« It's Friday morning in Iraq | Main | Bushs Only Hope »

The law of unintended consequences

I spent a little bit of time today looking at the big picture with the whole “port” controversy. I decided that the central argument of the “against” side is essentially the “Hewitt proposition” – that its simply too risky to allow this to happen. There is only one other clear argument that I’ve heard and argument comes down to “It really doesn’t matter what good friends the UAE may have been up till now, they’re still Arabs and as we all know, Arabs need not apply”. There’s no way to reason with someone who is locked into that one, so I’m going to ignore it for now. (I’ll get back to you in just a minute, Mr. Quick)

However, “Risk” is a nasty thing. There is risk in everything. There is even risk in doing nothing. “Hewitts proposition” is essentially “…that a company that is owned by a holding company that is based in the UAE is far easier to be infiltrated than a US or European owned company would be”, and therefore this “port deal” is simply too risky for us to chance that as a result of the deal they might get their hands on some critical information about our ports that might help someone attack us.

“Might”, “maybe”, “could be ”, “its possible”, “what if”.

Ok, let's play that for a bit. Let’s tell Dubai World Ports, the third biggest port facilities management company in the world that while they might be good enough to run most of the worlds ports (outside of the US of course), they are just “too risky” for us to chance that they might allow some nefarious actions while operating our ports here in the good old USA. We will also, for the time being, ignore the fact that whether or not Dubai World Ports is allowed to run a “dock concession” here in a US port, they will most certainly be loading ships bound for the US from ports that they are already working in around the world – even if we do nothing, this is a certainty, but it will be a certianty within the context of a strained if not broken relationship.

So, let’s go ahead and set the dial on the theoretical “time machine” and take a little trip into the "alternate future". Just so everyone is on the same page as we start, the “Iraq war” that the lefties are talking about “stopping”- that war is over and it has been over for about two years as far as I can tell. We will not be refighting that war. We were very successful in that war. We were successful, not just because of a great military, but because of great logistics support; support that was provided from our now spurned "Arab friends", like Kuwait, the UAE, Oman, and yes, even the dreaded Saudis. All of these countries are countries which have earned the tag "supporters of terror" from many sides of the "port" arguments during this weeks kerfuffle. This despite their efforts in assisting us in the Iraq war and many,many efforts that have never reached the headlines of newspapers.

Armies travel on a big grey and green lines of material provided by the Navy. Navies need ships and ships need fuel. Ships need ports to load, unload and repair. Men that make up armies and air forces and even navies, need food, supplies, ammunition and places to get those things to be effective in the battlefield. The closer the ports are to the battlefield, the larger your chances are of success in maintaining lines of provisions. Things as they say, have a habit of going wrong at the very worst time. "Proximity" has a way of leveling out the odds when it comes to providing a good "plan b" when what was "plan A" just got turned into wet spaghetti on the nearest desktop fan.

“Get there first-est with the most-est” the man once said about how to win a battle, and he was right.

Its not Iraq, but there is another war sitting out there in the fog of "subatomic quantum ether" which is sometimes called “the future”.

It’s the future war with Iran, and its going to be a bad one, and like it or not, we are going to fight it. The question isn’t weather or not it will be fought, but under what circumstances.

So now that we’ve set up the quantum pool table for a little game of cosmic billiards by hitting the “what if“ Queue-ball into the “eight-ball” that is Dubai World Ports, let’s see where the game of cosmic possibility spins the ball.

As they say, “the law of unintended consequences, she is a bitch”.

And remember Mr. Hewitt, you are the one who mentioned "risk" being the key factor.

...try and imagine a future google news search page.

American Navy denied port access to Dubai after shootout with Iranian Anti-ship missiles.
Los Angeles Times, USA
Dubai, UAE –
After a shootout with Iranian Navy Silkworm Anti-ship missiles, the badly damaged US Navy Amphibious Assault Ship USS Kearsarge was forced to withdrawl to facilities in Diego Garcia leaving US Marine forces currently engaged at the port of Bandar Abbas without sufficient helicopter support…


Worldwide economic slowdown continues as goods bound for US ports are delayed.
San Jose Mercury News, USA
“It’s a bit like the blue flu”, said a spokesman for the Manila port authority. “Its not official policy, but its clear that the folks at DPW are involved in a work slowdown and its playing havoc with our scheduling”. Scheduling of port facilities is a intricate dance that involves every level of transportation in a country, and when one part of the transportation train is impacted, the entire economy suffers…

UAE declares neutrality in Iranian conflict
New York Times, USA
Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan announced today that after meeting with the ministers of the members of the UAE, an official government policy of neutrality had been declared. “All combatant forces must leave the country within 72 hours or face impoundment by the Government”, said the defense minister. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is currently flying to the region in last ditch attempt to salvage the relationship between the two countries. Speculation is ramapant in Washington that a large number of US troops and military resources necessary for the relief of the stalled assault on Bandar Abbas will be lost as a result of the impoundment…

Kuwait, Oman and Yemen join UAE in Neutrality in Iranian conflict
New Zealand Herald, New Zealand

Foreign Ministers from the around the Persian Gulf region today announced their intent to declare neutrality in the Iranian conflict. “We welcome the steps that our brave Muslim bothers have taken to help bring peace to the region” said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

US Navy and Marines running short of supplies in battle for Bandar Abbas.
Scotsman, United Kingdom
“Supply lines are certainly stretched, I can tell you that” said US Marine spokesman Lt. Col Dan Feldspar from the Bandar Abbas battlefield. US Troops landed two weeks ago, only to suffer attacks by Iranian Silkworm missiles that left the fleet in peril by effectively cutting its seaborne forces in half. With the declaration of neutrality from most Persian Gulf countries, US Navy planners were forced to improvise supply lines to the far off base of Diego Garcia, nearly 3,000 miles to the south.

