I've been pretty silent about the U.A.E. port deal so far. Really I just wanted to evaluate my reaction and take a good look at the information out there. It's a good thing too, because I'll be the first to admit that my initial reaction was pretty damn knee jerk. In fact I think alot of people's were (and still are in some cases). Don't get me wrong, I understand their side of things, and the MSM hasn't been helping.
Their outright hatred of George W. Bush has led to blatant and unashamed fear mongering on their part.
Opposing the U.A.E.'s deal is misdirecting effort. Yes, port security is a big deal, but the opperations that the U.A.E. will have control over don't include port security. We shouldn't be focusing on what country the people who hire (many times removed) the people who load and unload containers belong to. We should focus on fixing the fact that the eigth largest port in this country seems to feel that wood blocks on poles is a valid replacement for security cameras.
It's note worthy to see the liberals line up to support what amounts to nothing more than corporate racial profiling. I'm for profiling when it makes sense, but it doesn't in this case. The U.A.E. has been named as being an important and loyal ally in the WoT, and while they may not embody all the ideals of the west, they're further along than other Arab countries. We need to support countries that have moderate practices (at least, more so than their neighbors in an effort to see them become truly moderate), not penalize them over our inability to see beyond their geographical location.
Blocking this deal blocks U.A.E. economic growth and will only serve to distance us from a good ally. Not to mention, that as beacon of freedom and success we should be encouraging the independent economic growth of other countries. Even if it's only because we'll save ourselves trouble down the line. And I don't neccessarily mean terrorism. The more successful and free other countries are, the more likely their criminals are to stay there.
Update: Pamela over at Atlas notes an interesting connection between politicians opposing the deal and campaign contributions from the International Longshoremen's Association.
Update: Michelle Malkin is on the other side on this issue, but her reaction isn't what I would call knee jerk. And I agree with her on the changes that need to be made to CFIUS.