Small Town Veteran: Of Arabs, Ports, and Kit Carson Scouts (Updated and bumped)

Please support Soldiers' Angels and Project Valour-IT

« Made in Iran
Main
Of course it was the Japs who attacked us... »

2006.03.08

Of Arabs, Ports, and Kit Carson Scouts (Updated and bumped)

Port split
By Lawrence Kudlow

As the review intensifies over plans for Dubai Ports World to take over some operations at six U.S. ports, President Bush faces an uphill battle to get the deal through.

Congressional opposition is widespread and a number of polls say the American public is largely against it. Unfortunately, conservatives are badly split on the issue. Commentators like Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Jack Kemp, and myself favor the deal, while others like Bill Bennett, Michelle Malkin and Pat Buchanan are very much opposed.

From my standpoint, taking into account all the editorializing, talk-show tempests, and political sound bites of recent weeks, I have yet to see any real evidence the deal will compromise U.S. national security.

[...]

Let's not forget that the UAE in the post-September 11 world has become a strong American ally. They were one of the first nations to join the U.S. initiative to inspect cargo in foreign ports and have greatly strengthened their anti-money-laundering and terror-financing clause.

They also accept U.S. aircraft carriers and subs at their deep-water ports and dry-dock facilities. Among these facilities is the DP World administered Jebel Ali port in Dubai. More, they allow U.S. military planes to land and refuel at their air bases.

If the UAE ever retaliated and cut off U.S. military access, we couldn't conduct operations anywhere in the region.

[Read the whole thing here.]

As I've noted before -- most recently here -- there's a full blown shooting war with Iran in our foreseeable future. We need the UAE on our side, and I can't think of any good reason we shouldn't keep them there.

I'm going to date myself to try to put some perspective on things. A lot of people my age remember the term "Kit Carson Scout." (If your memory needs some refreshing click here.) Kit Carsons were former enemies and trusting them didn't come naturally, but we needed their help so we did anyway, or at least pretended to. As a REMF I didn't deal personally with Kit Carsons, but I was never quite sure there were any Vietnamese I really wanted to turn my back on. Today, trusting Arabs and Muslims doesn't come naturally to a lot of us either, but we have a situation on our hands that I believe demands that we trust some of them, or at least pretend to, because we need them in our fight against others that we know we can't trust. Am I making any sense? Comments are open.

*** Update and bump. Originally posted 2006.03.07.03:12CST

Promoted from the comments, with minor reformatting for readability. Written by George "Rurik" Mellinger, who returned from Vietnam 35 years ago to become a serious student of Russian and Islamic history and a published author:

Bill,

... I had not thought to consider this port issue in the context of the old Kit Carson Scout paradigm, but I see your point, and think you’re right. But then you’ve been helping my thinking on this issue from the beginning.

I have not had much to say about the port issue for a couple of reasons. For one thing, for the last week and a half, I’ve been off on a secret mission (observing Mardi Gras with 1stCav [Battle of Kontum vet William Page] to be honest), and did not view a single email and hardly a blog. Second, I’ve been wavering a lot on this issue. Cav and I discussed this issue at length, and he, too, has been wavering, though I think right now he leans to a different side than I.

You reminded me of the Kit Carson Scouts, so let me invoke the combat engineers. This issue is a minefield, and I cannot help but enter warily, suspecting that nothing I see is what I really should see, and this time all my usual instincts for resolving such situations have been compromised. Larry Kudlow points out that our friends and allies are split on this one, but so are our blood enemies. “Peanut” Carter, Slick Willie, the Hildebeeste. Who do you choose to agree with? How COULD you?! For me, picking between Clintons is just as hard as choosing between Kudlow and Malkin.

My initial reaction, on first hearing the news of this deal, just before hitting the road, was outrage. Limbaugh’s take was hardly reassuring. You may remember how His Grand Limbosity authoritatively proclaimed that this deal made perfect economic sense and was a wonderful business deal, but a political disaster. But his arguments all focused on attacking the opponents and explaining why the deal was not harmful, with never a word of how or why it was positively GOOD. All the arguments on both sides seemed to be ad hominem, so I came down against the deal. Then, your early posts [Actually, I was also opposed at first -- credit Dafydd ab Hugh with changing my mind] caught my attention and swung me around – reluctantly. For good or ill, your blog changed my mind. But then yet more information started coming out, and I my suspicions began to grow again, as I heard allegations that the Dubayeen were actually going to be taking over 22 ports and not six, and so on and so on. And there’s still a lot of foolish static on both sides. Let me try to think on paper. On both sides.

