The Port Debate

The current controversy concerning the UAE and ports had an interesting addition today when Hugh Hewitt interviewed Coast Guard Rear Admiral Craig Bone the Director of Port Security in the Maritime Safety, Security and Environmental Protection Directorate at U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, D.C. A guy who should know whether or not the UAE taking over the six ports in question is real concern or not stated....

"What we have is oversight of all of these operations. The Coast Guard, every single facility, and every single vessel that comes in is required to have a facility security plan in accordance with the Maritime Transportation Security Act. I can tell you that over 3,000 facilities, port facilities have met that requirement and are in compliance, and there's literally thousands of foreign and U.S. flag ships that also are required to have security plans that the Coast Guard ensures are not only in place and complaint, but they're in compliance and they're meeting those requirements."

...First, I had no idea that there was a thing like the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. So I was doubly impressed that we in fact had such a protocol, and also that it was up and running...hmmmm...I wonder why that has not been reported more?

Second, I have not fully made my decision on this issue...but at the moment, due to the lack of worry by those who really should know, I am leaning toward supporting this deal. My reasons are a little more nuanced though.

Kenneth Pollack published an excellent article in the July/August Foreign Policy magazine that discussed an interesting possibility for the eventual pull back that will occur in Iraq.

BACK OVER THE HORIZON
The most conservative approach to Persian Gulf security would be to return to the initial American strategy of offshore balancing. When tried in the 1970s and 1980s, this approach failed because Iran and Iraq were still quite strong and the United States' over-the-horizon posture was not a sufficient deterrent. Today, however, Iran and Iraq are much weaker and are likely to remain so (at least until Iran acquires nuclear weapons). Washington, meanwhile, has repeatedly demonstrated that it will intervene in the Persian Gulf to protect its interests and prevent aggression. So the strategy might work better this time around.

In this approach, the United States would dramatically reduce its military footprint in the region, leaving only the bare minimum of the current arrangements in place. The headquarters of the 5th Fleet would remain in Bahrain (where a U.S. Navy flag has been welcome for 50 years), but fewer American warships would ply the waters of the Gulf. The air force would retain its huge new base at al Udeid in Qatar, again because the Qataris seem pleased to have it there. The army might keep some prepositioned equipment in Kuwait and Qatar and might regularly rotate in battalions to train on it -- if those states were comfortable with such guests. In addition, if a future Iraqi government were amenable, the United States might retain an air base and some ground presence there. Alternately, army bases in the region might be dispensed with altogether, and instead the United States could simply rely on equipment stored on container ships stationed at Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean.

I cannot help but think that the UAE would offer a unique location for American pre-positioned equiptment and supplies if the balloon ever went up over Iran, or Iraq needed a new presence in the future. Additionally, I think that in many ways, the UAE having such a responsibility for our ports, will likely be more diligent with safeguarding security, since they, as a nation-state would be the obvious culprit if anything untoward ever occurred through one of these ports, no doubt bringing the full wrath of the U.S. military raining down upon them.

I do think that the current call by Congressmen for a 45-day stall to allow for a full vetting of the company makes plenty of sense though.