Christy Lyn Brookins wrote:

There is proof for either argument to allow or disallow the ports to be controlled by UAE.  I feel the argument is stronger to keep UAE from controlling the ports.  First, they would have full access to these ports and could potential import whatever they want.  Second, they could control the export by not allowing items to leave these ports.  To defend these ports, we need to be in charge of these ports.  If these ports where to be attacked, it would cripple the supply chain.  I do not believe it would halt it.  Big business should have resilience and security plans built into their supply network.  Their performance may decrease but it should not shut them down if they built in these factors.  9/11 came and went.  The US response of tighter security control of these ports crippled businesses.  If it shut them down, it was because they were not prepared for a backup plan to their normal plan.  This incident proved to a lot of companies that a backup plan is necessary.  Just like a tornado or bomb each business should expect the worse and have a plan in place if it happens.  If they don’t they aren’t preparing for the worst.  The question we should ask is, why should we potentially force those businesses into those back up plans?  Keep the supply chain protected.  Keep the ports controlled by America. 

I agree with Christy when she points out that if a company wants to be in charge of something, they need to prepare for the worst.  The UAE needs to understand that there is a risk for terrorism that could potentially affect the economy and their business.  The same goes for the U.S. government.  If they are going to make the decision to hand over control of many of our ports to the UAE, they need to be fully prepared for the worst.