The Truth Can Be Ugly

In a day and age when Iran can grab British Royal Navy sailors out of the Persian gulf with impunity, Nancy Pelosi should be careful where she travels. Her visit to Syrian President Bashar Assad may not amount to a violation of The Logan Act, as I have read, nor might it constitute treason in any other way. On the other hand, she might well be guilty of some violation. I’m not an expert so I’ll reserve judgment one way or another.

I will say one thing though unequivocally. You don’t have to be an expert to see that this was an act of political grandstanding. I’m not really sure what she thought she was going to accomplish, but it looks like a make-believe overture to show her own personal constituents, as well as the overall Democratic voter base, that she, as the head of the Congressional Democrats, second-in-line to the Presidency in her role of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives, is demonstrating that the Democratic Party stands for diplomacy and the hopes and prospects for peace.

The symbolism is obvious. Bush will not talk to Assad. Pelosi will. The Republicans don’t know anything about peace, they are all about belligerence and warfare. The Democrats are all about negotiation and peace. The bumbling misstep when Pelosi informed Assad that the Israelis were wanting to make peace with the Syrians was easily rectified by Prime Minister Ohlmert, who immediately let it be known that any peace deal was dependent on certain conditions that Nancy, being Nancy, neglected to point out.

All of this bothers me, the missteps, the obvious political grandstanding to the Democrats leftist base, the potential violation of The Logan Act or other laws. What some people don’t seem to get by pointing out that some congressional Republicans accompanied Pelosi on this trip, and have indeed made other trips, is that those individuals are not in the position to formulate policy nor are seen as doing so.

Arguably, the office of Speaker Of The House Of Representatives is the second most powerful office in the country, more powerful technically and legally than Vice-President, whose true power is limited to casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when necessary. Otherwise, none of his duties really constitute any kind of auhority. This may be different in Cheney’s case, true, but I am speaking in historical and legal terms. There have been times when the Speaker was more powerful than certain Presidents. John Tyler, for example. There have been times when there was a complete shutdown of government due to friction between the two offices. Bill Clinton’s Presidency, of course, as well as Andrew Johnsons, were paralyzed by a kind of political civil war waged by an ambitious Congress and/or House Speaker.

Pelosi seems to have wanted this type of power, and foresaw the same kind of political showdown that would get the Democratic base all fired up. When this ended up failing to materialize in the form of the war funding package, to which Pelosi inadvisably attached a troop deadline withdrawal which was slated for a month before the ’08 elections, Pelosi was left with no other option but to back down. Of course, the Democrats are not going to withhold funds from the troops.

Now this, a chance for Pelosi to redeem herself and stick it to the Republicans at the same time. And though Assad, it has been said, preferred to spend his time at a soccer game, he did agree to put aside some time for the strange little woman from San Francisco who appeared before him in the traditional Arab head covering as a sign of respect.

That is what I guess bothers me as much as anything. By appearing with this garment on her head, whether she sees it this way or not, Pelosi was in a very real and symbolic way projecting an image of submission to Assad. And Assad’s Syria, by and large, is arguably the major player in the constant Middle East friction regarding Israel and to the dismay of many observers is primarily responsible for a good deal of the Sunni insurgent violence in Iraq. It is by way of his borders that most of the non-Iraqi Sunni insurgents travel, after all.

Nor are they all Syrians. Many are Saudis, while a good many as well are Jordanians,in fact from all areas of the Middle East and other Muslim nations. Pelosi is not qualified to engage in diplomacy with him in any event, whether or not her trip constitutes any kind of breach or willful violation of US law. But for her to appear under these further conditions is incredible. A San Francisco woman, representing a constituency which is a bedrock of liberalism and feminism, to appear in an attitude of subjugation before the head of a country where the rights of women are held to be secondary at best, is at least surreal.

And it is not even as though Syria is the worse offender in this regard, in fact, a Syrian woman is probably by and large better off than a woman in, say, Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia, or most other Arab or Muslim nations, due to the fact that Syria is after all ruled by a secular regime that does not abide by shariah law. There is a good argument to be made for engaging Assad diplomatically, actually for a variety of reasons, the secular nature of his regime being one of them. Personally, I think the main reason he is lax at his borders has as much to do with wanting these religious radicals out of his country as it does with wanting to cause a problem for the US and the present Iraqi government. If they get killed by us as a result, I doubt he is shedding any tears for them.

But Bush is doggedly determined that the entire Middle East will be democratized, feeling the overall result of this will be peace and economic progress in the region, and long term stability. I think he is wrong, I think it would result in nation after nation adopting a form of shariah law which will then be considered the final word on the matter.

After all, the people will have voted for it, right? That is what they will have said they wanted, correct? End of story. Democracy has spoken, why second guess it every four years or so?

Womens’ rights? Minority rights? Religious rights? Of course they all have rights? There is no need whatsoever in spelling that out in a national constitution. Their legitimate rights have already been spelled out, in the words of the Holy Qu’ran. How could the law of man possibly improve on that?

This is the true irony, the fact that governments like Assads, and yes, Saddams, were in some ways an actual improvement over what would otherwise be the case, and what will in the majority of cases be the reality if Bush and the Neo-Cons get their way in the Middle East.

That is not to say that a constitutional democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. Just that if it does, it is still a hell of a long way off. Three or four lifetimes, at the very least, and very likely longer than that. And yes, very possibly never. People point to the success ultimately in removing communism from the Soviet Union and it’s sphere of influence particularly in Eastern Europe, as proof that it is possible, but there is only minimal comparison between the two.

