Article

2006-02-22 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2006-02-22 02:40|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Flynn said. "I also hope this current situation doesn't lead to a feeding frenzy [against foreign operators], because if we want things to be secure over here, we're going to have to work with foreign counterparts."

Well Flynn - Your nightmare is going to come true. With the outsourcing and the border issues and the illegal aliens and the Fortune 500 not paying taxes... this is going to be the straw breaking the camels back. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

Posted by 3dc 2006-02-22 02:58|| 2006-02-22 02:58|| Front Page Top

#2
I have lost all faith and respect for President Bush. Of all the issues to threaten veto over, he finally finds his veto-balls now.

This country is doomed, in fact, we've already been sold down the river. All that is left is the dying.

Republicans, Democrats...it's all the same. They all need to be swept out of office. Pricks!

Posted by Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 06:53|| 2006-02-22 06:53|| Front Page Top

#3 I didn't (and don't) think this is a big deal, 'cuz the work will still be done by Joey and Guido, not Mahmoud and Abdulazziz, but I heard Jimmy Carter doesn't see anything wrong with it, and now ... the Post?

Maybe I should rethink this.....

Posted by Bobby 2006-02-22 07:02|| 2006-02-22 07:02|| Front Page Top

#4
It is a BIG deal Bobby. It is just one more step in the blurring of the lines. One more step towards the erasing of sovergnty (sp?) and implementation of OWG!

The story says there are lots of Americans on the senior staff...I say BFD. American Ports need to be operated by American Companies staffed by Americans. What's next, we turn the Federal Reserve Bank over to the Chinese?

These people at the top are all traitors in my book.

NF

Posted by Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 07:09|| 2006-02-22 07:09|| Front Page Top

#5 "It's a global network at the end of the day that we're trying to secure here," Flynn said. "And that doesn't happen by the United States owning every bit of it.

He's right.

These people at the top are all traitors in my book

Nope. They're trying to navigate through changing waters in a world that IS globalized.

You don't like some of the changes - I hear you on that. Neither do the Muslim cultures that no longer can keep out Beyonce and Barbie dolls and Muhammad cartoons. Neither do the European labor unions that are finding their cozy protectionist industries under seige.

We need to find ways to make it work for us because it will NOT go away - not unless the whole world economy collapses into a Dark Age.

And don't kid yourself - that's not an impossible scenario.

Posted by too true 2006-02-22 07:26|| 2006-02-22 07:26|| Front Page Top

#6 OWG!
wop wop wop wop wop

Posted by 6 2006-02-22 08:17|| 2006-02-22 08:17|| Front Page Top

#7 black humor, 6 LOL

Posted by lotp 2006-02-22 08:27|| 2006-02-22 08:27|| Front Page Top

#8 wop wop wop wop wop

Hummm, let me guess : the sound of the black helicopters??? Or an accronym I'm not aware of?

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-02-22 08:31|| 2006-02-22 08:31|| Front Page Top

#9 That was my take (the helicopters) ...

BTW, check out the comments at Gateway Pundit on the proposed port contract. Here's one excerpt:

Former InstaPundit Afghanistan Correspondent John Tammes emailed Glenn Reynolds:

I managed some cooperative efforts with the UAE Special Forces troops stationed at Bagram. They did some patrols in the area I was responsible for, and more importantly, they did some humanitarian assistance missions. The Afghans absolutely loved the UAE troops. They were thrilled to have SOMEBODY from the Arab world (besides our excellent Egyptian hospital) come out and HELP, rather than hinder.

We had a lot of supplies come from UAE based concerns too - if they were good enough to serve along side us in the field, and good enough to supply bottled water, food and the like to our troops..well, that sure sounds like a friendly nation to me

Posted by lotp 2006-02-22 08:40|| 2006-02-22 08:40|| Front Page Top

#10
"OWG!
wop wop wop wop wop"

Are you indicating that you're Italian, or just pulling your pud?

I'm not suggesting that the US have control over the whole world, just our own ports. I didn't like the fact that the Brits were managing our ports either.

American ports should be managed by American companies and the profits should be kept here! Period!

Offshore ownership is why I do not buy Chrysler products, Wild Turkey, Cadr and Driver and a whole host of other former US owned companies products. Profits going offshore folks, think about it.

Posted by Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 08:42|| 2006-02-22 08:42|| Front Page Top

#11
Car and Driver!

