, the UAE is pretty unhappy with Iran's takeover of three strategic islands in the Strait of Hormuz (1992). I suspect that the Bush Admin. is laying more groundwork for a strike on Iran. (Rice just happens to be visiting the UAE...to discuss 1. HamasPalestinian funding and 2. the threat of Iran.)
We need to be careful in picking our allies in the Gulf, and the UAE should be one of them.
interesting
Excellent thoughts on the matter. I'm with you for the most part. It's amazing how infectious and persuasive capitalism can be. By normalizing relations with our "enemies" - not that the UAE are our enemy at all - we can quickly make it more favorable for them to allign with our interests rather than rally against them.
Don't look for Dubai to cut down on its terrorist funding any time soon because of a ports deal. Dubai1, the nation-state, might become more friendly, indeed. Dubai2, the people within it, might have a variety of reactions - some of which may be exactly the opposite of Dubai1. Look at friendly Saudi Arabia, longtime ally, which sent a number of its fine citizens to crash planes into buildings a few years back, helped the Taliban take over Afghanistan, and has generally been a shit.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with this line of reasoning if a.) Bush had actually been involved in the decision at all and b.) the people who signed off on it weren't going to directly profit from the decision.
So, once again from the top - the first time Bush has heard of the deal is within the last day or so, Snow stands to profit handsomely from the decision, and Rumsfeld claims to have heard nothing about the decision despite serving on the committee that should have overseen the process. I'm not necessarily opposed to DP taking over port operations - but I am completely opposed to the way this decision appears to have been made.
I think the example of our relations with Saudi Arabia pre- and post-9/11 (i.e., no change whatsoever) show your thesis to be absurd.
Kip wrote:
"I think ..."
... and then proved that if he was thinking, it wasn't clearly.
In point of fact, US relations with Saudi Arabia have changed significantly since 9/11, including but not limited to US sanctions against Saudi-based Islamist "charities," increased Saudi cooperation versus al Qaeda, and a reduced US military presence in the Kingdom.
Secondly, the US approach to terrorism has changed since 9/11, and there's an extent to which previous slates were wiped clean.
Thirdly, the UAE has been an "anti-terror" partner of the US for more than a decade (yes, I know the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as a transit point. They used Florida as one, too).
Regards,
Tom
I'm with you on the thinking, I hate to say this because it's impossible to say it without it sounding mean spirited, but I've come to the conclusion that the opposition is due to prejudices.
They're Arabic, thus they are terrorist.
The U.S. government has conceded it has no control over the ports in the first place, and has said having a DP World control the ports will not make the situation any worse. Not the most sound reasoning... but it's honest in a lame way.
To me, the whole situation seems like a political triple-cross. Republicans know that they are in bad shape for the upcoming Congressional elections and they need to start distancing themselves from the Bush White House. We all know they Republican party marches lock-step to the tune of 'party uber-alles' so genuine dissent seems unlikely. The fact that Bill Frist has become one of the most vocal opponents of the deal just seems so contrived considering he has made no secret of his presidential aspirations in 2008. This is a purely Machiavellian move on the part of the GOP. I think it was Beuadrillard that once said something along the lines of 'the government must continually create scandal to look like it's doing something', and may I add to distract from what is really going on. More suspicious still is the categorical denial by key players in the administration from Bush to Rumsfeld of having knowledge about the deal. Come on... give me a break.
On the flipside, this is a deal about money. It's about enriching Bush cronies on both sides of ocean. Bush even had the balls to nominate a David Sanborn -a senior executive at DP World - to cabinet, as I've noted in my blog. Tresury Secretary John Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet. If there was not a boatload of money to made from this deal -- it wouldn't be on the table, period.
In terms of national security, the main worry - if we put smuggling through the ports aside - is that DP World will oversee arms shipments to US troops in the Middle East. I would think that no matter how much the corporatists in the US government like this deal, I can't see the Pentagon being too happy about it.
When you have neocons like NY Times’ David Brooks spouting things like “nativist hysteria” and stating how important it is to the economy, my radar switch starts going off, pointing to “LIAR!” Anytime the neocons mention the economy, I have to believe the opposite of their statements must be true. You have given me some food for thought; however, I tend to believe this issue is yet another red herring for the true ills of our country. The fact that Red China is running the Panama Canal is probably worse than the UAE in charge of our major ports. At the same time, this issue is the perfect example of why Bush’s rhetoric about “terrorism” is so full of lies. He tells America that pot smokers are aiding the terrorists, yet one of the only 3 countries that recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government is GOOD for our economy. This is the same as Bush stating that we have to stop terrorist cells from coming into the country, yet leaves the borders wide open. If I were to have a phone conversation with someone in the UAE, I could be sure that the NSA would be recording it. Yet, they are essential to our economy. It’s just more Orwellian doublespeak, as far as I can see. More importantly it pales in comparison with the thought of another unprovoked conflict that will lead us into another quagmire.
The part that really gets me about the whole deal is the way the administration and their favorite pundits pounded on the fear drum for four and half years and then acted all surprised when it turns out that some people are--guess what--nervous about dark-skinned foreigners.
What the f--- did they think would happen when they pulled DP out of their pocket?
That said, I have a tough time seeing how DP could make our port security worse. It's not like the DHS has been paying a lot of attention to it.
Commenting by HaloScan
