Ports Under UAE Management? I Think Not
Before I address the port issue, I'd like to issue an apology to our readers for not posting over the last three days. Marcie and I were on vacation, and that was cut short when I received a phone call pertaining to a family emergency. So, we've been dealing with that rather than posting. Sorry, but family comes first.
Let me say this about the port issue: It has nothing to do with a distrust of Muslims, or even with the United Arab Emirates. I have heard a lot of people including Robert Kaplan, Col. Austin Bay, and Adm. Craig Bone of the US Coast Guard speak highly of the deal. Each one has compelling arguments in favor of it, ranging from the UAE's superb job of managing ports across the globe to the overall economic impact it would have with our ability to maintain our ports. However, I'm leery.
Actually, I'm a nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs over this deal.
Our enemy is very cagey, and extremely patient. They know what they have to do to hurt us, and though it may take a few years to really hit us, they're willing to wait it out. Operation Bojinka was initially envisioned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef in 1995, and it involved not four planes to strike the US, but at least eleven planes. It also included a plot to kill Pope John Paul II during his visit to the Phillipines, and a small plane filled with explosives that would have hit CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. The plot fell through when the safe house the planners were in caught fire, and a typhoon had hit Manila the week before the pope's visit.
This goes to prove the lengths with which our enemy is willing to go to in accomplishing their goals. The port security would still be handled by Coast Guard and border patrol agents. However, it's the management that scares me. These people have no problem being able to slip through even the tightest cracks. They also have no problem with handling technology. Phony documents, work visas, and even passports aren't above their expertise, and it probably wouldn't take much to slip a mole or two into Dubai Ports' workforce over here. Those moles could prove to be deadly, especially if they hook up with a cell that's already here in America.
Another argument in favor of this deal is a sort of "reward" to the UAE for being helpful in the war on terror. After their culpability was shown by the 9/11 Commission in unknowingly helping al Qaeda for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, the UAE supposedly started clamping down on their banking (not enough to keep Iran from funneling and laundering funds through their banks), and started paying closer attention to who was getting visas. Further, Hugh Hewitt brought up an interesting point yesterday. If we have to move on Iran, the UAE would be a likely staging point for a strike on the nuclear facilities. Valid point, but I don't think it's a solid one considering the potential trade-off.
The Wasington Times has reported that this deal wasn't even addressed at the highest sublevels. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, wasn't even aware of the deal until after the initial approval. Now, Karl Rove stated yesterday the deal is on hold until all the checks can be made.
On the flip side of this is Varifrank. He offers up an argument that few could deny, and those that could are idiots. He refers to it as the "law of unintended consequences," and he's right; she's a bitch. Above Kaplan, Bay and Bone, Varifrank's is the most compelling argument to date as to why the port deal should go through. And like Hugh, after reading that, and hearing the experts talk about this, I'm split. Initially, I was worried. I still am. However, to combat that worry, I'm willing to do two things.
First, let the investigations continue. Take a moment, pause, and catch your breath. The information we're all looking for will be out here soon enough.
Second, to make a snap judgment, like so many have over this, is irrational. I understand the initial worry over such a deal; WE share it. However, in this war, we're going to need allies, and the last thing we need in another fight in that region is an ally that suddenly turns Switzerland on us, and starts moving as slow as molasses in January, in Alaska.
I'm willing to let the president convince the nation that this deal is right, and that ALL precautions will be taken to seal the cracks our enemy might be able to slip through in the odd, techno-thriller chance. (Believe me when I say that after hearing about this deal, I started working on a novel that would have made Joel C. Rosenberg and Robert Ferrigno jealous. There's definitely no end to the nightmare scenarios that could arise from this deal, but the bigger nightmare may come should we decide to take a nation like Iran to task, and we don't have the help we need in the region.
Publius II
Before I address the port issue, I'd like to issue an apology to our readers for not posting over the last three days. Marcie and I were on vacation, and that was cut short when I received a phone call pertaining to a family emergency. So, we've been dealing with that rather than posting. Sorry, but family comes first.
Let me say this about the port issue: It has nothing to do with a distrust of Muslims, or even with the United Arab Emirates. I have heard a lot of people including Robert Kaplan, Col. Austin Bay, and Adm. Craig Bone of the US Coast Guard speak highly of the deal. Each one has compelling arguments in favor of it, ranging from the UAE's superb job of managing ports across the globe to the overall economic impact it would have with our ability to maintain our ports. However, I'm leery.
Actually, I'm a nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs over this deal.
Our enemy is very cagey, and extremely patient. They know what they have to do to hurt us, and though it may take a few years to really hit us, they're willing to wait it out. Operation Bojinka was initially envisioned by Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef in 1995, and it involved not four planes to strike the US, but at least eleven planes. It also included a plot to kill Pope John Paul II during his visit to the Phillipines, and a small plane filled with explosives that would have hit CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. The plot fell through when the safe house the planners were in caught fire, and a typhoon had hit Manila the week before the pope's visit.
This goes to prove the lengths with which our enemy is willing to go to in accomplishing their goals. The port security would still be handled by Coast Guard and border patrol agents. However, it's the management that scares me. These people have no problem being able to slip through even the tightest cracks. They also have no problem with handling technology. Phony documents, work visas, and even passports aren't above their expertise, and it probably wouldn't take much to slip a mole or two into Dubai Ports' workforce over here. Those moles could prove to be deadly, especially if they hook up with a cell that's already here in America.
Another argument in favor of this deal is a sort of "reward" to the UAE for being helpful in the war on terror. After their culpability was shown by the 9/11 Commission in unknowingly helping al Qaeda for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, the UAE supposedly started clamping down on their banking (not enough to keep Iran from funneling and laundering funds through their banks), and started paying closer attention to who was getting visas. Further, Hugh Hewitt brought up an interesting point yesterday. If we have to move on Iran, the UAE would be a likely staging point for a strike on the nuclear facilities. Valid point, but I don't think it's a solid one considering the potential trade-off.
The Wasington Times has reported that this deal wasn't even addressed at the highest sublevels. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, wasn't even aware of the deal until after the initial approval. Now, Karl Rove stated yesterday the deal is on hold until all the checks can be made.
On the flip side of this is Varifrank. He offers up an argument that few could deny, and those that could are idiots. He refers to it as the "law of unintended consequences," and he's right; she's a bitch. Above Kaplan, Bay and Bone, Varifrank's is the most compelling argument to date as to why the port deal should go through. And like Hugh, after reading that, and hearing the experts talk about this, I'm split. Initially, I was worried. I still am. However, to combat that worry, I'm willing to do two things.
First, let the investigations continue. Take a moment, pause, and catch your breath. The information we're all looking for will be out here soon enough.
Second, to make a snap judgment, like so many have over this, is irrational. I understand the initial worry over such a deal; WE share it. However, in this war, we're going to need allies, and the last thing we need in another fight in that region is an ally that suddenly turns Switzerland on us, and starts moving as slow as molasses in January, in Alaska.
I'm willing to let the president convince the nation that this deal is right, and that ALL precautions will be taken to seal the cracks our enemy might be able to slip through in the odd, techno-thriller chance. (Believe me when I say that after hearing about this deal, I started working on a novel that would have made Joel C. Rosenberg and Robert Ferrigno jealous. There's definitely no end to the nightmare scenarios that could arise from this deal, but the bigger nightmare may come should we decide to take a nation like Iran to task, and we don't have the help we need in the region.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home