I hope to have more to say about the ports controversy soon. But, while I agree with JPod that the Journal makes some good points this morning, it also makes some pretty unpersuasive ones, including one in particular that is reminiscent of the editorial board’s rose-tinted immigration glasses. To wit, the WSJ argues:

Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us … : First, this work is already being outsourced to “a foreign-based company”; [and] second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown[.]” [Italics mine.]

The second point is pretty silly. So what if discriminating against a Mideast company does not provide a “security guarantee”? Virtually no measure we take to improve national security provides a guarantee. The idea is to take a wide variety of sensible measures, all of which reduce but do not (because they cannot) eliminate the threat. The hope is that, overall, security is then much better — though concededly imperfect. If discriminating against a Mideast company improves our security, it is not an argument not to do it that it does not perfectly protect against attacks.

The Journal’s claim, though, is logically consistent with the similarly unconvincing line it floats from time to time that it is pointless to enforce the immigration laws because you can’t, as a practical matter, arrest and deport 15-20 million people. The fact that something is not a silver bullet does not mean it is not a good idea and that it would not dramatically improve things.

In the same vein, it’s also meritless to argue that safeguarding the ports against potential alien threats is not worth doing because some terrorists might be homegrown. Again, so what? We shouldn’t walk becuase we might also have to chew gum?