The larger issue inescapably involves more than the port deal itself. One of the reasons Dubya has so much trouble with Dubai is because he has forfeited so much credibility already on other issues. For six years George III has demonstrated that he cares more about his good friend Vicente than his native-born Citizen base. Blatantly, in-your-face. For as many years he has shown he does not stand by his friends and supporters, such as Linda Chavez or the Swiftees, while continuing to assume the Monica position toward real foes such as Teddy the Swimmer. Pardon me, but if I see George III being really solicitous to someone, my instinct is to presume it’s an enemy. Again, think of the on-going, unopposed Mexican invasion. None of this is good for presidential cred, is it?

Just as discreditable has been the homeland security policy. Since 9-11, even more than tracking terrorists, the government’s priority seems to have been kissy face with domestic muslims. In her latest column (Embarrassing the Angels) Peggy Noonan reminds us of the obscenity that is TSA. We play Kabuki, or maybe Indonesian shadow puppets, pretending to guard against terrorists by strip-searching old women, pregnant blue-eyed blondes, Black ministers, and everyone else who is clearly not a terrorist, while avoiding giving offense to swarthy middle-eastern young males. Of course this is partly Norman Minetta’s (piss on him) revenge for his perceived insult from 65 years ago, but Bush appointed and continues to back the little fascist anti-American bastard. It is as if we deliberately try to bully and harass the American people to remind ourselves “there’s a war on” even as we try not to inconvenience our enemy. In all sorts of ways the government bends into “gazelle horns” to assure that Americans are continually reminded that muslims are our friends. We show concern about abu ghraib and Guantanamo, more than about beheadings. And heaven forbid anyone draw a cartoon about muhammad (poohbah); but Piss Christ and Dung Madonna are acceptable of course. With this sort of unofficial but evident dhimmitude in full force, is there any surprise that the restive public might be suspicious of any deal favoring an islamic country. Even in Iraq, we hear recurring indications that the powers that be are more interested in winning the love of the muslims than gaining their fear, and we have episodes such as Lieutenant Pantano, the Kevin Sites Fallujah marine incident, attempts to ban certain types of sniper rounds, and the continuous demand that we treat our “enemies” gently and respectfully.

In short, we citizens take this war seriously, support our troops, and support victory, but doubt that the government does – at least beyond its rhetoric. So of course the American people will be skeptical when reassured that "these" arabs are our friends. No. Honest, this time we mean it. Sorry George, your street cred account is already overdrawn.

However, truth is not invalidated by an incompetent advocate; even if publicly defeated, truth remains true. And there is a lot to be said on the other side of the port issue.

There is every reason to accept that security matters will remain unchanged, and that this deal will not increase danger. The argument that the Saudis are already managing nine ports should not scare us so much as reassure us about Dubai. In fact, this seems to point to one other contradiction inherent in our war policy. Yes, individuals from Saudi Arabia and Dubai participated in 9-11, and others have provided monetary support to al-qaida. But it was individuals and not the governments. The largest source of monetary and political support for the IRA terrorists has always been US citizens – and politicians from both parties – including Peter King – R NY, and Ted Kennedy - D Chappaquiddick. Should the UK have treated the USA as a hostile government? Or what about assorted friendly Latin governments under attack by Marxist guerrillas supported by US leftists, including some members of our government?

To the extent that various arab governments actively repress those of their subjects who support Islamic terrorism, they will be flaunting our demands that they behave democratically. How do you deal with a friendly government with an unfriendly populace? Of course Cindy Shehound has an obvious answer –support the anti-Americans against their government, it’s a twofer for her. My own preference is to compromise on the democracy. This whole mideastern mess started 27 years ago when Idiot Carter decided to support the democratically popular Khomeini against the autocratic Shah. Or the Algerian election of a few years back, when the fundamentalist crazies were elected, and had to be removed by the Algerian army. Sorry, but some of our democratic absolutists are just as crazy in their own way. Poor Jack Kemp went native and was brainwashed when he was at HUD, and has never been the same since.

As Bill reminds us, perhaps we cannot really trust some of our governments, but sometimes we need to act as if we did. Lets also remember who were some of our allies during WWII. Joe Stalin?! Or that Chaing was less than admirable. Or that FDR was committed to doing in the British French, Dutch and Belgian colonial empires? Or that amongst the enemies was the thoroughly admirable Finland. This is what makes foreign policy and national strategy so interesting, and so difficult – at least for serious people.