Posted by Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 08:43|| 2006-02-22 08:43|| Front Page Top

#12 This is such a none issue..... Think people, THINK!

NF must be driven a horse...

Posted by TomAnon 2006-02-22 08:53|| 2006-02-22 08:53|| Front Page Top

#13 NF, there's no such thing as "profits being kept here". We're part of a global economy.

Our Treasury Bills and Bonds are owned around the world and we own factories, companies, government bonds from other places as well. We buy and sell all sorts of things from all sorts of places all of the time.

That Chrysler you won't buy was ASSEMBLED here by UAW members. When you don't buy one, they don't get paid.

Security is definitely a serious concern with our ports today. But that is truly a separate issue from who owns the management company.

Posted by too true 2006-02-22 08:59|| 2006-02-22 08:59|| Front Page Top

#14 The failure of vision is the assumption that the people have to buy into totally free (no rules) global trade. It easy to buy into when you have never been hurt by it.

As an engineer who has been laid off for 3 years, told in the exit interview I would be replaced by 5 Indian and 2 Singapore engineers, rated by the government as loosing my job to outsourcing, and basicly now screwed on age - I call foul!

This whole movement is nutz.

Posted by 3dc 2006-02-22 09:47|| 2006-02-22 09:47|| Front Page Top

#15 Dubai Ports World is one of several foreign giants that operate terminals in ports around the globe; other big companies are from Denmark, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. Few U.S. terminals are managed by American-owned firms.

I say we go with the Danish company...ya know, just for moral support, lol! Seriously, the more I hear about this, the more I see it as a non-issue. Security still ran the same way (basically), the unions still manning the place, etc. However, THIS is NOT the issue that Bush should (finally) threaten veto on. He's gonna lose a lot of votes, just on principle for this one!

Posted by BA 2006-02-22 10:25|| 2006-02-22 10:25|| Front Page Top

#16 Doom, Gloom, Democrat

good God, Nuck - you are one wallowing individual. Stay away from knives and sharp objects. And stay away from me, you are depressing just to be near.

Posted by 2b 2006-02-22 11:13|| 2006-02-22 11:13|| Front Page Top

#17 Lileks has a great screed about this today.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-02-22 11:14|| 2006-02-22 11:14|| Front Page Top

#18
"Offshore ownership is why I do not buy Chrysler products, Wild Turkey, Cadr and Driver and a whole host of other former US owned companies products. Profits going offshore folks, think about it."

cause like profits are just a tax, a form of exploitation, and not actually a return on capital and risk. And to think they call Dems Marxists!!!!

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 11:15|| 2006-02-22 11:15|| Front Page Top

#19 I started out thinking this was a non-issue. When queried on it by a regular RBer, I surmised that, on balance, it was probably a bad idea, just cuz they are Muzzies and eventually something bad would come of it. But, the more I read and think about it, well, it has dawned on me that it has precisely ZERO effect on the security of the ports in question. ZERO. As the man said in the article:

...the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions -- an arrangement he said would remain in effect. "So it doesn't make any difference whether we are their employers, or other terminal operators are their employers,"

Why all the hubbub? Politics. Pure, 100%, partisan politics.

And here's the pain:
Those who are frothing about it are either:

1) assholes seeking political points

2) book-peddling shitheads like fuckwit over at JihadWatch who regularly squirts out litters of kittens over anything and everything that he thinks will make him seem more knowledgable... prolly looking for a job in the next admin... and to sell more books, of course

3) well, just embarrassing for not reading and comprehending what people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about say: it's irrelevant

Here we have the perfect article to change such attitudes, and still we see the frothy posts. Hey, it's no compliment to be a dupe or a tool or simply ignorant of the facts about how the world outside your bubble works and be unwilling to change - facts be damned - when they are right in front of you.

That's just embarrassing - or should be. Aw well, fuck it.

Posted by .com 2006-02-22 11:22|| 2006-02-22 11:22|| Front Page Top

#20 On the other hand, this is a royal cluster-fubar and it is primarily Bush's fault. If Rove were the evil genius he is purported to be, this would have been handled much better. Sometimes Bush is really tone deaf, and this is one of them. Harriet Miers II.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-22 11:42|| 2006-02-22 11:42|| Front Page Top

#21 This little tempest might be used contructively...

