I know I'm way behind the blogosphere curve on this issue because I've been pretty occupied recently, but I have a couple further thoughts on the Dubai Ports World takeover of some American port services.
1. It was strange to me to hear the President come out so strongly in favor of the deal so quickly. Even stranger, he now says that he didn't know about the deal until after it was approved by his subordinates. So why start out so gung-ho over a decision that will obviously be controversial? One possible explanation is that there's some huge quid pro quo behind the deal that we in the public aren't aware of. For instance, if Dubai has Osama Bin Laden in custody and will turn him over once the deal goes through. That specific trade would be foolish, but I suppose it's hypothetically possible that there's some sort of behind-the-scenes exchange going on that makes the political firestorm worthwhile.
2. Maybe one of the best ways to get Arab governments on board with the War on Terror is to draw them into further economic entanglement with the West. It seems that the United Arab Emirates will be all the more eager to help us stop terrorism if an attack is likely to hurt their own financial interests. Maybe. Then again, Arab/Muslim governments already stoke hatred towards the United States and encourage violence, despite the long-term effects such scape-goating has had on their economies.
I'm skeptical about this uproar. It's sloppy thinking to lump together all the countries in the Middle East, and it's foolish to imagine that non-experts can instantly evaluate something as complex and technical as the international shipping trade.
Well, the UAE is already one of our supporters in the Middle East. And they are helping us in the WOT, mainly with intelligence gathering.
I heard one pundit say that this is an end run. After this deal gets shut down, the contract will go to the only company in the US that has the capability, Haliburton.
It seems to me that the deal here is nothing more than a change of ownership. Dubai World Ports is basically a giant holding firm, and since it's acquiring the whole of the British firm currently managing the ports, rather than just their contracts, I doubt the actual employees holding positions at the ports will change one bit with the takeover. Moreover, the US government already has a set of federal inspectors and strict guidelines on port personnel security clearances that must be met, so I can't exactly see our ports being taken over by a bunch of jihadis-in-waiting, even if the management back in the UAE wanted to do so.
Moreover, DWP is likely to be more careful with our security than we would be ourselves. American companies wouldn't fear reprisal from a terrorist incident -- DWP (and by extension, the UAE) would. If a nuke or anything of the kind did make it through a port controlled by DWP, the American (and for that matter, Western) retribution against the company and the country would likely result in their ruin. And remember, the first priority of most of these Arab sheiks (like most wealthy and powerful people anywhere) is the maintenance of their own comfortable lifestyle.
RK: Depends what "deal" you're talking about. Since the ports already have contracts with P&O it seems that if Congress prevents those contracts from passing to DPW then the sale of P&O to DPW might be called off entirely. Then again, I suppose Congress could nix the contracts themselves. Still, there are plenty of companies other than Halliburton that could take over port operations... it doesn't seem that Americans care about foreign companies running our ports, just foreign government-owned companies from countries who have previously sheltered terrorists.
Cypren: I agree with your second paragraph, but it's hard to see how the owners of the buildings would be prevented from touring the facilities and bringing in guests with them, etc.