Worst national security administration ever: Dubai edition

For previous episodes in the continuing saga of the worst national security administration ever, click here and here. The gist is that through action, inaction and rhetoric, the Bush administration have seized nearly every opportunity to erode our nation’s national security. The current outstanding example is, of course, the decision to provide Dubai’s royal family with operational control of major US seaports.

A great many people have written about why this is a bad, nay, hideous, idea. Digby at Hullabaloo notes the irony of a president whose themes include “the oceans no longer protect us” arguing forcibly — threatening what would be the first veto of his administration — in favor of a deal that would turn eastern seaboard ports over to people with a history of consorting with terrorists.

Digby’s post includes links to other commentary on the subject, and highlights one of the more important aspects of the deal:

And it’s not just that they are “both a valued counterterrorism ally of the United States and a persistent counterterrorism problem.” They are holding something else over our heads as well (again via Atrios):

But he said he would withhold judgment on the deal’s national security implications until after today’s briefing. The United Arab Emirates provides docking rights for more U.S. Navy ships than any other nation in the region, Warner noted. He added: “If they say they have not been treated fairly in this, we run the risk of them pulling back some of that support at a critical time of the war.”

This is obviously a very complicated relationship, which explains why Bush was singing kumbaaya around the drum circle yesterday asking everyone to give peace a chance.

Just to review, the two most recent veto threats Bush has issued involved this issue andJohn McCain’s anti-torture amendment. The administration’s support for torture and the practice of “extraordinary rendition” — otherwise known as kidnapping and torture — has been a public diplomacy disaster for the US. But apparently this risk-taking president isn’t satisfied with the so far less than completely catastrophic results of the administration’s behavior: now, he wants to play chicken with our ports.

One can’t help but wonder what’s next. It’ll probably involve outsourcing Homeland Security altogether. When was the last time you heard of a terrorist attack on North Korea? Clearly, they’re doing something right.

Like this post? Share it!

3 Responses to “Worst national security administration ever: Dubai edition”

1. 1
   Common Sense Says:
   

   The North Korea comparison was inevitable. Two leaders, both in power after dominant fathers have left the scene. Both afflicted with megalomania, but only one that credits God with putting him in office. Even Kim Jung Il isn’t that vain…

   February 22nd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
2. 2
   PubliusToo Says:
   

   I am certainly no fan of the Bush Administration, and I firmly believe that its sheer incompetent management of foreign affairs, especially the Iraq War, continues to compromise U.S. security and economic prosperity. Nevertheless, the brouhaha about the proposed foreign purchase of an interest in terminals located in various U.S. ports is difficult to justify. As far as we know, none of the shareholders, officers, directors, or employees of the purchasing multinational company has any terrorist sympathies, much less direct or indirect ties to terrorists. The transaction was screened and approved by the federal government agency responsible for assuring that the transaction does not compromise port security. The congressional outrage thus suggests more pure political pandering than genuine concern.

   In fact, the President faces a political dilemma: Does he do the “right thing” by accepting the findings of the apolitical agency responsible for clearing the deal or succumb to political pressure to prevent Arabs from owning certain port facilities simply because they are Arabs? Here we see that the President’s weakened political standing has republican lawmakers running scared for their own political lives. When given a choice between staying with the party leader who brought them to the dance and staying at the dance, the fearless followers (not surprisingly) choose to stay at the dance. The big question is whether the Democratic Party can come up with a viable plan to persuade the voters to change their dance partners this November. We’re still waiting to hear more from the party’s leaders than “please send us more money;” where is that unifying message promised by Howard Dean?

   February 23rd, 2006 at 4:35 am
3. 3
   weldon berger Says:
   

   I don’t know, Publius: the more information that emerges, the stinkier the deal looks. The committe charged with vetting the transaction violated a statute requiring a 45-day inspection and granted the company virtual immunity from US court access to its business records. Dubai’s ruling family had close ties to the Taliban. The UN traced a van used in the Harriri assasination to Dubai, but can’t get records from the emirate to trace its movement from there to Lebanon. The major problem here, though, is that the company is owned by a state whose interests may not coincide with those of the US. Further, the committee doesn’t really seem to be apolitical in any recognizable sense of the word:
   

   The decision was made by an interagency committee led by Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt. The group included officials from 12 departments and agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice, State and Homeland Security, as well as the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.

   I think if there’s one thing we might agree on, it’s that a committee chaired by a Bush deputy secretary and whose members are drawn from among other Bush administration political appointees is probably not apolitical.

   February 23rd, 2006 at 1:37 pm