Maybe we use it as a cudgel to demand equality across the board regards company ownership, land ownership, etc. I do not know the UAE laws, but I'll bet they're similar to the Saudis: no company can do biz in Saudi unless it's (at least) 51% Saudi owned. This, and land ownership (think Mexico), and other restrictions placed on non-citizens by other countries shouldn't be tolerated. Maybe we start implementing rules that correspond with what American firms and people face... It is imminently defensible and would be a boon to the US economy as well as to US individuals.

Posted by .com 2006-02-22 11:45|| 2006-02-22 11:45|| Front Page Top

#22 Yeah, it's just too bad, though, that an American company can't step up with the cash for the deal--just talking business-wise.

I think it's a funny thing, though, that the Dems first say, "there's no Moslem problem" and now with the port question/confusion, it's "we can't let them have control over the ports--those bastard Moslems."

I have a thought, though. If the ports are owned by UAE, can't UAE change management protocols in terms of who they hire/fire, and EVENTUALLY make some inroads (if motivated by the wrong entities) to weaken homeland security? Say, ten years down the road? No disrespect for the unions, but eveyone has a price, and the idea that safeguards could potentially be bought out is unnerving to me, and seems a tad bit more likely if the owner (of the port operations) is another country.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 11:50|| 2006-02-22 11:50|| Front Page Top

#23 Would appreciate some civil discourse on this, since I'm not familiar with the way the ports operate.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 11:51|| 2006-02-22 11:51|| Front Page Top

#24 Re you #22, nothing prevents buying influence or cooperation today. That observation was at the heart of Clancy's The Sum of All Fears, no?

Posted by .com 2006-02-22 11:57|| 2006-02-22 11:57|| Front Page Top

#25 Ships come in, dock. Unload containers as fast as they can, load outboud containers as fast as they can. Sail away. Truckers and trains pick up arrived containers, deliver exports. What's hard?

The assumption is that as the Arabs buy the operating contract for the port and equipment, install Arabs as CFO, CIO, and treasurer they can now significantly improve the ability of al-Qaeda to deliver a nuke in a container.

The nuke in a container is a real threat. Why or how the CFO, CIO and treasurer will marginally improve al-Q's ability to deliver said nuke-in-a-box with the USCG and TSA looking over their shoulders at all times is never made clear to me. The threat exists and must be dealt with independent of who gets the profits from the port.

The opposition is pure xenophobia and BDS.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-22 11:59|| 2006-02-22 11:59|| Front Page Top

#26 The port ops and management company will handle decisions like what equipment to place on what pier, hours of operation, berthing charges, etc. based on what is allowed by the Port itself.

The Port, not only sets limits on what the ops and management company can and can't do but also, as noted above, the TSA, CoEngineers, Coast Guard, etc. also have regulations and the like. In addition, the States themselves regulate certain things.

Yes it is true that two of the 9-11 terrorists were UAE citizens. Yes it is true that Ports are potential terrorism gateways.

But it is also true that, with their ownership of the Ops and Management company, the UAE has an increment of additional incentive to keep terrorism away from Ports because if they don't, the security regs increase and that hurts the bottom line.

and by the way, Johns Hopkins Med Center is getting a contract to manage a hospital in the UAE.

Posted by mhw 2006-02-22 12:01|| 2006-02-22 12:01|| Front Page Top

#27 Additionally, little or no mention has been made regards the US's efforts under the Bush admin to go to the source ports and do legwork there. IINM, we have agreements at many of the major ports, Singapore being a huge example, where we are part of the security apparatus THERE that works to prevent suspicious cargo destined for a US port to escape examination.

Posted by .com 2006-02-22 12:03|| 2006-02-22 12:03|| Front Page Top

#28 "Ships come in, dock. Unload containers as fast as they can, load outboud containers as fast as they can. Sail away. Truckers and trains pick up arrived containers, deliver exports. What's hard?"

FU, "Nimble" (you're not).

THANK YOU, mhw and .com. Good point about allowing greater supervisory/incentive aspects, and thanks for the mini-lesson on how the port operations are set up.

There is another story on the boards today regarding the UAE, and their support against Islamic terrorists. Awarding the business contract to UAE is perhaps an intelligent move politically.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 12:13|| 2006-02-22 12:13|| Front Page Top

#29 Fu 2

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-22 12:16|| 2006-02-22 12:16|| Front Page Top

#30 Oh, I feel SO put down now, Nimble, and YOU are such a big, powerful guy. Just gives me shivers. Gee, I never thought about ports the way YOU described. It took me a really, really, really, really long time to even come close to understanding what you were saying--and you were SO right to chide me about it. I mean, what IS so hard to understand about ships coming in and being unloaded. Heh-heh. Silly me. I hope you can teach me all kinds of important stuff in the days ahead.

