The Bush administration awarding a contract to the United Arab Emirates to operate six U.S. ports, including Baltimore, New Orleans, and New York, divides the president's Republican coalition just as it divides the Right. "The company should be evaluated on its qualifications to operate the ports, not on McCarthy-like litmus tests for Arabs or the UAE," Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute writes. "Besides, although Dubai Ports World will operate the ports, U.S. federal and local authorities will remain in charge of security." Cal Thomas disagrees: "There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the 'welcoming' of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all." Free-market economics and national security are important conservative principles. Where one comes down on the important issue of who runs America's ports generally reflects which of these two principles one values more.

So apparently some people are now noticing that "free market" economics (as it is currently understood) and national security can in fact conflict. They don't have to. The free market should only exist between the states and the ideology of it (aka liberalism) should not be determinative of policy vis-a-vis the "global economy." For the global economy should always be dealt with from the perspective of what promotes our national independence and security. Speaking of Washington, or better yet, Hamilton, this is the policy that the founders followed and bequeathed to us. As this line as regards cinternational commerce from Washington's Farewell Adress: "There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation."

I don't see what free market has to do with government contracts.

When you make decisions in the market, you choose more than just money. If anti-discrimination laws were abolished and we had private port security, I think most rational businessmen would pay a little bit extra to have non-Arab companies in charge.

Perhaps complicating matters for libertarians such as Ivan Eland is that, in addition to what Marcus points out with this being a contract awarded by the U.S. government, the applicant for the contract is also a government. Dubai Ports World is a "company" owned by the UAE. In other words, it's the UAE government. This makes this a government to government agreement, which probably gives free-marketeers a little more wiggle room on this issue. So, this dispute may not in all cases be the best indicator of how one values the free market v. national security.

As the resident Libertarian, my issue with this isn't that the ports are run by a company owned and operated by Arabs, its that they are run by a company owned by the government of the UAE.

Very simply, why even take the chance of compromising our security by allowing a company/government who is a known supporter of terrorist organizations to control ANYTHING in our country? Not to mention business areas as important and as fragile to breakdowns in security as working sea ports?

I want to believe that there are people a lot smarter than I who are making these decisions and still care more about securing our country than they do the almighty dollar or appearing to be fair.

asdf, been to disneyland lately? I've pretty much lost faith in any common sense prevailing in state or federal government any more.

I know. But, I'm really working hard not to be too cynical even though I realize Government’s propensity to screw things up.

Like our initial foray into Iraq, I was not in agreement with us going there but figured that our government experts had the intelligence and apparatus in place to make somewhat of a success out of the action and I supported that action based on those considerations.

I’m not naïve by nature. In fact, I’ve often been told that I am one of the most untrusting people but I always have hope that this administration will do the right thing as it’s the only one we’ve got.

But, what’s the definition of insanity? Same thing over and over again expecting different results. Insane no more!!

It was President Reagan that put the CIFIUS legislation in place, and once again, we see a masterful piece of legislation from that era. The CIFIUS process allows the President to block this thing, pretty much at any time, so hopefully this will happen. The law also allows for and anticipates just this type of Congressional and public pressure to be put on the White House, so this is not a "done deal" as I've heard said in a few papers.

Still, the sad fact is that a non-US company has been running our ports for years. Sure, it's a UK company, but national assets should never be ceded like this, even to today's "allies". I'm hoping this turns out right...

The problem is that this is just one category of many business concerns that are up for sale that are a strong component of our economic strength. Don't American companies bid on these kinds of things?

And, I realize it's just business (as Vito Corleone used to say) but is the Global Economy going to ruin us in the end? Could be Rabbit.

All you need to know about this port deal is that Jimmae Carter supports it.

I see Ben-T's and Dan's point about the fact that it is government owned, but that really doesn't bother me.

While I think we shouldn't have Arab contractors doing national security work, I could care less whether the company is state owned or not, and the last thing I'd want this controversey to turn into is an excuse for some leftist or neocon to say, "Well the third heir to the crown prince of UAE's second cousin's once removed tutor gave some money to a mosque that supported the Taliban, so let's destabilize another ally in the name of democracy"

The reason why I oppose them running the port is simple. This mean you'll have lots of arabs working there, Arabs are god knows how many times more likely to be terrorist or sympathetic to them than other people, so why take the risk.

In fact, James Woolsey made that point last night on TV on the grounds that its OK to have foreign contractors as long as they are from a democracy, because then they are genuine free corporations, not the government. I seriously doubt that if the US had contract work with a state owned British Company 25 years ago, he'd be worried.

