Decision ‘08

Krauthammer to the Rescue (Again!)

The Bush Administration would do well to heed any advice coming from Charles Krauthammer on the ports deal; after all, he famously anticipated the clean exit from the Harriet Miers mess. Before he dispenses with his prescription, though, he has a bit of a tongue-lashing to deliver:

Congress is up in arms. The Democrats, in particular, are in full cry, gleeful to at last get to the right of George Bush on an issue of national security.

Gleeful, and shamelessly hypocritical. If a citizen of the UAE walked into an airport in full burnoose and flowing robes, speaking only Arabic, Democrats would be deeply offended, and might even sue, if the security people were to give him any more scrutiny than they would to my sweet 84-year-old mother.

Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports. (Republicans are howling, too, but they don’t grandstand on the issue of racial profiling.)

On this, the Democrats are rank hypocrites. But even hypocrites can be right. There is a problem. And the problem is not just the obvious one that an Arab-run company, heavily staffed with Arab employees, is more likely to be infiltrated by terrorists who might want to smuggle an awful weapon into our ports. But that would probably require some cooperation from the operating company. And neither the company nor the government of the UAE, which has been pro-American and a reasonably good ally in the war on terrorism, has any such record.

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. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations — and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations — to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.

That’s a pretty good argument against, I’ll admit.

So what is the solution?

This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but at this point doing so would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states. There are no very good options. The best exit strategy is this: (1) Allow the contract to go through; (2) give it heightened scrutiny by assigning a team of U.S. government agents to work inside the company at least for the first few years to make sure security is tight and information closely held; (3) have the team report every six months to both the executive and a select congressional committee.

Sounds good to me…

10 Responses to “Krauthammer to the Rescue (Again!)”

1 Fargus Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 9:08 am
I’m a bit tired of all of the race-baiting going on from Bush supporters here. Personally, I’m not comfortable with the idea of a foreign state-owned corporation having control over operations at U.S. ports, regardless of the state. I understand now that it’s a fairly common thing, and that Singapore and China both have such deals in place at other ports. Had I known about these things earlier, I would have had the same qualms about them as I did initially about this deal. But to say that everybody opposed to the deal is a “rank hypocrite” and an Islamophobe, and a bigot, and only opposed to the deal because it’s being done with Arabs…man, that’s vile, obviously incorrect, and ultimately distracting from the actual issues at hand.
2 peter Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Krauthammer’s attack on Democrats is gratuitous and incorrect.

1) His argument rests on the statement that “Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling.” Some do and some don’t. The organizations which oppose it are the ACLU, NAACP, and other advocacy groups. Post 9/11, there is no consensus among Democrats one way or the other.

2) He then conflates racial profiling with the ports issue, which is a false analogy. Individual rights are much different (and much broader) than corporate rights, especially for foreign companies. You could make a case that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect one against racial profiling, but no such case exists on behalf of corporations. Hence one can oppose racial profiling and the ports contract without being inconsistent or a “rank hypocrite.”

3) Krauthammer concludes by agreeing that the Democrats who oppose the contract are correct in objecting to it, although the implication is that they take the position for partisan reasons (to be to the right of Bush) and not for the profound reasoning which Krauthammer offers. It’s a cheap shot: what he is saying is that even though the Democrats are right, they’re wrong.
3 Dennis Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
“Personally, I’m not comfortable with the idea of a foreign state-owned corporation having control over operations at U.S. ports, regardless of the state.”

Fargus, I know you made the distinction of saying state-owned, but say P&O was owned bythe British government. Would you be up in arms about that? I’m guessing probably not. It seems to me the issue of foreign ownership, state or not, is a red herring. It’s all a question of which foreign nation. I think everyone would agree that we wouldn’t want a company owned by the Iranian government running our ports. For that matter, I doubt many people would want a company owned by Iranian private investors running our ports either.

The reason the UAE deal is controversial is it falls somewhere in between Britain and Iran. Depending on whose essay you read, they’re either a vital ally and a nation more devoted to doing business than preaching Islamofascism, or they’re a shadowy emirate that plays both sides of the fence. I’m certainly not expert enough on the region to say for sure which interpretation is correct, and I’m pretty darn sure most of the politicians who are pronouncing so authoritatively on the matter don’t know what they’re talking about either. For that reason, I think Congressional hearings might be good, if only to educate people on the situation, and stop some of the grandstanding.

As for hypocrisy, would it be all right to say we shouldn’t hire individual Arabs to work at ports, just because they’re Arab? I think if you say that’s wrong, it’s hard to then turn around and say the employee can be Arab, but the guy who signs his paycheck can’t be.
4 Fargus Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I think there’s a pretty clear line between a private company based in the UAE and a company explicitly owned by the UAE, with regards to your last paragraph. But leaving that aside, you bring up an excellent point, about UAE falling somewhere between Britain and Iran. You’re right that I wouldn’t have a problem, really, as a matter of substance, with Britain operating the ports, but I think that if I were to choose, I’d rather have no foreign state-operated ports than to leave it open to any country.
5 dmac Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
“Had I known about these things earlier, I would have had the same qualms about them as I did initially about this deal.”

Yes, and the reason you didn’t hear about them was because there was no political angle to discussing it in the first place. I don’t think this deal should have ever moved beyond the discovery phase (of which the tone - deaf Bush administration did a failing effort on), but the quick denunciations from some on the left feel all - too - familiar as just more piling on these days.
6 Fargus Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
I think that port security in general is an issue that really SHOULD BE discussed in earnest. And if this is an opening to that, then that’s good, whether or not the initial drive to get it into the open was political.
7 mtl Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
500,000 Arab americans in Michigan. Granhom is at 41% approval (gov) and Stabenow is at 49%(sen). 06 looms near.

250,000 Arab americans in NJ. Menedez has a 36% approval ratings..and will be running against Keane jr. another 06 race.

Peter your corporate analogy is weak. Insert the phrase ‘Arab-owned’ before all your corporate references.

The campaign commercial that is already being planned:

Every uniformed Officer and high ranking intel Officer stating that the UAE is essential in the GWOT and that they have been a steadfast ally, citing all the examples of their support. Followed by every Senator who is opposed, making some crazy anti Arab statement about their unwillingness to trust ANY Arab government.

The closing voice-over:

“Who do you trust to defend our National Security?”

Military v. Dems in 06, which is what Rove has always wanted.
8 kristen breitweiser Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Just get me and Mandy to those hearings…

It worked last time, didn’t it?
9 mtl Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Forgot to mention to include, in my dream ad, to play the uniformed response, go to Bush’s classic line-”I listen to the commander’s in the field”, and THEN play the democrats crazy talk about what a threat the UAE is.
10 Sean P Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
I agree with Krauthammer completely. I would only add that the port authority should be required to store all physical records in the United States, to ensure that any such records can be obtained through subpoena, if necessary.