As Bill and Tommy Franks have both pointed out, we need Dubai’s in-theater port for our coming operations against the real enemy. Some of the more clever dhimmicrats (like she whose name must not be spoken) may have a convoluted game plan here. Get credit for opposing a little Arab country, while making it more difficult for us to operate in the region, and thus saving the bigger and more important enemy – Iran. The idea of just seizing the port by force is foolish. That would be naked aggression and would genuinely discredit us abroad, and stimulate possibility of port sabotage.

Virtually all our ports are operated by foreign firms. If not Saudi or Dubayeen, then British, or Singaporean, or Chinese, or somebody else. For a variety of reasons, including legislative, regulatory, union, and other matters, we haven’t operated ports for quite some time. Yes, perhaps we should operate our own ports. But we sure aren’t going to just start doing so on a moment’s notice. Till then, we are dependent on one foreigner or another.

And this brings up another aspect of the anti-deal arguments. Among the people opposing the deal, though be it from the shadows, is the longshoreman’s union, long known for its communist influence and its pervasive corruption and thuggish behavior. These are people just as unprincipled as the muslims. If the sheetheads wanted to smuggle in a nuke, couldn’t they bribe a member of the mob to expedite the container through? But then on the other side, we’ve learned that Bubba Clinton has been bought by Dubai.

And here is where I have my personal troubles. I am committed both to rigorously secured borders and to free trade with those who respect those borders. Though both sides of the debate generally insist on linking them, I do not. I am quite willing to accept Mexican products, tomatoes, oil, sombreros, Corona in our markets; I just think they should be produced by Mexicans IN MEXICO. I know this puts me at odds, one way or another, with all my allies and friends. Too bad for me. [?George, was there something there I was supposed to disagree with?]

And I am also convinced that in this war our enemy is not the tactic of terrorism, but islam. And not just islamism, but islam. Islamic history was a second area of study after Russia, and I am convinced that islam is inherently a militant faith as was Marxism. And this is where I sympathize with those who oppose the port deal. Muslims are the foe, and even the genuinely most moderate ones will sympathize with the true believers, so long as they believe at all. It is a war of civilizations. But if certain elements of Islamic society do not wish to participate actively on the other side, we should encourage them. While we must destroy certain of those Arabic/islamic societies, we may not need to destroy them all. Some moderating elements might “get the message”, and that would be a bigger victory. It has often been said that islam needs to undergo a moderating evolution much as did the Catholic and Protestant crazies of centuries ago. If such a genuinely moderate islam were to evolve, might it look a bit like Dubai? In any case, in a serious fight we are advised to attack our dedicated and dangerous enemies first, not the weak and wavering.

Machiavelli, Kautilya, Clausewitz, Guderian, Vasilevsky, Ogarkov, Kahn, all the strategic thinkers of history agree that you must concentrate on the enemy’s strategic center, not the peripheral targets. In any case, we do not want to take on every enemy at once or on their schedule. There is more than one way to skin a cat; sometimes the best way is one leg at a time.

George, thank you for your lengthy detailed analysis. I've learned from it and it's gratifying to know I've swung at least one thoughtful educated person around to my way of thinking. I'll look forward to hearing from 1stCav after he gets his ISP problems resolved. If it were up to me your essay would be published in every major paper in the country but the best I can do is to post it here and hope I can get some others to help publicize it.

***

Don't miss Greyhawk's latest Open Post.

***

I see Michelle Malkin is still refusing to acknowledge there are two sides to this issue, in spite of my having emailed her and excerpt from this post several hours ago.

Posted by Bill Faith on March 8, 2006 at 12:32 AM in Rurik | Permalink

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Of Arabs, Ports, and Kit Carson Scouts (Updated and bumped):

» PortGate: Republicans Turn on President Bush And What Will It Cost Us? from California Conservative
We make a prediction. The APs Liz Zidoti is eager to report: In an election-year repudiation of President Bush, a House panel dominated by Republicans voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to block a Dubai-owned firm from taking control of som... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 9, 2006 2:13:39 AM

Comments

Note: I hate to have to do it but I'm turning on comment and trackback moderation. If you post a legitimate trackback or comment I'll do my best not to be too slow about approving it. If the only reason you're here is to advertise your porn, music, or penis enhancement site you can kiss my sweet ass.

