Sensless Uproar?

I've been trying to get a handle on this fiasco over a recent deal that would give management control over six U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates company called Dubai Ports World.  I generally gather news from a number of different sources and writers, and here is a sampling of what I've been reading:

David Brooks (2/23/06):

"This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven't seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it's been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don't have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami."

Thomas Friedman (2/24/06):

"As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling — looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do — if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road — we will take the rest of the world with us. We will sow the wind and we will reap the whirlwind."

Washington Post Editorial (2/24/06):

"Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week's political storm and prepared for it.  But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable."

Charles Krauthammer (2/24/06):

"Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling. But when that same Arab, attired in business suit and MBA, and with a good record of running ports in 15 countries, buys P&O, Democrats howl at the very idea of allowing Arabs to run our ports."

Sensing a trend here?  Most of the things I've read have said that the owners of the ports don't really have that much control over the ports anyways.  It's the Coast Guard's job to protect our ports.  I think the tirade over this deal is misdirected.  As many have pointed out over the last few years, U.S. ports are the most vulnerable, and yet most ignored entrance point into this country. 

Only 5% of shipping containers are actually checked to make sure they aren't carrying illicit materials.  Imagine if only 5% of airport passengers were made to walk through the metal detectors?  This is an extremely serious national security concern, and yet it remains mostly ignored by the administration, until now.  The uproar here shouldn't be over the transfer of ownership from one of our allies (Britain) to another (UAE).  The uproar should be over the pathetic state of security at our ports in general.

I'm also a bit worried about the rampant ethnocentrism that Brooks and Friedman speak about.  A friend of mine makes an economic argument against such attitudes.  I'm not sure if I agree (as my comment would indicate) but I do believe that lawmakers and pundits should redirect their paranoia at security in general, not at symbolic transfers of ownership.

Comments

[Allen]

what the F should we expect from the American public? most people don't know the difference between Iraq and Iran or al Qaeda and Hamas.

you reap what you sow, and we have been planting an anti-arab xenophobia ever since 9/11. why is everybody so surprised by this???

[Skip]

To me, the most interesting part of all of this is why Bush has so strenuously defended the plan, even threatening to use his first veto if it isn't approved. There has got to be some major USA/UAE diplomatic shuffling going on behind closed doors that we don't know about (or, for the more conspiracy-minded, money changing hands). Allowing an Arab Middle Eastern state-owned company to watch over the country's single biggest security hole is an absolutely moronic political move, regardless of the economics.

[Allen]

yeah, Bush's 1st veto on this???? WTF?