Cynical Nation

ABC Radio Network news just reported that the U.S. assets of P&O represent about 6% of the value of DWP's purchase of the British company.

Occam's Razor reveals that this whole issue is about one non-U.S. company buying another non-U.S. company that happens to hold some U.S. assets. Those assets, BTW, are not the actual ports, but contracts to operate the cargo facilities at those ports.

The U.S. has about 360 ports open to international cargo traffic. Cargo facilities at about 30 of those ports are operated by corporations domiciled outside of the United States.

As our liberal friends like to say: "Do the math."

Barry,
You underestimate the extent of corruption in the Bush adfministration. For me the explanation is much simpler. It is a business deal and they want to go ahead with it, without thinking or caring about the security of the country. Or somehow covincing themselves that "it will be ok". In any case, there are now some initial signs that the deal will be eventually withdrawn.

Well, at least you've got all the facts right Barry, which is more than can be said for the NY Times and many other "news" outlets.

Your analysis, "The Bush administration is certainly not above cronyism, but I suspect the actual reason is even simpler. Let's leave aside the whole issue of where the UAE's deepest loyalties lie in the War on Terror (I'm deeply skeptical on that score myself.) But the UAE is, without question, a critically important logistical ally in the war. It's home to crucial American military bases, and it's a major refueling point for the American naval and air forces. I'm sure their support for American military operations doesn't play very well with certain domestic elements, to say the least.

So what's in it for the UAE? I don't know. Whether this port deal was part of an explicit bargain for the UAE's support in the GWoT or not, Bush must certainly be reluctant to undertake any action that would jeopardize the partnership we currently have with the Dubai.

And look, he has a point. It's an extremely delicate situation, and we do need the UAE's help. Nonetheless, I just don't think it's worth it on balance."

OK, I'm not as skeptical of the UAE's loyalties, but that's certainly open to discussion and debate. That government has certainly taken a stance that is very unpopular with the radical elements throughout that region, creating, one would think, a far greater or more immediate stake in a positive (winning) outcome of America's war on terrorism than most nations have.

I'd have a HUGE problem if DPW could replace any worker from POSN Co and just send them to work in American ports, but that is NOT the case. ANY & EVERY such worker is required to get a work visa from the U.S.

Moreover, port security remains the exclusive purview of U.S. Customs and the Coast Guard.

This morning that transfer has been put on hold by DPW and the contract will be re-reviewed. It SHOULD be re-reviewed and vetted in an open session of Congress, but I only believe it should be scuttled if it can demonstrably be shown that the UAE and DPW creates a real security risk that the POSN Co did not.

Has anyone yet articulated a coherent reason that DPW shouldn't be allowed to operate the ports? The "they're arabs, duh!" argument seems a little shallow to me.

So what's in it for the UAE? I don't know.

Um...Money maybe? DPW might have some crazy idea that they can turn a profit on cargo operations at major U.S. ports.

Whether this port deal was part of an explicit bargain for the UAE's support in the GWoT or not...

Specifically, the U.S. part of the deal was about 6% of a huge deal to take over the third largest port operator in the world. Mark my words: Somewhere in this whole deal, money is a motivating factor -- maybe not the principal motivator, but I'm betting that DPW thinks they can turn a profit here somewhere along the line.

Has anyone yet articulated a coherent reason that DPW shouldn't be allowed to operate the ports? The "they're arabs, duh!" argument seems a little shallow to me.

Would you be so unconcerned if a contractor from Buffalo NY were allowed to clean federal buildings? After all, that's where Timothy McVeigh came from. ;-)

"So what's in it for the UAE? I don't know." (Barry)

"Um...Money maybe? DPW might have some crazy idea that they can turn a profit on cargo operations at major U.S. ports.

Whether this port deal was part of an explicit bargain for the UAE's support in the GWoT or not..." (anonymous)

There's nothing wrong with commerce, is there? "Making money" isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor would saving money (by the U.S. taking the lowest bid originally put in by POSN Co).

But I think Barry's question is, "Given the UAE's proximity to the virulent radicalism of the Islamo-cultists, what do they get out of this, besides some tidy profits, given they're also currently harboring and fueling some of our Naval vessels and inspecting cargo in foreign ports for us?

What do they get for expanding the already huge bullseye on their backs?"

It's been said that this six port deal is part of a far larger ports deal coming down the road.

Maybe that will come out in the upcoming hearings to vett this contract.

