Not Technically, No

March 3, 2006

In a story that has for the most part slipped underneath the radar of the national press, three U.S. Senators are asking the Justice Department to investigate the claims of an Arab-American FBI agent that he was passed over for promotions as retaliation for criticizing his superiors.

Republicans Arlen Specter and Chuck Grassley and Democrat Patrick Leahy sent a joint letter to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine two weeks ago, in which they urged him to look into the case of Bassem Youssef, an Egyptian-born American citizen who was considered one of the Bureau’s best counterterrorism agents prior to 9/11. Youssef alleges that he was passed over for promotions multiple times despite his counterterrorism expertise and familiarity with the Middle East.

Youssef’s case first garnered publicity, albeit minor, last summer, when depositions of several top FBI officials were conducted in relation to an employment discrimination suit he filed against the Bureau in 2003. In the process of interviews of FBI Director Robert Mueller, Executive Assistant Director in charge of terrorism Gary Bald, and his predecessor Dale Watson, it became clear that the Bureau did not consider expertise in either the Middle East or terrorism a prerequisite for advancement in its counterterrorism division.
Bald, when questioned about his knowledge of Middle Eastern history and culture, responded, “I wish I had it. It would be nice.”

Watson, who headed the FBI’s counterterrorism operations until 2003, fared little better. Responding to a question about whether he knew the difference between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims, he said, “not technically, no.”

Perhaps most distressingly, when presented with Bald’s testimony, Director Mueller, who gave Bald his position, defended his choice by listing his assistant’s counterterrorism credentials. These included heading the FBI’s Baltimore office and serving as assistant special agent in charge of the Washington Sniper investigation.

It is vitally important that people learn about this story, not because of any discrimination that Special Agent Youssef may have faced, although is of course troubling as well, but because it shows that the country is worrying about the wrong national security issues.

Over the past week the takeover of six major U.S. ports by the United Arab Emirates-based company DP World has been the hot story in every major news source. Legislators on both sides of the aisle, as well as numerous radio and television news personalities, have expressed wariness over the prospect of an Arab company controlling American ports. The furor over the announcement of DP World’s takeover of the ports has been nothing short of amazing, mostly because it has been so misguided.

Whatever questions people may have about the activities of the UAE, it is ridiculous to extend them to DP World and the proposed port deal. Not only will the same American employees continue to work at the ports; not only will the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Service continue to be responsible for security; but foreign management of our ports is hardly anything new. According to an op-ed in Tuesday’s New York Times written by Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard officer, and James M. Loy, former commandant of the Coast Guard and deputy secretary of homeland security, eight out of every ten containers that enters the U.S. are handled by three foreign companies, one of which is DP World.

The irony is, of course, that the first interest that Congress and the American people take in the security of our ports concerns an absolute non-issue. And the Youssef case only illustrates the absurdity of the uproar about the ports. A decorated FBI agent who served as legal attaché to Saudi Arabia in 1997 and participated in the investigations of the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing in Kenya, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Youssef was apparently repeatedly passed over for promotions that were given to less-qualified individuals. But instead of concerns about a lack of expertise, experience, and knowledge in our intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it is the port issue that seizes the country’s attention. Instead of concern about the sad state of port security provided by the U.S. Government, which scans only a miniscule proportion of the containers that enter this country, people question whether or not a company based in a country that is our ally should be allowed to participate in legitimate commercial activities.

Although one would hope to find other factors at work besides racism and xenophobia, it unfortunately appears more than coincidental when dark faces, faces that bear a slight resemblance to enemies of this country, continually become the subject of mistrust and disparagement. The Congress, people, and media of the United States would do well to focus on important issues, rather than the cosmetic ones.