On the libertarian/free market grounds, there is absolutely nothing that should prevent you doing business from a state owned company. Obviously you should promote the market as much as you can in the US, but you can't force it upon other countries, and restricting with whom people do business with, whether it is reimporting canadian drugs or woring with a Qatar run firm does not help the cause of free enterprise.

Foreign Corps. guarding our ports. Man do we americans do anything any more. Heck lets have the Serbs fight our war on muslim radicals. I think they git"er done. I liked GW, but he has lost me. Mexico borders a joke, Libs. beat on him everyday and he does nothing. But the worst is he huggs Bill Clinton and gets slapped every time! and he goes back for more.

Wonder if Hef and the Girls Next Door are concerned about this?

CNN was reporting that the Girls Next Door are very concerned. Expect to see a collaborative article in the next issue of Foreign Affairs.

There are many unanswered questions in this deal that will likely never get resolved due to the unjustified emotion attached to this issue.

For one, the port operations have nothing to do with security - never have. That is the responsibility of organizations like the US Coast Guard and others.

Second, unless I've read this wrong, the company we're talking about already operates the ports - the ownership just changed hands.

Third, where do we draw the line where the government interferes with normal business operations for purely political reasons? Who's next? Wal-Mart? Sears? Chrysler?

Fourth, I heard that this company was the only bidder. Nobody else wanted the job. What do you do about that. Here's a suggestion. Shut down the ports and allow no commerce through them until this issue is resolved. That'll show 'em.

Mike, we are at war. During a time of war it is probably not a good idea for foriegn goverments to be running our ports. I don't believe any other goverment should be running our ports in a time of peace either. This is a final straw for me. I see no difference in GW with Jimmy Carter or any other one worlder. This is about soveriegnty, not goverment interference.

Mike, we are at war.

We are at war, and it is a war like no other we've ever fought. It is a war against terrorists who claim no country as their standard - rather they cling to a radical view of a radical religion. We should do everything in our power to prosecute this war - and we are. Bin Laden is claiming to "not be taken alive" which is the talk of someone not confident in victory. Many of the terrorist leaders are dead or in some prison awaiting likely execution. Those still on the loose are running for their lives. And still we track them down and kill them or capture them. Saddam is no longer able to support the terrorists with his sanctuaries and checking accounts and finds himself in the dock - a formality before he finds himself swinging from a rope. Iraq is moving into the democratic direction as is Afghanistan, lessening the likelihood we will have to fight them again anytime soon. Iran is our next likely area of military action. I see no way to avoid it now. But all of that has little to do with the fact that the company that is currently operating the ports is the same one proposed to do it in the future - except that the owners have changed.

You claim to oppose operating the ports by any foreign "government" even in peacetime? If no one else bid on the job - and no one else did, then what do you do? Create another government agency to do it? As a retiree of 35 years working for a government agency, I can tell you outright that the worst possible way to get anything done is give it to the government.

You claim to see no difference between President Bush and Jimmy Carter. If you really believe that, you haven't been looking very deeply. You are likely being hyperbolic with that statement because it is patently obvious that the two couldn't be more different.

The issue about who runs the ports - basically loading and off-loading ships in port - is certainly no issue of sovereignty. The company in question is not establishing military facilities nor are they claiming any American soil as their own. Your reaction to all of this is unreasoned, based on emotion and not facts, and typical of those drummed up by the media and forces united to oppose this deal mainly because they can. Try providing some evidence of your claims of challenges to sovereignty or how this will negatively impact our national security. I am all ears.

Hi Mike. If the goverment is the worst possible agency to give this or any other job to then why don't we let mercenaries fight the war in the Arab world? Goverment is needed. There are jobs that the goverment is supposed to do. Guard the boarders, fight our wars, oversee commerce,set treaties etc. I love our goverment, I just whish it were smaller. How is giving up control of the Panama c#&l any different, even symbolicly, than giving up control of our most vital eastern ports.
I am still waiting for Iraq's Thomas Jefferson to emerge. I have the feeling I may be waiting a while. Same too with Afghanistan. I know they were so vital pre Soviet invasion and pre Taliban. If they weren't dominating the arts and sciences they were cleaning up at the olympics. The area is, was and always will be a wasteland. The region has been on a serious loosing streak since discovering algerba.In all seriousness do you think this is a shrewd move for Bush politicly? Do you want this to be the issue that puts another Clinton in the White House. At least think of this on that level. Peace.

If the goverment is the worst possible agency to give this or any other job to then why don't we let mercenaries fight the war in the Arab world?

