I haven't really said much about the deal giving the UAE control of five American ports (beyond a Quick Hits blurb or two) because I wasn't real sure what position to take. On the surface, this seems like a no-brainer against the deal; but I'm begining to wonder if maybe that's the wrong approach.There are plenty of reasons to be against the deal. First and foremost is the security issue and it isn't real hard to see and understand why. We are at war and the UAE isn't exactly the sort of ally that one would hand over critical infrastructure to... All this issue does is really expose how vulnerable our ports really are. Even though the Coast Guard will still be in control of security, we rely on port management to do a lot. The administration has not taken border security as a serious issue and now it appears that port security isn't a high priority either.
The main reason for the deal is that it sends a strong signal to an Arab ally. It says a lot about this administrations commitment to civil rights in that they are willing to not "profile" out a company based on the ownership. Supposedly, the Arab world is watching our reaction to this deal and that wouldn't surprise me one bit (whether or not they are disappointed in us or plotting against us really doesn't seem to be a factor in this argument). Theoretically, we have an opportunity to strengthen ties.
Pretty much everybody has an opinion on this one. Whether or not they have an informed one, I couldn't say... I'm no expert on these issues, but it seems odd to me that President Bush would finally locate his veto pen for this. And if he does, what would it mean if he was overrulled by the legislative branch (which seems to be possible at the moment)? This smells like a Rovian plot...where we all look foolish later for having sided against the President. Thankfully, I don't have to make this decision...