My apologies if you mistook my FU for an explitive mistakenly aimed at what someone else said was a flip attitude on your part (see why I shouln't listen to other people?) I only meant "Friends United." Ooops. I guess you probably did too. My mistake again.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 12:24|| 2006-02-22 12:24|| Front Page Top

#31 I'm outta here. Blue on Blue is more depressing than even Rosemary's finger wagging Pollyanna post.

Posted by .com 2006-02-22 12:27|| 2006-02-22 12:27|| Front Page Top

#32 Yeah .com, but have you considered that not everyone is (true) blue?

You used to hunt 'em down with me, bro. What happened?

Nimble's being a twerp and I'm not so politically correct ala Rantburg to put up with it. Old school suits me best, I guess.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 12:40|| 2006-02-22 12:40|| Front Page Top

#33 I'm confused. Who is the blue team?

Posted by mhw 2006-02-22 12:53|| 2006-02-22 12:53|| Front Page Top

#34 thats the 64 million dollar question, aint it mhw? To me all Americans (other than a few raving loonies) are, and so are most Europs, Israelis, Aussies, Canadians, etc. And a large minority of muslims as well. And most govts in the muslim world (though some like UAE are not a real intense shade of blue, even if bluer than KSA) To others the blue team is the Republican Party of the United States. End, full stop.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 13:02|| 2006-02-22 13:02|| Front Page Top

#35 Ignore the mayhem and the insanity and the evidence. Ignore everything which doesn't fit nicely and comfortably into your selected (not elected) persona.

Sniff.

I think I'm gonna cry, lh. I need a big hug.

Somehow, I think that the content and means of message delivery need to be sorted here. Sounding reasonable does not make the message correct.

Posted by Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 13:21|| 2006-02-22 13:21|| Front Page Top

#36 C'mon, everybody! Group hug! Then we sing Kumbayah...

Posted by Dar">Dar 2006-02-22 13:31|| 2006-02-22 13:31|| Front Page Top

#37 To complete #35...

A message delivered in a manner lh deems intemperate does not negate the message.

Were lh's people in charge from 2000 forward, the Taleban would still be killing uppity women in the soccer stadium, providing the cover available to a state to OBL's minions coming out of the far more numerous training camps, etc, not to mention that Saddam and his spawn would still be running the woodchipper and dreaming of gassing the Kurds again.

No thanks.

Posted by Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 13:34|| 2006-02-22 13:34|| Front Page Top

#38 LH,

Your comment on who is blue and isn't, raises a very interesting question. Why are we so alarmed about a UAE company getting this? What about the prior British operator? Do we not jokingly refer to "Londonistan"? The Islamist operative can come at us from any direction. Yes, giving port operations over to a UAE firm doesn't pass the sniff test, but I'm not sure giving it back to a wholly U.S. firm would make a difference in this regards.

This is truly a complex web we are left to unweave. Or cut through.

Posted by Dreadnought 2006-02-22 13:36|| 2006-02-22 13:36|| Front Page Top

#39 Did any of you "No Foreign Ownership" guys note that the ports are now owned by the British?

Hardly a "Local" issue, it's not American owned now.

I say let whoever has the money, own the ports, I'm certain that NO overseas owners would ever let any dangerous contaband (Such as Nukes) in anywhere, there's just entirely too much to lose to allow it.(Everything you own, all your holdings everywhere, all your cash, then we hunt you down and kill you)

No, it's not a terrorism issue, just a Democrat scare-the-sheep-to-death issue.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-02-22 14:14|| 2006-02-22 14:14|| Front Page Top

#40
"Were lh's people in charge from 2000 forward, the Taleban would still be killing uppity women in the soccer stadium, providing the cover available to a state to OBL's minions coming out of the far more numerous training camps, etc, not to mention that Saddam and his spawn would still be running the woodchipper and dreaming of gassing the Kurds again."

I dont think any conceivable US admin wouldnt have taken on the Taliban. Theyd be history with Gore in the WH. Though I'll freely admit it might not have been done as deftly. THAT campaign was masterful - and Rummy deserves credit for it.

