That's all well and good, except that nobody is talking about an arab country guarding our port cities.
If we WERE talking about an arab country guarding our port cities, that would truly be silly and we would all be against it.
But since we are NOT talking about that, or anything remotely related to that, saying so does nothing but obfuscate the real issue, which is not security.
Some people own a company, and want to sell the company. The buyer is another company, which is owned by the UAE government. The ports will not be run by the UAE, or even by DP World, or even by O&P, but by the same american subsidiaries that run the ports now, with american workers, trained in running our ports and in our security measures.
DP World gives O&P stockholders 6.7 billion dollars, and hopes to earn it back in the long run from a share of the profits from operating ports around the world that O&P has leases or contracts for. That's all that this is.
If you are nervous, have congress pass a law making it easy for the President to break the leases for "national security" reasons. Right now there is NO EVIDENCE of any security concern with this deal.
Acting in the absense of any rational basis would be rightly seen as simple muslim-hating, arab-bashing. IT would prove the terrorists right, and give comfort to our enemies. It would undermine a country that has been our ally since 9/11, which has endured increasing terrorist attacks because of their support of us.
If we work at it, we could turn UAE into another Iran.
But it is just so easy to yell "Don't turn our port city security over to an arab government."
What is that? Some sort of blackmail? You let UAE run our ports or it becomes another volunteer for the Islamic death squad?
Well, EXCUSE ME, but I'm for having ONLY Americans who can successfully go through thorough background checks and drug-tested scrutiny run our ports! I'm not for Shrub out-sourcing this critical security issue to another country, even if it is the most ardent American friend we ever had!
I have no doubt most, if not all of your points are correct. However, I think you -- and the President, for that matter -- are overlooking one important, powerful element. That is the visceral recoil many, probably most Americans have these days toward most things Muslim and Arab.
We have all lived through wave upon wave of horrors committed by Islamic fanatics. Those images of the WTC crashing down, of Russian schoolchildren being slaughtered, of London subways being bombed, of beheadings, and all the rest of it simply cannot be swept away.
There is no way -- none -- that I can accept this port deal, no matter what entirely rational arguments can be made on its behalf. My distrust of the Muslims is now too deep. My gut screams out NOOO! Even as my heart and mind want to support this President whom I so deeply respect.
Don't you see? There is something much more basic at work here. Something primal that cannot be soothed by a business discussion.
No matter how many layers of management stand between the actual port workers and the UAE government, the fact is that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey owned the World Trade Center. Those buildings overlooked New York Harbor, and the ashes of those people killed in the buildings spread widely over the port.
Visceral, emotional reactions do matter in a situation like this. Our gut instincts are often better predictors of danger than our rational minds. The idea that an Arab government would have any operational control over port operations anywhere in the U.S., but especially in the Port of New York and New Jersey, just offends and disgusts me profoundly.
Read my current tagline. I may not have the quote precisely right (it might have been sheep and not dog), but Mohammed Atta's terrorist manual did have that instruction. The point? Let us -- the dogs -- sleep undisturbed until the terrorists are ready to slaughter us. Remember that as this port deal is debated.