IF IN DOUBT, BAIL OUT
International trade is good, and keeping allies smiling is likewise great, but neither benefit trumps commonsense - which apparently isn’t so common.
It’s common sense not to contract with the government of Mexico to guard America’s southern from illegal immigration, and common sense not to outsource to foxes to guard our chickens and – “same same” – not common sense to outsource major ports (or any American ports for that matter) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Homeland security is critical to the public safety of all Americans, and the survival of the United States as a nation. That’s more important than other issues: money, political party, world popularity, whatever.
Granted, the UAE is among the “better” nations in the volatile Middle East, but that’s akin to saying Iran is better than Syria – or vice versa - but UAE is better than both. Well now. The problem with the UAE controlling ports has nothing to do with the Arabic race, but a lot to do with most of this dangerous corner of the globe being homeland to extremism exemplified by al-Qaeda and religious “nutsos.” Currently the UAE is classified an “ally” of the United States in the War on Terror. Will it remain so? I’m not in favor of gambling.
Specifically, putting the UAE in charge of ports creates too many opportunities for the bad guys to cultivate UAE company insiders, thereby gaining intelligence on how to defeat security measures and launch a well-planned terrorist harbor attack. Too many terrorist connections have a UAE link. Some 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as their financial and operational base. Some say the UAE has been used as a transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
If – God forbid –a terrorist attack occurred in one the UAE operated American harbors, what access to UAE records would American investigators have? Could the non-USA based employees be interrogated by the FBI? Probably not.
Critics also note that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. This is scary stuff.
The proposed agreement with the UAE has to do with ports back east, not in Alaska. But the principle is the same, wherever the port. If it can happen somewhere else in the United States, it could happen in Alaska.
I support my president, but he’s not infallable and that’s the case here. We live in a global society, but it’s not always a sane society. When I went to Air Force flying school, my instructor told me, “If in doubt, bail out.” I think that applies here.
It’s common sense not to contract with the government of Mexico to guard America’s southern from illegal immigration, and common sense not to outsource to foxes to guard our chickens and – “same same” – not common sense to outsource major ports (or any American ports for that matter) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Homeland security is critical to the public safety of all Americans, and the survival of the United States as a nation. That’s more important than other issues: money, political party, world popularity, whatever.
Granted, the UAE is among the “better” nations in the volatile Middle East, but that’s akin to saying Iran is better than Syria – or vice versa - but UAE is better than both. Well now. The problem with the UAE controlling ports has nothing to do with the Arabic race, but a lot to do with most of this dangerous corner of the globe being homeland to extremism exemplified by al-Qaeda and religious “nutsos.” Currently the UAE is classified an “ally” of the United States in the War on Terror. Will it remain so? I’m not in favor of gambling.
Specifically, putting the UAE in charge of ports creates too many opportunities for the bad guys to cultivate UAE company insiders, thereby gaining intelligence on how to defeat security measures and launch a well-planned terrorist harbor attack. Too many terrorist connections have a UAE link. Some 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as their financial and operational base. Some say the UAE has been used as a transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
If – God forbid –a terrorist attack occurred in one the UAE operated American harbors, what access to UAE records would American investigators have? Could the non-USA based employees be interrogated by the FBI? Probably not.
Critics also note that some of the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as an operational and financial base. In addition, they contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. This is scary stuff.
The proposed agreement with the UAE has to do with ports back east, not in Alaska. But the principle is the same, wherever the port. If it can happen somewhere else in the United States, it could happen in Alaska.
I support my president, but he’s not infallable and that’s the case here. We live in a global society, but it’s not always a sane society. When I went to Air Force flying school, my instructor told me, “If in doubt, bail out.” I think that applies here.
posted by Blogs by Rep Bob Lynn | 1:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home