Without further ado, some commentar

Playing The Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World

......
And as on would expect in cases involving relatively complex issues, the blogosphere – as represented by many of the heavyweights on both sides – has largely provided us with an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction. As opposed to what the blogosphere is supposed to provide of course; informed and thoughtful commentary, that is.

Emphasis added.

Spot on, mate, spot on.

Just like the French riots, and virtually ever other issue.

I continue to be utterly contemptuous of the completely baseless posturing on the part of American bloggers with respect their supposed improvement over what is sneeringly (w/o foundation) called "MSM" (mainstream media).

Easy insults and posturing, worthy of a corner tavern.

From Ed Morrissey (Captain Ed):

Michelle Malkin points out a disturbing turn of events in the war on terror: the surrender of port management to Arab-based firms.

From Duncan Black (Atrios):

Normally I’m made a little bit uncomfortable by issues which have a crypto-racist tinge to them – they’re Arabs so they’re bad! – but this seems to be a genuine issue. Why the hell would we let a UAE owned company handle domestic port operations?

Indeed.

Why would we surrender our ports to Arabs?

Not that we’re being bigoted or racist in asking, mind you.

This is all about National Security.

I particularly enjoy the Atrios - a US Lefty I believe - hypocrisy.

You can find similar opinions on sites ranging from Little Green Footballs to Daily KOS. In fact, in reading the comments made by Lizardoids and KOS Kids at the respective appropriate posts, one is struck by how indistinguishable the sentiments towards the Arab/Muslims of the United Arab Emirates are in each opposing camp. While Lizardoids and KOS Kids may disagree on lots of things, but the untrustworthiness of Arab/Muslims doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Precisely my own impression.

Left or Right, there is a unifying xenophobia and fear of Arabs as such.

Of course human nature is what it is, however in many ways I find at least the Right nativists more honest in their sentiments.

Lost in all of this is the fact that the government of the United Arab Emirates is exactly the sort of Arab/Muslim government we should be rewarding for their loyalty to us in the War on Terror. The U.A.E. has, in fact, been the very model of the ‘moderate’ Arab/Muslim state we loudly proclaim must take a firm and unbending stand against al-Qaeda and the Middle Eastern Fascists we are fighting.

It is worth noting that Ed Morrissey (and through him, Michelle Malkin) attempt to justify his position on this “issue” by using the 9/11 Commission to claim that a number of the September 11 terrorists spent time in the U.A.E. planning operational details. He further notes that the report states that monies used in the operations passed through banks in the U.A.E., which he deems to be highly significant. What Morrissey and Malkin both fail to note, however, is that none of the Commission Report citations point to either direct or indirect involvement by the government of the United Arab Emirates. The one mention (in passing) of a possible link between U.A.E. government officials and Osama bin Laden comes from Richard Clarke... The same Richard Clarke both Morrissey and Malkin found so completely incompetent and untrustworthy a short time ago.

Again spot on.

As I have pointed out again and again and again, the kind of "connexion" that one can draw between Dubai and al-Qaeda is the kind of connexion one can draw with London or Hamburg.

Yet one need not search hard to find American blogs asserting that Dubai is a hotspot of iniquity (well it is, just not that kind), Islamic radicalism.

Of course most of the authors have no clue, but they need only hear a side-ways assertion of a potential relationship and the underlying fear of the MENA Arabs gets its teeth in the bit.

We should also understand that if the use of U.A.E. territories and banking facilities are a legitimate criterial for excluding their firms from touching U.S. ports, then U.S. firms would, if subjected to those same criteria, fail that acid test... Those same terrorists lived, trained, banked and travelled throughout these United States. In some cases for years. But Ed and Michelle don't mention that, do they?

Indeed. Nor would many UK banks or firms. Or German.

But they're the 'right' ethnicity.

What Morrissey and Malkin are equally careful to avoid is any discussion of the U.A.E.’s role in the War on Terror. To do so would put their "concerns" in a much less flattering light... A light far closer to simple racial and religious animus than to national security. That’s because when one actually takes the time to review the actions and policies of the United Arab Emirates dispassionately, what one finds is an Arab/Muslim state quietly providing meaningful, material support to the United States and the Coalition in the War on Terror. In other words, they are doing exactly what we have stated we expect from them.

Indeed.

Here at Aqoul we've been banging away at the issue of moderates and real dialogue.

This goes to the core of that problem.

As I have already emphasised, contra the simple minded assumptions of many in the West, moderate (the pious middle) and even liberal-minded Muslims are not naturally well-disposed in the present environement towards the West in terms of taking political action 'against' their 'own'. There is a widespread sense that despite the fine words, many Americans and Europeans are in fact fundamentally hostile to Islam and when they say moderate they mean "someone who's renounced their religion and culture" - as in the colonial period.

There is of course, another side to that coin, and there are certainly expectations that the West must have as well, but I am focusing on the issue of Western relations with the 'pious middle' and real positive relations from the perspective of what the West can reasonably do.