Fighting wars and defending this nation are valid governmental functions. The government (congress) funds these efforts. The Commander-in-chief is the top civilian leader of the military. But most of the serious decisions made in the prosecution of a war are made in the military channels, on the ground, in the face of the enemy and are not subject to bureaucratic baloney. The chain of command and the demand for obedience in the military sees to that. Those things are not true in government-run "programs" like social services, welfare, and other areas where bureaucracy runs rampant.

How is giving up control of the Panama c#&l any different, even symbolically, than giving up control of our most vital eastern ports.

You beg the question with this inappropriate equivalence between Panama and the operation of dock facilities and the loading and unloading of commercial ships. They aren't even close to the same thing. I would hope that you'd know that. Giving control of Panama navigation facility to people like Noriega put our ability to use it to get from the Atlantic to Pacific oceans and vice-versa with warships was the risk involved. Noriega (or his successors) could easily block the channel forcing US shipt to go all the way around the southern tip of South America, adding many days to the journey and slowing down our strategic approach for national defense. Nothing of the sort is possible because a company runs the cargo facilities at six ports.

Secondly, we give up NO control of the ports. The Port Authorities remain in charge of the ports. The Coast Guard remains in charge of port security. That is a red-herring argument.

I am still waiting for Iraq's Thomas Jefferson to emerge.

You really do take a simplistic view of the world, don't you? There will be no Iraqi Thomas Jefferson. There was no Iraqi revolution. The people there did not hunger for freedom from an colonizing country like England colonized the US.

I have the feeling I may be waiting a while.

Feeling? Sounds like a liberal talking to me. We cannot operate based on feelings. We must operate based on facts.

In all seriousness do you think this is a shrewd move for Bush politically?

Shrewder than you realize. The facts are not widely known, but Dubai has been one of the few Middle Eastern nations to change its ways and support the US since 9/11. They mean to someday appeal to US citizens as a place of tourism and want to do business with the US. They have conceded a lot and agreed to a lot of reforms that reject terrorism. This is the President's way of rewarding them. Ever heard of Sun Tsu? He said the BEST way to defeat an enemy is to make him your friend. Failing that, kill him.

Do you want this to be the issue that puts another Clinton in the White House. At least think of this on that level. Peace.

Clinton in the White House? You must be smokin' something good. I have been predicting for over 6 months now that Hillary will not run and the evidence continues to pile up that I am correct. Her polling numbers are awful and are getting worse. The radical left (now in charge of the Democrat purse-strings) has abandoned her as too centrist. She's toast.

As far as this deal goes, I suspect that "thinking" like yours - which is rather more about emoting than thinking - will likely doom the deal for the ports. I don't know where that will leave the US since there were no other bidders and somebody has to run the facilities. (facilities manned by American workers now and in the future if they got the deal) Rejecting this deal will likely happen and it will be a sad event and harm us. But people like you will "feel" good about it. And you can put your "Peace" baloney where the sun doesn't shine. There will never be peace on this earth until there's only one person left.

Mike, why not have China take over NASA? They have made such strides towards democracy in the years since Tianamen Square. This is, after all a global economy and they are best prepared to give us highly skilled and motivated engineers at a low cost. Our nuclear program could be farmed out too. India could run it from Banglore at night while its engineers work during the day at their restaurant. It would be cheaper and they are more left brain. The UAE goverment supported the Taliban. They have in the past given aid to and supported terrorism in the Middle East. To control our most vulnerable and valuable ports in a time a war strikes me as being foolish. Call me crazy.
Dubai is going to be a vacation hot spot? Is Bush now minister of tourism? Is that why he supports amnesty for illegal aliens...so we can all go to Cancun. Oh and Mike...I'm going to pass on that Dubai vacation this year. Going to take the kids to the cape.

Mike, why not have China take over NASA?

Oh, sorry. Up until that ridiculous statement, I thought you were interested in a sensible discussion. Silly me.

This issue is perfect for Bush. It’s a no-brainer!

Friends in need or not, this is not a country where our values or philosophies are appreciated and one where many western governments have warned their citizens to stay away from in fear for their safety.

They harbor and are tolerant of terrorists and blatantly accept trafficking of terrorist money and materials.

Seems like common sense to NOT allow them to be involved in any capacity in the workings of some of our most important sea ports.

At least most of our weasel politicians are standing up and taking bipartisan stands on this but I’m very surprised at what the ‘man in the street’ has to say about this issue. Seems like 50/50, for or against. Weird.

Since when are the pols smarter than us and willing to make sense on such an important issue?

"And you can put your Peace baloney where the sun doesn't shine. There will never be peace on this earth until there's only one person left." Mike get a grip you lost an argument, it isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Maybe you'll have luck with another topic or maybe you should ask for help in preparing for your next post.

you lost an argument...

