Portgate revisited: National security and liberal internationalism

Portgate continues to be the lead story at Memeorandum.

How odd, though, that I disagree with Kevin Drum, who writes eloquently about the controversy here. I understand his points, and I'm all for liberal internationalism, but, for me, this isn't about "mindless anti-Arab jingoism". It's about allowing a weak spot in America's national security, ports, to be handed over (in part) to a foreign state-run company. The fact the state in question is Dubai only heightens my concern. This isn't jingoism, it's realism, given Dubai's connections to al Qaeda. I would like to see greater engagement with the Muslim world, too, but this isn't the way to do it.

Booman Tribune also has a balanced post here, as does Bradford Plumer here.

(And, to be clear, I'm not all that comfortable with any foreign state operating America's ports.)

So I tend to agree with Atrios: "Handing the keys of our ports over to a foreign government which is pursuing a variety of interests is not such a good idea, especially when that government is a hereditary oligarchy and not a liberal democracy."

And with Digby: "Why on earth would Bush do something this politically obtuse? After all the fearmongering and the talk about 'oceans don't protect us' for the last four years it's just inexplicable that they would go to the wall for a deal that looks so terrible."

And with Kos: "Democrats have been at the forefront of efforts to tighten port security for just about this entire decade. Republicans have stood in the way. And we now see the logical conclusion to their indifference -- the selling of our ports to a nation with extensive ties to the very terrorists who are trying to destroy us."

And with Kevin, elsewhere: "And given the Republican Party's five-year effort to caricature liberals as panty-waisted Osama lovers for doing nothing more than holding positions startlingly similar to Bush's on the Dubai port deal, we would need to be veritable saints not to get a frisson of pleasure from holding their feet to the fire over this. It's time for the modern GOP to get a taste of its own dog food... At the same time, it's not exactly nonsensical to have a few qualms about a state-owned Arab company taking over operations at half a dozen big U.S. ports, and you'd think someone in the administration would have been smart enough to figure this out."

And, I'm almost embarrassed to admit, with Michelle Malkin.

Indeed, is it too much to ask that America control its own ports -- run them, not just provide security? From Brad Plumer, I do see that partial privatization is often the best way to go, but aren't we supposed to be living in a post-9/11 world with new post-9/11 mindsets? Doesn't that mean we need to play by different rules?

**********

Update: It looks like there was a secret arrangement, according to The Guardian. Does that make it any better? A bit, but not enough. If the roles were reversed, Republicans would be hammering Democrats on this, whether Clinton, Gore, or Kerry. The policy is, at best, questionable. But the optics are simply terrible for Bush. And that's where at least some of our attention needs to be.