[zook]

"The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. "

This is one of the sillier arguments I've seen and I'm surprised to see it come from Krauthammer. Seeing as Dubai Ports World runs ports all around the world, including in Australia, it is highly likely that they are already familiar with security provisions. What they don't know about US security provisions, certainly they could figure out without actually managing them. And it's doubtful that US security provisions differ very much from those in Australia or other countries.

What this boils down to is that a lot of the critics, sadly including Krauthammer, find it necessary to now rationalize their initial Arabaphobic kneejerk reaction with "clever" little arguments like this.

[PrinceOfCups]

You Wrote: ...Seeing as Dubai Ports World runs ports all around the world, including in Australia, it is highly likely that they are already familiar with security provisions....

If you don't mind, I'd like to expand your comment by pointing out that a container has a start point and an end point. Charles is only thinking about the DELIVERY side of the container. Security begins at the TRANSMIT side. Dubai port(s) are the major shipping departure zone for the Mid-East and other nearby areas. To secure a container, the security provisions must be known at the departure point. So besides managing many ports in the world, the Dubai consortium must be knowledgeable of security provisions from being a point of departure for containers.

Additionally, the UAE/Dubai are leading the implementation of our Homeland Defense shipping policies. I think the article is thoughtful in its attempt to find a middle ground; but not all the facts are taken into consideration.