I would have thought the pre-2000 Gore would have gone into Iraq too, based on the fact that almost everybody whom he was close to supported OIF, and his running mate is still the Dem who gets quoted by Bush on the situation in Iraq. But Gore changed dramatically afterward - how much was reaction to the 2000 election, and how much a reaction to his (paleoliberal) fathers death, and his renunciation of his mentor (hawkish Martin Peretz) I dont really know. If Gore were Prez Saddam probably would still be in power. But then with Gores change he ceased being one of "my people" (ie liberalhawks)

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 14:17|| 2006-02-22 14:17|| Front Page Top

#41 When someone (me) happens to ask an honest question regarding the operations of the ports, in order to understand the issue better, and is met with a nasty little flip answer such as Nimble's, then Nimble will be dealth with accordingly.

mhw and .com answered the question in a helpful way. The UAE would be a useful ally, and in terms of business, it's fine for them to purchase from the Brits, IMO. Besides, we already use them as a naval parking lot. Security is, and will continue to be, our responsibility--and as .com says, the sale allows us greater access to assess the security on the other side.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 14:19|| 2006-02-22 14:19|| Front Page Top

#42 I agree that the Dems are using the sale as an easy way to scare Americans into their camp, because most of don't really understand how the ports operate--hence, my question.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 14:22|| 2006-02-22 14:22|| Front Page Top

#43 so the UAE, or at least its govt is moderate muslims? Which thereby are not mythical?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 14:23|| 2006-02-22 14:23|| Front Page Top

#44 Are you asking me that question, LH?

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 14:28|| 2006-02-22 14:28|| Front Page Top

#45 And he stretches for home plate!

LOL.

Posted by Whoper Ebbolulet9339 2006-02-22 14:39|| 2006-02-22 14:39|| Front Page Top

#46 So Muslims can't own ports (which would still be managed locally) because it's a security risk, but it's un-American to give them extra scrutiny in airport security screenings.

I say congress should pass a bill blocking the acquisition, with a rider that "Islamic security profiling" will be allowed until the Islamist share of worldwide terrorist attacks drops below 99.99%.

Posted by wrinkleneck_trout 2006-02-22 14:49|| 2006-02-22 14:49|| Front Page Top

#47 Limbaugh is reporting that the Longshoreman's Union people are worried that the modernization of the ports (as the UAE will do) would cost them jobs. Since the Dems get a lot of money from the unions . . .

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-22 15:11|| 2006-02-22 15:11|| Front Page Top

#48 IIRC, there's really only one US company that operates in this industry and has the cops to take on this contract . . . Halliburton.

Posted by Mike 2006-02-22 15:33|| 2006-02-22 15:33|| Front Page Top

#49 IIRC, there's really only one US company that operates in this industry and has the cops to take on this contract . . . Halliburton.

Schumer agrees. (courtesy of Michelle Malkin's archives)

If Dubai Ports World is Harriet Miers, could Halliburton be Justice Alito?

Posted by eLarson 2006-02-22 16:01|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2006-02-22 16:01|| Front Page Top

#50 #44 Yes.

#46 The assertion is not that muslims shouldnt own ports, but that a mideastern govt which, it is claimed, has supported terror in the past, cant own ports. Not saying I agree, but its not the same thing.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-22 16:12|| 2006-02-22 16:12|| Front Page Top

#51 I guess change is very hard for me.
It just seems that american ports, need to be managed by our own.

The issues are should we grant the UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S. ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks, and whether the decision process was thorough and free from conflicts of interest.

From the 1970s, the UAE has been a key source of financial support for Saudi-controlled organizations like the Islamic Solidarity Fund, the Islamic Development Bank, World Council of Mosques, and the Muslim World League as documented in The Muslim World League Journal, an English-language monthly. The IDB alone, for instance, spent $10 billion between 1977 and 1990 for Islamic activities and at least $1 billion more recently to support terrorist activities by the Palestinian Al Aqsa and Intifada Funds.
Follow the money

Posted by Jan 2006-02-22 16:20|| 2006-02-22 16:20|| Front Page Top

#52 Well, after reading the posts and linked stories at LGF - and Malkin - and Lileks - sheesh! - it's all about PR and image. Sigh. Dunno what Bush should do now, but the original charges were not factual... absurd and emotional and [insert drum roll here] political BS. Wotta surprise.

Posted by .com 2006-02-22 16:28|| 2006-02-22 16:28|| Front Page Top

#53 maybe it is the title of this

but no American Ports will be owned by any foreign company.

