February 23, 2006

Review of Differing Opinions on the Port Deal

In about 3 years of blogging, this is the first subject I've seen that has elicited such divergent views within the Conservatives. People who I agree with on most things, differ on the subject.

For example, Frank Gaffney, who I can't imagine being wrong on this, opposes the deal. Michelle Malkin opposes it.

On the other hand, Instapundit supports the deal, after initial reservations. Roger L. Simon expresses views tending to support the deal. And of course, GWB supports the deal.

Last night Congressman Dana Rohrabacher spoke to the Lincoln Club in Los Angeles.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

I was very impressed by Congressman Rohrabacher. He seemed like a straight shooter and wasn't afraid to say exactly what he meant. Here are my notes on his views on the port deal -- some from his remarks to the group, and some from a conversation I had with him.

Before 9-11 the U.A.E. supported the Taliban. After 9-11 they had to make a choice, and they reversed course. Since then they've contributed billions to the war on terror. They forgave $8 billion in Iraqi debt. They froze Al Qaeda accounts. They permit our ships to use their ports.

All we're doing is renting dock space from them. They're just managing the dock space -- not the boats that come into the dock space.

Now that the U.A.E is helping us, do you want to slap them in the face?

These views are along the same lines as those of others supporting the deal. From Instapundit:

Yes. Well, this deal struck me funny when I first heard about it too, and in spite of Al Gore's complaints, the notion that the Bush Administration is too friendly with Arab governments isn't one that fails the straight-face test. But I'm now convinced -- especially after talking to Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay -- that there's not really much to this story.

From Roger L. Simon:

The Japanese martial art of aikido has always fascinated me in its attempt to use the energy of the opponent to defeat him. On reflection, the choice of an United Arab Emirates company for taking over "significant operations" at six US ports may contain elements of that. The UAE folks have now officially been co-opted.

And here's quick sampling of views against the deal. From Michelle Malkin:

First, the deal will outsource port operations not just to any "foreign-based company"--but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Second, of course, there's no such thing as a perfect defense. Should we never subject any Mideast companies or individuals to heightened scrutiny because it would offer "no security guarantees?"

...The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks ...

From Frank Gaffney:

Questions abound about the security implications of this transaction -- and the rigor with which they were explored by the secret CFIUS panel and what actions, if any, were considered to mitigate its seemingly inherent dangers (assuming that is possible). Most Americans intuitively appreciate that it is not a sensible idea to compound our already challenging port insecurity problems by pretending that the UAE's past association with terror directed at this country may not be a problem in the future, as well.

So far we have people on both sides of the issue making great points. Let's go to Instapundit's podcast with Jim Dunnigan and Austin bay, looking for some sort of a tie-breaker.

Jim Dunnigan: The U.A.E. is our best ally over there. It is not like the rest of Arabia. It's only about 3 million people. Only 20% are resident; 80% are foreign workers. There's been practically zilch Al Qaeda activity in the U.A.E. and for good reason. The business of the U.A.E. is business. They want nothing to do with radicalism. Although it's a collection of 7 monarchies basically run by Dubai and Abu Dhabi, they have been very forthright in staying away from any kind of radicalism. They've shared out the oil and gas money a lot more equitably than in any other part of the Gulf, including Iran. And they have only gotten by for centuries by staying out of the fights of the big guys in the neighborhood. That's why they have always been particularly close to britain and the united states. they're the one place besides Kuwait where we can operate air bases and have military personnel basically do whatever we have to do.

Austin Bay: Well I would add that I have heard from friends of mine, reservists in the national guard and one active duty fellow as well, that in logistics primarily praise the cooperation they've got from the U.A.E., and that's the guys who are on the supply side of the house. [.....] if that's the case, and I believe it to be the case, that the U.A.E. has cooperated extensively in [...] often sensitive but very important military security operations, you have to give them credit for that.

Jim Dunnigan: The only reason the emirates are still independent was because the British protected them from the Saud family when the Sauds were running around basically conquering everything in Arabia. The other problem is, they still have an open border dispute with Saudi Arabia. [.....] their only friends, the only people who are going to keep them independent, are outside of the gulf, basically the big guys, the U.S. and Britain.

This does not appear to be dispositive yet. Sure, at the moment the U.A.E. is our friend. Per Rohrabacher, not long ago they supported the Taliban. Who knows what their position will be in five or ten years? And as an Arabic nation, aren't they easier for terrorists to infiltrate?

In terms of running the dock space rather than ship security, that could make infiltration of them by terrorists equally dangerous. They could well have numerous ways of circumventing security as a result of knowing the docks so well and being so well-known at the docks.

As to "slapping them in the face," they've gotten along fine until now without running the U.S. ports, and they can surely continue to do so. It doesn't appear reasonable to increase the risk of the U.S. suffering another 9-11 so as to avoid a feeling on the part of an ally that they're being slapped in the face. If the U.A.E. is really our friend, they should understand our concerns.

I'll keep my ears open for more information. I'd still be willing to to find out that the deal's acceptable.