Reason from Reason

Friday, February 24, 2006
Reason has a good post on the Port controversy that is short and sweet and to the point.

What many bloggers have been equally careful to avoid is any factual discussion of the United Arab Emirates' role in the War on Terror. To do so would give their concerns a much less flattering color, closer in hue to simple racial and religious animus than impartial devotion to national security. To review the actions and policies of the Emirates since 9/11 is to see an Arab Muslim state quietly providing meaningful, material support in the War on Terror. In other words, a country doing exactly what we have stated we want it to do.

read it all.

UPDATE:


• The U.A.E. has allowed the deployment of military aircraft at Al Dhafra. From there the 763rd Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron conducts in-flight refueling operations throughout Southwest Asia in support of Operation Southern Watch.
• The U.A.E. allows U-2 and Global Hawk operations from Al Dhafra.
• The U.A.E. allowed the 10th Tactical Fighter Squadron to operate from Al Dhafra during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
• The U.A.E. has cooperated in the development of the Fujairah to Jebel Ali land link. This land link would serve as the U.S. Navy’s primary logistics/supply route in the case of any closure of the Straights of Hormuz. In other words, this link would allow the Navy to remain in the Arabian Gulf whether the Straits of Hormuz were remined or otherwise closed.


via: DtP

18 comments:

Knucklehead said...

DtP writing for Reason!

Well, I'm a little insulted that he didn't mention the sanity of the "port" discussion here at Flares! We get no respect. PoliPundit has been reasonably sane also. The rest, whackos all.

terrye said...

Hey, we might hit the bigtime yet.

chuck said...

Knuck,

When I read DtP's posts I thought that maybe he had read Rick's post and also followed up later on your comment on shared ownership. But then again, maybe great minds *do* work alike.

Fresh Air said...

Good to know the linear thinkers all congregate in the same place.

I never have understood how an Arab operating company suddenly has means and motive to smuggle in a Conex bomb merely because they are collecting rents and signing paychecks.

Rick Ballard said...

Chuck,

I think he took another angle (in his posts, anyway). He described what port security was wrt responsibility while I tried to point out that P & O was running a freight terminal. I suppose if I cared I'd check the time stamps but I didn't read his take until Peter popped it into comments here.

Good for him.

Rick Ballard said...

Btw -This bit belongs to me - as of 2/24/06 at 12:17PM PST:

From comments at JOM:

"SMG,

You may hate the ocean but you have to love the Internet (thanks, Al).

When I look up competitors for P & O, I come up with American Stevedoring, Inc. which proudly proclaims itself to ba a "family owned business" - the Catucci family to be precise. (Click "Voyage Calendar" to see their clients - and how busy they are - then go here to see how busy P & O is.

Hmmm - Catucci - I wonder if they donate to pols? Why looky here! Gosh, they're Hillary fans. Whodathunk.

I wonder if ASI is a little nervous about losing their Saudi clients to a company owned by the UAE? 'Cause without those Saudi boats, they would be, well, sunk.

What's the old line - follow the money?"

ADDENDUM - The Catucci's have also given to Reps occasionally, although the majority of their dough has gone to Dems - Nadler in particular which I find oddly nauseating.

truepeers said...

Re the UAE role in the war on terror, what do you make of this claim they subsidize suicide bombing?

terrye said...

truepeers:

I read somewhere that Zayed is dead and he is a prince from another emirate and has nothing to do with Dubai or this company.

I think that some of this is about one generation vs another generation. I have wondered in the past about frontpage mag in the past.

I really do not believe that the US government or Vancouver or Australia or any of these countries that deal with Dubai Ports would welcome terror to their ports. The very title is alarmist.

Knucklehead said...

Chuck,

Rick is the first I saw who dug into what the heck it is that DWP is buying from P&O. What does "port management" mean? DtP looked at it the same question but from a quanititative viewpoint - sorta look, they have 1 terminal of many terminals in one port. I expanded a little on the sort of thing DtP was looking at and realized they have, in some cases, only partial ownership of what is being purchased.

In the case of the PNCT it looks like O&P isn't even the waterside handler. AP Moeller-Maersk, as far as I can figure it, does the loading and unloading of the ships, runs the cranes, hires the ILA workers. O&P runs the IT, storage, and freight forwarding.