The ownership of the ports is complicated, sometimes it is a state chartered consortia; sometimes it is a public/private partnership governed by various State laws, sometimes, it is a state agency.

The screwy nature of the ownership and the risks involved (regulatory uncertainty, competition between ports, etc.) is what makes American companies avoid the biz.

Posted by mhw 2006-02-22 16:35|| 2006-02-22 16:35|| Front Page Top

#54 Excuse the length -- but this is from fromerspook -- In from the Cold (great background info on the UAE region and our military)

So why not cancel the deal, and avoid giving the left some badly-needed, election year ammunition in the political battle of homeland security? Unless the deal is scrapped, the administration will find itself in the akward position of appearing weaker on port security than, say, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. At this point, one would assume that GOP powerbrokers are leaning on the White House to cancel the agreement.

But it's not that simple. Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight--even with political allies.

Let's beging with the basing rights issue. U.S. military forces--particularly Air Force units--have been using airfields in the UAE since the start of Operation Desert Shield back in 1990. Bases in the UAE are viewed as particularly important for potential military operations against Iran, given their proximity to disputed islands the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Hormuz. Flying from bases in the UAE, U.S. fighter-bombers would have only a short hop to targets in Iran, allowing them to maintain constant pressue on Tehran's military forces and political leadership. The presence of large numbers of tactical aircraft in the UAE would also make it easier to keep the strait open, and reduce Iran's ability to restrict the flow of oil to the global market. If the White House cancels the port deal, Dubai may end its basing agreement, and greatly complicate our military strategy in the region.

Overturning the port deal could also create other problems in the Persian Gulf. Cancellation of the contract would be viewed as an insult to the UAE and its leadership; regional critics would accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy--anxious to utilize UAE bases and sell its defense hardware to the Dubai, but unwilling to let a UAE company manage operations in U.S. ports. Such criticism, in turn, would cause other Gulf allies to question Washington's long-term committment to the region, and make it more difficult for the U.S. to sustain basing rights in such countries as Qatar and Bahrain. In fact, the loss of basing in the UAE would probably force the U.S. to approach Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain to take in more U.S. personnel, a potentially tough sell in the wake of a cancelled port deal between the Dubai and Washington. U.S. basing in Qatar is viewed as extremely critical, since the Gulf nation is home to a multi-billion dollar Air Operations Center, that is used to direct combat operations in the region.

Finally, striking down the port deal would mean likely curtailment of the sale of U.S. F-16s to the UAE. Back in the late 1990s, the Clinton Administration signed an agreement to sell 80 F-16s to the UAE, at a cost of roughly $8 billion. The UAE F-16s (Block 60 models) are most sophisticated version of that fighter ever produced, with capabilities beyond those of USAF F-16s. Sale of the F-16s was viewed as essential in continuing U.S. basing agreements in the UAE, and a major economic plum for the state of Texas, where Lockheed-Martin builds the F-16. The UAE deal came at a time when F-16 production was winding down; the U.S. and other countries had essentially completed their purchase of the F-16, and the assembly line was facing closure until the UAE deal came along. Lockheed hopes the UAE contract can stimulate other F-16 purchases, possibly by other Gulf States or possibly India. In economic terms, the UAE F-16 deal means literally billions of dollars and thousands of jobs in the President's home state.

Brit Hume of FNC has predicted that the White House will quietly cancel the UAE port deal a few weeks from now, after the initial furor has died down. But I'm not so sure. The military stakes are enormous, and the economic consequences (through the F-16 sale) are significant as well. Cancelling the port deal may solve political and security issues here at home, but it will also create significant problems in the gulf region, at a time the White House can ill afford them. It's a tough call, but one the President has to make--and soon.

Posted by Sherry 2006-02-22 16:54|| 2006-02-22 16:54|| Front Page Top

#55 Cancelling anything to make the Dems quiet is to be avoided. Let 'em stew. I'm waiting for the libs to start up with the "Muslims are a risk" talk so the ACLU can sue them. There's potential popcorn here, as hinted at in post #22.

Posted by Bobby 2006-02-22 17:16|| 2006-02-22 17:16|| Front Page Top

#56 Sherry, excellent ! Also, in the event of an attack on Iran, the UAE will be ground zero for an Iranian retaliation. That is a lot to ask a country in which one in eighty is a millionair.
These people are gambling here. They are gambling that the US and 21st century lifestyle are the winners in the big contest against the 8th century. Who among us would abandon them ?

