Bush’s Port Jihad

It’s shaping up to be a major political battle: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority Leader John Boehner have all lined up against President Bush’s plan to turn over operation of six major American ports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates.

The President is threatening to veto any attempt to block the plan. Referring to the fact that the company in question, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, has been British-owned up to its impending sale to Dubai Ports World, he said Tuesday: “I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly.’”

This is staggeringly unrealistic, and reflects the dangers of the Administration’s continuing unwillingness or inability to come to grips with the full dimensions of the jihad threat. That Bush feels compelled to say “to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly’” betrays a peculiar insecurity where he should display a robust and unapologetic self-confidence. He is trying to demonstrate to a world awash in anti-Americanism that America is not as bad as all that, but in doing so he only lends credence to the anti-American charges (for if there weren’t substance to them, after all, why would he feel the need for the gesture?) and manifests the mistaken belief that “they hate us” because of something we have done, which we can undo with the proper display of good will. In this he again shows complete unawareness of the jihad ideology which remains constant while the pretexts and grievances that fuel it shift. No amount of good will can possibly efface the jihad imperative to subjugate the world under the rule of Islamic law, which is the avowed program of jihadists everywhere.

The UAE may be the most reliable ally the United States has ever had (and of course it isn’t remotely that) and there would still be no way for it to ensure that Dubai Ports World hires no one with jihadist sentiments. The situation in the Islamic world makes it quite likely that Dubai Ports World will be sending at least a few mujahedin to work in these American ports, and that they will be able to work there unhindered. The 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as a base of operations and source of financial support; have Emirati authorities cleared the country of jihad sentiment since then? On what basis can this be assumed?

After all, no one even in Washington is yet even asking the right questions of self-proclaimed moderates about where they really stand on jihad and Sharia issues. Officials in Washington and Europe have shown no awareness of the fact that it isn’t enough to have no ties to terror groups; a Muslim who nonetheless believes in the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism and the subjugation of infidels is still susceptible to jihadist recruitment. Is it possible to determine whether such recruitment is likely or not in the case of any particular individual? No -- and that’s why turning over any ports to Dubai Ports World is ill-advised: the potential for jihadist infiltration is just too great. Why is a Middle Eastern company held to a standard different from that to which a British company is held? Obviously a British firm these days could employ a jihadist also, but the likelihood of this is smaller, as British Muslims still constitute a small minority of the population.

Some have argued that this deal has been blown way out of proportion, and that security for the ports will remain in American hands. Even if that is true, however, the arrangement with Dubai Ports World should be ended immediately, if only for its symbolic value. Rather than bend over backward to show the Muslim nations of the world that he trusts them, President Bush would do more for American national security by explaining why such trust would be misplaced at this time, and calling upon those nations to manifest their trustworthiness with forthright and unambiguous anti-jihad actions within their borders -- including an ending of all discrimination against non-Muslims and of the teaching of the idea that the Islamic social order must be imposed by force over Jews, Christians, and others. If the President were calling for the UAE to adopt such measures, he would be under no illusions about where that country really stands.

Frist, Hastert, and Boehner are right. Why would Bush want to be so obstinate on this? Doesn’t he realize that it does immense damage to his position as being tougher on Islamic terrorism than his opponents? On cue, Hillary Clinton has already spoken about introducing legislation to stop the deal. The President risks allowing the Democrats an opportunity to show that they are tougher on terrorism than he is – which, since it isn’t true, if a Democrat is actually elected in 2008, could lead to the destruction of the entire anti-terror resistance, as imperfect as it has been.

If this deal goes through, will the United States have the luxury of undoing it before it undoes us?

Couldn't agree more with Robert Spencer. It's insane to give to Islamic Country an access to operate the ports while fighting Islamist Jihadists worldwide. This is a perfect example when ideology trumps common sense.

LOL....OK.....Then to treat all of the dangerous foreign ownership equally, which is part of American dogma, we then need to consider the ownership of CITGO for example.

Here we have a state owned petroleum company that is headed by a Commie madman who is cavorting with every enemy we have.

Visualize please for me the thousands of potential fuel air bombs in the form of CITGO Petroleum tankers, thousands of employees at the various refineries and facilities and then tell me how we should be fair to them as well!:-)

This is all too much hysteria fueled by politicians intending to distance themselves from the admin and look tough.

They really picked a bad issue to do this. Screwing this deal between two foreign corporations will require making laws that prohibit foreign ownership in some sort of fashion. It is not going to happen.

Let's simply write in some guarantees that security screens and FBI background checks are performed on all people in sensitive positions for all foreign entities, and I suspect the UAE will gladly comply with the effort, as they have already indicated.

Venezuela will not be too happy however, as you will see if this is done. The Chinese will scream bloody murder that there honesty is questioned, and the hundreds of other foreign state owned operations will think we are unruly children, but if that is what you want,,,Let's do it!

It will be easy to see who our real friends are. But be prepared for the market crash....

That's a valid concern.

