SCANDAL! Navy Uses UAE-Owned Company For Husbanding, UAE Feeds US Troops In Iraq

[NATO AIR]

another example of how bunk most of the arguments opponents of the ports deals have used are. c'mon, now the US Navy puts the lives of its sailors and the safety of its ships in the hands of a UAE-owned company. This isn't just a UAE-owned company, its UAE people doing the work, knowing the sensative information, side by side with our sailors doing force protection watches in foreign ports in the Middle East.

But they can't be trusted, I forgot. Someone obviously forgot to tell the Pentagon and the Navy & Marines. Obviously, they don't know dick about counterterrorism, Hilary Clinton and Peter (I love the IRA and Castro) King are the experts.

Oh, what is this? Another UAE company FEEDS OUR FUCKING TROOPS IN IRAQ. Obviously, this is a scandal. Obviously, the Army doesn't know what's good for it. Hiliary and Peter King and the rest of the Republican and Democrat losers in Congress and that jerk-off Chertoff are the real experts.

This is all a disgusting disgrace. We look like idiots to the rest of the world and we just punked one of our best allies. Way to win a war on terror people.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1171773,00.html

The Dubai Deal You Don't Know About
Even as one company gives up on U.S. ports, a different Middle Eastern firm remains a major contractor for the Navy
By DAREN FONDA

Posted Thursday, Mar. 09, 2006
With midterm elections approaching, no politician wanted to go home and explain to voters why a company controlled by the government of Dubai was taking over operations at six U.S. ports—without so much as a meow of protest from Congress. As it turns out, that won't be necessary. Dubai Ports World, the firm at the center of the controversy, announced today that it would give up its bid to manage U.S. ports, agreeing to transfer the contracts to a “U.S. entity."

Yet while one Dubai company may be giving up on U.S. ports, another one shows no signs of quitting the U.S.—or of giving up a contract with the Navy to provide shore services for vessels in the Middle East. The firm, Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS), is an old British company that last January was sold to a Dubai government investment vehicle for $285 million. ISS has more than 200 offices around the world and provides services to clients ranging from cruise ship operators to oil tankers to commercial cargo vessels. In the U.S., the company operates out of more than a dozen port cities, including Houston, Miami and New Orleans, arranging pilots, tugs, linesmen and stevedores, among other things. The firm is also a defense contractor which has long worked for Britain’s Royal Navy. And last June, the U.S. Navy signed on too, awarding ISS a $50 million contract to be the “husbanding agent” for vessels in most Southwest Asia ports, including those in the Middle East, according to an unclassified Navy logistics manual for the Fifth Fleet and a press release from ISS.

Why is a Dubai shipping services company doing business with the Pentagon when handing over U.S. port operations to the emirate would supposedly compromise national security? Because it makes sense. Call it the reality of living in a globally connected business world. Your IBM laptop is now manufactured by a Chinese company that may outsource customer support to an Indian firm and the logistics to FedEx. Dubai companies aren't just buying overseas assets like hotels in New York and wax museums in London; they're providing jobs and business for U.S. companies. Boeing, for one, can only hope it doesn't receive a frosty reception the next time it wants to sell airplanes to Dubai's booming airline, Emirates. Rival Airbus would be more than happy to take advantage of Washington's creeping protectionism.

The Navy, for one, has long understood that it would be virtually impossible to rely solely on Western-owned companies for critical services. It simply couldn’t operate without local firms providing logistics support at the 200 ports its ships visit around the world. After the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, the Navy undertook a wide-scale review of contracting procedures, including those involving ship husbanding. As a result of that review, the Navy took several steps to increase the security of ships in foreign ports, but maintained its system of contracting. “We've been doing business in the Persian Gulf for 60 years,” says a Navy official who was unable to confirm the details of the ISS contract. Moreover, Dubai is considered one of the best-equipped ports for the Navy—it’s also a crucial logistical base for operations in the region, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No question, the husbanding contract provides the potential for mischief. Husbanding agents arrange everything from fuel to spare parts to fresh vegetables for vessels at ports of call. More critically, they often provide security, like erecting concrete barriers and what the military calls “force protection.” Husbanding agents often learn weeks in advance of a ship’s schedule so as to be prepared when the vessel arrives, information that the Navy keeps closely guarded since it could be invaluable in the hands of terrorists. The suicide bombing of the Cole, for instance, occurred less than three hours after the ship had completed mooring in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. “It would have been much more difficult for the bombers to execute the attack without some previous knowledge of the ship's schedule and its intent to pull into Aden,” says a former Navy officer.

Contacted by TIME, a spokesman for ISS confirmed the existence of the contract, but said that confidentiality terms prevented him from discussing it. A statement issued by the firm declared that “ISS has undergone rigorous external security checks” and has “comprehensive internal policies on security.” Regarding its U.S. port operations, the company states that all port staff “are fully vetted and cleared and undergo a background check to enable them to work within the port limits.”

