First of all you're using some smoke and mirrors here. It's not just a "licensing" situation, it's the actual purchasing of the contract to operate at our six eastern ports. So it's both a contract and a licensing issue, with the licensing being the minor issue. Once the British owners sold their company to another business entity, namely, the government of the UAE, the contract to work at our seaports ENDS and must be renewed by the new owners.
The two strongest arguments from President Bush's backers on this issue tend to greatly contradict each other.
One argument is similar to yours; they claim that the P & O is one of the few companies in the world who are capable of such a big maritime operation, and that no U.S. companies exist which can move right in and do the job. This is their rationale for the immediate approval of the UAE's maritime company taking over the job at the 6 eastern ports.
The other argument is that this UAE maritime company will not be changing any operational procedures or switching management , security personnel, dock workers and the like. They claim everything will remain static, the only difference being that the new owners will now reap the profits.
Now, if the latter is true, then how can they claim that the UAE are one of the "few maritime companies in the world who can do the job", when all they're in fact doing is paying out 6.8 billion dollars for the contractual right to profit from this company?
People can see through this charade, and the more lame excuses that are tossed out there, the more of a rat people will smell.