No matter on which side of this issue one stands, it is upsetting to read comments like these coming from the House Armed Services Committee Chairman who has not, as far as I can determine, expressed any concern about the fact that DPW provides virtually the exclusive support for our US Navy ships in the UAE ports of Jebel Ali and Fujairah. Those ports accommodate more US Navy ships than any other international port. DPW is also the primary support contractor for US Air Force assets at Al Dhafra Air Base in UAE.
Why would the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee trust DPW to work closely with thousands of US military personnel and military vessels and aircraft, when he has expressed such extreme distrust of DPW's role in civilian operations? If DPW is such a danger to the security of US civilians, why is the same company viewed as a trusted partner by the US military?
So? What makes you think he's happy about that either? But obviously their not going to slip a nuke into their OWN HARBOR for detonation! That's where this differs.
If they are real allies, they can take some rejection too.
As far as Duncan Hunter's consistency, I like this example clipped from an interview with Lou Dobbs a couple weeks ago:
But what we need to do is identify critical infrastructure, and that goes beyond the ports, whether its power grids, transportation lines.
CONGRESSMAN HUNTER: (I recommend in a pending bill that) We identify critical infrastructure. And rather than requiring another review, we simply ban anyone who is not a United States company, which has a board of directors, which is approved by DOD and by Homeland Security from owning that particular critical asset.
DOBBS: Hallelujah.
HUNTER: That's what we need.
DOBBS: Now, you know what some idiot is going to say, Mr. Chairman? Some idiot is going to say that's protectionism.
HUNTER: Well, you know, I think America is worth protecting.
DOBBS: I couldn't agree with you more. How is it we've gotten to a point where there is even an issue about a foreign government owned company or a foreign government owning U.S. key strategic assets?
HUNTER: Lou, it's the same as when we had the Port of Long Beach, the port officials coming in with their eyes glazed over, having talked to the local lobbyists, and they talked not about the Chinese -- the People's Liberation Army owning the naval base, they talked about a corporation, and this idea of free trade, that if you mask one of your military services by calling it a corporation, which the Chinese do regularly, you can do anything with free traders and with capitalists, because somehow that glazes our eyes and it blinds us.
And so we have to pull back. Let's take a new perspective. Let's look at critical infrastructure. Let's stop it.