McCarthy vs. Lowry on the ports deal

The Corner had a useful exchange on the ports issue between Richard Lowry (for) and Andrew McCarthy (against). While both make good arguments, McCarthy has it all over Lowry in my opinion. McCarthy’s main argument is as follows: (1) the United Arab Emirates doesn’t (don’t?) recognize Israel; (2) this means that the UAE is implicitly in agreement with the aims of terrorists; (3) why should we, in a matter that is purely discretionary (i.e. not necessary for national defense), give privileges to a country that is implicitly in agreement with the aims of terrorists?

Over and over, McCarthy employs the kind of morally informed and politically realistic reasoning that is woefully absent from American debate nowadays. Look at this gem:

First, as a general matter, I am far less interested in promoting good government in the Middle East than you are. It is nothing but a theory that good government in the Middle East will make the U.S. safer, or even that good government can be had in the Middle East unless its culture radically alters—which ain’t our job.

And this:

When you say, as the AG [Gonzales] implicitly said in the interview with Sean [Hannity], that a country can be considered a good ally that “plays by the rules” in this posture, that betrays one of the core purposes of fighting the war in the first place. It exhibits that the “you’re with us or with the terrorists” rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine—the credibility of which is essential to victory—is just that, rhetoric. It encourages Hamas, for example, to think there’s no reason to change because, when it gets down to brass tacks, there are plenty of things that the U.S. values more than eliminating the practice of mass homicide to achieve political objectives. It tells bin Laden and Zarqawi that we’re not really that serious—which helps them recruit.

At one point Lowry says that McCarthy, by demanding that the UAE recognize Israel and thus change its own culture, is contradicting his anti-reformist stand. But Lowry has it wrong, in a way that is typical and revealing of this debate. McCarthy’s aim is not to get UAE to change its attitude to Israel; he is fully aware there is very little chance of that. Rather, his aim it to keep an enemy of Israel, and thus an implicit supporter of terrorism, from having the privilege of running U.S. port terminals. In brief, McCarthy’s aim is not to change Muslims, but to draw a line between us and Muslims. This is “outside-the-box” thinking for today’s mainstream conservatives, which explains why Lowry misconstrues the point.

As for McCarthy’s comment that our yielding to UAE “encourages Hamas, for example, to think there’s no reason to change,” which would seem to undercut my point, as Mr. McCarthy explained it to me, he does not think Hamas will change. Rather he is accepting for the sake of argument the administration’s own position that the responsibilities of governing will force Hamas to change, and saying that even if Hamas were capable of change, it would not do so if it thought there were no costs for failing to change.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 28, 2006 05:32 PM | Send