Posted on 02/21/2006 11:41:27 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
A few words on the Dubai Ports World imbroglio, written without pause or editing, which is probably just as well. Short version: the administration may have thought it was helping a Valuable Ally and probably a pal, end of story. But it plays like Bush defending eminent domain to condemn a neighborhood to build a mosque.
I don’t make predictions, because – well, who cares? You either repeat the conventional wisdom and hide with the herd when you’re wrong, or buck the prevailing opinions and get a reputation as a “maverick” when you’re wrong, again. Works for some. But if I had to make a prediction, I’d say this: the Dubai-ports fracas will become a flap, quickly swell into a firestorm, then become a debacle before settling into the history books as a “historic miscalculation” – providing the Republicans only lose the Congress. If they lose a city, it will be a “critical turning point.”
Do I expect the managers of the ports to start installing Al Qaeda operatives in key positions, so they can wave through all the containers with small nukes for national distribution? No. But such a scenario does not exact tax the imagination, which is why it’s such a stupendously bad idea.
It’s remarkably tone deaf. It’s possible that the Administration did some quiet polling, and asked the question “How much Arab control over American ports are you comfortable with,” and misinterpreted stunned silence as assent. It’s possible the Administration believed that this would be seen as outreach, an act of faith to solidify a Key Ally, and didn’t think there’d be much hubbub – but if that’s the case, it’s the best example of the Bubble Theory I’ve heard, and I’ve not heard much convincing evidence. Until now. The average American’s reaction to handing port control over to the UAE is instinctively negative, and for good reason. There are two basic reactions: We can’t do this ourselves? and We should trust them, why?
As for the first, the assertion that American firms were the lower bidder is unpersuasive, rather like saying that we should have outsourced the flight crew for the Enola Gay to Japanese nationals because they knew the terrain better. As for the trust issue, well, wanting port control to remain in American hands is not a matter of Arabiaphobia, any more than selling Boeing to China means you harbor deep hatred of Asians. Some things ought to be left in local hands. It seems absurd to have to make that argument in the first place. The UAE is not exactly stuffed stem to stern with pro-American individuals; the idea that the emirs will stand foursquare against infiltration by those who have ulterior motives is the sort of wishful thinking that makes buildings fall and cities empty. 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.
That’s a lot of ifs and maybes. But I don’t want any ifs and maybes. You can't eliminate them all, of course, but I would rather we had a system devoted to worrying about ifs and maybes instead of adopting an official policy of Whatever.
We’re told we’re at war, and we reach back for the wartime memories we all saw in the movies and read in the novels: Yanks walking along fences with a dog, rifle on the shoulder, searchlight playing on the ground, stealthy foes ever at the perimeter. It was never that tight, of course; it was never that dramatic. But there were the constant imprecations to be vigilant, because peril lurked. That would have been undercut, perhaps, if the Roosevelt Administration had given port control to Franco.
Well, not the best analogy, perhaps. But the specifics don’t matter; arguments about the specific nature of the Dubai Ports World organization’s global reach and responsible track records don’t matter. Because it feels immediately, instinctively wrong to nearly every American, and that isn’t something that can be argued away with charts or glossy brochures. 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.
On the good side: we’re probably done with Shotgungate, and the DailyKos people will start getting worried about dirty nukes smuggled in through the ports. On the dark side, for conservatives: woot, there it is – the politically inept, base-confounding, intuitively indefensible decision. Oh, it may be the right thing to do, in the end. Maybe you’re overreacting. Wait, study, read, reflect. But hope you don’t have to go on a cable show and defend it, because you’d feel greasy.
Advice to the administration: If you’re going to shoot yourself in the foot, don’t use a bazooka. You may aim for the pinky toe but there’s nothing left below the hip. The recoil should not be your first clue you grabbed the wrong gun.
You got that right!
The United States isn't eaxctly filled with pro-American people either, an example.
johnny(jihad) walker lindh.
Who by the way comes from the same county of all the sudden outraged barbara boxer.
