I’ve been so conflicted about the the idea of having Dubai Ports World running several U.S. ports.
At first, I was strongly opposed to it. Last night, however I heard Bill O’Reilly’s reasons why it is not a bad idea. Normally, I think O’Reilly is a self-absorbed gas bag. This time, he was a self-absorbed gas bag that made sense.
So let’s cut through all the bull and grandstanding. If the Bush administration fires the Emirates company without cause, it spits in the eye of a strong Mideast ally. I hope everybody understands how dreadful that would be.
The USA cannot win the War on Terror without the help of moderate Arab nations. “Talking Points” believes we will actually lose the terror war unless we build alliances in the Middle East. Right now, there’s no reason to fire the Arab company, except that they are Arabs. Isn’t that racism? Can America afford to send that message to the world?
This morning I’m listening to my favorite talk radio show and he’s making a very good case as to why this is a very bad idea. And now I’m back where I started.
So, let’s look at the pros and cons and reach an informed decision.
Pro: The CIA characterizes the United Arab Emirates favorably:
Its generosity with oil revenues and its moderate foreign policy stance have allowed the UAE to play a vital role in the affairs of the region.
Con: The U.A.E. was identified as a major financial center used by al-Qaeda and was one of three governments to recognize the Taliban.
Pro: In both cases, after 9-11, the U.A.E. quickly cooperated with the U.S.
Pro: James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, pulling the race card, says it’s all about the prejudice.
James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute, criticized opposition to the port deal as bias against Arab nations.
Surely we’re not prejudiced.
Con: Then again, maybe we are. Given their track record, perhaps there is a good reason.
Pro: Constructively engaging an Arab country could help in moderating them and bringing about reforms.
Con: Look at the moderating effects we’ve had on Saudi Arabia with billions and billions of dollars in oil revenues.
Pro: President Bush is for the deal.
“It’s been looked at by those who have been charged with the security of our country,” he said. “And I believe the deal should go forward.”
Con: President Bush is for the deal.
When it comes to helping his friends out in ways that might hurt our national security, Bush gives us that “I can’t believe you actually took that stuff seriously. C’mon that was a State of the Union address!” (See also Julie Myers)
Pro: There was this great exchange student from the U.A.E. in one of my classes. Marwan was his name. Anyway, at the end of the semester we all went out afterward. He insisted on buying a round of beer even though he didn’t drink.

Good guy.
So upon reflection, I think it is a good idea to let the U.A.E. company run the U.S. ports.
Marwan. Good guy.
UPDATE:
Marwan is not the same one as the terrorist from Ohio. Actually the crew from Ohio had that whole ZZTop thing going. My friend didn’t.
My favorite morning Talkshow guy was still on the warpath against the deal this morning. His angle was that this section of 9-11 commission report shows the U.A.E.’s complicity with al Qaeda:
The Desert Camp, February 1999
Early in 1999, the CIA received reporting that Bin Ladin was spending much of his time at one of several camps in the Afghan desert south of Kandahar. At the beginning of February, Bin Ladin was reportedly located in the vicinity of the Sheikh Ali camp, a desert hunting camp being used by visitors from a Gulf state. Public sources have stated that these visitors were from the United Arab Emirates.151
Yes, no argument there. But pre-9-11 who was serious about offing bin Laden? Bill Clinton? The Sudanese offered him up to us free of charge.
Pre 9-11, Pakistan was a good friend of al Qaeda and the Taliban too. Though not exactly worthy of sainthood, it appears that they came around and were no longer penalized by the U.S.
Funk, I hear your concern. That is the bigger question for another time.
Also, Sister Toldjah has a very complete roundup of what everyone is thinking. Check it out.
UPDATE II: Conservative Sub makes some good points too. Mostly by mentioning Six Meat Buffet, but also kissing up to Dan of Riehl World View
And also for saying this:
Foreign operations of US ports is nothing new. The UAE bought the port operations from the Brits and it was all above board. To deny the port operations purchased by the UAE just on the basis that they are an Arab state IS racist; it would be tantamount to out-and-out discrimination against ALL muslims–something for which the dems have tried to condemn the Bush administration.
UPDATE III
Then again, LindaSoG presses the point that maybe a moderate Islamic state isn’t so moderate after all.
Something to consider…