Bill, Well done! I had not thought to consider this port issue in the context of the old Kit Carson Scout paradigm, but I see your point, and think you’re right. But then you’ve been helping my thinking on this issue from the beginning. I have not had much to say about the port issue for a couple of reasons. For one thing, for the last week and a half, I’ve been off on a secret mission (observing Mardi Gras with 1stCav to be honest), and did not view a single email and hardly a blog. Second, I’ve been wavering a lot on this issue. Cav and I discussed this issue at length, and he, too, has been wavering, though I think right now he leans to a different side than I. You reminded me of the Kit Carson Scouts, so let me invoke the combat engineers. This issue is a minefield, and I cannot help but enter warily, suspecting that nothing I see is what I really should see, and this time all my usual instincts for resolving such situations have been compromised. Larry Kudlow points out that our friends and allies are split on this one, but so are our blood enemies. “Peanut” Carter, Slick Willie, the Hildebeeste. Who do you choose to agree with? How COULD you?! For me, picking between Clintons is just as hard as choosing between Kudlow and Malkin. My initial reaction, on first hearing the news of this deal, just before hitting the road, was outrage. Limbaugh’s take was hardly reassuring. You man remember how His Grand Limbosity authoritatively proclaimed that this deal made perfect economic sense and was a wonderful business deal, but a political disaster. But his arguments all focused on attacking the opponents and explaining why the deal was not harmful, with never a word of how or why it was positively GOOD. All the arguments on both sides seemed to be ad hominem, so I came down against the deal. Then, your early posts caught my attention and swung me around – reluctantly. For good or ill, your blog changed my mind. But then yet more information started coming out, and I my suspicions began to grow again, as I heard allegations that the Dubayeen were actually going to be taking over 22 ports and not six, and so on and so on. And there’s still a lot of foolish static on both sides. Let me try to think on paper. On both sides. The larger issue inescapably involves more than the port deal itself. One of the reasons Dubya has so much trouble with Dubai, is because he has forfeited so much credibility already on other issues. For six years George III has demonstrated that he cares more about his good friend Vicente than his native-born Citizen base. Blatantly, in-your-face. For as many years he has shown he does not stand bay his friends and supporters, such as Linda Chavez, or the Swiftees, while continuing to assume the Monica position toward real foes such as Teddy the Swimmer. Pardon me, but if I see George III being really solicitous to someone, my instinct is to presume it’s an enemy. Again, think of the on-going, unopposed Mexican invasion. None of this is good for presidential cred, is it? Just as discreditable has been the homeland security policy. Since 9-11, even more than tracking terrorists, the government’s priority seems to have been kissy face with domestic muslims. In her latest columns, Peggy Noonan (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008034) reminds us of the obscenity that is TSA. We play Kabuki, or maybe Indonesian shadow puppets, pretending to guard against terrorists by strip-searching old women, pregnant blue-eyed blondes, Black ministers, and everyone else who is clearly not a terrorist, while avoiding giving offense to swarthy middle-eastern young males. Of course this is partly Norman Minetta’s (piss on him) revenge for his perceived insult from 65 years ago, but Bush appointed and continues to back the little fascist anti-American bastard. It is as if we deliberately try to bully and harass the American people to remind ourselves “there’s a war on” even as we try not to inconvenience our enemy. In all sorts of ways the government bends into “gazelle horns” to assure that Americans are continually reminded that muslims are our friends. We show concern about abu ghraib and Guantanamo, more than about beheadings. And heaven forbid anyone draw a cartoon about muhammad (poohbah); but Piss Christ and Dung Madonna are acceptable of course. With this sort of unofficial but evident dhimmitude in full force, is there any surprise that the restive public might be suspicious of any deal favoring an islamic country. Even in Iraq, we hear recurring indications that the powers that be are more interested in winning the love of the muslims than gaining their fear, and we have episodes such as Lieutenant Pantano, the Kevin Stites Fallujah marine incident, attempts to ban certain types of sniper rounds, and the continuous demand that we treat our “enemies” gently and respectfully. In short, we citizens take this war seriously, support our troops, and support victory, but doubt that the government does – at least beyond its rhetoric. So of course the American people will be skeptical when reassured that "these" arabs are our friends. No. Honest, this time we mean it. Sorry George, your street cred account is already overdrawn. However, truth is not invalidated by an incompetent advocate; even if publicly defeated, truth remains true. And there is a lot to be said on the other side of the port issue. There is every reason to accept that security matters will remain unchanged, and that this deal will not increase danger. The argument that the Saudis are already managing nine ports should not scare us so much as reassure us about Dubai. In fact, this seems to point to one other contradiction