Ports: Policy and Politics

There is little new that I can add to the policy discussion of a Dubai-owned company taking over management control of 6 American ports. Dubai has been firmly in the "with us" column since 9/11 and provides significant support to US military and intelligence operations in the Middle East. The takeover has been vetted by multiple US government departments at the bureaucratic, rather than the political, level and has been approved without objection. And the 'management' of a port is at least one step removed from actual port security implementation, a job that still falls to the Coast Guard and US Customs. The only argument against the takeover that has some validity is that you're placing managment control of the ports in the hands of a country whose population has significant anti-US sentiments, thus possibly increasing the probability that radical elements will infiltrate the system. Naturally, this small increase in risk must be balanced against the strategic cost of slapping an Arab ally in the face by rejecting such a high-profile takeover. As serious policy discussions continue, the initial "hell no!" knee-jerk reaction will appear less and less justified.

The politics is a little more interesting. The Democrats, torn between their traditional resistance to xenophobic reaction and the rare opportunity to appear tougher on security than the President, have clearly opted for the latter. Politically, it's probably the correct choice. If the deal fails, they can claim credit for 'securing our ports'. If the deal goes through, they can use the issue to innoculate against appearing 'weak on security'. The very definition of win-win.

The Republican response, by contrast, has been a political disaster. For 5 years, congressional Republicans have toed the administration line on all matters of security and foreign policy. To think that they can distance themselves from the administration on these issues now is a joke. Some, like John McCain, appear to have taken this fact into account when they formulated their response. The majority of others, however, appear to have lost sight of their long-term political interests in their rush to appear 'tougher' than the Democrats.

Which brings us to the time extension for further review of the deal, offered so considerately by the Dubai company itself. Many commentators see this as nothing more than a chance for the White House to back-pedal and save face in some way - that the deal is dead. Nothing could be further from the truth. The extension is indeed a chance to back-pedal and save face, but for congressional Republicans. With the extension in place, the Republicans can justify scuttling any Democrat legislation regarding the deal - "We'll get a chance to review, what more do you want?". After a month or two of going over the same info the US agencies went over when they approved the deal, the Republicans will announce that it's Kosher (maybe they'll add a condition or two that Dubai will happily accept). And to look like they did something 'tough', they'll probably introduce legislation to increase spending on container inspections and port security by US Customs and the Coast Guard.

So my prediction is that the deal will go through, and that the Republicans will sustain some damage at the polls because of it, but no where near the damage they'll sustain if they decide to really fight the administration on this issue.