Thursday, February 23, 2006

The business of security is business

"We're very concerned about the level of rhetoric and the way that there seems to be the assumption that because a company is Arab it can't be trusted with our security," said Katherine Abbadi, executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of New York to an AP reporter.

I have no doubt that there is a lot of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim prejudice, but is that the issue here? Is this a case of discrimination against Arab Americans or against foreign control over our security and resources? Bush told us to worry about Saddam, he was wrong. Bush now tells us not to worry – he knows what he’s doing.

I think all of us would be more comfortable having more accountability and transparency and control over the management of our seaports, no matter how much Dubai would like the job. Kuwait may have a great police department, but I would just as soon we didn’t give them the contract to police Miami. It’s not xenophobia, it’s not prejudice when we require a policeman to live in his jurisdiction and I would ask those who think otherwise, if he would like to outsource the administration to India and the armed forces to Russia.

Sure, P&O used to be owned by the British, but the British haven’t attacked us in almost 200 years, aren’t out in the streets calling for our destruction and are in fact allied with us in our Iraqi occupation. The record of Dubai is less clear, their accountability more tenuous and it would be so if they were Buddhists or of any other background. The bottom line is that they are not us and nobody will ever care about our security and our fortunes as much as we do.

James Glassman writes today in TCS Daily that we should trust Dubai to guard the fort because “Richard Reid, the attempted "shoe bomber," was a British citizen, and Jose Padilla, among others, is an American citizen (as was Timothy McVeigh). The UAE has been a staunch ally in the war on terror. . .” Thank you very much, but that’s a stinking crock of non-sequitur.

If all we need is someone who seems to want to profit from us to protect us, why then not appoint some Emir as Vice president? (As though we hadn’t done that.) Republican opinion shouters who a few years ago screamed themselves hoarse about US forces being led by UN commanders seem now not to care who is watching the door – and don’t we have to ask why? If we can’t trust the French because they told us Saddam had no nukes, why can we trust the UAE with our lives?

“Don't we want places like Dubai to fight terror and to grow, to invest, to buy, to trade, to adopt Western commercial practices, to expose themselves to the rest of the world and thus become tolerant and moderate?" oozes the Neocon Glassman, as though our governments responsibility was to OPEC first and America second; as though exposure to the Western world weren’t the root of the problem. I would prefer and the nation would prefer that we didn’t risk a nuclear attack so that Dubai could “Grow.”

Bush isn’t worried. Despite the criticisms of the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General and the Coast Guard, both of whom claim we are doing nothing to correct a severe vulnerability, the Bush administration has spent approximately 20 times more on airport security and it now wants to trust those vulnerable ports to foreign businessmen. This isn’t about racism or religious bigotry; it’s about putting business – the oil business – above national security.


6 comments:

Intellectual Insurgent said...

What's the big deal? You say Britain hasn't attacked America for the past 200 years, but Dubai has NEVER attacked America. If it's not racism, then what is it?

Capt. Fogg said...

I'm not sure that's true. I suspect that some of the money for the 9/11 attacks was funnelled through Dubai, as well as other countries, and I strongly suspect that racism against certain parties is far more rampant there than in England, but that's a small part of my opinion and I might well be wrong about Dubai having our interests at heart - but why must we assume that they and only they can run our seaports? Have we had other bids? don't we have a choice? Why can't we ask? Have we had answers as to why we need to outsource such a vulnerable and strategic resource to yet another friend of the Bush's and Cheney's? Don't we get to know if Dubai's political contributions played a part here?

What is it? If I don't want our police departments outsourced to India, or our Airports owned by the Swedes or our Air Force run by Israelis and our schools taught by Australians and our power generated by Nigerians and our water supplied by the Chinese and our weapons built by the Japanese and our communications controlled by the Italians and think we should be doing the job ourselves, it doesn't mean I'm a racist, it means I prefer this country to be self-reliant when it comes to security rather than in debt to and controlled by foreign governments friendly or otherwise.

There is supposed to be an open process by which such deals are vetted - that process has become a rubber stamp process that smells of corruption. I have read that Bush only found out about the deal after it was approved. I think that's wrong. I think something is being rammed down our throats here and for reasons other than the official explanation - reasons like money.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

That doesn't make you a racist if you think nothing related to security should be outsourced. Indeed, we would be in agreement. But if you are willing to accept that China runs port terminals along the west coast and Israelis get contracts for the White House phones notwithstanding the fact they have been busted tapping the lines at least twice, then it's nothing more than a discussion about race.

There is no doubt something fishy is going on. Anything GW proposes has to be shady. It's the way the discussion has degenerated to one about race, however, is appalling.

Capt. Fogg said...

If we are in fact, in peril from international extremist groups, then I think it's doubly strange that we would allow any foreign companies to control strategic facilities such as seaports and airports and communications networks, since the extremist groups operate internationally.

If we are not in danger, than what is going on?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, and no one can prove that he is not a racist, but I have no enmity toward anyone based on his race. I do have enmity toward those who have enmity towards me and I might be reluctant to do business with a nation in which I am not welcome and may be in danger because of my race or ethnicity. That's not racism, it's self preservation.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Do you think you would be in danger or unwelcome in Dubai? If f'ing Michael Jackson can live there, than any sane foreigner can. It is quite modern, progressive and civilized and there is absolutely nothing out there to suggest otherwise.

http://www.aud.edu/main.htm

http://dwc.hct.ac.ae/

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=100485

Capt. Fogg said...

I have no idea whether, as a Jew, I would be happy in Dubai. Of course I'm often uncomfortable in the American South. My point however is that in many Islamic countries I would be a target and certain Islamic countries promote anti-Jewish ideas.

I don't like people who do that, but I'm not insinuating that this is the case with Dubai because I know next to nothing about them other than that they have an amazing indoor ski slope.

My discomfort has been all along with the idea that we need to take severe security measures, except when it interferes with corporate profits and with the idea that the President alone knows best and so can't be bothered with being open or honest.

One can hardly accuse me of being bigoted against the Chinese - I'm married to a Chinese woman and half of my extended family is therefore Chinese and many live in China. I love them all, but I don't want the airports or seaports or any other strategic facilities being run by Chinese companies or Chinese government agancies.