inherent in our war policy. Yes, individuals from Saudi Arabia and Dubai participated in 9-11, and others have provided monetary support to al-qaida. But it was individuals and not the governments. The largest source of monetary and political support for the IRA terrorists has always been US citizens – and politicians from both parties – including Peter King – R NY, and Ted Kennedy - D Chappaquiddik. Should the UK have treated the USA as a hostile government? Or what about assorted friendly Latin governments under attack by Marxist guerrellas supported by US leftists, including some members of our government? To the extent that various arab governments actively repress those of their subjects who support Islamic terrorism, they will be flaunting our demands that they behave democratically. How do you deal with a friendly government with an unfriendly populace? Of course Cindy Shehound has an obvious answer –support the anti-Americans against their government, it’s a twofer for her. My own preference is to compromise on the democracy. This whole mideastern mess started 27 years ago when Idiot Carter decided to support the democratically popular Khomeini against the autocratic Shah. Or the Algerian election of a few years back, when the fundamentalist crazies were elected, and had to be removed by the Algerian army. Sorry, but some of our democratic absolutists, are just as crazy in their own way. Poor Jack Kemp went native and was brainwashed when he was at HUD, and has never been the same since. As Bill reminds us, perhaps we cannot really trust some of our governments, but sometimes we need to act as if we did. Lets also remember who were some of our allies during WWII. Joe Stalin?! Or that Chaing was less than admirable. Or that FDR was committed to doing in the British French, Dutch and Belgian colonial empires? Or that amongst the enemies was the thoroughly admirable Finland. This is what makes foreign policy and national strategy so interesting, and so difficult – at least for serious people. As Bill and Tommy Franks have both pointed out, we need Dubai’s in-theater port for our coming operations against the real enemy. Some of the more clever dhimmicrats (like she whose name must not be spoken) may have a convoluted game plan here. Get credit for opposing a little arab country, while making it more difficult for us to operate in the region, and thus saving the bigger and more important enemy – Iran. The idea of just seizing the port by force is foolish. That would be naked aggression and would genuinely discredit us abroad, and stimulate possibility of port sabotage. Virtually all our ports are operated by foreign firms. If not Saudi or Dubayeen, then British, or Singaporean, or Chinese, or somebody else. For a variety of reasons, including legislative, regulatory, union, and other matters, we haven’t operated ports for quite some time. Yes, perhaps we should operate our own ports. But we sure aren’t going to just start doing so on a moment’s notice. Till then, we are dependent on one foreigner or another. And this brings up another aspect of the anti-deal arguments. Among the people opposing the deal, though be it from the shadows, is the longshoreman’s union, long known for its communist influence and its pervasive corruption and thuggish behavior. These are people just as unprincipled as the muslims. If the sheetheads wanted to smuggle in a nuke, couldn’t they bribe a member of the mob to expedite the container through? But then on the other side, we’ve learned that Bubba Carter has been bought by Dubai. And here is where I have my personal troubles. I am committed both to rigorously secured borders and to free trade with those who respect those borders. Though both sides of the debate generally insist on linking them, I do not. I am quite willing to accept Mexican products, tomatoes, oil, sombreros, Corona in our markets; I just think they should be produced by Mexicans IN MEXICO. I know this puts me at odds, one way or another, with all my allies and friends. Too bad for me. And I am also convinced that in this war our enemy is not the tactic of terrorism, but islam. And not just islamism, but islam. Islamic history was a second area of study after Russia, and I am convinced that islam is inherently a militant faith as was Marxism. And this is where I sympathize with those who oppose the port deal. Muslims are the foe, and even the genuinely most moderate ones will sympathize with the true believers, so long as they believe at all. It is a war of civilizations. But if certain elements of Islamic society do not wish to participate actively on the other side, we should encourage them. While we must destroy certain of those Arabic/islamic societies, we may not need to destroy them all. Some moderating elements might “get the message”, and that would be a bigger victory. It has often been said that islam needs to undergo a moderating evolution much as did the Catholic and Protestant crazies of centuries ago. If such a genuinely moderate islam were to evolve, might it look a bit like Dubai? In any case, in a serious fight we are advised to attack our dedicated and dangerous enemies first, not the weak and wavering. Macchiaveli, Kautilya, Clausewitz, Guderian, Vasilevsky, Ogarkov, Kahn, all the strategic thinkers of history agree that you must concentrate on the enemy’s strategic center, not the peripheral targets. In any case, we do not want to take on every enemy at once or on their schedule. There is more than one way to skin a cat; sometimes the best way is one leg at a time.

Posted by: Rurik | Mar 7, 2006 2:01:22 PM

Post a comment

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives