Take A Deep Breath
It’s no secret that I am a supporter of George W. Bush’s presidency. However, that is a far cry from being an automatic Bush apologist. I am more than willing to publicly state that he was wrong to sign the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Bill into law. He continues to fall short on the issue of illegal immigration. He has not done a very good job of selling the fact that we are at war to the American people. And his unwillingness to make serious attempts to rein in federal spending has been a disappointment to many conservatives like myself. My only point in saying all this is simply to note that any accusations I hear that I take a particular position just because the president supports it have no validity whatsoever.
Now.
Like many across the nation – as well as many of those who read this, I’m sure – my initial knee-jerk reaction when I heard of the deal that is to put the management of several U.S. ports in the hands of a government-owned company out of the United Arab Emirates was pure outrage. But, fortunately for me, I refrained from speaking publicly on the issue until I had time to cool down and ponder the facts that are available on the subject – sparing me the problem many may now face of having to back down from a position too vehemently espoused too quickly.
Of course, it should be acknowledged up front that the political implications of the deal are hard to dispute. Democrats could win big from this if they can manipulate the issue to demonstrate something they have been unable to demonstrate to date – that they are indeed serious about national security. This is, of course, why figures in both parties are distancing themselves from the administration. Democrats want to exploit it for political gain, Republicans want to minimize the political damage they would suffer from being associated with it.
But when one stops and considers what the overriding concern is that so many feel about this deal – the potential for terrorists to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into the U.S. through these ports – it turns out that the bloviating by so many is much ado about nothing.
After all, the ships in question, the ones we’re worried about carrying, for example, a nuclear bomb into an American port, are ships that will be loaded in foreign ports – ports that are not affected in any way by the change of management at U.S. ports. Does anyone really think terrorists are going to try to sneak onto ships that have already arrived to plant a bomb on them? Wouldn’t it make more sense, if it is already in this country, to plant that bomb in the heart of a city somewhere?
Besides, as many have already noted, the company in question will not be handling security at the port any more than a local airport is in charge of screening passengers for flights. That will be handled by U.S. government agencies, as it already is. Of course, the question of whether the U.S. government could do a more thorough job of screening incoming shipping is a valid one, but it has nothing to do with who is running the ports those ships travel to.
The role of the UAE company is administrative, and its functions will likely be carried out by many of the same people who are doing these jobs today, as is often the case when a new company takes over a worksite – just ask any of my engineer friends who work in the defense and space industry.
As for the fact that the company itself is owned by the government of the UAE, making it suspect in the eyes of many, I would hasten to add a fact that many may not have thought of. The United States government sells weapons to the UAE government all the time. In a previous manifestation of my work in the defense industry, I worked on a military installation in Alabama, helping manage the program through which the U.S. Army sold Apache helicopters to Saudi Arabia. In the office next to mine was the team that performed the same duties on the program that sold these attack helicopters to, yes, the United Arab Emirates.
This is a government, though we may not like every aspect of it, that has been cleared by all the relevant procedures to receive high tech weaponry from our military. And yet they are not fit to manage the flow of traffic through an American sea port? Sorry, that case hasn’t been made yet.
A bad move politically? Most likely. A betrayal of the nation? Not by a long shot. Let’s face it, any thing that has people saying that President Bush is weak on the War on Terror, given his history over the past four years, should throw up numerous red flags to the attentive observer.
Make no mistake about it, the political implications are based on perceptions, not facts. And, though it is an oft-quoted belief for many, the fact is that perception is not reality. And, by the way, doesn’t that suggest something about the fact that this is the way the Democrats want to create the perception that they are serious about national security?
Understand, I really don’t have that strong a position on who should be running the ports one way or another. But much of what has been said on the subject so far is unfair, and unsupportable by facts. It’s time for everyone to take a step back, breathe deeply, and remember that the deal they just became aware of has been on the administration’s radar for a bit longer.
Now.
Like many across the nation – as well as many of those who read this, I’m sure – my initial knee-jerk reaction when I heard of the deal that is to put the management of several U.S. ports in the hands of a government-owned company out of the United Arab Emirates was pure outrage. But, fortunately for me, I refrained from speaking publicly on the issue until I had time to cool down and ponder the facts that are available on the subject – sparing me the problem many may now face of having to back down from a position too vehemently espoused too quickly.
Of course, it should be acknowledged up front that the political implications of the deal are hard to dispute. Democrats could win big from this if they can manipulate the issue to demonstrate something they have been unable to demonstrate to date – that they are indeed serious about national security. This is, of course, why figures in both parties are distancing themselves from the administration. Democrats want to exploit it for political gain, Republicans want to minimize the political damage they would suffer from being associated with it.
But when one stops and considers what the overriding concern is that so many feel about this deal – the potential for terrorists to sneak a weapon of mass destruction into the U.S. through these ports – it turns out that the bloviating by so many is much ado about nothing.
After all, the ships in question, the ones we’re worried about carrying, for example, a nuclear bomb into an American port, are ships that will be loaded in foreign ports – ports that are not affected in any way by the change of management at U.S. ports. Does anyone really think terrorists are going to try to sneak onto ships that have already arrived to plant a bomb on them? Wouldn’t it make more sense, if it is already in this country, to plant that bomb in the heart of a city somewhere?
Besides, as many have already noted, the company in question will not be handling security at the port any more than a local airport is in charge of screening passengers for flights. That will be handled by U.S. government agencies, as it already is. Of course, the question of whether the U.S. government could do a more thorough job of screening incoming shipping is a valid one, but it has nothing to do with who is running the ports those ships travel to.
The role of the UAE company is administrative, and its functions will likely be carried out by many of the same people who are doing these jobs today, as is often the case when a new company takes over a worksite – just ask any of my engineer friends who work in the defense and space industry.
As for the fact that the company itself is owned by the government of the UAE, making it suspect in the eyes of many, I would hasten to add a fact that many may not have thought of. The United States government sells weapons to the UAE government all the time. In a previous manifestation of my work in the defense industry, I worked on a military installation in Alabama, helping manage the program through which the U.S. Army sold Apache helicopters to Saudi Arabia. In the office next to mine was the team that performed the same duties on the program that sold these attack helicopters to, yes, the United Arab Emirates.
This is a government, though we may not like every aspect of it, that has been cleared by all the relevant procedures to receive high tech weaponry from our military. And yet they are not fit to manage the flow of traffic through an American sea port? Sorry, that case hasn’t been made yet.
A bad move politically? Most likely. A betrayal of the nation? Not by a long shot. Let’s face it, any thing that has people saying that President Bush is weak on the War on Terror, given his history over the past four years, should throw up numerous red flags to the attentive observer.
Make no mistake about it, the political implications are based on perceptions, not facts. And, though it is an oft-quoted belief for many, the fact is that perception is not reality. And, by the way, doesn’t that suggest something about the fact that this is the way the Democrats want to create the perception that they are serious about national security?
Understand, I really don’t have that strong a position on who should be running the ports one way or another. But much of what has been said on the subject so far is unfair, and unsupportable by facts. It’s time for everyone to take a step back, breathe deeply, and remember that the deal they just became aware of has been on the administration’s radar for a bit longer.
posted by JeffreyH | 5:16 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home