Lockheed Martin announces layoffs due to cancelled F-16 Deal
International Herald Tribune, France

Lockheed Martin was forced to layoff 4,000 workers on the last remaining F-16 production line as the UAE announced its intent to cancel the F-16 Deal, while at the same time, France announced today that the UAE has reached a tentative deal to purchase the Eurofighter. “We welcome this opportunity to assist the UAE with its air defense” said defense minister Michèle Alliot-Marie. Sources say that the French government official stance of neutrality in the Iranian conflict was central to the deal, and not the long soured relationship between the US and the UAE.

...end snip.

You see, today we are all concentrating on "our ports", when the ports that just might matter the most in the near future are "their ports". For the moment while we are in "their ports" we are their guests. Let us hope we do what we can to ensure that cooperation in the future, or the consequences might be very serious indeed.

Iran Delenda Est...

Well Mr. Hewitt, I enjoyed the ride into the future to see what role "risk" might play in our future. At least we at home can feel certain that "our ports" will be safe.

Posted @ February 23, 2006 08:09 PM | Current Affairs

Comments

Hi -

Again, an outstanding post: modern warfare is ALL about logistics. To put it like someone else did: amateurs and pundits blather about strategy and tactics, professional soldiers study logistics.

Wish I had more to say, but you put it perfectly.

Regards

John

Posted by: John F. Opie at February 24, 2006 02:53 AM

Nice shootin'pardner! The intangible 'risk' Hugh's been going on about ingnores the increased self interest of the UAE to protect their investment. The imaginary risks exist right now, UAE ownership or not. When noises about legislative blocking began, the President followed with a three-times-the-pot raise of his own, the veto, essentially calling their bluff. This quick raise!& call! suggests he's factoring Iran into the game, as you have. The Dems are trying an "it's about defense" gambit. But they have not been right on defense yet, so we should believe them now...I don't think so. Jimmy Carter is the blind pig gotten lucky.

Posted by: Kerry at February 24, 2006 05:29 AM

One thing Frank. France sells the Rafale, Europe the Typhoon. Otherwise, good points.

Posted by: Crusader at February 24, 2006 06:22 AM

Sorry, I do not want any Arabic Muslim country to have ownership, control or significant influence over key security elements of my country.

Ron

Posted by: Ron at February 24, 2006 08:59 AM

As a critic of the deal, I will admit that you make some compelling points in its favor. However, as good as those points are, they still somewhat sidestep another point made by Hugh, and one made even more eloquently by Charles Krauthammer this morning:

"The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations -- and perhaps even worse, about the holes in our security operations -- to a company in an Arab state in which there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to al-Qaeda types.
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one."

THESE are the concerns that many of us critics would like to see be addressed head-on, but outside of Krauthammer's subsequent response that partially addresses these concerns, I've heard little else by the deal's defenders. The typical response is to either brush these concerns off as nothing important or to change the subject.

So there's your roadmap - some of us against this deal *might* be persuaded to at least go along with it (if uneasily so) if such concerns are addressed. Changing the subject or ignoring it will not help. Because in the end, most of us will breathe easier despite any frayed relationships with the UAE and other Arab countries than we will with a reasonable perception that our security was compromised.

(And for those of you that might join the Limbaugh/Kudlow/Ijaz/Glassman school of whipping out the race/islamophobe card - a tactic *usually* reserved for the moonbat left - you will only hurt your cause that much more).


Posted by: Thirteen28 at February 24, 2006 09:24 AM

Everyone talks about al Qaeda penetration into our ports via DWP, but what about the possibility of the United States' intelligence agencies using DWP to penetrate al Qaeda? Remember a pipeline can flow either direction. The reason issue here is not whether or not Arabs can be trusted to run our ports it is where are the American-based companies to run the ports. Our ships, our ports are nearly all run by foreign companies. What's the deal?? Seems we can't compete in an area in which we schooled the world on anymore. Why? Perhaps it is time to examine what steps are going to be needed in order for American-based companies to compete with the foreign-based companies and return American ownership to the high seas. Highly likely that taxes and regulations have a significant part of why American firms aren't running our ports and ships.

Posted by: Richard Frei at February 24, 2006 10:49 AM

So far we have not had a single attack on our navy that uses the ports in the UAE. Maybe they just might know what they are doing when it comes to port security.

My first gut reaction to this was "NO", but the more I think about it and get information the more I think this might be a good move. We already deal with them on security issues for the Navy in their own port. As for denying them because they are terrorists in the UAE, we also have to apply that to the United States. We just found terrorists in Ohio, does that mean that the United States is unqualified to run its own ports?

Posted by: baronger at February 24, 2006 12:21 PM