I was dropping my son off with my mother this morning, and had a Cal Thomas article thrust into my hands. “Did you see what Bush is doing now?” she asked me. “You should write about this on your blog.” I’d been thinking about doing that very thing for a couple of days now, but the sheer volume of arguments being laid out in the media has been hard to digest. Forming what I’d consider to be an “informed” opinion on the matter still hasn’t happened (I’m hoping for an epiphany any time now), but I’ll give you my thoughts and impressions so far.

First, let’s clarify: What exactly is going on here?

Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, is apparently buying out a British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. P&O is said to run commercial operations at ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. Should the sale go through, these responsibilities will shift to DPW.

So, what’s the controversy?

Politicians from both sides of the aisle have sounded the alarm over “security concerns” arising from giving a UAE-owned company control of American shipping ports - ports which are said to have several serious security issues already. The imagery conjured by this alarm is of a cadre of Islamofascist militants, with the assistance of the UAE, being chauffeured in through US ports to wreak havoc in the homeland - perhaps with something more serious than a suicide belt or truck bomb.

Is this possible? “The potential threat to our country is not imagined, it is real,” Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., said in a House speech. Is it?

Well, of course, our port security is still considered by experts to be grossly subpar, so my argument would be that it’s a possibility right now, regardless of whether the controlling owner is a limey Brit or a swarthy Arab. Does changing the port ownership grease the wheels for terrorists, as it were? At this point, I’m unconvinced - so far.

You’ll notice I stressed the words “commercial operations” earlier. Who can we look to for a less nebulous definition, do you think? How about the Director of the Maryland Port Administration:

“F. Brooks Royster III, director of the Maryland Port Administration, which oversees the public marine terminals where Dubai Ports World would work, noted that the company will not own Baltimore’s or any other city’s port. At Baltimore, P&O’s contract primarily involves loading and unloading containers.

Containers, the most common form of shipping, are monitored by Department of Homeland Security officials, but only a small percentage are physically inspected or X-rayed.

Still, Royster said, ownership by the deep-pockets Dubai Ports World could help the port.

“The expected purchase of P&O Ports by DP World should infuse capital into that company [P&O], allowing for larger private-public partnerships with the MPA that may not have been possible before,” he said in an e-mail.”

Now, I’m no commercial shipping expert, just like I’m no pollster or lawyer (I think we’ve been over this). To reiterate, I’m just an average guy with a keyboard, an ego and an opinion. That said, the fact that security is still handled by the same people it always has been (Americans) would seem to take quite a lot of the edge off the “national security” argument. No? Reading on:

“Kim Petersen, president of SeaSecure LLC, a maritime security company, and executive director of the Maritime Security Council, an industry group, said his firm’s work with the company indicated that its involvement could improve security.

“The only concerns that we are hearing are coming from political circles, not from the shipping or ports industry, or even the defense or intelligence communities,” he said.”

Political circles? I would never have imagined.

Now, here’s a couple of things I do know:

1. Bush’s approval rating is hanging at 40%. Cheney’s? 29%.
2. We’re in an election year.

If you’re thinking “Nate, are you trying to imply that, like some sort of terrible flesh-eating parasite, politicians are lining up to feast on the rotting carcass of the Bush administration?”, then you would be absolutely correct. Right now, that’s where I’m leaning. There’s good politics for both sides in this. My brief analysis:

  • Republicans can only hope to hold congress in 2006 by continuing to capitalize on their supposed strength on national security issues.
  • This UAE port deal is easily spun, with little effort, into a serious national security issue, as we’ve seen. Bush, therefore, has opened a giant political breach in Republican defenses that is now exploitable by the Democrats.
  • The Democrats are viewed by the majority of the electorate as weaker on national security. This issue gives them an easy path to shore up their security credentials with middle America, who by now are highly intolerant of Muslims, Islam, and Arabs in general. An unavoidable consequence of draping yourself in the Koran and then murdering 3,000 innocent Americans, one could say.
  • Because of the breach this sale has seen to have opened in the Republican party’s main strength, you could say Bush has now hooked the Republicans right onto the ice, and the Democrats (and Republicans trying to line up for 06) are now taking free and frantic shots on an open goal. A political feeding frenzy. There’s blood in the water, here, and good politicians, sharklike, can smell it from miles away.

