March 2, 2006
So Now the Ports Deal Critics Are the Bad Guys?
By Mark
Davis
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.
We are constantly
reminded that the ruling emirs of the UAE have been an ally in
the war, as if that means we have nothing to fear from their general
population. I am filled with gratitude for the intelligence they
have shared, which I'm sure has helped nab more than a few terrorists.
As Muslim nations go, they have been virtual Boy Scouts. But we
simply must find a way to express our thanks that falls somewhere
short of giving them the keys to our ports.
Maybe that will snuff
out the most insipid of the arguments offered up for this deal
– the notion that it is a proper reward for being such good
friends.
Have we noticed what
our buddies among the citizenry from Dubai to Abu Dhabi have been
saying about America as opinion polls revealed our hesitancy?
Reporters sought reaction from the coffee shops and street corners
of the UAE, and the general sense is that they feel betrayed by
American racism and Islamophobia.
With friends like
that, who needs the French?
We are warned that
if we thwart the Dubai Ports World acquisition, all that swell
cooperation will grind to a halt. If that's true, these pals of
ours are about as two-faced as our other chums, the Saudis, who
talk a good game about fighting terror while their schools and
media promote it.
We should have made
clear to the UAE that while its dicey terror history makes the
ports deal impossible, we value its continued journey toward moderation
and look forward to additional cooperation. That's called diplomacy.
So what happens now
instead? The White House has to figure out how much political
capital it wants to squander. President Bush's previously unblemished
record of post-9/11 cautiousness and tenacity now bears a stain,
allowing countless hypocritical (but nonetheless correct) Democrats
to position themselves as more alert to national security than
he is. Great timing there, in an election year.
But that timing is
also an arrow in his quiver. The president can certainly call
countless Republican members of Congress who are critical of the
deal and express how much he would love to make a campaign visit
this fall in return for a change of heart this spring.
How many will buckle?
How many Bush supporters will wither under the strain of disagreeing
with their man?
I'll tell you, it's
not fun. Throw in Rush Limbaugh's willingness to swallow the port
deal, and even Jimmy Carter's approval of it loses its fatal sting.
In our short attention span nation, a month and a half is plenty
of time to lose sight of the security threat this acquisition
would present.
I confess to curiosity
as to how those who so ardently want this deal will spend this
time. What new material can they come up with? How much lipstick
can be put on this pig?
Meanwhile, I can only
hope the critics will stay focused and try to keep America on
the post-9/11 footing Mr. Bush so wisely instilled in us what
seems like so long ago.
Mark
Davis is a columnist for the Dallas
Morning News.
The Mark Davis
Show is heard weekdays nationwide on the ABC Radio Network.
His e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com.