Posted by wxjames 2006-02-22 17:41|| 2006-02-22 17:41|| Front Page Top

#57 Is there any proof what so ever to suggest that this deal would threaten national security? Because theyre an Arab company you say? Cmon folksthrow me a frikken bone. This is grandstanding politics pure and simple. Seems to me its just another wrinkle in the same ole sphincter. Some Republicans have voiced their concern so as not to appear weak on national security. Others have a constituency that has ports in their backyard and make it politically mandatory for them to question this deal. As for Democrats, this is just an angle for some to exploit the Bush Administrations inadequate funding of port security. For most its the next scandal de jour. Just another issue to extrapolate into the ongoing culture of corruption narrative. Just look how this story is no longer about security and has morphed intoSecret nature of the foreign acquisition process, Executive Branch didnt consult the Legislative Branch, and Bush in bed with the Arabs...

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-02-22 17:51|| 2006-02-22 17:51|| Front Page Top

#58 Is there any proof what so ever to suggest that this deal would threaten national security?

I have not even read a suggestion of how it could threaten national secuirty except that Arabs would "own" our ports.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-22 17:55|| 2006-02-22 17:55|| Front Page Top

#59 Is the problem the UAE or is the problem trusting our own government? With the revelation that an FBI field office had detected what would turn out to be the 9/11 threat with various members of the cell training at flight schools and the inaction and obstruction by the FBI bureaucracy, do we feel safe? When Pearl Harbor happened, Admiral Kimmel and General Short were publicly relieved of command and subjected to intense scrutiny for their actions and inactions leading to the disaster. Those responsible in the FBI establishment were not subjected to similar treatment. Rituals have values. Not necessarily in and of themselves, but in the message they convey to the participants and audience. The failure to engage in a ritualistic process of holding such officials publicly accountable for the event leaves many of us with serious misgivings that institutional behaviors are tolerated which resulted in the 9/11 disaster. That such institutions will again fail because the message is that failure isnt accompanied by serious consequences for those involved. I believe the president is about to pay for the failure to publicly clean house years ago

Posted by Hupuque Angulet4210 2006-02-22 17:56|| 2006-02-22 17:56|| Front Page Top

#60 No Nimble Spemble they would "Operate" the ports not "Own" them. Jeesh!

Posted by DepotGuy 2006-02-22 18:02|| 2006-02-22 18:02|| Front Page Top

#61 Oh Look at the Wookie!

The story here is about Border/Port security. The Federal governmnet is responsible for that and has and is doing a crappy job. Running Ports operations is not security. Security is securing every border and searching every cargo container, box and suitcase that enters the US. Customs and the INS are not going to do that so please get distracted with this non issue. Port Opetrations are about where to berth vessles and unloading cargos. The Dems and Republicans are not going to do anything about the real government job of securing the border and checking cargos and collecting all the tarrifs that are due and impounding illegal cargos. This is a total distraction from reality.

Posted by Sock Puppet O' Doom 2006-02-22 18:02|| 2006-02-22 18:02|| Front Page Top

#62 DG, that's why it's in quotes.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-22 18:07|| 2006-02-22 18:07|| Front Page Top

#63
#54. You bring up some really good points. Too bad! If the folks that floated this initially had been earning their money, they would have told the UAE:"Sorry! This isn't a political possibility right now, blah-blah-blah, Insh'Allah!".

This is also not a Repub/Demo thing. I'm conservative, so are most of the folks I know, but, even the libs I know think this is a bad idea.

Posted by Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 18:08|| 2006-02-22 18:08|| Front Page Top

#64
"I believe the president is about to pay for the failure to publicly clean house years ago"

And well he should pay too. Maybe, just maybe, it will serve as an object lesson for the next Nimrod that occupies the office.

Take care of business and clean house.

