Comments on: Portgate Roundup

By: Ryan Bonneville

Ryan Bonneville — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:22:20 +0000

I agree that they were especially wise choices, and I think it’s telling that Time didn’t go with a GWOT pick. We can have all the talk we want about bias in the media and such, but I think disease, poverty, and tyranny are the real problems. By linking terrorism to tyranny, we’ve actually made some progress on that one, although the situations in Iraq and Israel make me wonder exactly how valuable that association has been. The Bush administration, if nothing else, is deeply schizophrenic about its objectives. This port thing looks awfully symptomatic of that.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:09:43 +0000

Hey, you act like I’m a Bono fan or something!

By: dmac

dmac — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:57:04 +0000

Hey Clint, no sucking up to our host here (just kidding!).

By: Clint

Clint — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:35:34 +0000

Ryan-

re: AIDS and malaria — that’s why Bill and Melinda Gates (and Bono) were such a great pick for Time.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:10:47 +0000

mtl, excellent points regarding the cooperation of the UAE…

By: dmac

dmac — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:50:59 +0000

You gotta love the NYT – always looking out for the rest of us plebians. Saw another article in the Sunday edition explaining yet another way for someone to launch an attack on US citizens. Of course, it’s always prefaced under their rubric of “we’re just pointing this out as our civic duty so the government can take care of this so people don’t get hurt,” blah, blah, blah. They’ve crossed so far over the line of objectivity with these stories that it’s worthless to get worked up over them anymore – it’s their raison d’terre these days.

Would they be putting out stories like these if Kerry was President? Not a bloody chance, and everyone outside of the Upper East Side knows it.

By: mtl

mtl — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:23:09 +0000

we are still data mining…it’s no longer called Able Danger, and fewer people know the specifics, and the subgroups are much larger to diffuse the coordination of the info. The Defense Department is compelled to follow the most effective means of protecting this country.

That our efforts to stop terrorists are not made public knowledge would seem an element of logic.

Judging by the rxn to the NSA wiretapping program, it is probably a good thing that the public doesn’t know more. I’m certainly glad we aren’t explaining our clandestine efforts to the terrorists.

How bizarre that perception of security is more important than the reality of the security.

By: peter

peter — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:06:08 +0000

They may have changed terrorist plans, but I find it hard to believe that they have impeded the ability of people to commit terror. As an example, the New York Times ran an article some time ago about a rail line which goes through downtown Washington. CSX regularly transports chemicals on this rail line, and there are a number of pedestrian overpasses which a terrorist could easily drop an explosive from. Lobbying from CSX (John Snow’s former company) stopped the administration from re-routing the CSX lines around Washington.
Another Times article had pictures of chemical plants in heavily populated areas which had minimal protection. The article I posted elsewhere shows how funding for port security was roughly one quarter of what was deemed necessary, despite increasing shipping volumes every year. The Central Park Reservoir is protected by a chain link fence about ten feet high. I recognize that you can’t protect everything at once, and there are many points of vulnerability. However, I don’t see anything you can point to showing how any part of our infrastructure has been improved, with the possible exception of airport check-in.
I also recognize that terrorism can never be entirely prevented.

Hannah Arendt wrote “give me one hundred people who aren’t afraid to die, and I can change the course of history.” Two guys with shotguns terrorized the Washington, DC, area two summers ago. Ten suicide bombers who detonate themselves simultaneously at NFL games or shopping malls would have a devastating effect, and there isn’t much we can do to stop it. However, there are things we can do to prevent an attack which would kill thousands or more, and I don’t see any evidence that they are being done.

By: dmac

dmac — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:04:48 +0000

There’s no question that we need to do much more in terms of protecting our ports and our borders – wish Bush will get off the politically correct line here and realize that the borders are porous and mostly unguarded (see the recent Canadian border incident in which the security personnel on their side basically ran away when we warned them in advance of hot pursuit of criminals). In other words, it’s not just Mexico, obviously.

But the recent arrests in Ohio and California lend credence to the reality that many attacks have been thrwarted because of the steeped – up security measures since 9/11. Too easy to claim the boogeyman of possible attacks that may or may not exist that we may or may not be preventing at the moment.

Here’s a question – did anyone really think that there wasn’t going to be an immediate sequential attack in this country after 9/11? Since the Richard Reid incident (which was offshore), it hasn’t happened – and that is the ultimate measure of performance at this time.

By: mtl

mtl — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:47:38 +0000

“I think once again the main problem was a lack of sales acumen…”

I don’t think so on that one. The deal was struck in November. That it is now is topic A, was a matter of timing. The admin couldn’t have come out and say-”some people may not like it, but we are willing to do business with Arabs.”

The threat to the ports is extremely narrow, barring a nuclear device, I don’t see any other potential threat. If a nuke has a)been built, b) given to a terrorist, c)makes its way to one of our harbors then d-z don’t really matter. The cost effectiveness of addressing a-c, is a hundred fold greater than port protection.

In a world of hypotheticals, the danger we face of having a nuke go off in a port city will say a lot what about what we failed to prevent. It means there is a will and a means to do it…and they will keep coming.

I’d rather have the help of the UAE when that time comes, but if this port deal doesn’t happen, we might find one of our most significant partners in the GWOT, refusing to station our troops, and hiding their financial records.

This is a a black and white decision…either UAE is our ally, or they are our enemies.