The thing is, the UAE is a modern and sophisticated albeit Islamic country. There are a great deal of valid reasons why we should allow them access to American commerce, and I think most of them have been talked about on FR in recent days.

These special Islamic countries like the UAE are supporting us and our war on terror in many ways, however they appear duplicitous on the surface due to local politics with a people who have nationalistic tendencies, but are slowly coming around.

The UAE does not have a big oil reserve and is involved in capitalism to create the bulk of it's wealth. They are quite modern and host our military bases and even the CIA. They do this in spite of the fact that some of their people are against what they do, but without oil they are forced to enter the twenty first century with open arms.

We must foster good relationships with countries like this because they are the producers of the Islamic moderates who with luck and our patience, lead the rest of the Islamic empire into modernity.

Kuwait and a couple of others who's names escape me for the moment, are our only real chance to win the war on terror without going to the extremes of a religious genocide to protect our assets, economy and our people. These efforts are part and parcel of a string of events, the most recent being the invasion of Iraq. These things are all interconnected.

Unfortunately, the general public has not taken the time to reflect on what we are engaged in and why. They put too much emphasis in isolation as a foreign policy and that has been proved long ago to be a huge mistake.

I hope everyone takes some time to study these relationships and understand that they are complicated and often present multiple faces, but it was never going to be easy.

Lastly, friends are hard to come by in that region. The UAE has proved it's determination to be our friend on many occasions. They have agreed to a variety of controls that enhance port security to a level higher than before. We also need to realize that they are a much better partner than China who was the other high bidder for these facilities, and also that they will not be controlling the ports, and that only the facility at the port will be under their control. Other than facility security, building and grounds, the national security is totally controlled by us. As it always has been.

I rambled a bit on this, but I wanted to explain my thinking.

To me the issue isn't even whether I can trust them, they may very well be trustworthy. The issue is why is it so essential to show this trust at the cost of creating such internal divisions within the country over it.

I'll draw you an analogy. You and your spouse are looking for a babysitter on your evening out. The candidate you picked is somebody you know and trust. Your spouse says "no, I heard she had a cousin who's a child molester, get somebody else."

Now the person might be a very fine person and deserves your trust. But are you going to have a knock down drag out fight with your spouse to insist on hiring her? Or do you just get somebody else. Is it the end of the world if you got somebody else to babysit instead of her?

That's the issue here, what I don't understand is the vehement insistence to do this despite the opposition voiced. What's the big deal, just get somebody else. Not all battles are worth fighting, this one isn't.

The issue is why is it so essential to show this trust at the cost of creating such internal divisions within the country over it.

Fist, there were no internal divisions over this until the Dem's pushed the usual Conservative buttons....gleefully I might add.

Second, the alternative is to prohibit the sale, which involves a lot more ports. Our measly 6 ports are a small portion of the deal, and there is no legal or substantive way or reason under current law to prohibit it, unless you want to admit Islamophobia and we would be the laughing stock of the planet.(hence the democrats glee)

It's a shame these buttons can be pushed so easily, but I have thought for some time that the coalition that elected GWB is forever broken and will have to be completely rebuilt before the midterm and 08 elections occur. (hence the democrat glee)

This is not a simple domestic policy argument, it is important and critical foreign policy that has no business being in the cross hairs of public inclinations. This is why the congress deemed these negotiations to be nonpolitical and not even the presidents office was involved, unless there was a problem.

No problem was ever voiced, so the deal went through.

Now it is emotional fodder and that is damaging to international relations and a host of other things.

I hope everyone on the Nay side of this takes a deep breath and backs out quietly. They are messing with some things that could damage the war on terror and the plans to rewrite the future of the Islamic empire. Friendships with countries like the UAE are part of the equation. We have a lot at stake here, and it is not national port security. It is global policy.

But now that the problem has come up

I would say that there is no real problem, it is only one of perception and a false one at that.

Since when do perceptions rule? Especially those created by incorrect media reporting based on politicians trying to make a issue where one was not.

Oh yeah........just look at the mess of the past three years. It is full of instances that flared up, only to be dropped when Bush was not impeached over it.

I'm a little too well informed to leap off every cliff the media presents to me, and that includes the pundits who act like Pied pipers that have little loyal followers who mimic everything they say.

This stuff is the same version of what you see in the Islamic press, only on the other side. It's a war of perceptions that have little to do with the actual reality, and it is far beneath a true educated and mature society.

I guess we are not there yet either.

That's really a shame....

In policits perception is often as important as reality.

And yes, I agree that this should not be the case, and many of us fight very hard to spread the word to make sure that perception conforms to reality.

But again I say, PICK YOUR BATTLES! It's not possible to correct all the misconceptions the public has, and on the grand scale of things, whether ports can be safely ran by a UAE owned companies is not a misconception high on my list of priorities to correct, and should not be on the administrations either. There are other thing far more important.

People want to make everything about "principle of the thing". Well, nobody can fix every wrong in the world, life is about picking ones priorities, I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration wants to make this a priority.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.