Robert Kaplan On Why The Port Deal Is Good
Earlier today, Thomas posted his thoughts regarding the port deal. I know a good many people will complain that he contradicted himself. There is not really a contradiction there. He is still worried about the deal, and so am I. Granted, there are benefits with allowing Dubai Ports World to manage some of our ports, and among them is their efficiency. Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt had an interview with Robert Kaplan, author of Imperial Grunts. Now, before anyone decides to go off half-cocked, please bear in mind that Mr. Kaplan has been on the ground with our troops, and knows precisely what he is talking about. Below is an excerpt from Hugh's interview with Mr. Kaplan.
HH: Now Robert Kaplan, you spent a lot of time in Yemen, and in fact, one of the harrowing parts of Imperial Grunts is your tour of the inland. I'm not really sure many people knew you were doing that, or would want you to do that, but you did it. And now I want to ask you to apply the lessons that you learned there to the Emirates, which now are poised to take over control of six of America's ports. Are the Emirates different from Yemen? Or are they the same?
RK: It's much, much different. Going from Yemen to the Emirates is going from one side of the moon to the other. Yemen is a poor country with a shabby airport, where the government controls only 50% of the territory. It's a vast desert hinterland, full of all kind of armed tribal groups. The Emirates is a small country with almost no hinterland. It has a first world standard of living. It's become a middle class holiday destination for Europeans who feel uncomfortable traveling in too exotic places. It's the kind of a place where everything is totally efficient. It's like a combination of Singapore and Las Vegas, and the highest standards of globalization.
HH: I remember your saying you hated to go from the hotels of Dubai to deploy to Afghanistan or somewhere else, because you went from the highest standard of living down to...
RK: It was so efficient in the United Arab Emirates in Dubai, and operates like such clockwork. It's that when you come back to the United States, like the United States is a third world country.
HH: Now with that background, does the control of the ports issue, the sale of these ports operations, not security, to United World Ports of Dubai, does it concern you?
RK: I mean, to the degree that the U.S. can still be in control of personnel working there, and security, I have no problem with Dubai's competence at running a port as well or better than we do. And it's part of the process of globalization, and at this point, if you tell them no, simply because they're Arabs, you're going to lose a lot more in the Arab world than you'd ever gain by a marginal improvement in security. And I think the security issue can probably be gotten around without tearing up the contract.
HH: What is that security issue in your mind, Robert Kaplan?
RK: It's about control of who the personnel are who have access to the port, and to the security procedures that govern the port, and have access to the people who control who goes in and out of the secure areas.
HH: So there is a security issue. You just view the cost of killing the deal as too high?
RK: Yes. Absolutely.
HH: Well, that's the argument the administration...
RK: If the security issue is manageable...
HH: Go ahead.
RK: The security issue is manageable, and the people...and there's very few countries in the world who've done as much so impressively as the Maktoum family in Dubai.
HH: Tell me a little bit about al Qaeda and Dubai. Is it there?
RK: Well, it has to be there, because it's an...Dubai has an open financial system, which is why it's so efficient in the first place. And one of the costs of having an open, free banking system in the heart of the Middle East, is you're going to have some bad apples.
HH: And do those bad apples pose a threat of penetrating Dubai World Ports, and that position?
RK: I don't think so. I don't think so, and the key thing here is that the Dubai government has always been totally helpful to us, in terms of penetrating those bad apples.
HH: I hope you'll write something about this, Robert Kaplan, on your return flight.
RK: Yes, also, something else. We have United Arab Emirates Special Forces in Afghanistan. It's called SOTF, a combined joint Special Operations Force in Afghanistan when I was there. The word combined was there, because there were other countries other than our own, including Laxia and the United Arab Emirates.
HH: When you get back, expect a phone call from the administration asking you to appear, because you just did in seven minutes a lot more than they have in seven days.
His defense of this issue is admirable, and Hugh is correct. Had Mr. Kaplan been the one making the argument for the administration, this issue might have gone a bit more smoothly for the president. However, he was not the one making the argument, and because the administration was not forthright on this deal, they have taken a beating over it.
I would like to address a couple of things that Mr. Kaplan stated, though. First, on the banking in the UAE. The 9/11 Commission found, in their report, that the UAE banks had helped launder and wire money to the 9/11 hijackers, and that they had provided visas for them. I would like to think that things have changed since then, but based on the fact that the UAE is similar to Swiss banks, and that Pres. Ahmadinejad has been receiving laundered funds through their banks, I am still content that the UAE is not as good as Mr. Kaplan believes when it comes to dealing with those bad apples. Now, I will grant him that they have done a phenomenal job in dealing with al Qaeda, but Iran looms on the horizon, and it would be helpful if the UAE would have their banks stop doing business with a madman.