Posted by Nuck Fozzle2168 2006-02-22 18:12|| 2006-02-22 18:12|| Front Page Top

#65 interesting list on Polipundit (thx DJ Drummond!)of ports by tonnage:

There are 361 seaports in the United States. The Top 25 by freight weight (2003) are in the following locations (tonnage in short tons):

South Louisiana, LA (198.8 Million Tons)
Houston, TX (190.9 Million Tons)
New York, NY-NJ (145.9 Million Tons)
Beaumont, TX (87.5 Million Tons)
New Orleans, TX (83.8 Million Tons)
Huntington, WV (77.6 Million Tons)
Corpus Christi, TX (77.2 Million Tons)
Long Beach, CA (69.2 Million Tons)
Texas City, TX (61.3 Million Tons)
Baton Rouge, LA (61.3 Million Tons)
Plaquemines, LA (55.9 Million Tons)
Lake Charles, LA (53.4 Million Tons)
Los Angeles, CA (51.3 Million Tons)
Mobile, AL (50.2 Million Tons)
Valdez, AK (49.9 Million Tons)
Tampa, FL (48.3 Million Tons)
Pittsburgh, PA (41.7 Million Tons)
Baltimore, MD (40.2 Million Tons)
Duluth-Superior, MN-WI (38.3 Million Tons)
Philadelphia, PA (33.2 Million Tons)
St. Louis, MO-IL (32.4 Million Tons)
Pascagoula, MS (31.3 Million Tons)
Norfolk Harbor, VA (31.2 Million Tons)
Freeport, TX (30.5 Million Tons)
Portland, ME (29.2 Million Tons)

Of these, Peninsular & Oriental navigation (P&O Ports) has part or whole ownership of the operating leases in eleven of the top U.S. ports. P&O Ports is a British company based in London, which has part or whole ownership in 85 seaports worldwide. And P&O Ports has decided to divest itself of about half of its U.S. seaport investment. Why?

Because seaports are expensive and sometimes difficult to run. American seaports often have environmental and operational restrictions which annoy the lease owners and chase away capital investment. The whole reason for the leases, in actual fact, is that there are four classes of people working through the ports:

· Ship owners and operators, who want to move freight
· Property owners, who often build warehouses near the port facilities
· The Port Authority for each port; and
· Operations Management companies

At the risk of sounding trite, port operation is not all that different from running a very large grocery operation you have to move a lot of items, some fragile, some time-sensitive, some just plain difficult to move, in a very short frame of time. You have to keep ship traffic flowing and you have to keep all kinds of inspectors and officials happy. And no one pays any attention to you, unless and until something goes wrong.

I suspect this was how the deal was pitched to the President as a change only in operational management, with no change at all in the substance. The Department of Homeland Security still holds authority for security, with the Coast Guard and the Customs Service as the first responders to any concerns, regardless of who holds the operations lease. The individual ports each also stipulate conditions for ship traffic, cargo documentation and handling, and these are based on long experience and attention to practical feasibility.

I like DJ's logic

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-02-22 18:55|| 2006-02-22 18:55|| Front Page Top

#66 The president may also have been reminded of the high value of our military basing rights in UAE.

Posted by lotp 2006-02-22 19:04|| 2006-02-22 19:04|| Front Page Top

#67 .com: Thanks for doing the thinking and the homework to get to the bottom of this non event.

AngSpav

[formerly Classical_Liberal]

Posted by Angomotch Spaving3330 2006-02-22 20:40|| 2006-02-22 20:40|| Front Page Top

#68 We need an ~~owner~~ operator who is union friendly and understands the special relationship the longshoremen have with the ~~Blackhand~~ ~~IWW~~ ~~Communist~~ ~~Sociaist Workers~~ Democratic Party

Posted by 6 2006-02-22 20:48|| 2006-02-22 20:48|| Front Page Top

#69 CL - No way am I taking any credit except for trying to think it through sans an prior assumptions - so the BS aspect would be easier to identify, lol.

Lots of people that I respect are against this - and that certainly gives me pause, but they are playing the political buzz - so it doesn't change the outcome for me.

LOL....

Tommy Franks just told Sean Hannity that it's all politics. Whew! I gots cover, baby! ;-)

Posted by .com 2006-02-22 21:11|| 2006-02-22 21:11|| Front Page Top

20:44 BesoekerTROLL
21:20 Besoeker TROLL
21:11 Besoeker TROLL
21:09 Besoeker TROLL
20:53 Besoeker TROLL
20:50 Besoeker TROLL
18:51 Besoeker
18:46 Besoeker
18:44 Besoeker
18:14 Besoeker
18:09 Besoeker
18:07 Besoeker
17:23 Besoeker
10:05 Besoeker
16:25 Hardliner
23:57 11A5S
23:55 .com
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:48 11A5S
23:47 2b
23:42 DMFD
23:42 .com
23:36 Mike
23:36 2b