Like I said I will trust a President who has killed more islamic terrorists than all presidents combined, rather than the musings of keyboard commandos.
Hi,
This so reminds me of all the logic and reasoning behind the US backing of Palestinian elections.
Were YOU surprised that the democratic elections led to the election of a TERRORIST group? All the pro-palestinian US and Israeli groups were taken aback: didn't the arabs want peace? didn't they understand the implications of this vote? what about all those nice words, and promises?
We look at the Arab world through rose colored glasses. Iran is promising to destroy Israel, and doesn't even bother to deny that if he were to start a nuclear war that millions of Arabs would also perish. No MAD deterrent here! Their death is WORTH it! Only to kill Israel.
And we hang onto some obsolete logic that the Arabs, once invested in the US would have some interest in keeping the ports safe... just like the 19 pilot bombers had some 'interest' in the US lifestyle.
We are blind.
Please take a look at pickrell's post of 9:45 last nite (21st). I'm not saying that that applies. Bush has been A total idiot about Mexican border security, and it is now exploding out of control, with mexican MILITARY incursions into the US (FOREIGN MILITARY ATTACKS ON THE US HOMELAND) and GWB just sits there like he's cool with everything.????????
IMO, Don't give up your day job to make a career in stand up comedy.
So I'm gathering, re: select postings tonight.
Some, apparently, have already forgotten.
Others have not.
This is a really stupid move on the Presidents part. It's stupid because it's politically tone deaf. It's stupid because it lets treasonous vermin like Schumer actually look like they care about Americas security.
It's stupid because it puts a country run by Arabs anywhere near vital US installations.
Oh, and anyone who thinks you're conservative is believing gibberish.
L
Like me and I'm glad that there is a President now who is taking the islamic terrorist threat seriously and has a record not surpassed by any previous president, and not keyboard blowhards who if they were in the President's current position would be urinating their pants at the decisions he makes daily.
But I guess some would rather trust keyboard commandos than a president with a strong track record on defeating terrorism.
Ditto that.
My late brother, as well, Lurker; and G-d bless you for your service.
Please check out pickrell's thread 9:45 02/21 (last night.) And I don't know, but there may be more to this than we can know. And as I said, he has been an IDIOT on the mexican border.
This is a really stupid move on the Presidents part. It's stupid because it's politically tone deaf. It's stupid because it lets treasonous vermin like Schumer actually look like they care about Americas security.
Well I ain't one who says that they kill islamic terrorists from words banged on a keyboard.
But go ahead and believe the media hype, while I will trust a President who everyday makes decisons that would make the keyboard commandos and media know it all urinate their pants.
That's ok. The President thinks he can make up the difference with 15 million new, grateful, Republican voting, amnesty recipients. Worked for his "brother" didn't it?
The UAE is a political dictatorship run by Islamic nutjobs. Chrisianity is illegal there. Converting to any religion from Islam is illegal there.
Their banks, all State owned btw, financed terror right up to the moment they were called on it.
Trusting them anywhere near US ports is an act of supreme stupidity.
L
Uh-huh. And what's your personal kill total, anyway? Single digits? Double? Which service branch? Which unit, and where stationed?
... or are you just a "keyboard commando"...?
243 of my brothers weren't so blessed.
I should've whacked more of them when I had the chance.
L
Uh I am not making that claim unlike the security know it all keyboard commandos such as lileks and malkin.
I hadn't read that but had heard something similarly expressed.
If this is strategery that the general public can't be allowed to know, I wish President Bush would brief a couple of 'independent' guys that can be trusted to keep the secret AND have the trust of rational conservatives.
Then those doubly trusted people come out and say they know why and that we should all go along with it, I'd shut up about it.
I like and respect President Bush but I think his greatest flaw is that he trusts people too much. He gives everyone, even strangers, the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves untrustworthy.
Perhaps a good way to run ones life, but not a nation beset by incredibly lethal dangers and enemies who worship death; they seek it themselves and want it for everyone else...
Not a gamble I'm willing to take without knowing thbe odds and what the possible payoff is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.