Take. A. Deep. Breath.

The current kerfluffle about ports is revealing, yet again, the profound impact of 9/11. And none of us should like what we see in ourselves.

Here’s the story: a British company held a contract to manage operations at many of America’s commercial ports. The Brits are good at that. They’ve been the masters of the high seas since most of Europe was paddling around the Mediterranean in dingies. But, as often happens in our global economy, the Brit company got bought out — by one owned, in part, by the government of the United Arab Emirates. Because of the change of control, the Bush administration, which hasn’t yet found a security question it couldn’t overreact to, has to sign off on the deal. After careful consideration by the appropriate port security experts, they approve it.

Everybody flips out.

And we all know why. Deep down, the idea of an arab country having anything to do with our ports is just a little disconcerting, isn’t it. After all, why didn’t it matter when the Brits did the work? They’re our oldest and most trusted allies. Of course we can trust them. But those Arabs — we’d better keep an eye on ‘em. They might bushwhack us.

Give me a break.

I actually heard one Congressman today reminding us that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE. Of course they were. Do any of us really think that the two baboons who hastened their way to hell on that September morning are representative of their entire nation? I sure hope not. Imagine if business leaders in Tokyo or London believed that Tim McVey was a representative American.

Really. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. If this is what we’ve become as a result of 9/11, the terrorists really have won.

A corporation was hired to do a job — manage some ports. They have the expertise and ability to do the work. (Folks who have spent their lifetimes pushing oil around the world in tankers know a thing or two about ports, after all.) Dubai (in the UAE) is one of the great up-and-coming business centers in the world. And there’s a reason why.

It’s time to stop being paranoid and start acting like Americans.

P.S. — I know this is going to be an unpopular view. After all, it’s a lot easier to light your hair on fire and run around screaming about homeland security. But demagoguery is always the easy way out. Let’s stop and think before we make ourselves look like bigger jerks than we already have.

Cam: Welcome to the tipping point, Marshall. In light of the way Muslims are behaving in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, can you really blame people for thinking this is a bad idea?

Yes, I know all the reasons why you (and others) think this is no big deal. But why take a chance? I mean, our port security is already pretty abysmal. Do we really want to risk making it worse?

I realize the Ugly American in me is coming out here, but I understand the reluctance to see this happen.

Marshall: You said:

Why take a chance? I mean, our port security is already pretty abysmal. Do we really want to risk making it worse?

Your question perpetuates a myth about this whole deal. There’s a business being hired to manage the ports’ operations. They don’t do security. The Coast Guard, Customs Service, Border Patrol, FBI, and all the rest do the security. Period. And that doesn’t change. Indeed, almost nothing changes. The ports are managed. The feds do the security.

If the security sucks now (and I’m not conceeding that it does), why isn’t anyone worried about the Brits running the ports? Answer: they’re not Arabs.

Marshall, updating: I just noticed that Jim had a few thoughts on this issue over at TKS. Care to add anything Jim?

Jim: Marshall, five thoughts in response.

Thought One: When this story was first reported and mentioned on the blogs, a lot of facts were unclear – such as who exactly would be managing the security within the port facilities. It’s reassuring to hear just how much the security would be in American hands. Having said that, I think most Americans have their doubts about homeland security in general. This is partially because many of the efforts are unseen (usually for good reason) and the most visible example of new post-9/11 security is having your shoes taken off at the airport and watching TSA frisk grandma and confiscate her tweezers. There is a broad bureaucratic mentality within the federal government, even at the agencies with the duty to protect us, and Americans have their doubts that the government has their eye on the ball.

Thought two: So – what would the new UAE company learn from this new management position about U.S. security procedures and methods? How many guards are stationed where? How the badges are distributed and where they can access? Where the weak spots are? Remember, the issue is not whether this UAE company is in league with terrorists; obviously, they aren’t. The issue is whether any one of its employees could, at some point in the future, be in league with a terrorist. Yes, a British company employee could come in contact with al-Qaeda, but are you really willing to say that a Brit is every bit as likely to come in contact with an al-Qaeda terrorist as an employee of a UAE company? (Recall that al-Qaeda’s membership roster does not resemble the diversity of a Benetton ad.)