But this does go to the demands made of moderate Muslims, and to whether those demands are real or mere posturing, rhetoric to cover up fundamental bigotry. Rather like the frequent 'demands' about 'Where are the moderate Muslims denunciations of violence' etc (an empty rhetorical question as the poser of the question in general has absolutely no idea and simply assumes there are none - and dismisses the same out of hand when given cites. And poses the weight of a few hundred or thousand hooligans against millions of moderates conducting normal lives)

Honesty versus hypocrisy. Good faith versus the inverse.

Beyond that, it must be mentioned that none of the critics of the Administration have a working knowledge of the issue: Senator Schumer didn’t even realize that the present operator of the Port of New York was a foreign company – London based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company! Here was his statement from last week:

America’s busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets. Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties.

Evidently England is now the 51st state of our grand nation. Who knew?

Yes, it would be a suprise.

Of course "Chuck Schumer" is a dimwit and panderer of the worst order.

As of course, P&O and soon DPW have fuck-all to do with "outsourc[ing]" of security or military or law enforcement operations.

The role of port management is logistics and efficient deployment of resources to maximise port traffic and minimise costs. Security is the issue of governmental authorities.

For example, one of the details notably absent from the debate of this "issue" so far is a detailed description of the port security arrangements presently in place. I am unaware of anyone, either politician, journalist or blogger, who has provided even a rudimentary examination (much less evaluation) of Peninsular and Oriental’s security apparatus. For those of us with a modicum of knowledge of the business world, it would seem entirely reasonable to assume that Peninsular and Oriental could be subcontracting a substantial portion of port security for the U.S. ports they manage to a variety of U.S. based security firms – both public and private. In this is the case, then the idea that Dubai Port World could noticeably weaken port security without it coming to the attention of the appropriate authorities seems to be somewhat problematic.

Quite correct, but I would go further and note that fundamentally (i) security is in the hands of the US government, (ii) that real core of security lies in overseas operations, where DPW already cooperates closely with USG, by all accounts in a positive, exemplary manner. As an article noted, if something gets to the US shore, it's already too late.

In any event, just how does one draw the conclusion that the argument that port security a change in ownership at Peninsular and Oriental from English (read White and Christian) to Dubai Ports World (read Non-White and Muslim) would automatically lead to U.S. ports being overrun by swarthy, gun-toting Arab/Muslim terrorists? Dubai Ports World has already announced the Peninsular and Oriental’s headquarters location (London), management (English) and operations will remain intact. Beyond that, all of Dubai World Ports have received the same independent security certification – International Ship and Port Facility Security – as has Peninsular and Oriental ports.

Emphasis added.

I can only add, and DPW runs by all accounts very well and securely, ports across the world.

The only real piece of substantial difference is the ethnicity of the shareholders.

Finally, the obvious needs to be asked: Given that The Bush Administration has already subjected the security concerns to an inter-agency review that nobody from Senator Clinton to Charles Johnson has actually seen – much less review and evaluate – is the contention of “Conservatives” from Santorum to Morrissey, Malkin and Johnson that their beloved Bush Administration is indifferent to the security of the nation. Or is just that George W. Bush is incompetent? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is simply that they cannot abide the idea that when President Bush says we must distinguish between those who use Islam to justify their very un-Islamic fascism and those who honor Islam by living their lives peacefully, he really means it.

Emphasis added.

As any regular reader here knows, I am no fan of the Bush Administration - effectively on the basis of its incompetence rather than its ideology per se. US domestic politics are not my business as a general matter, regardless.

However the bolded section makes a good point (ex the stupid use of "fascism"), the Bush Administration deserves kudos in this context for doing what Ibn Bush says it is doing. At least in this context.

And what exactly are the motives of either pro-war or anti-war Democrats in this? Other than the chance to further an agenda of regaining domestic political power, that is? If Democrats and Progressives despised George W. Bush for a racist war in Iraq, just what moral exemption do they draw upon to claim that no Arab can be trusted without ending up becoming largely indistinguishable from the likes of the Evil One himself?

Had anyone involved in this fiasco paused to reflect on their actions, they might have noted the following: Where this "issue" will hurt us is not with the uneducated masses rioting at the instigation of Middle East fascists and their allies, it will hurt us with precisely the portion of the Arab/Muslim population that is most sympathetic to our goals in that part of the world: The educated middle class. This would be the businessmen who manage and work for companies like Dubai Ports World. We are telling those men, in no uncertain terms, that is doesn’t matter what they do, what matters is what they are. For all our posturing about the hypocrisy of Arab/Muslim Moderates failing to stand up to Middle East fascists, the bottom line is that even when these Arab/Muslim Moderates do what we ask – as has the government and the people of the United Arab Emirates – what we reward those efforts with is little more than distrust and contempt. And that, in the end, will most likely end up costing us more lives.

Well, I leave aside the silly "Evil One" and partisan party political comments, and focus agian on the final paragraph, which perfectly captures my own sentiment.