Living in the World
The Speaker and the Brits

Last week was Holy Week, the week that we remember and celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, it was also a strange week on the world’s stage. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, conducted a junket to the Middle East. The White House was not excited about the trip. Ms. Pelosi is obviously not the spokesman (!) for government policy. It could only create confusion. Furthermore, she visited Syria, a state that sponsors terrorism, and one the administration does not have dialogue with.

Well, it turned out to be a photo op for the Syrians. There she was smiling and parading around with Assad and delivering an incorrect message from the Israelis. And, for all the world, it appeared that there was not unanimity in US policy toward the Middle East. This coming right on the heals of the Speaker orchestrating a bill for funding of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that gave dates for the pullout of troops, a bill the President said beforehand he would veto.

I have always wondered how Dr. Rice was accepted in the Middle East. She is a woman trying to deal with institutionalized “male chauvinists” to use a Betty Friedan description of male domination. But, at least it was understood she spoke for the Administration. But, Ms. Pelosi, who does she represent? The Democrats, her House leadership, San Francisco, or her own brand of liberal “we are the world”, “can’t we all just get along together” therapeutic zaniness? These folks in the Middle East are ruthless, Israel destroying, empire builders who are not exactly anxious to make peace with western nations they want out of the region. Ms. Pelosi was on a fool’s errand.

At the same time, the saga of the Brit military personnel was unfolding in Iran. After two weeks of suspense, the Iranians released them to celebrate the birthday of the prophet Mohammed and the death of Jesus on Easter. Besides the theological error that Easter is about the resurrection of Jesus, the Iranians tried to capitalize on there “niceness” in a gracious gesture in releasing the Brits. Overlooked is the outrageous grabbing of the young sailors and Royal Marines in disputed water. International protocol is to warn the intruders they are trespassing and demand that they leave. But, the Iranians, not ones to be compliant with international conduct, snatched the sailors and marines.

It is interesting that this happened immediately after the UN passed another resolution about Iranian nuclear weapon development. Do you think this whole affair may have been a diversion? It is indicative of Iran thumbing its nose at the international community, seeing the west as weak and orchestrating international theater to make them look good when they are doing bad. And, it seems to be working. Iran is winning the PR game being hailed as good guys for releasing the hostages.

The other aspect of this affair that is disturbing is the capitulation of the captives to issue statements damning their own government. They were not apparently beaten or tortured to obtain statements. They co-operated with their captors in very short order. What ever happened to name, rank and serial number? There are military personnel of Britain, what are they trained to do if captured? At a press conference the captives spoke of their ordeal. The Iranian’s then released videos of the men and woman in a seemingly comfortable, entertaining environment. Now it even surfaces that the Ministry of Defense have permitted the 15 to sell their stories to a hungry media. A sort of real “reality show”! This was not Britain’s finest hour!

Is it any wonder Iran, Syria and their agents Hezbollah and Hamas see the west as weak? If governments will not stand up to bullies in the world, why would their citizens, even sailors and soldiers, do so? Just today Iran, in defiance of the world, announced their ongoing uranium enrichment program. We live in a vicious world. That is why Nancy Pelosi cannot be waltzing around making “nice-nice” with dictators. Tyrants are exploiters and if they can exploit differences between policy makers of opponents, they will. Conflicting positions makes western governments more susceptible to actions like the Iranian hostage taking. If there is no policy consensus how can there be a consensus on responses to actions by foreign governments? We end up with “girlie man” reactions. Let’s keep the Speaker home and re-establish backbone and resolve into the policies of the leaders of the western world. Then, soldiers and sailors may respond to adversity without co-operating with the enemy.