Tuesday, February 21, 2006

What the hell is a ‘Port Storm”?

I’ve been ‘Drudging’, and I was ever-so-slightly surprised at the way the President is coming out swinging. 

Well, I have an opinion. 

I love Michelle Malkin, and most of the right-leaning blogsphere, but I am of the opinion that Bush is right on this.  Maybe that is counter-intuitive, and maybe that’s not very popular, but I am on his side in this one. 

The United Arab Emirates are an ally of ours.  I was in both Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and the governments there are exceedingly friendly to the United States.  The U.A.E. helped when the USS Samuel B. Roberts was damaged by Iranian mines in 1988, and was the target of an attempted Iranian attack during Operation Praying Mantis.  The ship was patched up at the U.A.E., before they took her back home to Newport. 

Also, they are a moderate government, and occupy a strategic position at the Straits of Hormuz. 

And, yes, I see the logic in being distrustful of this nation....it is rational to be mistrustful of nations whose banks helped fund the 9-11 attack and Wahabbism.  I cannot argue against that point.  However, we need to make allies in the region...that is probably part of the point of the Administration wants to make....we can’t exclude moderate Arab nations economically.  To do so would invite the same problems that face other Arab nations (underemployment, lack of socio-economic mobility, etc.)....we need to stay engaged economically and politically with them.  We need to maintain the ‘trust’ factor with the allied governments, and especially the more moderate ones, such as Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE.

The UAE have no WMD’s.  They are not an aggressor nation, and they sit in the middle of the Iranian/Saudi region.  If they have proven to be a valuable ally in the past, and if they passed what I am sure had to be a rigorous vetting (especially since they are an Arab nation, and this is post-9-11), then I think this is being overblown. 

Remember, WE are doing all the security checks, and we are forcing them, as part of the deal, to implement the security protocols that WE demand.  Read the article here to get a full report on that. 

Bush is not a political idiot.  He wouldn’t just allow the ports to be sold to an enemy interest....that would be like FDR selling ports to the Japanese in 1942.  I think that we need to look at this, and not allow ourselves to be rash in this.  It’s too easy. 

Also...all the people that have been going nuts about our killing Arabs in Iraq are now waving Old Glory and screaming that Bush is an idiot over this.  I have to tell you....you need to look at that and wonder.  There is a difference between going to war over Islamofascism and hiring an Arab company to run some of our ports...especialy if that company is friendly to our interests. 

The UAE are not a friend of Iran or Syria.  Again, they are not extremists.  They are our allies. 

Comment freely. 

UPDATE:  Welcome INSTAPUNDIT readers!!  The Professor (a.k.a. Blogfather) was kind enough to link over to Drumwaster.com, and my thanks are to him, and all of you.  Please, stay for a while, take a look at the other articles here at Drumwaster, and make us a habit! 

UPDATE (2-22-2006, 12:52 PM EST):  A couple notes that I need to make here, especially after info has started coming out about this. 

I do not think that the Democrats are in this because of ‘national security’ They’ve been far too weak on it as a whole.  I think one should look at the money.....actually, the union money paid to the representatives and senators of the affected areas.  I would hazard a guess that this resistance from what were the main critics of everything about the War on Terror is more based on the possible loss of union jobs at these ports.  It is important to remember that the Democrats are against foreign investment (as a rule, but with some exceptions) because of their union donors.  The national security issue that the opponents of the sale are voicing is a non-issue.

Why is it a non-issue?  Because the company that will be operating the ports will have nothing to do with the security protocols! That job is the duty of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard.  If anyone has a beef with GWB about security, that’s where the emphasis should be.  Increase the resources there.  This company out of the UAE is being required (again, as part of the deal) to allow the security standards and practices that the government feels to be necessary.  If those standards aren’t high enough, then it doesn’t matter what company operates the terminals....it’s the responsibility of the DHS. 

It is very, very easy to judge this transaction on the surface.  It is.  And, I am not faulting anyone for having a contrary reaction to it...some people I respect very deeply (Michelle Malkin, for example) have huge reservations about this, and are voraciously against it.  I think debate is healthy.  However, I am more and more sure that this is a non-issue....there will be no drop-off in security, as the UAE (as a nation) is an ally in the War on Terror.  They have been an ally for 20 years.  The LAST thing they want is for a bomb to get through......even though they have no control over that.  They know there would be war, and that they would be destroyed as a nation.  They (the government) hate Al Qaeda, and they know that the way to stay in the good graces of a post-9-11 America is to aid in the War on Terror. 

A lot of the Arab states are looking at this as a bigotry within our government....that isn’t the case, in my opinion.  Not entirely.  It makes sense to be wary.  We are at war...but the UAE isn’t the enemy.  Iran is.  Wahabbism and Islamofascism are.  The UAE is neither of those things. 

Lastly, and I’ve said this before, this President is not afraid to take a hit at the polls to do something or stand for something he believes in.