. . . James Lileks has an interesting read about the plan for a Dubai company to run U.S. ports in his Screedblog. He acknowledges that Bush administration may have had its reasons, but says it just doesn't sit well:
"It just doesn’t sit well. Period. It’s one thing for an Administration to misjudge how a particular decision will be received; it’s another entirely to misjudge an issue that cuts to the core of the Administration’s core strength. That’s where you slap yourself on the forehead in the style of those lamenting the failure to request a V-8 in a timely fashion. Doesn’t matter whether it was a deal struck between the previous administrators and the UAE; that’s not how the issue will be seen. And it certainly doesn’t matter once the President gets all stern on the topic and insists he’ll veto any attempt to keep the deal from going through. At that point, millions of previously resolute supporters stand there with their mouths open, uttering a soft confused moan of disbelief."
A bit more from Lileks:
"I’m not worried that some evil emir is putting a pinky to his monocled eye, and saying Mwah! at last I have them where I want them! I’m worried about the guy who’s three steps down the management branch handing off a job to a brother who trusts some guys who have some sympathies with some guys who hang around some rather energetic fellows who attend that one mosque where the guy talks about jihad 24/7, and somehow someone gets a job somewhere that makes it easier for something to happen."
I'll acknowledge that this issue has yet to fully unfold. The administration has not yet laid out its case in any detail. There may be facets to this decision that we have not yet even sene. And there is something to be said for what President Bush has already said -- that our Arab allies should not be disqualified from competing for our business. But that presumes that we can reward our allies, if the United Arab Emirates can be called that, without a cost to our national security.
For now, I join those who are less than thrilled with the prospect of handing over U.S. port security to a United Arab Emirates firm. I'm particularly unimpressed by the argument that the U.S. Coast Guard is in charge of port security anyway. The Coast Guard can't be everywhere at once, and isn't. Besides, why completely remove one entire layer of potential security if we don't have to? Are we trying to prove that we can cut it really, really close and still avoid a catastrophe?
We've got enough to worry about it without adding to our own troubles by installing a fox in every hen house and then expecting the Coast Guard to work overtime to prevent a disaster.
Comments