The Ports

I have not posted on this, in part because I have been busy at work and in part because I have been mulling it over. After much vacillating, I think that allowing the UAE-owned company to acquire the rights to run the ports is a mistake.

I have tried to distill the issue into as simple a question as possible. Does this deal enhance the security of the United States? Clearly, transferring the operation from a British company to an Arab-Muslim company in the middle of a war against militant Islam would not increase the security of the United States, all other things being equal. The administration’s whole argument is that it does not harm the security of the United States. I think that argument misses the point. Since 9/11 Americans have demanded greater security. The insecurity of our ports has been a recurring theme. This transfer goes directly against the wishes of the great majority of Americans.

The President urges us to trust him on this. I do trust this President most than I trust most politicians. But, that trust is not blind.

The President has been flippant about a number of important domestic security issues since 9/11. First, he has done nothing to try to eliminate illegal immigration. If AQ terrorists want to get into this country, they can simply walk across the border with Mexico. All of the government’s watch lists are rendered meaningless by this gaping hole on our southern border. Second, the President too often hidden behind the mantra that Islam is a “religion of peace” despite the overwhelming evidence that many adherents do not think it is a religion of peace or act like it (thus the concept of Jihad). Too much of that “ROP” talk makes one wonder if he really believes it. If he does, then his judgment cannot be trusted. Third, the President has left Norman Minetta in charge of the FAA, and has resisted discriminating on the basis of religion or country of origin for security purposes on airlines (IMHO it would be constitutional given that the government has a compelling interest in protecting the U.S. from terrorism, that most terrorism is perpetrated by Islamic militants, and that some countries of origin have a strong correlation with whether you are Muslim or not). The President might take some heat for such a policy and might have to get Congress to change some laws – but that is why we elected him: to do the tough things that are needed to increase our security – even if they violate political correctness. As its stands, the TSA has to treat an elderly white woman that same way it does a young man named Mohammed. That does not make sense.

The President has weakened my trust in him somewhat by avoiding tough action on some of the domestic security issues. I think he thinks that to deny the UAE would be another kind of politically incorrect discrimination. I do not trust him to make the right choice and discriminate against the UAE where our vital security is at issue.

The President also argues that the UAE is a good “ally” in the war on militant Islam, and we cannot deny this opportunity to an ally. But we are also told that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are allies in the war. Do we want one of their government-owned companies running our ports? How could we deny a Saudi company if we allow the UAE company? The fact that the administration failed to put a knife in this deal quietly and that a public denial would embarrass the UAE is not sufficient reason to take any risk with our security.

Finally, the President argues that we will not be able to win over other moderate Arab/Muslim allies if we deny UAE this port deal. I light of the Mohammed cartoon riots, and the endless Muslim violence against other religions around the world, I look at this from the other side. How are we ever going to convince the moderate Muslims to openly confront and suppress their militant co-religionists if they never pay any price for their tolerance (support?) of the militants? To put it another way, if they can get everything they want from us, regardless of how the militants behave – why on earth would they confront the militants?

Indeed, some of the militancy seems to be paying nice dividends for the “moderates”. The moderates are benefiting from the fact that their religion cannot be criticized in public media anymore. Further, the President of the United States is bending over backward to make sure a deal goes though for the UAE because he is concerned that moderate governments will help us in the fight against the militants if it does not go through. What ever happened to requiring them to fight the militants simply because they are militants, rather than doing it because it’s good for business? To put it another way, if there were no Islamic militants would Bush have been so concerned about scuttling this deal?

I believe many of the Muslim “moderates” are mostly more patient extremists. They have the same goals but believe in achieving them less openly (or at least waiting until they are stronger). In this sense, they are free loading on the militant’s behavior. They are taking all of the benefits of the fear created by the militants to incrementally achieve their goals. I think we need to get wise this tact and force them to fear the consequences of crossing us more than they fear confronting the militants. Denying the port deal would be one small step in the right direction and would not reduce our security.

Update: Troubling - Saudi company runs 9 U.S. ports. Those port deals should be terminated.

Wannabe Jihadi

This weekend (2/4/06), I came across an interesting post (among many) at the Jawa Report. In it, one of the Jawa contributors provided the contents of an email he received from a person in Turkey. I'll call him Wannabe Jihadi. Wannabi Jihadi was mad about the whole Muhammed cartoon thing and wrote the following threatening email to the Jawa contributor:

I'd like to let you know a Turkish saying reads as "a dog which was destined to be dead soon, urinates on a wall of a mosque! You blasphemous Westerners all are very like that dog in the saying!

The Jawa Report contributor provided the email address so that Jawa readers could send loving responses to Wannabe. The threat made me angry. I wrote the following response to Wannabe.

I read your threatening message about a dog “urinating on the side of a mosque” at Hyscience.

