Everything In Its Place.

Nancy Pelosi is ticked off at Republicans again. This time, it's because they're so very sexist.

After Pelosi suggested Monday that the public was wary of sending more troops to Afghanistan -- and that McChrystal's recommendation to President Obama for more troops "should go up the line of command" rather than be aired in "press conferences" -- the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a mocking press release titled "General Pelosi Knows Better, Slams McChrystal."

"If Nancy Pelosi's failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place," concluded the release, setting off a barrage of criticism from Democrats and liberal blogs that the GOP was employing sexist rhetoric.

Pelosi herself weighed in Thursday at her weekly press briefing.

"It's really sad they really don't understand how inappropriate that is," Pelosi said. "I'm in my place -- I'm the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. But that language is something I haven't heard in decades."

Nancy Pelosi took the NRCC's statement to mean she needed to be put in her place as a woman. But that's obviously not what the NRCC meant.

Stanley McChrystal is a general in the U.S. Army. He thinks we should put more troops in Afghanistan.

Nancy Pelosi is a politician. She thinks he's wrong.

When the NRCC says that McChrystal should put Pelosi "in her place," they're saying they want McChrystal to remind Pelosi that, as a military official, he knows a thing or two about military policy. And to make that point crystal clear, the NRCC encapsulated it in the press release's title: "General Pelosi knows better, slams McChrystal."

The issue isn't whether a woman can be speaker of the house. It's whether the speaker of the house should pretend to be a general.

Pelosi is smart enough to know this. But phony outrage over non-existent sexism is much more fun than real debate.

When Worlds Collide.

Barack Obama's much-hyped speech to the Muslim world won't change anything. But it was a pretty good piece of political rhetoric.

Yes, he presented a white-washed version of Islamic history, but what else could he do? He's trying to make friends. And generally, you don't diss the people you want to befriend.

Most refreshingly, Obama resisted the temptation to identify Bush administration policies as the root of America's conflict with the Muslim world, as he's done on past occasions.

And while there were the expected apologies for past American actions in the Middle East (like the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq), Obama had equally strong praise for the good ol' USA.

Even so, it's beyond naive to assume that rhetoric will do anything to cure the Middle East's problems.

As Obama acknowledged, the conflict between Islamic nations and the West has been going on for a long time. But Obama's dead wrong when he assumes that all this fighting is the result of a communication problem. Like Bush, Obama assumes that all people essentially share the same set of values. It's a beautiful idea, but it's also completely wrong.

Not everyone is a fan of freedom, peace, equality, and tolerance. Historically, very few nations have celebrated these values the way modern societies do, and many nations still reject them. There are a variety reasons why this happens. Some people value the stability of tradition over the chaos that results from individual expression. Some people believe that the collective will should be exalted above personal choices.

And yes, many Muslims reject democratic values because of their religious beliefs.

Like all religions, Islam is complicated. To say that Islam has always been a religion of violence and intolerance would be inaccurate. But to characterize it as a force for peace and tolerance would be just as lopsided. Historically, most Islamic rulers allowed Christians and Jews to exist in their lands. But non-Islamic citizens were hardly equal. Their testimony was disregarded in court, and they were forced to pay a special tax. At times, they were forced to wear distinctive clothing. The Ottoman Empire populated its army with military slaves known as janisaries, most of whom were kidnapped from Christian families when they were children.

While the extermination of religious minorities was rarely official policy, it did happen.

There are verses in the Koran that imply that Christians and Jews will get to paradise, but there are also verses that seem to command Muslims to conquer unbelievers. Even if many modern Muslims would rather live and let live, you don't have to be a history professor to figure out that Muslims in the past felt differently about the matter. And there are still plenty of Muslims who follow the path of violent jihad.

Islamic jurists from different sects have conflicting opinions regarding Islam's compatibility with modern values. Needless to say, some come down firmly against them. While it's true that several Islamic countries have had female leaders, the broader state of women's rights -- and human rights in general -- in the Muslim world is still dismal. Assuming that all of this is just a massive coincidence, or the result of Western imperialism, is nonsense.

The arrogance of Western commentators is their constant claim that "true Islam" is peaceful. Some Islamic sects are peaceful, others aren't. What gives someone the authority to decide which ones are "true?"

I don't think that most Muslims are "bad people" by human standards. I don't think most of them want to kill me. I think they have some legitimate grievances against the West.

But radical Islam isn't an insignificant force in the Middle East. And its adherents don't share our values.

One of the great failures of humanistic policy makers has been their failure to understand the reality of god-centered religions. They assume that a common ethical core lies beneath the veneer of religious belief. If someone does bad things, it's simply because they're poor and oppressed. This is the flawed worldview that Obama espoused when he talked about people "clinging to guns and religion" because of economic hardship.

But in reality, many people do things simply because they believe it's what their god wants them to do -- whether or not it benefits them personally. Their values are not centered around humanistic ethics, or a survival instinct.

Material poverty can help spark an interest in radicalism, but not all radicals are poor. The Bin Laden family certainly isn't hurting for cash, but that didn't stop lil' Osama from going astray.

What am I getting at?

I'm not sure. In the real world, there's not much the American government can do beyond the things we're already doing: fighting terrorists when possible, allying ourselves with moderates in the region, and attempting to coax skeptical Muslims with reasonable concessions and kind words.

But reality should always inform our decisions. And the reality is that some people are very different from us, and will probably never be like us -- no matter how much we try to be their friends.

This is the world we live in. Coming to terms with it doesn't give us a clear roadmap for the future -- but it doesn't hurt either.