While ISS doesn’t appear eager to discuss its defense work, a press release issued last fall offers some details. The release states that ISS “will be responsible for providing all the logistics requirements of U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships in ports throughout the [Middle East] region.” The release also notes that ISS may be asked to provide services for U.S. military training exercises and “contingency operations inland.” ISS’s partner for those services? None other than KBR, the division of Halliburton — Vice President Dick Cheney’s old firm — that has won billions of dollars in contracts for the Iraq war and reconstruction. Ironically, Halliburton's name has come up as a possible candidate to be the "U.S. entity" to take over the U.S. ports management from Dubai Ports World.

ISS, in fact, isn’t the only Dubai company that has won big business with the Pentagon. In December 2004, another such firm, Seven Seas Shipchandlers, won a $700 million contract to be the prime vendor for maintenance and repair operations for troops in the U.S. Central Command region, which includes the Middle East. Seven Seas has also provided food supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq. Another Dubai-based firm, MAC International, is under contract to deliver $67.2 million worth of police trucks to the Army. Those vehicles, however, will bear a stamp that should please any Washington pol: Made In Detroit. —With reporting by Sally B. Donnelly/Washington and J.F.O. McAllister/London

 

[Annie]

another example of how bunk most of the arguments opponents of the ports deals have used are. c'mon, now the US Navy puts the lives of its sailors and the safety of its ships in the hands of a UAE-owned company. This isn't just a UAE-owned company, its UAE people doing the work, knowing the sensative information, side by side with our sailors doing force protection watches in foreign ports in the Middle East.

But they can't be trusted, I forgot. Someone obviously forgot to tell the Pentagon and the Navy & Marines. Obviously, they don't know dick about counterterrorism, Hilary Clinton and Peter (I love the IRA and Castro) King are the experts.

Oh, what is this? Another UAE company FEEDS OUR FUCKING TROOPS IN IRAQ. Obviously, this is a scandal. Obviously, the Army doesn't know what's good for it. Hiliary and Peter King and the rest of the Republican and Democrat losers in Congress and that jerk-off Chertoff are the real experts.

This is all a disgusting disgrace. We look like idiots to the rest of the world and we just punked one of our best allies. Way to win a war on terror people.

'In the Middle East' being the key factor when referring to security. Granted the UAE is providing ablely in matters regarding our troops, no quibble there. We need them, it's what allows all the niceties that are making a very tough job, a touch easier:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/962owypl.asp

That is not the same as inviting them into our points of entry. I'm sorry, I just do not agree. I'm willing to block UK also, along with Australia and Canada from these type of 'buys.'

 

[NATO AIR]

'In the Middle East' being the key factor when referring to security. Granted the UAE is providing ablely in matters regarding our troops, no quibble there. We need them, it's what allows all the niceties that are making a very tough job, a touch easier:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/962owypl.asp

That is not the same as inviting them into our points of entry. I'm sorry, I just do not agree. I'm willing to block UK also, along with Australia and Canada from these type of 'buys.'

That's about the lone argument that ALMOST stands. It isn't realistic in the end though because American port companies are not competitive enough to make it work. In a few years, the port cities will be clamoring for a foreign company with the know-how and the balls to reform the ports and revitilize them.

I've posted about this before, American companies do not make the investment in talent, nor in innovation, especially in the shipyards business. What's going to happen is that a few ports on the East Coast that are foreign operated will begin to get most of the shipments that the American-owned ports used to. Its a simple matter of money, profit and bottomline.

 

[Annie]

That's about the lone argument that ALMOST stands. It isn't realistic in the end though because American port companies are not competitive enough to make it work. In a few years, the port cities will be clamoring for a foreign company with the know-how and the balls to reform the ports and revitilize them.

I've posted about this before, American companies do not make the investment in talent, nor in innovation, especially in the shipyards business. What's going to happen is that a few ports on the East Coast that are foreign operated will begin to get most of the shipments that the American-owned ports used to. Its a simple matter of money, profit and bottomline.

Tax incentives and Halliburton. Not to mention many of the troops returning from Iraq/Afghanistan that may well start up businesses, they have the know-how!

 

[NATO AIR]

Besides, this is not the way to win the war on terror or defend ourselves.

I trust foreigners who are out for long-term profit more than I do some punk American kid who probably would take some cash from a stranger to look the other way while a nuke or a chemical weapon was smuggled aboard.

 

[NATO AIR]

Tax incentives and Halliburton.

Haliburton has a long record of incompetence across the board. I want a successful, fluid company to handle this. Too bad there are no more American firms like that in this business sector.

And tax incentives is just more taxpayer money wasted that could be given back to the taxpayer or invested in human intelligence, or let alone, an incentive for companies that invest in talent.

 

[Annie]

Haliburton has a long record of incompetence across the board. I want a successful, fluid company to handle this. Too bad there are no more American firms like that in this business sector.

