Cut Me Some Slack, Jack
The more I hear about this DPW taking over administration of those six ports, the more I'm inclined to go with it. I've listened to quite a few people whose opinion I normally respect and, while they may have problems with this as well, the rejection of the contract may be worse.
Keep in mind, the UAE is currently servicing our warships in that area - giving someone who is really dedicated the chance of doing us harm. It hasn't happened, has it? The UAE is about the only country in the Middle East that we have excellent relations with, and rejecting this contract out of hand will send the message throughout the area that we talk friendship, but when push comes to shove we don't trust any Arab state. Plus, does anyone know how many Arabs work for the existing British company?
I still worry about an Iran-style takeover of the government there. I presume that there would be something in the contract that would void it right there, but then who would pay the longshoremen and crane operators, etc? It would throw the ports into chaos.
Additionally, according Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the regulation of commerce between us and foreign nations in the job of Congress, not a bunch of undersecretaries in various departments. By doing the contract the way it was done screwed the pooch big time. Congress wasn't even consulted on this.
Since not a single U.S. corporation showed any interest in running these ports, I'm open to suggestions as to what to do with them.