"Has anyone yet articulated a coherent reason that DPW shouldn't be allowed to operate the ports? The "they're arabs, duh!" argument seems a little shallow to me." (CRB)

"Would you be so unconcerned if a contractor from Buffalo NY were allowed to clean federal buildings? After all, that's where Timothy McVeigh came from. ;-)" (anonymous)

From your response, it seems you presume that CRB opposes the contract because DPW is an Arabic company, but that's not what the question implied. "...The "They're Arabs, duh!" argument rather shallow to me," indicates otherwise.

Unless you're saying we SHOULD mistrust anyone from Buffalo and not allow them to be hired to clean federal buildings.

Of course, opponents of the deal would probably respond, "No, it's not 'people from Buffalo' we should bar from cleaning federal buildings, but members of the Michigan Militia."

Both are imperfect comparisons, but the expected response from opponents hits on the real fear of many of those opposed to the deal, that we can't determine exactly where the UAE's sympathys and loyalties lie.

The problem I have with that is that the UAE has been a stalwart supporter of America's Military war on terrorism, has helped train Iraqi security forces in Iraq, serviced our Naval vessels in their home ports and inspected foreign cargo for the U.S.- all of which has made the UAE an enemy of the radical Islamicists/Islamo-nazis, perhaps an even more vile enemy than Britain and America, as their actions are seen as "traitorous" to both the pan-Islamist and pan-Arabic cause.

Sorry about the "anonymous" post. Coulda sworn I included my name.

From your response, it seems you presume that CRB opposes the contract because DPW is an Arabic company, but that's not what the question implied. "...The "They're Arabs, duh!" argument rather shallow to me," indicates otherwise.

I think CRB and I are on the same page on this issue. Did you miss my ";-)"?

And I think you're mistaken about the Michigan Militia. My recollection is that they told him to get lost because he was too crazy for them. I think they even provided some help to the FBI in identifying McVeigh. So, there's no question about it: It's people from Buffalo that we have to worry about, not militas from Michigan.

Cronyism? Yes.

But the big problem for Bush isn't what he wants to do, it's how he's trying to do it.

Checks and balances are so 1978...

"I think CRB and I are on the same page on this issue. Did you miss my ";-)"?" (WF)

I took your post at face value WF, I'm really bad with those emoticons, always have been.

I'm glad (and not surprised, seeing who you are) that you're in agreement with CRB.

I'll acknowledge to critics that the administration should've communicated better on this deal, and I'm all for it being re-reviewed, but I doubt they'll scuttle it, if all the opposition's got is a suspicion that "we can't trust an Arab nation."

"And I think you're mistaken about the Michigan Militia. My recollection is that they told him to get lost because he was too crazy for them. I think they even provided some help to the FBI in identifying McVeigh. So, there's no question about it: It's people from Buffalo that we have to worry about, not militas from Michigan." (WF)

Fair point on McVeigh's involvement in the MM, though the Nichols brothers had both been active members (at least awhile before the bombings) and they were convicted of helping him out, but that's not even the point.

Those opposed to the port deal would not accept the flawed analogy of McVeigh to "people from Buffalo," for McVeigh was also a lot of other things they'd consider to be a lot more sinister and suspicious, including an Army Gulf War I vet, or in some of their parlance, "A militarist."

And that is how they'd define and defend their fears - the UAE's acting as a banking center, much like the Cayman Islands does in this hemisphere, which was used by nefarious sources and their 1996 "recognition" of the Taliban government in Afghanistan.

Many of them don't get nuance.

Many don't understand who are our "friends" and who are our "enemies" are in this conflict.

Folks like BW, for instance, refuse to see that all three nations that "recognized" the Taliban government in 1996 (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE) sided with the U.S. after 9/11 and have all cooperated, in varying degrees (the UAE the most) in the war on terrorism.

Of course, BW also doesn't seem to understand why Iraq was a legitimate target, despite Saddam Hussein's decade old standing as "the leading state sponsor of international terrorism," or his well known ties to terrorist groups, INCLUDING al Qaeda.

The Ansar al Islam group was an al Qaeda group that was based in northern Iraq and shared a common enemy with Hussein and there is evidence that there was direct links between Ansar (al Qaeda) and Baghdad regarding dealing with this common enemy.

A few years back, a number of Ansar members were arrested in England with Ricin (a WMD) and charged with trying to poison the British water system.

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, who'd been alienated from and felt "done to" by the U.S. and who fostered ties with many international terrorists, including al Qaeda (Ansar al Islam).

Some folks still don't get the strategy of seeking to split the Arab world into pro-radicals and pro-Westerns. The pro-radicals have primarily been Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and the Sudan, while the pro-Westerns include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qutar, Kuwait, Jordan and the UAE.

That doesn't mean there aren't radicals from many of those pro-Western countries. The "Toledo Three" arrested the other day in Ohio, were all Jordanians, and Jordan's government is very friendly toward the U.S.