HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Brooks A. Mick, M.D.
Feb. 22, 2006 My previous piece was a snap judgment, I went off half-cocked, shooting from the hip. I was wrong. When my first thoughts about an issue are different from President Bush's, I find that it is good to take a couple steps back and think through the situation in more depth, for he is often a deeper thinker and with much more information available to him than to the rest of us. This is one of those cases. The United Arab Emirates, as I found out by asking a few Navy officers of my acquaintance (and this area, around Norfolk, Virginia, is full of Navy officers, current and retired), and they tell me that the UAE is one of the ports of the world where they are welcomed, where the security is good, and where they can trust the port operators. They also tell me that Navy vessels enjoy stopping there, as the city is, though stuck in a god-forsaken desert, modern and westernized. The port deal wouldn't compromise our security, either, as the security itself would still be handled by our own U. S. Coast Guard just as it was when the British owned the port facilities. Perhaps you don't know that the ports have been handled by an offshore company for years. One of the goals of our anti-terrorist strategy--indeed, a linchpin--is to bring the Middle East into the modern day society of civilized nations. One way to do that is through trade. Trade is, in fact, a primary civilizing influence among nations just as it is among men. Allowing the port machinery to be owned and managed by a decent, civilized Arab partner is a step in bringing the Middle East into the modern world. Now the UAE are a center of modern banking already. They are also one of the few countries which has a port-managing company. The British are retiring from that occupation and that is the reason they sold their deal to the United Arab Emirates. The same American workers currently handling port jobs will continue to work. We won't be losing any jobs to foreign workers. One of the gripes of Arabs is the Rodney Dangerfield ploy: "I don't get no respect!" It would certainly be a sign of respect to close this deal with the UAE and it would be an insult to turn down the deal simply because the UAE is an Arab country. It would be, in fact un-American to practice such discrimination. I note that we have regretted the interning of the Japanese in WW2. This would be a similar act of ethnic disrespect. Yeah, it's politically difficult. People have knee-jerk anti-Arab reactions. I did, myself! But it was wrong. There are reasons to consider it a mistake. Jimmy Carter is for it, which is itself a strong reason to give it a lot of thought. But I have given it a lot of thought and have decided that President Bush is right, and for once Jimmy Carter is right. And, sad to say, that makes Michelle and me wrong in our first reaction to the port operations deal. President Bush is, as usual, not rolling over, not giving in to poll numbers or to pressure from inside or outside the Republican Party. He is a tough man who does what he thinks right no matter what. I respect him for it. And I note that, when I have had time to think through a topic, I usually end up agreeing with him. That makes him a pretty smart dude. ------------ About the author Brooks A. Mick: Physician, still practicing medicine but retired from the US Army. Write just for the fun of it, but working on novel in the vein of Tom Clancy's politico-military genre. Email: brooks15@cox.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
