 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! February 27, 2006 Listing to PortBy GreyhawkPushback from an ignored but potentially injured third-party in the port deal-the UK: The great Indian writer Khushwant Singh once penned a poignant story called Karma, about the plight of Indian elites under British colonialism. The protagonist, Sir Mohan Lal, wants only to be accepted as a gentleman. Impeccably dressed in his Savile Row suit and Balliol tie, brandishing a copy of The Times, he proudly takes his seat in the first-class compartment of a train - only to be accosted by a couple of drunken, loutish British soldiers who fling him out, seeing only a "wog".The rest is subscription only, but here's a central point: The causes of the furore are actually quite simple, and ugly. "Port management" sounds like something important, especially in the post-September 11 world, and many think it cannot be left to "wogs" - a reaction that has been encouraged by shameless politicians quick to recognise a chance for cheap demagoguery.And here's the conclusion: Given the situation's political realities, it makes sense to delay finalising the deal briefly. In fact, the crisis creates a perfect opportunity for the president to educate the Congress and the public on what globalisation means in practice, how it generally benefits Americans and the world at large, and how wrong it is to lump all Arabs, Muslims and Middle Easterners into a scary, undifferentiated mass. The administration could also take lessons about the importance of approaching homeland security seriously and the danger of playing with demagogic fire across the board. The Financial Times has a hard time acknowledging that Bush is the voice of reason in this one. (The key for the anti-Bush crowd in this is to note the fact that he wasn't aware of the deal until afterwards - that might help diminish the distaste of arguing on "his side".) But that makes two allies potentially alienated by the knee-jerk reaction to the ports deal - not to mention the clear message sent to other Arab countries. Update: The deck has truly been shuffled on this one, the metaphors thoroughly mixed, and strange bedfellows are discovering each other on every side of the fence. In the New York Times Nicholas Kristof says Even if you believe in racial profiling, you have to look beyond the profile. Senators talk about Dubai in dark tones that suggest they've never been there. Dubai is the Disneyland of the Arab world — it's the place people go to relax, to shop, to drink. It is staunchly pro-American and pro-business, and its vision of the Arab future is absolutely the opposite of Osama bin Laden's. If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal — not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering.But ultimately he maintains his "D" cred: Democrats have so many legitimate reasons to criticize President Bush — from ruining our nation's finances to despoiling American wilderness — that it's painful to see them scaremongering in just the way that Mr. Bush himself has.The Financial Times piece above also takes that jab, as have numerous other commenters struggling to come to grips with the fact that they agree with the U.S. President on this one. Sez the FT: "The irony here is that in many respects the Bush administration is reaping what it sowed, having previously played politics with homeland security and the war on terrorism, having blurred distinctions in the Muslim world by conflating the unrelated struggles against al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.." Again, were I wanting to support the deal but not the administration, I'd repeat that the President didn't know until after the deal was done - in other words, the right decision was made because he wasn't in on it. Because he's already on record on that other issue: I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)I heard that right the first time. He was serious. And therein lies a clue for those who would be taken seriously on security issues: be serious. And as for "campaigning on scare tactics", the last Presidential election was actually a referendum on gay marriage, remember? Posted by Greyhawk / February 27, 2006 5:30 PM | Permalink 4 TrackBacksIn the military, it is customary for unit members to look out for one another, to share the burden and sacrifice for the common good. From time to time, however, the opportunity arises for one member to benefit at the Read More Another not to be missed post on the subject by California Conservative.....Glenn Reynolds points to Mudville who point to a potentially injured third party in the Dubai port deal. Read More
Mudville Gazette has an excellent roundup. My opinion remains unchanged: the United Arab Emirates are our allies. Staunch ones. It's despicable to treat th... Read MoreDo not miss Greyhawk's post here or Alexandra's here. While you're at it, I guess you might as well also read Michelle's posts here and here, and the CTB post she links to. I never thought the day would come Read More 14 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
I wondered myself, if this is such a great thing?
I think of all the responses though, UAE has had the best one. They are willing to sit back and let this be reviewed. Even though it is a done deal. If only our congress can stop bickering, and using this as a weapon against Bush. It's not about bush, {he should have known but get over it} it's about working with foreign governments, business. Do we really want the world to see this type of bickering and childish behavior? America can't make up its mind.
Did you see where the ports really haven't got the best security to begin with? What was it like, 75% percent of what goes through is not inspected at all? Another lapse brought to the forefront.
You have laid out the blueprint for al quiada's next attack - traitorous. But isn't it great us white guys are so smart, and able to climb into the terrorist brain.
"You have laid out the blueprint for al quiada's next attack"
Actually, Tom Clancy laid out the blueprint in "The Sum of All Fears". Instead of using Muslim Fascists, he used German Fascists instead.
