I think you've got a point.
The fact is that a national government has more money and leverage then a private company. we can essentially sell every major port/airport/manufacturing facility to foriegn governments because they can afford it.
It makes sense strategically for them, because they will make money off of the US, and own a vital commercial vein.
Thats why China owns stuff on the western shore etc.
I'm skeptical of any government ownership of anything, whether its the government run schools, tollways, or ports.
Whether it's our government or someone elses.
Right you are about skepticism of government owned companies.
I find it philisophically inconsistent that many of those defending the original UAE deal to run the ports would be vigorously opposed to what can only be descibed as SOCIALIST if lets say the Feds took over Chevron to create a Pemex style nationalized oil company.
There's a difference. UAE is an ally, and has been for some time, and it is in ours and their strategic best interest to remain so, come what may (Iran, radicals in Saudi, AQ, etc)....
China, OTOH, is a potential adversary in future conflicts. Our buying of cheap consumer goods and depending on that may merely fuel their internal military buildup, but China considers ports owned by its holdings, as well as its cargo ships, as MILITARY assets. What it owns, it can shut down..
They don't only own stuff on the left coast. They have administrative control of the Panama Canal, control the ports of Houston and Victoria, TX; a lot of the port of New Orleans, and the ports in Mobile and Pensacola (there are others but I can't specifically name them off the cuff)..
If they close access to the Mississippi and Tombigbee rivers, that's almost 1/2 of our logistical capacity choked up.
Britain harassed shipping as far as portside leading up to the War of 1812.. this is far worse..