Second, in regard to security, I am not willing to accept the administration's position that "all will be done" to prevent the infiltration of this company. We have a hard enough time with our own borders, and the ports are of far greater risk than the borders. US Coast Guard and US border patrol will handle security; to that there is no argument. The UAE is not allowed to handle the security of the ports. They are managing them. However, I look to the "human" factor.
What happens if someone high up in the managerial echelons has a family member kidnapped. Rather than demanding money, the terrorists demand that he provide them with work visas (using assumed names, of course), and has them assigned to New York, or Philadelphia? Those people arrive, and are able to pass the scrutiny of our security checks, and they contact their associates here in the US. And within a short amount of time, these animals pull off another attack within our borders. This time, it's not jetliners, but it's small, chartered planes. Charter services rarely do security checks, such as luggage or watch lists. Let's say they charter the flight, and while in the air, they overcome the pilot and co-pilot, commandeer the plane, and plow it into the Empire State Building, or Independence Hall.
This is just one of the scenarios I envision occurring if we are not careful.
Now, are there benefits to this deal? Of course there are. They come in the efficient management of our ports, and as Thomas pointed out this morning, an economic and strategic interest that will benefit us, as well.
Do I believe this deal is sound? That is the $64,000 question, and I have no real answer. I am convinced now, more than before, that this deal could, indeed, be all right. That we will take the necessary steps to ensure our security, and that we will not have the infiltration that I picture. However, I am a realist. If I were put into such a position--like the one I outlined--I have no idea what I might do. Would I cave in to the terrorists, or would I tell them to go pound sand? I honestly do not know. I can tell you this though, were it someone I cared deeply about, and I told them to go to Hell, I am not sure I could live with the guilt of getting them killed.
Ultimately, Mr. Kaplan makes a sound argument; the absolute best one I have heard yet, but like I said I look at the human factor in such things. And that, like Thomas, gives me pause.
And one last thing here: I take offense at the White House assuming that the majority of opinion against this deal revolves around the fact that the UAE is a predominantly Muslim country. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. I could care less whether it were Muslims running the ports or not. WE are concerned with the security of this nation, and with the UAE being in that region, susceptible to al Qaeda and their minions, it simply sets off warning bells in my head. Thomas and I watched 9/11 unfold on the TV (yes, in separate domiciles; we were not together then), and we will never forget what a few simple mistakes in this nation's security cost us. For us, the bottom line is whether or not this is a risk for the nation.
Bunny ;)
Earlier today, Thomas posted his thoughts regarding the port deal. I know a good many people will complain that he contradicted himself. There is not really a contradiction there. He is still worried about the deal, and so am I. Granted, there are benefits with allowing Dubai Ports World to manage some of our ports, and among them is their efficiency. Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt had an interview with Robert Kaplan, author of Imperial Grunts. Now, before anyone decides to go off half-cocked, please bear in mind that Mr. Kaplan has been on the ground with our troops, and knows precisely what he is talking about. Below is an excerpt from Hugh's interview with Mr. Kaplan.
HH: Now Robert Kaplan, you spent a lot of time in Yemen, and in fact, one of the harrowing parts of Imperial Grunts is your tour of the inland. I'm not really sure many people knew you were doing that, or would want you to do that, but you did it. And now I want to ask you to apply the lessons that you learned there to the Emirates, which now are poised to take over control of six of America's ports. Are the Emirates different from Yemen? Or are they the same?
RK: It's much, much different. Going from Yemen to the Emirates is going from one side of the moon to the other. Yemen is a poor country with a shabby airport, where the government controls only 50% of the territory. It's a vast desert hinterland, full of all kind of armed tribal groups. The Emirates is a small country with almost no hinterland. It has a first world standard of living. It's become a middle class holiday destination for Europeans who feel uncomfortable traveling in too exotic places. It's the kind of a place where everything is totally efficient. It's like a combination of Singapore and Las Vegas, and the highest standards of globalization.
HH: I remember your saying you hated to go from the hotels of Dubai to deploy to Afghanistan or somewhere else, because you went from the highest standard of living down to...
RK: It was so efficient in the United Arab Emirates in Dubai, and operates like such clockwork. It's that when you come back to the United States, like the United States is a third world country.
HH: Now with that background, does the control of the ports issue, the sale of these ports operations, not security, to United World Ports of Dubai, does it concern you?
RK: I mean, to the degree that the U.S. can still be in control of personnel working there, and security, I have no problem with Dubai's competence at running a port as well or better than we do. And it's part of the process of globalization, and at this point, if you tell them no, simply because they're Arabs, you're going to lose a lot more in the Arab world than you'd ever gain by a marginal improvement in security. And I think the security issue can probably be gotten around without tearing up the contract.
HH: What is that security issue in your mind, Robert Kaplan?