Indeed, the entire Danish cartoon outrage was a ploy to get us to "buy Danish" in order that the influx of Lego products would overwhelm our ability to secure the ports.
Diabolique!
Why are we strip-searching old ladies at the airports when foreigners, who presumably could care less about our security, are running containers into our ports? It's impossible to believe that there are no American companies interested in this business, unless of course it's unprofitable. And if that's case, why would Dubai want it? How about they give us control of their oil fields first? Hey, we'll let them watch the meters. Wake up, America. You are being sold out.
Seems no one is worried about the British company who can lose a sale.
Oil fields, Airhead? Dubai exports only about 250k bd and their reserves are expected to be exhausted within 20 years.
Which is why they have been forced - fortunately for them - to diversify their economy.
Actually, Tom Clancy laid out the blueprint in "The Sum of All Fears". Instead of using Muslim Fascists, he used German Fascists instead.
Posted by Soldier's Dad at February 27, 2006 07:51 PM
In the book, it was Palestinians.
It was the movie producers who changed the terrorists to right-wing white guys -- a change that was made in the late 1990s.
In any case, the book was so bad (90% of it could have been cut) that I don't understand why anybody would have wanted to see the movie version anyway.
"Then you would ship them to the U.S. — but the key step would occur in the foreign port: hiding the materials in the shipping container of a well-known and trusted exporter."
This might be difficult; the trusted exporter is probably trusted for a reason. Another approach would be to exchange (at the U.S. end) the container from the trusted exporter and the container holding the contraband (changing the identification accordingly)..or, alternatively, switch the contents.
I'm not yet convinced by the argument that the terminal operator is not a factor in security, given that it has physical control of the cargo.
After watching Season 2 of The Wire, I think it doesn't matter who manages the docks. If you want to sneak something into the country, you just have to pay off a few dock workers.
Two things:
1) You mention that Bush didn't know about the port deal being accepted. I'm okay with that. It goes back to Bush's management technique: hire trusted (and hopefully intelligent) underlings who can impliment his Presidential agenda. He states the direction, they take care of the details.
2) I find it ironic that Halliburton is the only US company that could possibly handle running all of those US ports. They are a company big enough with the proper background to handle this sort of thing, not that they would necessarily do a good job. Imagine if they had been a third party in the bidding war between DPW and the Singapore(?) company. I imagine millions of heads exploding while trying to resolve that lesser-of-two-evils conundrum.
"Halliburton is the only US company that could possibly handle running all of those US ports"...I've seen this comment lots of places, but I don't think it's correct. If the existing P&O terminal operations were purchased, either all together or piecemeal, then the current people would stay there, along with their systems and procedures. Running the ports, in this sense, means knowing enough about the shipping industry, and having enough general management skill, to not screw things up. I think either FexEx or UPS could probably do it; most likely, so could a railroad which is heavily tied to import/export traffic.
I do not want US ports managed by a company controlled by the UAE royal family. Have you seen pictures of those guys? There are no girls, of course. The guys look a lot like hijackers, and one looks like Franco Harris.
Why did this get to be prejudice against Muslims (a religion, not a race..just sayin'). This is a war against infiltration, not armies. To win the enemy needs to infiltrate our country and blow stuff up. If they are working right smack dab inside of good places to blow up, which political side is going to make the best excuses after the explosion? Who cares? Let's just not have Muslim countries running major industries for now, we can always change our minds later.
This is not a private company. I don't know why people aren't more alarmed by that. You are putting a lot of trust in the future stability of a Muslim kingdom. There is a history of the US doing that in the region (Shah of Iran anyone?).
And what's all this business about hurting their feelings? Are we dealing with teenagers here? Cartoons hurt their feelings, western culture insults them, they boycott Israel so I guess Jews hurt their feelings. I know, let’s sell the Ports franchise to grownups (Can you imagine Tony Blair pouting about his feelings over a business deal?)
Let’s see the statements and activities of the royal family over the past few years, newsclips and video. How moderate or modern they are within the palace is the question, not the efficiency of the port operations. Every media reporter should be swarming to UAE, there is where the real story is. Americans are nice people, show us who these new “friends” are and we’ll embrace them soon enough. Until then, let’s just pass. No offense.
Strange bedfellows? In politics? Who’d have thought? (www.niceideas.com)
More to the point:
Why be so concerned about who unloads the ship? Isn't getting the nuclear device into port "close enough"?
The US ports wouldn't be the only ports that Dubai Ports World runs. If the risk is that the paperwork can be changed internally to DPW to get a container off the ship in the US, couldn't the paperwork just as easily be changed to get it onto the ship? How does keeping DPW out of the US help that? (That risk isn't limited to DPW, either.)
Finally, according to the talking heads on the News Hour last night(http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june06/portsafety_2-27.html), the greatest danger lies before the containers even get to the load-on port. What here addresses that risk? Nothing I can see.