I’m sure you find that these images of Mohammed are offensive. No one likes to see their religion denigrated. I certainly do not like seeing Christ being pissed on in “art” (as has happened here in the U.S.). I can certainly understand protesting it (though it may be unwise as it draws attention to the blasphemy that might otherwise go unnoticed) or boycotting the persons who produced it. But, to threaten to kill the persons who produce it and to threaten to kill all of their countrymen and all Europeans and all of the West – is plainly evil.

It is also pathetic. People who overreact to every perceived offence are not people who are confident of their position. They are people who are afraid the images will resonate because there is some truth to them.

In the West we do not bluster. We do not because a person who blusters and does not follow though is a person who will be ignored thereafter. In the Mideast (and apparently Turkey – despite its desires to join the West) this logical rule of society does not seem to apply. Al Qaida threatens imminent attack on the U.S. for years and does not produce – and yet you still put faith (an hope) in their pronouncements. Baghdad Bob says the Americans have not entered Baghdad and despite the American tanks in the background Arabs keep believing him until they see Saddam’s statue fall.

Your threats are bluster. You and your people are no more capable of killing all of the persons posting the images of Mohammed than I am of causing and eclipse of the sun at my command. On the other hand - the West (heck, the U.S. alone if you provoke us enough) is capable of almost effortlessly doing anything we want to you middle easterners any time we want and there is nothing you can do to stop it (except perhaps beg). So understand your enemy well enough to at least create some credibility by stopping the hollow threats.

I received a response that made little sense, but claimed that Islam is the only "total" religion (by which I think he intended to to boast that it was totalitarian - there you go Jihadi - way to lead with your strong point) and that the West was not civilized (and killing people for the slightest offense is Wannabi?).

And Like That (Poof!) - It is Gone

Europe could learn a valuable lesson from the Mohammed cartoon controversy. They have labored to maintain goodwill with the Muslim masses. They have distanced themselves from the Great Satan and poured scorn on the Little Satan (Israel). They have tiptoed lightly so as not to offend the sensitive sensibilities of the Muslims amongst them. All this was done so that the Muslims would like them. Then a few small private EU newspapers printed cartoons of Muhammad (see above) that offended the extraordinarily thin-skinned Muslims (who are conversely unfazed by the demonically murderous acts of their coreligionists) and in an instant the "like" evaporated. Muslims in the Middle East are now chanting "death to Denmark!" and "death to France!" In Briton, extreme Islamists have issued a fatwa calling for the murder of all persons publishing the likeness of Mohammed. Middle Eastern leaders are issuing statements that the publication of the pictures will result in more terrorism - a kind of pre-justification for the inevitable violence that will result if Europe does not snuff-out free speech with respect to Islam.

On the other hand, papers in the United States have published some of the images and many popular blogs have reprinted the images (and added new creations a great deal more offensive then the originals) yet the Muslim anger over the images is directed at the EU nations. Why? Because “like” doesn’t last. Its based on whimsy. Respect and fear last.

As I said in my post “Liked or Respected?” below:

“We should seek instead to be respected and, to some extent, feared. Respect (and fear) lasts; feelings of affinity don’t. For an example of how quickly “like” changes to “dislike” recall how quickly the world began to turn on the US when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, one action that no one can doubt was absolutely essential and justified.”

The United States is more respected and feared than the EU nations because we have shown a willingness to dole out pain to those who threaten us and to take casualties to see our will done.

The EU has invested all of its efforts in seeking the approval of very volatile people. Despite all their efforts, the Muslims have had another capricious mood swing. Now all their efforts to date are for naught. The Muslims have determined (correctly) that the European desire to appease is not based on a deep embrace of Islam – but instead based on a fear of Islam. They have turned on the weak ones they do not respect or fear.

And in all their efforts to appease the Europeans lost the respect of and weakened their relationship with a powerful friend (the U.S.).

The Europeans face a clear an unavoidable choice. Do they learn the lesson and seek to be respected (and perhaps somewhat feared) by the Muslim masses by, in the least, rejecting all pressure to muzzle criticism of Islam. Or, do they fail the test (again) and accommodate their new master’s wishes – and set the precedent for future failure to come. I wish them the best. They are on their own now.

The addition of the cartoons to this site is not intended to show support for the creation of offensive images. I can imagine that it does hurt a Muslim to see the images as it hurts Christians to see degrading images of Christ. The world could do with a lot less offense. But, it is important that people be able to criticise all religions (an all things) without fear of loss of liberty or life. It is even more important that no religion be protected from criticism more than any other. To allow such a thing would be to begin to establish a world religion. I think that is the goal of Islamists and it must be resisted.

Muslims must learn to tolerate the criticism if they wish to coexist with the western world. If they do not wish to coexist....