RK: It's about control of who the personnel are who have access to the port, and to the security procedures that govern the port, and have access to the people who control who goes in and out of the secure areas.
HH: So there is a security issue. You just view the cost of killing the deal as too high?
RK: Yes. Absolutely.
HH: Well, that's the argument the administration...
RK: If the security issue is manageable...
HH: Go ahead.
RK: The security issue is manageable, and the people...and there's very few countries in the world who've done as much so impressively as the Maktoum family in Dubai.
HH: Tell me a little bit about al Qaeda and Dubai. Is it there?
RK: Well, it has to be there, because it's an...Dubai has an open financial system, which is why it's so efficient in the first place. And one of the costs of having an open, free banking system in the heart of the Middle East, is you're going to have some bad apples.
HH: And do those bad apples pose a threat of penetrating Dubai World Ports, and that position?
RK: I don't think so. I don't think so, and the key thing here is that the Dubai government has always been totally helpful to us, in terms of penetrating those bad apples.
HH: I hope you'll write something about this, Robert Kaplan, on your return flight.
RK: Yes, also, something else. We have United Arab Emirates Special Forces in Afghanistan. It's called SOTF, a combined joint Special Operations Force in Afghanistan when I was there. The word combined was there, because there were other countries other than our own, including Laxia and the United Arab Emirates.
HH: When you get back, expect a phone call from the administration asking you to appear, because you just did in seven minutes a lot more than they have in seven days.
His defense of this issue is admirable, and Hugh is correct. Had Mr. Kaplan been the one making the argument for the administration, this issue might have gone a bit more smoothly for the president. However, he was not the one making the argument, and because the administration was not forthright on this deal, they have taken a beating over it.
I would like to address a couple of things that Mr. Kaplan stated, though. First, on the banking in the UAE. The 9/11 Commission found, in their report, that the UAE banks had helped launder and wire money to the 9/11 hijackers, and that they had provided visas for them. I would like to think that things have changed since then, but based on the fact that the UAE is similar to Swiss banks, and that Pres. Ahmadinejad has been receiving laundered funds through their banks, I am still content that the UAE is not as good as Mr. Kaplan believes when it comes to dealing with those bad apples. Now, I will grant him that they have done a phenomenal job in dealing with al Qaeda, but Iran looms on the horizon, and it would be helpful if the UAE would have their banks stop doing business with a madman.
Second, in regard to security, I am not willing to accept the administration's position that "all will be done" to prevent the infiltration of this company. We have a hard enough time with our own borders, and the ports are of far greater risk than the borders. US Coast Guard and US border patrol will handle security; to that there is no argument. The UAE is not allowed to handle the security of the ports. They are managing them. However, I look to the "human" factor.
What happens if someone high up in the managerial echelons has a family member kidnapped. Rather than demanding money, the terrorists demand that he provide them with work visas (using assumed names, of course), and has them assigned to New York, or Philadelphia? Those people arrive, and are able to pass the scrutiny of our security checks, and they contact their associates here in the US. And within a short amount of time, these animals pull off another attack within our borders. This time, it's not jetliners, but it's small, chartered planes. Charter services rarely do security checks, such as luggage or watch lists. Let's say they charter the flight, and while in the air, they overcome the pilot and co-pilot, commandeer the plane, and plow it into the Empire State Building, or Independence Hall.
This is just one of the scenarios I envision occurring if we are not careful.
Now, are there benefits to this deal? Of course there are. They come in the efficient management of our ports, and as Thomas pointed out this morning, an economic and strategic interest that will benefit us, as well.
Do I believe this deal is sound? That is the $64,000 question, and I have no real answer. I am convinced now, more than before, that this deal could, indeed, be all right. That we will take the necessary steps to ensure our security, and that we will not have the infiltration that I picture. However, I am a realist. If I were put into such a position--like the one I outlined--I have no idea what I might do. Would I cave in to the terrorists, or would I tell them to go pound sand? I honestly do not know. I can tell you this though, were it someone I cared deeply about, and I told them to go to Hell, I am not sure I could live with the guilt of getting them killed.
Ultimately, Mr. Kaplan makes a sound argument; the absolute best one I have heard yet, but like I said I look at the human factor in such things. And that, like Thomas, gives me pause.
And one last thing here: I take offense at the White House assuming that the majority of opinion against this deal revolves around the fact that the UAE is a predominantly Muslim country. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. I could care less whether it were Muslims running the ports or not. WE are concerned with the security of this nation, and with the UAE being in that region, susceptible to al Qaeda and their minions, it simply sets off warning bells in my head. Thomas and I watched 9/11 unfold on the TV (yes, in separate domiciles; we were not together then), and we will never forget what a few simple mistakes in this nation's security cost us. For us, the bottom line is whether or not this is a risk for the nation.
Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home