    Now, there are some other critiques to be made here. Namely:

  • Bush, Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld apparently knew nothing of this until the issue exploded in their faces (like buckshot, you could say. Look out, Harry!). You’d think, considering the obviously explosive and exploitable nature of this potential transaction, that the bureaucrats responsible for this decision might have bumped it farther up the chain of command before pulling the trigger.
  • According to all available sources, the entire government investigation of the company and the potential transaction, from beginning to end, took 25 days. Now, I’m not qualified to say for sure that this timeframe indicates some sort of fast-track, neglectful and irresponsible process… but it sure seems that way to me. Consider this conversation I (FoRRedlan) had with Malvolio ( a great friend who works for a defense contractor who shall both go nameless) in IRC this morning:

    [08:56] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Mal, question.
    [08:56] [FoRMalvolio] shoot. On the phone so might not be quick.
    [08:57] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] How long does it take, on average, for a thorough background check to be performed and special security clearance to be approved and issued?
    [08:57] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Talking government clearance, here.
    [08:57] [FoRMalvolio] well, “special” means something specific and I’m not sure if you meant it
    [08:57] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Well, generalize.
    [08:57] [FoRMalvolio] there’s secret, top secret, and then a whole big set of specials
    [08:58] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Let’s use Top Secret.
    [08:58] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Because it sounds really good.
    [08:59] [FoRMalvolio] typically more than a year, less than two — but it can be sped up dramatically if there is an urgent need that pushes things forward. it also depends a lot on the number of flags that the initial background form raises.
    [08:59] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Great. I think that’s exactly what I needed.
    [08:59] [FoRMalvolio] why did you want to know?
    [08:59] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] My mother asked me to blog on this port scandal.
    [09:00] [FoRMalvolio] ah, gotcha
    [09:00] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] hehe, rgr
    [09:00] [FoRRabbit`w3rk] dude
    [09:00] [FoRMalvolio] most classified things are at Secret
    [09:00] [FoRRabbit`w3rk] I was so going to ask you to do that.
    [09:00] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] haha
    [09:00] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Ok. Would that entail a quicker timeline?
    [09:01] [FoRMalvolio]secret == danger to national security
    [09:01] [FoRRabbit`w3rk] Because I haven’t had the time to pay attention to wtf it’s all really about. So I needed a nate summary
    [09:01] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Ok, that’d probably be better for my purposes, then.
    [09:01] [FoRMalvolio] TS == this information on its own could give away a grave danger to nat’l security
    [09:02] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] So, how long for a “Secret” clearance?
    [09:02] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Roughly speaking?
    [09:02] [FoRMalvolio] you can get an “interim” secret fairly quickly if you’re working on something time-critical. quickly meaning just a couple of months. final secret still typically takes a bit over a year.
    [09:03] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Ok.
    [09:03] [FoRMalvolio] differences between interim and final…
    [09:03] [FoRMalvolio] with interim you can’t get access to any NATO or COMSEC Secret material, or have unescorted access to secret-only facilities
    [09:04] [FoRMalvolio] and then “specials” which you asked about first, are a whole other game
    [09:04] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Ok. Knowing what you know about the process, would you say that 25 days to review and approve the UAE port deal would be reasonable by governmental standards?
    [09:06] [FoRMalvolio] to be fair, I don’t really know a lot about that kind of process and am not involved in those things at all. but it sure does sound fast to me.
    [09:06] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Hm. Ok.
    [09:07] [FoRMalvolio] only because 25 days is fast for them to actually make a decision on much of anything that has that many people involved
    [09:07] [FoRMalvolio ]but again — I don’t think I’m any more informed than you when it comes to that specific thing
    [09:08] [FoRRedlan`w3rk] Fair enough.
    [09:09] [FoRLos`WorkTTIMO] Mal are you Jack Bauer irl?
    [09:09] [FoRMalvolio] Los, no. He works for me.

    Again, none of that is to say that there was necessarily malfeasance, incompetence or laxity in the approval process for this buyout - but it does seem that way, and will continue until more information regarding the process and DPW surface.

    Now, some people are going to say some, well, stupid shit, in order to grab some cheap publicity and score political points with their respective constituencies. Consider:

    “Democratic Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, whose congressional district includes the Port of Baltimore, said he was unwilling to take the Bush administration’s word on the deal. He said he wanted to know what kind of intelligence review had been conducted, as well as what Dubai Ports World had told the committee about providing access to its facilities and the cargo that passes through them.

    “I don’t want to have a fox in the henhouse and find out that this fox is not a good fox,” he said.

    Ruppersberger noted that while the United Arab Emirates is a U.S. ally, one of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was born there, and others traveled through the area.“

    I was going to juxtapose that against our hometown terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, but I was beaten to the punch:

    ” “I wonder if other nations would make the same evaluation of our ability to provide security based on the fact that Timothy McVeigh is from the United States,” Saylor said.”

    An excellent point that we’d all do well to remember.

    Update (11:25 am EST): Glenn Reynolds, a writer I have tremendous respect for, has some further commentary and links here, and seems to be leaning in the same direction I am: Much ado about nothing, but a great potential for political damage for Republicans.

    Update (1:25 pm EST): Looks like the review for this transaction by the Feds took closer to three months than one. The arguments against this sale, I predict, will contine to unravel.

    Update (9:05 pm EST): Karl Rove is indicating that the White House would welcome stretching out this process a bit, to allow for an opportunity for some additional investigation and oversight into the process that allowed this deal to become a reality. In light of the bomb this has set off in the American sociopolitical scene, I’d say that’s a wise choice.

    •