THIS MODERN WORLD

Reader Michael G., remembering my fascination with inexplicable Japanese action figures, alerts me to this archive of Pepsiman commercials.

You’ve seen the various Sensible Liberals arguing that any opposition to the ports deal is just uninformed and/or xenophobic, that it’s really No Big Deal, that we need to consider both sides of the issue, blah blah blah. (In many cases, these are the same sensible voices who sensibly pointed out that we must sensibly consider the sensible case for war in Iraq a few years back–but that’s another rant.) Now, obviously I know essentially nothing about the operation of ports in America, and not too much more about the UAE. But I do know that the UAE was one of a small handful of countries that recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government. I know that the UAE was considered a financial safe harbor by al Qaeda. I know that members of the UAE royal family used to hang out in the desert with their buddy Osama bin Laden. This morning, I learned that the UAE boycotts Israel, and that dealing with countries that boycott Israel is apparently against US law.

The UAE may be a progressive state by regional standards. The people of the UAE may be the finest you’d ever hope to know. But the government of the UAE clearly plays both ends against the middle, and that’s the point here.

And via Kos, here’s a terrorism expert with solid, real-world reasons to be wary of this deal:

Joseph King, who headed the customs agency’s anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.

He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver’s licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.

Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World’s operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.

Kristoff:

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq — and soon.

The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, “How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?”

Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush’s position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.”

That’s one more bit of evidence that our grim stay-the-course policy in Iraq has failed. Even the American troops on the ground don’t buy into it — and having administration officials pontificate from the safety of Washington about the need for ordinary soldiers to stay the course further erodes military morale.

While the White House emphasizes the threat from non-Iraqi terrorists, only 26 percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if those foreign fighters could be kept out. A plurality believes that the insurgency is made up overwhelmingly of discontented Iraqi Sunnis.

Kristoff’s ensuing and predictable argument that we must not withdraw prematurely is neither here nor there — the numbers are what’s interesting here. If this is true, then it pretty much belies the constant refrain that the troops on the ground overwhelmingly support the war because they see the progress the lying liberal media won’t report. (The soldier-bloggers may remain gung-ho, but that’s a self-selecting group.)

Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, in 2004:

Should national unity prevail, Iraq’s chances of becoming a stable democracy will improve dramatically. I’d like to see one other thing in Iraq, an outbreak of gratitude for the greatest act of benevolence one country has ever done for another.

David Lawrence, editor of US News & World Report, in 1966:

What the United States is doing in Vietnam is the most significant example of philanthropy extended by one people to another that we have witnessed in our times.

(Barnes quotes thanks to Roger of Limited, Inc..)

Reporter Lawrence Kaplan recently spent time in Iraq for the New Republic. Among the things he witnessed was this:

On the day the preliminary results of December’s elections were announced, [Iraq’s Prime Minister Ibrahim] Jafari invites the election commissioners for dinner. The liberal activist Mustafa Al Kadhimiy wrangles two invitations…

As a television in the corner of the room conveys images of the carnage outside, Jafari admits to being partial to the works of Noam Chomsky. Why won’t Chomsky come to Iraq? he asks.

I think it’s safe to say that—of all the possible futures the Bush administration may have considered when they invaded Iraq—one thing they didn’t anticipate was ending up with a Chomsky fan as prime minister.