Part of the problem is that this sounds like a scenario out of a Tom Clancy novel. The bad guys always have somebody working at the port (see Sum of All Fears, The). Since 9/11, Americans have gotten more skilled at thinking like a terrorist, and have concluded that they would have an easier time infiltrating a dock full of UAE workers than one full of Brits.

Thought three: Replace “UAE” with “Saudi”, and see if your reaction would be the same. Indeed, they too have “spent their lifetimes pushing oil around the world in tankers.” I suspect much of the reaction to this story is a reflection that many Americans don’t know much about the UAE, and thus their default setting is “suspicion” when they hear “Arab company”. And there is nothing wrong about drawing conclusions about countries based upon their reputation. While I agree that the UAE is more reliable than it is being treated in this manner, not all Arab countries deserve this level of trust. I would trust the Jordanians to manage an American port. I would not trust the Egyptians.

Thought four: Cam kinda beat me to this point – the port story is not occurring in a vacuum. For the past weeks, Americans have been horrified as they have seen threatening protests and outright violence over the Danish cartoons in just about every corner of the Muslim world. I don’t know how the mood is in your neck of the woods, but judging from my e-mailbag and what I’m reading on the blogs, we have, as I’ve been repeating into a cliché in recent days, reached a tipping point. Many, many Americans flat-out no longer trust Muslims.

Thought five: The President’s vehement defense of this program yesterday, without further explanation, was his biggest mistake since Harriet Miers. I’ve seen another blogger speculate that perhaps the U.S. got some sort of intelligence-sharing bonanza as a result of helping the UAE on this deal. If that’s the case, somebody at the White House had better get on the phone PDQ and start putting out the brushfires that flared up from this deal.

And furthermore, Marshall, I think… Marshall? Marshall! Ah, damn, he’s distracted by the entrance of the Woman in Red above.

Marshall: Jim, you raise some interesting points.

On the first, if Americans are concerned with port security, they need to take it with their own government. That’s why we have Congress. You know — to represent us.

Your second point is, I think, the most compelling. But let’s remember a practical fact — it’s not like Dubai Ports (that’s the company) is going to send thousands of employees over here to manage the ports. The actual work will still be done by the same Americans who have been doing it for years. To be sure, there will be a few actual Arabs (gasp!) running around. But presumablky, if they’re going to be exposed to anything secret, they’d have to go through the same background check and security clearance process that everyone else does.

On the third, I can honestly say my reaction is the same. There are about 26 million Saudis. Do I think all of them want to kill. Uh, no. Let’s be security concious. If a Saudi or anyone else wants to come here from overseas, let’s make sure they’re not a terrorist. Then, let’s embrace them and show them all that’s good about America.

On the fifth, (going out of order for a sec) I agree that the President didn’t handle this well at all. If there’s an argument to be made, he needs to make it. Just asserting that it’s going to be as a decrees plays into his opponents’ hands and makes him appear out of touch. But that doesn’t make the decision to move forward any more or less correct.

And finally, on the fourth, I think this is the greatest problem of all. The cartoon controversy, the French riots, and the other incidents leave many of us (including me) wondering if all Muslims are violent extremists who want to kill us. Clearly, the answer is “no”. And we’re not making any friends — or dissuading any young Saudi from joining the extremists — by behaving like a bunch of jingoistic paranoids.

Jim again: Marshall, you write:

…If Americans are concerned with port security, they need to take it with their own government. That’s why we have Congress. You know — to represent us.

Interesting, because if there’s one area of government the American people have even less faith in than TSA, it’s probably Congress. As a forthcoming book will tell you, the first actions of Congress after the 9/11 attacks included:

• On Sept. 12, Sen. Bob Torricelli pointed the finger at the CIA for failing to stop the attacks; he was, of course, the author of the “Torricelli Rule” a policy change that required that a top CIA official — not a field officer – to approve the hiring of an informant with ties to human-rights violations. The resulting “scrub” of agents removed about 1,000 clandestine sources from the CIA’s roster, about one-third of the total.
• On Sept. 12, Senator Tom Daschle cautioned Bush about his rhetoric, saying “war is a powerful word” (and therefore perhaps should not be used).
• On Sept. 12, Senator Robert Byrd warned Bush that he should not expect a Tonkin Gulf-style “blank check” to conduct war.
• On Sept. 13, Byrd won Senate approval for a new $2-million West Virginia University computer network serving the Robert C. Byrd Regional Training Institute, arguing that this constituted vital spending in the new war on terror.

