Some politicians and others have argued that allowing the U.A.E.'s DP World to manage six major US ports would inject an additional layer of security risk that we don't need. The White House disagrees. But for argument's sake, let's assume the deal will be scuttled on "security grounds." Opponents will claim victory. But they shouldn't if they're serious about their argument. Each year millions of containers are off-loaded at US ports. But a port's vulnerability doesn't begin at docking. It's just as vulnerable as soon as a ship enters its harbor. Hundreds of containers are on a ship, so a weaponized one buried deep inside isn't likely to be detected before detonation. That's why the Bush administration created the Container Security Initiative to monitor US-bound cargo as it's loaded onto a ship at a foreign port. DP World's takeover of the British firm, P & O, will add about two-dozen foreign ports to their current operations, which span the globe. Doesn't DP World's management of these ports also add security risk? Shouldn't opponents of the deal like Senators Clinton and Frist also be calling for a separate security regime for all ships entering US ports that have docked at a DP World foreign port beforehand or are they just playing politics? Congress is right to review the pending deal but it would be nice if they do so in a responsible way.