You just keep believing that. It sometimes help if you click your heels together three times too.

Not one fact I stated was proved wrong nor were any facts refuted. I was attempting to explain the logic (a foreign word for many) of this port deal in the face of out-of-control and unsubstantiated fear and emotionalism.

As for the peace thing, as soon as I see it I will admit I am wrong. I'm a baby boomer (born at the end of WWII) and since then we've had Korea, Viet Nam, Gulf War I Gulf War II, Grenada, Panama, and many others - and that's just the ones the US has been involved in directly. Human nature will NEVER allow peace - no matter how many times you click your heels and say, "There's no place like home."

“boy, what are you: stupid or somehin’”?

“stupid is as stupid does, sir”

Forrest Bush?

Or…. is he craftier and smarter than he lets on? Rigging events that help his business buddies or that pacify world governments?

I hate to agree with the left looneys, but it appears that many of the things GW has done are presented as flag waving ideas promoted for the advancement of the U.S. but end up typically contrived to help business either here or abroad.

This is a big money deal that gives the appearance that we are an Arab tolerant nation. The fact that, if allowed to go through, it would severely jeopardize our national security seems to be an acceptable risk to the President. A risk that he will use the one and only Veto of his tenure to push forward.

Unregulated immigration for cheap labor, CAFTA, pushing for the Chinese to purchase a U.S oil services company and now this gives the appearance that conglomerates, either here or abroad and business in general are running the show. Couple this with Bush’s need to have to U.S. appear to be a beacon of fairness, and you have the worse kind of Globalist: the kind who will consider it an acceptable risk to sacrifice our sovereignty and security for profit.

Mike you are right I guess letting UAE take over the ports is a great idea until something happens?
I hate to say it but Tagemnbagem is right we can't handle securing our ports ourselves? Mike maybe if you click your heels 3x you'll wake up and stop reading from the Bush playbook and realize that your on the wrong side on this issue, and that sometimes when you agree with the Bush White House, conservative is the last thing that you are. And unprincipled is the first.

Or…. is he craftier and smarter than he lets on? Rigging events that help his business buddies or that pacify world governments?

According to what everyone knows right now, Bush did not even know about this deal until the contract was awarded. Pretty crafty, that.

I hate to agree with the left looneys,

Nah, you don't really.

but it appears that many of the things GW has done are presented as flag waving ideas promoted for the advancement of the U.S. but end up typically contrived to help business either here or abroad.

So you're saying business is not good for America? Ahhh. Now I see why you agree with the isolationist commies on the left.

This is a big money deal that gives the appearance that we are an Arab tolerant nation.

England and the Dutch sell their company to the Dubai and this is a big money deal? Please explain.

The fact that, if allowed to go through, it would severely jeopardize our national security seems to be an acceptable risk to the President.

In what way - exactly - does it jeopardize our national security? Be specific.

A risk that he will use the one and only Veto of his tenure to push forward.

Or, as is actually the case, to use his veto to stop the meddling grand standers and paid-off unionists from throwing up roadblocks to a perfectly legitimate business deal.

Unregulated immigration for cheap labor,

Please provide a citation for that, I seem to have missed it.

CAFTA,

Can't have the free trade stuff - messes up the socialist agenda and sends labor unions who have strangleholds on their industries into a tizzy.

pushing for the Chinese to purchase a U.S oil services company

Or as the President said before his trip to China:

"I think we've got a lot of issues to deal with, is the best way to describe it," Bush said in a pre-trip interview. "China has got influence. China is a big, powerful nation. And, therefore, it's in our interest that we share ideas and work together."

and now this

this is a dust-up over nothing - a con job by the left and their lobbyists and you like many others bought it hook, line, and sinker.

gives the appearance that conglomerates, either here or abroad and business in general are running the show.

When it comes to business and economics - they are. And since that is engine that fuels all other human endeavors, they are important forces. Should be turn into isolationists? Should we run and hide from the likes of China? Or should we get in there and compete, fight, and win the one type of war that we have always won?

Couple this with Bush’s need to have to U.S. appear to be a beacon of fairness, and you have the worse kind of Globalist: the kind who will consider it an acceptable risk to sacrifice our sovereignty and security for profit.

A hyperbolic statement with zero facts, and no evidence that it is anything but a variation on the theme made popular by Chicken Little.

