Rather than my repeating myself about this deal, I was waiting for somebody else to say it. Maureen Dowd does a good job this morning:
President Bush does not seem to understand that it was his bumbling -- rather than our bigotry -- that led Americans to gulp and yelp at the idea of an Arab government running our ports. When the president said yesterday that "my administration was satisfied that port security would not have been undermined by the agreement," he seemed oblivious to the fact that -- after W.M.D., Katrina and Iraq -- many Americans no longer trust this administration to protect them.
Still shaken by his first rebellion by Republicans fed up with White House hubris and hamhandedness, W. chastised lawmakers about xenophobia. "I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," he said. He said that we had to cultivate moderate Arabs, but that moderate Muslims were shrinking back as violent Islamists pushed ahead.
American skepticism about the Dubai government running our ports is not prejudice. As Denny Hastert put it, "It's counterintuitive." There is nothing wrong with wanting Americans to be responsible for American security. That's not nativism or jingoism or bigotry. It's self-reliance and prudence. Of course, such an attitude can be exploited by bigots. And some bigotry is being fed by scenes on the news every day of Arab fighters blowing things up, leading to the same stereotype of Arabs that existed in the 70's, a caricature limned from terrorism, oil and the petrodollar.
The president preaches that we are seriously threatened by autocratic Arab societies that won't modernize and become free markets, but then his cozy relationship with autocratic Arab regimes, including the Saudis, continues basically unchanged.
As Michael Hirsh of Newsweek summed up in a recent column: "How then did we arrive at this day, with anti-American Islamist governments rising in the Mideast, bin Laden sneering at us, Qaeda lieutenants escaping from prison, Iran brazenly enriching uranium, and America as hated and mistrusted as it ever has been? The answer, in a word, is incompetence."
It's incompetence and a sense that the parties which have the most influence on White House policy are motivated by their own political and economic interests more than what is it the best interest of the American people. I don't trust them to do anything for the right reasons, and I think that the common mistake that links people who supported the war with those who support the Dubai Ports deal lies in their thinking that the issues can be discussed as if it were a debate about abstract policy principles. They make their case as if a more fundamental issue was irrelevant, namely the motivations and competency of this particular administration at this particular time in history.
The more fundamental discussion should not be about whether Saddam should or should not have been toppled. It should not be about whether foreigners should run our ports, or whether something has to be done to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions. These are certainly questions to debate and reasonable people can disagree about the answers to them, but they are not relevant to the root issue. No matter what the right policy might be in the abstract regarding these questions, the more important issue is whether we can trust this government to do anything without making things worse.
This government, with questionable legitimacy from day one, has proven itself to be one of the most reckless, corrupt, and destructive in American history. Has it any credibility or moral legitimacy at all at this point? Can we or should we trust it in anything? I know life goes on, and we have to work with what we have, but if we can't throw these thugs out, we should at least put them under house arrest. My assumption is that everything they do is harmful until proven otherwise. The Dubai Ports Deal is only one among many issues that need to be seen in this light. It has to be understood in this larger context.
The supporters of the Dubai Ports deal make the mistake of looking at the issue as if the Bush administration were worthy of our trust. But whether or not the WTO globalization logic used to justify this deal has merit in the abstract, it doesn't make sense at this particular time given who the players are in this particular melodrama. If I had confidence that this administration had given the Coast Guard and the customs officials the resources they need, maybe I'd feel a little better about Dubai Ports running the business end. The administration has not made port security a priority, and its blatant cronyism in all things having to do with the Middle East gives reason for pause. But it boils down to my having no confidence in this government to do anything competently or to do anything for the right reasons.
I don't know if DP is ok. Maybe it is. But we're renting in a tough neighborhood without adequate police protection, and I don't trust the landlord to find the right tenant. DP might be a sweet old grandma, but what about her misbehaving grandkids whom she can't control when they visit? That's the concrete reality. It's not about letting fear dictate policy; it's about being prudent. Prudent is the last word I would use to describe this administration and its approach to everything.
The Dubai Ports deal would be questionable at this time even if we had adequate port security, but given who's on watch now, it simply makes no sense.