Port security today is still a house of cards. For each of these programs, the bar is not very high and there is very little in the way of verification. The result is it is not much of an effective deterrent.
If I had to rank in order 10 things I'm worried about as it relates to security in our ports, the ownership of the lease of a terminal here in the U.S. is near nine or 10 on that list.
It is only a matter of time before terrorists breach the superficial security measures in place to protect the ports, ships and the millions of containers that link global producers to consumers.
The degree to which the Bush administration is willing to invest in conventional national security spending relative to basic domestic security measures is considerable.
The role the U.S. government is currently playing in port security does not change with the purchase by Dubai Ports World.
It shouldn't matter whether the company is from Des Moines or Dubai, do you have confidence that they are essentially doing things that safeguard our security interest?
Does this pose a national security risk? I think that's pushing the envelope. It's not impossible to imagine one could develop an internal conspiracy, but I'd have to assign it a very low probability.
The No. 1 national security challenge to confront us is a weapon of mass destruction going off in a U.S. city. Well, it could come in a seaport. So we should focus on what it would take to make sure that doesn't happen.
The lowest-paying jobs on the waterfront are security people. But is that a problem for foreign ownership? No. It's a problem for everybody.