And tax incentives is just more taxpayer money wasted that could be given back to the taxpayer or invested in human intelligence, or let alone, an incentive for companies that invest in talent.

Ok, name another US company capable. That's what your choices are. Really, it's what's going to happen. Time to adjust.

 

[NATO AIR]

Ok, name another US company capable. That's what your choices are. Really, it's what's going to happen. Time to adjust.

Frankly, I don't want to adjust. This is shameful and harmful to America, and I have never been more ashamed of Congress.

There are NO US companies capable. This is going to be a business disaster. As I said, you may be under the mistaken impression this will last, but it won't. Either the ports will die (which ain't happening) or foreign ownership will eventually take over in two-three years. UNLESS a new American company comes along that can handle this, which is doubtful.

 

[no1tovote4]

GAsp! They could feed the troops bad food and ... :blah2:

 

[Annie]

Frankly, I don't want to adjust. This is shameful and harmful to America, and I have never been more ashamed of Congress.

There are NO US companies capable. This is going to be a business disaster. As I said, you may be under the mistaken impression this will last, but it won't. Either the ports will die (which ain't happening) or foreign ownership will eventually take over in two-three years. UNLESS a new American company comes along that can handle this, which is doubtful.

They will not die, as you've said. Some US company, in existence or new to the board is going to take over.

UAE thinks, I think, that they will maintain a 49% interest, I don't think that is going to happen either.

Seriously, at home and abroad, the 'masses' are not reading the people here. Sorry NATO, either intellect or out of country too long has left you tone deaf to what is occurring.

 

[dilloduck]

Tax incentives and Halliburton. Not to mention many of the troops returning from Iraq/Afghanistan that may well start up businesses, they have the know-how!

Our troops from Iraq/Afghanistan have the know-how to run a port ? Now that the flap is over all I read is how the US lost out on a sweet deal and may have put ourselves in position to lose even more.

 

[NATO AIR]

GAsp! They could feed the troops bad food and ... :blah2:

Yes, I'm waiting for some blatherhead to accuse the Army of selling out to the Arabs. After all, we did have an "arab" general for a while (Abazid).

 

[Annie]

Yes, I'm waiting for some blatherhead to accuse the Army of selling out to the Arabs. After all, we did have an "arab" general for a while (Abazid).

Who's accused many Americans of Islamophobia, I still like him, but that's not what is going on here, no matter how Dillo wishes to spin it.

 

[NATO AIR]

They will not die, as you've said. Some US company, in existence or new to the board is going to take over.

UAE thinks, I think, that they will maintain a 49% interest, I don't think that is going to happen either.

Seriously, at home and abroad, the 'masses' are not reading the people here. Sorry NATO, either intellect or out of country too long has left you tone deaf to what is occurring.

Actually, from what I've heard, now that the facts are getting out there, it seems the people are starting to swing from opposing the deal to supporting it. I'm not tone deaf, I've been listening to experienced shipyard personnel bitch and moan about how stupid Congress was for the past month, guys who've invested their whole working lives in shipyards, shipping and (now that its a big deal) security. And their call was as soon as the hysteria by the MSM and the Dems passed, people would realize this isn't a bad deal.

 

[dilloduck]

Who's accused many Americans of Islamophobia, I still like him, but that's not what is going on here, no matter how Dillo wishes to spin it.

Would you prefer Islamo-bigotry ?

 

[NATO AIR]

Who's accused many Americans of Islamophobia, I still like him, but that's not what is going on here, no matter how Dillo wishes to spin it.

He's right. People are getting the wrong information from an MSM that wants to spread panic about Islam, Arabs and terrorism in order to discredit the Bush Administration and make America look bad.

Islam has its serious problems, that we should be very worried about. But the reporting on it has been irresponsible to a degree that is now taking root in how people react to news like the ports deal.

We're being afraid instead of strong. Bad call.

 

[Annie]

Actually, from what I've heard, now that the facts are getting out there, it seems the people are starting to swing from opposing the deal to supporting it. I'm not tone deaf, I've been listening to experienced shipyard personnel bitch and moan about how stupid Congress was for the past month, guys who've invested their whole working lives in shipyards, shipping and (now that its a big deal) security. And their call was as soon as the hysteria by the MSM and the Dems passed, people would realize this isn't a bad deal.

yeah, those with 'connections' the next story in the making. Only 100 years old, ask Joe Kennedy. Oh, he's dead.

 

[Annie]

Would you prefer Islamo-bigotry ?

How about Islamophile, feeling French?

 

[NATO AIR]

yeah, those with 'connections' the next story in the making. Only 100 years old, ask Joe Kennedy. Oh, he's dead.

I don't know what you're talking about. You're way out in left field on this one..

 

[Annie]

I don't know what you're talking about. You're way out in left field on this one..

The family. Sopranos. Kennedys.