More PortGate Commentary

Here's some of what the Dallas Morning News' columnist Mark Davis has (via www.RealClearPolitics.com):

Welcome to 45 days of positioning on both sides of the Dubai Ports World controversy. Since the issue heated up last week, those of us who have chosen to stand up for port security have been rewarded with a wide variety of insults.

We are racists, as if only hatred of Arabs could spur opposition to Islamic control at U.S. ports;

We are isolationists, as if such opposition means we have no tolerance for foreign investment in America:

We are panicky nervous Nellies, as if strong negative reaction can only be born of paranoia and prejudice;

And, my favorite, we are idiots, as if we have not grasped all the comforting spin proponents have been offering up. But a lot of their arguments have been peppered with irrelevancies.

They seem driven to tell us the United Arab Emirates will not run security. Anyone paying attention knows that. The problem is not that the UAE will take over security, but that its involvement makes security harder.

Indeed. I for one have no problem being labeled any of these things if it means that our ports will be that much more secure. As I have said before, national security takes precedence over any macro-level, globalization argument. Its interesting that the same individuals (cough, cough, Thomas Friedman) who are bitching over the perceived 'overreaction' to this deal (i.e. the security concerns are 'bogus') are quick to cry wolf about the implications of blocking this deal. Blocking a government with a spotty (to say the least) record on terrorism (indeed, a government with some reportedly close ties to Osama bin Laden) from operating our ports won't halt the wave of globalization; nor will it prevent the most powerful nation, economically and militarily, from participating in the global village. Anyone who thinks otherwise is terribly mistaken.