Mike, You still lost. Lets just look at this issue in terms of politics. How many more seats has this president conceded mid term now? Just think how happy you will be in Jan 2009 when the democrats have both houses and the White House. That reason alone should be enough to cede this argument. I'm still at a loss for words about your new Dubai tourism campaign. Is it going to be like I love New York or Virginia is for lovers? UAE supported terrorism far more than Iraq ever did. And you want our ports run by a company owned by this goverment? You still think this is a good move. Bush is going to use his veto and go to the mat over this issue? This is going to be a defining moment of his presidency and he is going to loose big time. Picture the campaign ad. Two planes crashing into the towers followed by ominous voice over as they show the port of New York and Bush hugging a shiek. In ten years do you think any American is going to say, "thank God Bush gave our ports over to that radical muslim country, relations are so much better now." Or is the risk greater that we are going to be appointing independent counsels and commisions.Enjoy your time share in Dubai, Mike, you still lost.

You still lost.

Because you said so? Don't make me laugh.

Actually, Dubai is really nice, and if I could afford it, I'd vacation there. Though, I don't have to, because my work is sending me there in 3 weeks and putting me up at a resort with my own private beach! Ha!

The bigger issue, because I believe that the security situation isn't going to change fundamentally, is the statement by Bush. I saw this on Drudge for about an hour, but then it disappeared. But he said something along the lines of "why should a middle eastern company be held to different standards as a British company?". Uh...isn't the answer to this question pretty obvious? The sentiment alone scares the crap out of me. It's all well and good to spout the "we're not at war with Islam" and "religion of peace" stuff. But don't start believing it, guy!

To be honest with you Michael, GW did not turn out to be what me or a lot of others bargained for as he certainly isn’t a conservative. Most conservatives can deal with that as the alternatives were not good. But it’s bad enough that he panders to his critics and some of his enemies, spends money like a drunken Massachusetts Congressman and wants to allow Mexico to take over the Southwest. Now it appears that we have to deal with someone whose commitment to protect us is in question.

I think the announcement that GW did not know about such an important and potentially incendiary deal is baloney. The fact that he came out saying he would veto any legislation that would try to stop the deal indicates to me that he was aware of it and was obviously prepared to defend it. I think the post explosion announcement was put out there to get him off the hook and give him some escape if that became necessary. Which, it will. People already think he’s stupid, so they’ll buy the fact that he didn’t know.

And I am pro-business. As long as the business fits into our scope of maintaining the sovereignty and security of the United States. It’s understood that many times, it is an absolute necessity that we do business with other countries and I’d agree that that is a good thing in certain cases. But I don’t think it’s a good thing when we put everything we do out to bid just so some fat companies can get fatter by making more profit. I think we should expect that U.S. based companies doing business here or abroad to make decisions that would not put us in jeopardy either economically or strategically.

Unfortunately, money hungry big business doesn’t much care about how their dealings affect either sovereignty or security. As long as there’s a wee bit more profit in it for them, they’ll make a deal with anybody, friend or foe. And government has been a willing partner in this arrangement. Allowing the farming out jobs to illegals to keep the costs down as well as farming out many other jobs overseas for the same reasons.

I suppose you could say that I am an Isolationist and a Protectionist. Somewhat in the mold of Pat Buchanan. I just believe that liberal doses of both philosophies would keep this country stronger and safer.

And I love this:
“I think we’ve got a lot of issues to deal with, is the best way to describe it,” Bush said in a pre-trip interview. “China has got influence. China is a big, powerful nation. And, therefore, it’s in our interest that we share ideas and work together.”

Of course China is a big, powerful nation. And we helped make them the economic 300 pound gorilla they are today. For years, we’ve given them MVN status, looking the other way at their human rights violations. We’ve provided them with business and material expertise and have helped them to develop many of their businesses along with a fertile environment for outsourcing. Now we have to deal with them as a competitive economic power.

Globalists and those who support them are giving away to the keys to kingdom and nobody seems concerned.

I'm almost finished with a Tom Clancy novel from the 80s that I'd never read, and there is a bit in it that is very interesting. The scene is where 3 KGB agents slip across the Mexican border into the US on forged papers. One the KGB agents is thinking about how much he actually likes the US. What he really likes, is the availabilty of cheap, high-quality food at every turn (his fav turns out to be BK). At this point he wonders how the US can be so efficent at crucial important matters such as food distribution, and have no clue on border security (as they speed away from the Mexico border).

The answer of course, is obvious: we're not ruthless, and the Soviets were. If we not prepared to be ruthless, or at least to go farther than we seem willing to go now, we're going to lose this fight.

Praise the Lord brother Fong. You are correct.

We are perceived as being and for the most part are, weak.

The answer of course, is obvious: we're not ruthless, and the Soviets were.

Were. Seems important.