Month: February 2006

A reader writes:

"I’m shocked you find that article from the National Review folks persuasive in any way. Sure, they talk about using the Dubia Port deal as a "model to build effective bridges to the Arab and Muslim world"..but come on..that must be the biggest joke i’ve ever read. If they truly believed building bridges to the Muslim and Arab world was important they wouldn’t be so gung-ho and supportive of this administrations policies of torture, degradation and abuse of Muslim and Arab citizens. In fact, I’m shocked that you of all people didn’t call them on it.  Any effective bridges that are going to be built between America and Muslim world are going to start with our policies in Iraq … not with some billion dollar company owned by UAE."

Why not both? Another dissenter:

"How exactly will this deal help the disaffected in the UAE? What it sounds like is any low-scale jobs will be given to people living near the ports themselves, so the only monetary benefit that makes its way to UAE will go to those who are already so rich they don’t need it."

The symbolism might matter. Look: I’d like a hold on the deal for a thorough investigation. But I don’t buy the current hysteria on right and left. I guess the Bush administration asks for stuff like this, though. When you engage in populist demagoguery on the war front, it can come back to bite you in the butt.

I found this piece pretty persuasive. Money quote:

"It is understandable that American politicians would want to seek clarifications, safeguards, and accountability on the DP World deal in honor of all those who were mercilessly murdered on that tragic September morning. But the best way to honor their memories is to use the Dubai deal as a model to build effective bridges to the Arab and Muslim world ‚Äî as we did in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan ‚Äî instead of erecting barriers that reveal America’s paranoia and fear about some Islamist doomsday scenario no one can predict, all the while alienating the very people we need to help raise up the Muslim world’s disaffected so they are not so desperate to tear us down."

Good sense from the Washington Post as well. I’d like that 45-day review. But I see no reason to oppose the deal in principle.

The bombing of the al-Askariya shrine in Samarra may be a turning point, it seems to me. It could be the spark for a full-scale civil war; or it could be a moment for the Sunni Arabs to realize the evil of the Jihadists in their midst. I’m alarmed that the shrine is apparently where the "Hidden Imam" that dominates Ahmadinejad’s theology sought refuge centuries ago, and where he is supposed to return. It’s like a Protestant bombing of St Peter’s. Apparently, Samarra has already seen a rift between Sunni locals and al Qaeda maniacs:

"In September, Sunni rebels in Samarra joined an unprecedented condemnation of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq after the execution of a leading cleric in nearby Ramadi.
‘It is really quite surprising that something like that has happened in Samarra,’ says [Alastair Northedge, a Professor of Islamic Art and Architecture at the Sorbonne in Paris who has just completed an archaeological survey of Samarra]. ‘The people there have a a very, very powerful sense of community identity, they know how to act in their best interests.’
‘If you look at the resistance situation in Samarra, there are two general sorts: there are local fighters and there are al-Qaeda fighters and foreign jihadis,’ said Professor Northedge. ‘I’m absolutely certain that this is not the local people from Samarra, they would not have blown it up.’"

Here’s hoping the civil war will not be between the Shi’a and Sunnis, but between the Sunnis and al Qaeda. I’m not that optimistic, though.

The latest tally for detainees actually tortured to death by the U.S. is now between 8 and 12, according to Human Rights First. The number of deaths in U.S. detention since August 2002 is around 100.

"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society," – George Washington, in a letter to Edward Newenham, Oct. 20, 1792.

Happy Birthday, Mr President.

"Dirty pool happens and tough bureaucratic battling is par with the course in Washington. But this is different. This is purposefully, methodically dishonest. This uses people, via charades and make-belief theater, crudely and insultingly. This does smack, as Larry Wilkerson has stated, of "cabal" like behavior. That Bush, whether consciously or via ignorance, has allowed such dishonest chicanery to occur under his watch, on an issue of such immense import, is yet another reason that I view his Administration as increasingly discredited. And I say this as a Republican, one who endorsed him in ’04," – Greg Djerejian, absorbing the Mora memo.

You want real blasphemy? This is blasphemy:

"Insurgents dressed as police commandos detonated powerful explosives today inside one of Shiite Islam’s most sacred shrines, destroying most of the building and prompting thousands of Shiites to flood into streets across the country in protest."

I watched the superb PBS documentary on the Iraq insurgency last night. The Jihadist core of the insurgency is so evil, so pathological, so blasphemous to any serious person of any faith that no one can be surprised at this act. It is almost certainly al Qaeda, a group that highjacks religion to destroy religion. Let us hope that this doesn’t precipitate a full scale sectarian war. It was designed to. And it may well succeed.

I refrained from opining about the UAE ports deal yesterday, because I didn’t know all the details. My basic view is that the hysteria has gotten out of control. The ports business is now global anyway; UAE is certainly more helpful than not in the WOT; the deal had been vetted; etc. One thing, however, makes me think a delay is merited. It’s this:

"[A] 1993 amendment to the law stipulates that such an investigation is mandatory when the acquiring company is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government. Administration officials said they conducted additional inquires because of the ties to the United Arab Emirates, but they could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur."

It seems to me that that 45 day investigation would be one way the White House could climb down from this matter. When we have any doubt about national security at the ports, we should surely at least go through the full, legally required vetting process. It’s a no-brainer.

I’m subscriber to the screw-up view of history, so I doubt if there’s some Rovian double-bluff here. What’s undeniable is that this administration has, for some time, been remarkably obtuse, flat-footed and incompetent, even by its own extremely low standards. It doesn’t take a genius to see a headline like "Port To Be Run By 9/11 Country" will do great damage. But no one saw it coming; the Congress wasn’t adequately briefed; the middle class was not prepared. It’s also clear that whatever leverage this president had over his own party, it has all but evaporated these past couple of months. They’re not afraid of him; and pretty soon, a whole bunch will be running against him. This incident, Bush’s rash and stupid veto threat, and the blithe way in which much of the GOP is now ignoring or scorning him, is a sign of how much oomph is left in this administration. Not much.

Linda Callahan gets her user-name back.