Since 9/11, the executive branch has been focused and serious about the threats facing us; I’m not sure the same can be said about the legislative branch. I’d like to think Congress can fix and improve our homeland security, but the record is spotty. In fact, I wonder how many statements can stir panic like “It’s up to Congress to protect us.”

2. I guess it would be good to know how many UAE employees will be coming to the U.S. under this new arrangement. I’m sure the employees with have to go through a security clearance process. Of course, Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames and Jonathan Pollard went through extensive security clearance processes, too. In their cases, their ability to slip through the cracks resulted the leak of classified information to foreign states. If an al-Qaeda sympathizer slips through the cracks of a UAE-managed port security, how dire are the consequences?

3. Interesting. My attitude to the Saudis would be a no-go. At the very least, I would be demanding extraordinary cooperation from them in mutual goals before approving this deal. The House of Saud is a long way from earning an assumption of good faith in my book.

4. You are correct that this deal can be the right decision and bad politics. Having said that, if this really is such a good deal for American interests, one might think that the arguments from Bush and other deal-defenders would be a bit more detailed and compelling. (Wasn’t the last time we got such a “trust me” defense from Bush… the Harriet Miers nomination?) Why am I hearing a more compelling defense of this decision from you and Instapundit’s readers than I am from the White House?

5. You write:

The cartoon controversy, the French riots, and the other incidents leave many of us (including me) wondering if all Muslims are violent extremists who want to kill us. Clearly, the answer is “no”. And we’re not making any friends — or dissuading any young Saudi from joining the extremists — by behaving like a bunch of jingoistic paranoids.

First, I agree that it is false that all Muslims are violent extremists who want to kill us. The question now is, what percentage are violent extremists? Unfortunately, I think we’ve seen in recent weeks that the number is higher than we thought.

I don’t think opposing or raising questions about this deal is the mark of a “jingoistic paranoid.”

And I really question whether it’s up to us to “make friends” or to “dissuade any young Saudi from joining the extremists.” To quote one of our favorite movies, “I don’t want the fucking power! I don’t want the guilt, I don’t want the shame, and I don’t want the responsibility!” Some Saudi’s going to join the extremists if I express suspicions of a UAE port management company? Some Afghan’s going to join al-Qaeda if I run a Danish cartoon? When did their actions become our fault?

I’m tired of being told how understanding, diplomatic, and sensitive I have to be to avoid agitating somebody on the other side of the world. Maybe it’s time the United Arab Emirates got a bit more understanding, diplomatic and sensitive and realized that their involvement with U.S. ports would stir up some inevitable concerns among the American people. Maybe instead of complaining about anti-Arab discrimination they could demonstrate their strong safety and security record in other ports they manage, and try persuading the American public.

Unattainable, here: First, a couple of links to people who aren’t freaking out about the port deal. Sean at The American Mind doesn’t find the opponents of the deal convincing:

This is a payoff to the United Arab Emirates for being an ally in the Islamist War. In the Middle East we need as many friends as we can get. Plus, connecting the region into the Core is vital for U.S. security. Hopefully the administration will be watching Dubai Ports World closely just to assuage concerns. Opponents of the ports deal will have to find something of substance, a pattern of security lapses for example, to kill the deal.

Lakeshore Laments, a blogger with work experience in this area, addresses the security issue:

Dubai Ports World, like all port owners, must abide by the Maritime Transportation Security Act passed by Congress in 2002 and International Ship and Port Facility Security codes enacted in 2004, he said. Both sets of security measures are enforced in the United States by the U.S. Coast Guard.

Lorie Byrd thinks Dubai Ports’ economic incentives would keep Americans safe.

As for me? I think the chillin’ point of view is interesting, though my first reaction is to feel iffy about turning over control of six major ports to the UAE. That was my first reaction. Then, my first reaction was reinforced by the fact that, as Jim noted, the best arguments for the port deal are coming from Marshall and Instapundit’s readers. Serious echoes of the Harriet Miers situation, which I also had a terrible feeling about from the start. I want to believe the administration is making this decision because the benefits outweight the risks. I want to believe the administration has our national security under control, as it usually does, and that Bush knows more than I do about the situation.

But then I hear that Bush didn’t know about the deal until after it was approved. Still more reinforcement of my initial gut feeling.