My efforts, such as they are, on this are mostly because I'm extra pissed that the Presse Ancienne has failed so miserably to tell anyone what the heck this deal is. It ain't hard to figure out to a basic level and surely they have the informational contacts to dig deeper. I'm so sick of them pretending to have some informational function in the world when they do nothing of the sort. They are, at best, entertainment. The easiest way to glue eyeballs to the paper or the tube is to raise a ruckus about everything. That's all they do, all the time.

The potential impact upon security is another matter but there's no evidence they're digging into that work crap either. In the matter of security, though, I'm willing to trust DoD and Homeland Security and the other angencies on this one. Peggy Noonan might not be happy with any of those but I'd rather have them making those decisions than her (or any of the other screamers). I'm in for the duration on this war and that means I've put my chips in with DoD. When a Dem gets control of the executive branch I'm gonna have to rethink, but that's another day.

Rick Ballard said...

True,

I can't tell if they put more dough into terrorism than various Saudi sheiks and princelings. I don't doubt that some of the UAE sheiks have supported terrorism in the past at all and I wouldn't be shocked to find that some of them still did.

The tough part of this is drawing a line - I've almost been killed by a bad burrito sold to me by a Muslim 7/11 store owner. He might have been a terrorist. Should we bar Muslims from owning 7/11's? After all, they're scattered accross the country, there are enough of them to create a network - they could be used as way points for terrorists entering the country illegally - providing them with gas and food as they infiltrate all of American society.

I'd prefer that we continue to methodically kill the leadership - as I've noted. We should adopt the motto of 'a leader a day keeps the baddies away' 'cause it's worked so far.

COSCO running the Panama Canal is a bigger concern. I'm afraid those suckers are going to skimp on maintenace and bust a lock.

terrye said...

Zayed was from Abu Dhabi. Different place and people.

BTW these are Arabs, the fact that they do not like Israel is no great mystery. In truth I would think the same would be true for a good many Iraqis and Afghanis.

truepeers said...

Yes, i think you guys are right that we have to dance with some of the ugly Arabs since we can't isolate them and hope to win our wars. The conspiracy i can imagine in all this is some Sheiks getting together and saying, yeah we're not going to make much money on this deal but it sure will get Bush jumpy and we might be able to use that in future.

Knucklehead said...

Yayed the Elder died in 2004. I think his brat is Sheik now.

This sort of thing is worth investigating and it would be nice to know who's who in all of it.

It would be nice if the Presse Ancienne would have a little look at the UAE. Here's the CIA Factbook stuff for the UAE.

Nothing in there jumped out at me until I hit the population stuff.

Age structure:
0-14 years: 25.3% (male 331,269; female 317,977)
15-64 years: 71.1% (male 1,115,826; female 707,058)
65 years and over: 3.6% (male 66,404; female 24,678) (2005 est.)


That's a population that's going to the women in a big hurry. I can't even begin to speculate on what that means in any of this context but the numbers leap out.

One thing I generally find interesting when I look at these sorts of places is that we tend to view them as unimaginably wealthy and they are for some people. It's pretty much a $100B economy. The US is 100 times that size. Again, it isn't meaningful to this discussion but I find it interesting. The Saudis, by comparison, are roughly a $300B economy. They're "femalizing" also. Iran, by contrast, seems to be becoming slightly more male.

Enought of that. What the people need is info. Not getting much of that from the professional journalists these days.

truepeers said...

Knuck, do you have the male and female numbers reversed? you say femalizing but they seem rather short of women.

Knucklehead said...

TP,

In the over 65 gang they are (very roughly) 2:1 male:female

15-64 demo, roughly 1.5:1 m:f

0-14 demo, closing in on 1:1.

That seems to be "femalizing" to me.

terrye said...

truepeers:

I don't think the Arabs are any uglier than the Russians and the Chinese and we do business with them everyday.

Btw, wasn't it the Russians who wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? And don't the communist Chinese have exactly these same kind of contracts in several ports?

At least the UAE has never killed our people or threatened to go to war with us which is more than can be said for those two.

truepeers said...

femalizing, femiciding?

Seneca the Younger said...

Knuck, sounds to me like you've got an example of the availability of modern obstetric medicine.

I would think, though, that coming close to equal numbers is a stabilizing influence.