Consistent with the Middle-East theme, the above quote captured in the Talmud has no doubt inspired millions over the centuries to meet responsibilities they would rather avoid. With that well known Talmudic quote in mind, I must set a side an earlier decision to stay out of the political debate over the wisdom of a national security issue affecting our posture in the war on terrorism. I join the debate to protest what I fear is a dangerous pattern of government decision making on security now affecting both our seaports and our airports which would have security decisions made on basis’ other than what is best from a security point of view.

In my view, participation in the war in Iraq may make a nation an ally at arms in that conflict but does not make it an ipso facto reliable source for our domestic security. Indeed, with regard to the record of the Emirates in the war on terrorism, need we be reminded yet again that UAE played a leading role in the attack on America on 9/11? Surely we don’t believe that all allies in the war on terrorism have assumed that role with equal vigor. In our war to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan how dedicated to the cause can the Emirates, which has no political parties, no sufferage and only 15 to 20 percent of their population Emiratee be? The real question before us is would you bet the lives of your family on their reliability in support of America?

Since 9/11, the president has repeatedly asked all Americans to become more aware of security risks around us; to report those risks to the proper authorities and to see to it that they are corrected. In response, we have been enlisted in the war on terrorism in which we Americans remain the target of choice. We have been asked by to allow our leaders free reign to dig deeply into our national treasury to support wars against enemies at home and abroad who often remain anonymous, simply identified as "terrorists," and we have consented. These enemies we are told cannot be distinguished by a national banner, a geographic identity, a single national tongue, or even a race, a faith or a gender and because we are an honorable people we avoid stereotyping as best we can. Officially, we know them by their conduct, by their threats and by their avowed hatred of us and what we stand for. We focus when we can on multi-national organizations: al Qaeda, Hamas, Taliban whose support comes from all over the Middle-East, Europe, and Asia. We cannot subjugate their nation because they are of many nations, sometimes even our own; we cannot seize all of their financial assets because we cannot always identify where their assets are and who is providing them. In short, providing reasonable security against their potential attacks is hardly an undertaking to be conducted with precision; more often than not in defending ourselves at home, we engage in deductive reasoning about foreseeable risks, pray for accurate intelligence, and then do the best we can. Surely our intelligence, military and personal has provided us with enough data to know that while the Emirates may be very helpful in the war against terrorism in their part of the world where seven emirates depends upon it, their willingness and ability to fight that battle on our soil remains a question mark.

What we do know is that some of our allies, especially those in the Middle-East where terrorist organizations have developed strong followings, have already demonstrated that within their own populations America’s enemies remain strong. The United Arab Emirates is not an exception as was demonstrated on 9/11 when two of its nationals and its finances played prominent roles in the attacks against us. Political realities in the Middle-East force us to realize that often governments in that region, even governments we count as allies feel constrained to recognize that their internal stability depends upon their managing the strong anti-American sentiment in their streets without making an issue over the security of America and Americans.

It is because we cannot rely on foreign governments such as UAE and their nationals to protect us that we have alerted our citizens to become more security aware when traveling abroad. It is also the reason we have employed common sense requirements for the issuance of visas to foreign nationals wishing to visit the U.S., often at the expense of the citizens from nations with better terrorism profiles than UAE preferring to err on the side of caution. For the same reason we limit access to our nation even to prominent scientists who may be engaged the development of weapons that can be used against us, or even require the screener of bags and travelers at the airport be an American citizen.

Because of our fear of terrorism we have been asked to support our government’s decision to curtail our liberties under the Patriot Act, and to allow warrantless monitoring of our overseas telephone calls. Now we are asked to forget all of those warnings of terrorism that we have worked so hard to observe, and . . . "people don’t need to worry about security" because our ally the UAE will protect us. But it’s too late for that. The repeated reminders about security awareness have triggered an instinctive reaction to the several years of warnings about the vulnerability of our ports to terrorism. A ground-swell of common sense opposition to the notion of a nation with ties to al Quaeda managing our major seaports is being heard from Americans whose newly developed security awareness and intuition insist upon being heard. We are saying to the administration that just because we may not be able to articulate with precision the specific vulnerabilities this contract represents, don’t think we can be manipulated into believing that which is patently wrong is some how right.

It should be enough that it makes so many of us uncomfortable under the circumstances to have the United Arab Emirates secure our ports or even manage them. Now government needs to exercise the security awareness that it has asked of us.