And, this is why this is a problem politically. A lot of Bush-supporters are supporters precisely because he is unwavering on national security. Whether we like it or not, many of those supporters take in news in shorthand– in snippets, not in 300-page, highlighted transcript form like bloggers do. Those supporters hear only that the Bush administration is giving over control of six major American ports–New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia– to an Arab firm, and they are understandably concerned.

They don’t always take the time to make the distinctions between safe, allied Arab countries, middling allies with iffy terror-prevention plans, and terror-harboring nations. Those distinctions, as illustrated by this discussion, are hard enough to make for those of us who devour national security news like a late-night order of Scattered, Smothered, and Covered. Why should we expect regular Americans, busy living regular lives, to read about the UAE and automatically jump on board with this plan? They are right to err on the side of caution, and Bush should have known that they would.

I imagine many of them thought to themselves, a little warily, “well, Bush is the national security guru. He knows what he’s doing, and he’ll explain it.”

But then he didn’t explain it. It turns out he didn’t know about it much before the rest of us did. That’s when you get a reaction like the one Rod Dreher got from his family. They feel a little betrayed and a little dismayed by this. But there’s a way to fix it. I’m sure Bush’s supporters could get on board with this, and might indeed, if he spoke a little more openly about it, made the arguments for it, and maybe got behind the idea of briefing Congress a little more thoroughly and putting the deal on hold for a while. I’m one of those who has a gut feeling this isn’t a good idea, but I am willing to concede that I don’t know much about this kind of thing. I could be convinced (that’s a big maybe), but I’d like the administration to at least try to convince me.

Many of Bush’s supporters simply want to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of national security, and they have counted on Bush to do the same for six years. He should take the time to prove to them that that’s what he’s doing now or he could lose them. I mean, we’re dealing with New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, here. Shouldn’t we talk about this a little more?

Marshall: Not sure why, but I feel compelled to add one quick point: My view on this seaport issue has nothing to do with wanting to get behind the President. Though I certainly count myself a supporter of his, I was out early and often against the Miers nomination because it was a major mistake. (Though the administration’s PR mistakes in both instances are remarkably similar in nature.)

One other thing: the fact that President wasn’t in on this decision until this weekend actually makes me feel better about my position that this whole mess is much ado about nothing. If it had been important, someone would have put it on his desk. Instead, the decision got made by the people who are supposed to make it in the their normal course of business.

Cam: Or it could signify that the President is out of the loop on important issues. I have a feeling that’s how the Kos Kids will be playing it.

I’m still torn here (a bad position for a blogger to be in, I’m aware). On one hand, I completely agree with the idea that this just feels bad. I don’t like the fact that Jimmy Carter loves the idea. And I’m not impressed with the administration’s answers to some of these questions.

On the other hand, security for the port will be handled by the Coast Guard. The UAE is an ally in the war on terror. And I think the blogswarm is responsible for a lot of the knee jerk reactions we’re seeing from politicians.

Sigh. I just don’t know where I come down on this. Maybe after a beer (Sam Adams, in case the endorsements start coming in) things will look a little clearer.

Marshall: Okay. Here’s the bottom line. I’m not sure any of us knows for sure if this is a smart deal or not. But what is certain is that a whole lot of bloggers and other opinion leaders on the left and right are acting like raving idiots, and they should stop.

Marshall, again: A good friend with expertise in port security writes:

As someone who has looked at the security issues and current procedures regarding container security at [a whole bunch of] ports … you ought to go ahead and just concede the point that port security sucks.

Too much stuff going through with too many demands for on-time delivery and too few people and other resources looking at what’s actually in the boxes. It’s a faustian bargain we’ve struck in the name of getting cheap imported [stuff] fast and in stores on-time.

I’m always happy to concede to someone who actually knows what they’re talking about, so I will acknowledge that it is so. And if seaport security sucks, we ought to fix it, whether Dubai Ports is managing the operations or some other outfit. But the fix is up to the government. Not the management firm.

Marshall, updating: Welcome, Instapundit readers. We hope you’ll stay a while. Join us for a tall, cold one. Meet the Unnattainable Girl at the End of the Bar (But she won’t talk to you. Trust us.) and Woman in Red at the Next Table. Also, make sure to check out our Manifesto. You’ll be entertained. We promise.