Be afraid. OK, now don't be afraid.

The Dubai Ports World deal, which now appears to have been scuttled (or at least redirected), illustrates one of the dangers of using vague threats of security breaches and xenophobia as tools for the placation of the American people. As described in my previous post, the present administration has, since 9/11, continually reminded us to be afraid, culminating in raising the spectre of a mushroom cloud over a major American city resulting from a nuclear attack by Islamic fundamentalists supported by Saddam Hussein (never mind that Hussein was not a supporter of such causes, that the nuclear program in Iraq had stalled a decade before the US invasion, or that the Baathist secular regime, while brutal, was antithetical to the world view of the Taliban and Al Qaeda). The message has been extremely consistent, reinforced with color-coded terror alerts and a steady stream of stories fed to the media.

Enter the Dubai ports deal. It is a marvel that those within the administration responsible for this transaction did not see the potential for political blowback. With most of the PR machinery of the Bush White House focused on painting Bush as a war president, holding back the barbarian hordes who would devour every American man, woman and child, the contracting of port operations to a corporation controlled by an Arab socialist state does seem like a rather clumsy move.

The reaction to Dubai Ports World is truly a matter of the administration falling prey to its own fear mongering. Indeed, the charge was led by conservative Republicans in Congress, who have become accustomed to riding the 'fear wave' set in motion after 9/11. Of course, the security of our borders and ports is a grave concern. Sadly, the same Republican-controlled congress that has reacted so violently to the Dubai deal has failed to allocate funding for increased inspections at US ports, where 96% of containers continue to pass through without inspection of any kind. It is, in fact, hard to imagine Dubai Ports World doing a less effective job on port security. They would, it seems likely, work much harder to ensure that their operations were secure, knowing that all eyes would be upon them.

What is at stake is a philosophical issue: Should US ports and borders be controlled by foreign companies (or, more significantly, foreign governments)? The response of virtually all Americans is "no." Still, we have a veritable United Nations conducting major port operations throughout the United States. The bottom line is that a combination of foreign operations and US-based security could work quite well, but the Dubai deal has raised the hackles of conservatives to such an extent that a sensible discussion of the real security and economic issues is no longer possible. Far more significant is the fact that port security remains the poor stepchild in the Homeland Security net, and following the money tells the tale.

Since 9/11/2001, some $18 billion has been spent to improve airport security. US ports have received a total of $630 million, or 3.5% of that figure, for security improvements. Given the volume of container traffic, and our reliance on this means of shipping for a tremendous range of consumer goods, the operation of US ports is absolutely critical to the health of the US economy. The cost of increasing security while not slowing operations is considerable, and clearly needs to climb on the priority scale. Yes, it is true that most Americans will fly a commercial airline, while most will not board a container ship. However, an astounding percentage of items in the average American household arrived via those same containers.

It also seems that the Bush Administration does not pay too much attention to popular culture, particularly Hollywood. No, I'm not suggesting that Brokeback Mountain holds any lessons for national security, but it might be instructive to consider the Tom Clancy novel adaptation, The Sum of All Fears. While some of the movie is clearly fanciful (Neo-Nazis armed with nuclear weapons does seem a bit far-fetched), the method of delivery of the nuclear weapon in the film is plausible. The bomb is loaded on a cargo ship in the port of Haifa, Israel, and makes its way to Baltimore. I'm not sufficiently versed in the mechanics of nuclear weapons to know if one could really hide a warhead in a vending machine, but just blowing it up on board the ship once it reaches the port would certainly be effective, especially if it were a large warhead.

Port security does matter. Sadly, the level of suspicion and concern directed toward the Dubai Ports World arrangement seems more a byproduct of the general culture of fear cultivated by the Bush administration rather than the specific security issues raised by DPW. The paradox, of course, is that the administration supported the deal, and was entirely blindsided by the knee-jerk negative reaction that they themselves guaranteed would occur. Democrats have gleefully piled on, sensing the political opening, but they should take care in doing so. It is the culture of fear that is the greatest danger to our civil liberties, and while it is certainly tempting to exploit a perceived weakness, the long-term consequences of stoking the fires of fear include a strengthening of those who wield fear as a weapon to erode civil liberties and quiet even the most sensible dissent or objection, as well as an increase in ethnic tensions, racism, and xenophobia.

Being afraid, in and of itself, never made any individual or nation safer. Genuine concern that leads to sensible precautions, practical security measures, and thoughtful planning is positive and useful. Fear for its own sake ultimately makes us less safe, and at the same time less human. In any survival training, the first lesson is to control your fear - panic will inevitably lead to your demise. A nation that is motivated by fear, or a population that is controlled by it, cannot expect to sustain a free society, or look forward to a bright and prosperous future.

-PMÓS