Communism is unnatural, so much so it could only be maintained through fear and force, even by imprisonment of it’s peoples within it’s borders, by uprooting entire populations in some cases. The difference between communism and Islam is profound in this regard. Islam is, or seems to be, perfectly suited to the nature of it’s adherents. It has had fourteen hundred years to take root in the psyche of the Arab people of the Middle East, and many hundreds of years as well in the cases of other peoples. And it wasn’t that hard to take hold in any event, as it itself was in many cases and in many ways an improvement over what those people had experienced previously.

With Islam, they were given a sense of unity, of cultural identity, of spiritual meaning, of assurance, stability, security. They got all of this without really having to give anything up, for the most part, with the exception of a few ancient idols that were quickly forgotten, and constant intermittent tribal feuds. With Islam, they went from being dessert varmints to an actual civilization to be reckoned with, and everyone was an integral part of that.

Then there is the Qu’ran itself, written in Arabic, one of the worlds great languages, which lends itself easily to poetry, which is what the Qu’ran is, a poetic rendition of what amounts to a mixture of Arab tribal laws and adaptations from various faiths, including Judaism and Christianity, with just enough remaining of the ancient Arabic pagan religion to provide a cultural anchor.

Converts to Islam are encouraged whenever possible to learn Arabic, to travel to the Middle East and study there, especially the language, and I suspect that it is because the Arabic language makes the Qu’ran more particularly compelling to the student who meditates and prayers and recites it on an on-going, regular basis.

You can make the case that it amounts to a form of brainwashing. In this regard it is certainly on a much higher level of efficiency than, say, “Das Capital”. Try reciting that five times a day while bowing towards Moscow. Then you’ll see why Assad and Saddam had to exercise such brutality in the manner in which they kept these people in line. Life is seldom pretty, but when the caliphate fell in the aftermath of World War I, after which came such things as western colonialism on it’s last legs, culminating in the British Mandate, the UN Charter, and finally, Soviet expansionism and the ever growing and constant need for oil, you can begin to understand the pattern that emerges.

All of this used to be pretty much understood, of course. There was never any idea that democracy versus socialism was a viable or winnable ideological contest in the context of the Middle East countries, that is why there were few differences of distinction between Western allies and those nations that fell under the Soviet axis.

The lesson should have been quickly learned when the Afghan mujahadeen fighters repulsed the Soviets with our aid and support. Those same mujahadden to a large extent went on to make up the Taliban. Not exactly a stellar example of freedom on the march, is it? Well, it depends on what your definition of freedom is, I guess. And that is just the problem the West can’t wrap it’s head around. Freedom, in the context of Middle Eastern Arab and Islamic culture, does not seem to equate to democracy and civil rights.

But again, both sides have it wrong. To the Right, the speak softly and when necessary whack ‘em with a big stick approach will work over time, and when the people see the long term benefits of a free market economy, they will gradually change. Yeah, like China. Like Russia. I guess when you stop to think about it, ancient Babylon, the wealthiest nation by far at it’s apex of power, must have been a “free market economy.” But let’s not dwell on that, why disturb the fantasy?

The make nice approach of the left isn’t any better, though in the long term it may also not be any worse when it comes to encouraging democracy and civil rights. Their approach seems to hinge on the threat of imposition of economic sanction, or the promise of removal of same, under the auspices of the UN. In the meantime, a firm diplomatic stance involving aid and international low interest loans and grants will serve best to ease the restrictions on those same peoples rights to vote for or against the imposition of shariah Islam.

The people will vote in their own best interests, and will more likely do so the more they are exposed to the ideals of democracy, freedom, and civil rights. After all, they certainly want to be a part of the world community, no one wants to remain isolated for the sake of some ancient religion, right?

Okay, here’s the problem with both approaches. They are arrived at from the narrow perspective of Western concepts of justice and idealism, and history. Both of these conclusions have been reached from a Western mind-set with little if any regard for the fact that we are dealing here with a society and culture that, to all intents and purposes, has so little in common with our own way of life and philosophy, they might as well be from the far side of Andromeda galaxy.

Arrogance, is what it amounts to, and on such a remarkable level it is beyond description. And the sad thing is, it is in the long run only going to result in more tragedy, more ruined lives, more wasted resources, and ever more bitterness and hatred. To an extent it might have been unavoidable in any event. But that reality should have been faced squarely.

It’s like telling a fat, profoundly ugly woman that she is the prettiest woman you have ever seen in your life. You might think you are sparring her feelings and might make her feel better about herself. Well, if she has any kind of sense of reality, all you are really going to do is piss her off and make her hate and resent you more than she already might. So the only sensible alternative is to see her for what she is, help her improve her situation to the extent she wants to and can improve, and help her in the meantime to focus on developing her potential by way of what strengths and talents she might actually possess. But you have to do so in a kindly but firmly diplomatic way. Otherwise, you just let her go on and live her life as is. There is only so much, after all, you can do.

All the bombs and military force in the world is not going to change reality. Neither is appearing as a woman in a diplomatically miscalculated pose of subjugation. The only thing that is going to do it, is strength, the kind of strength that realizes the simple fact that all nations, all people, all cultures, are in fact different to a degree, sometimes to the point that there is nothing in a relationship between the two that is redeemable, or workable. Sometimes, unfortunately, you just have to go your separate ways, and live your own lives.

Unfortunately, that requires the setting of firm boundaries, and the promise of the assurance of firm reaction when those boundaries are breached. And that is something that neither culture can tolerate. What puts the West for now at the most severe disadvantage is that here, while neither the left nor the right can stomach it, they are both so divided as to how to deal with it , that neither side can come to grips with any semblance of the reality.

The Islamists are all too aware of this, and play it for all it is worth. And they are by no means divided, at least not when it comes to that.