I resisted the temptation to write anything in the immediate aftermath of the rescue of Norman Kember from his kidnappers. On hearing that he had issued numerous statements, none of which had the good grace to thank those who risked their lives to rescue him (the British, Iraqi, Canadian, US and military and also the MI6 agents), my initial reaction was that I would gladly chip in the cash to pay for a flight back to Baghdad for him.
But I'm not sure how clear-thinking I'd be in the aftermath of such an ordeal, so I held my tongue.
Only cowards, the naive or the wicked wish to see us rid of our armed forces. I am sure that Kember is one of the naive. He is no coward, for sure - you wouldn't catch me in Iraq without a rifle and some heavily armed mates - and I refuse to believe that my co-religionist is evil. I think he is thoughtless, selfish, reckless and senselessly careless of the lives of others, but not evil. But he shares goals with evil men. In the Canadian National Post, you can see how the Iraqi ambassador reacted:
"The Christian Peacemaker Teams practises the kind of politics that automatically nominate them as dupes for jihadism and fascism," the embassy's statement said.
"The statement shows they even share the rhetoric of the jihadists, even if they do it out of naivete. Despite their claimed affinity for 'non-violence,' this is false.
"Politically, they are on the other side of this war. Christian Peacemaker Teams are objectively on the side of the fascists, Saddam Hussein's loyalists and al-Qaida in Iraq."
I can see his point. If you hope for something - in this case the rapid withdrawal of our forces from Iraq and the abandonment of the democratic, elected government of that country - look at the people around you who hope for the same thing. In this case, they are Jihadists, Islamist, Wahabbists, Salafists and assorted, tag-along anti-Semites like the Socialist Workers Party. If the goals of your allies are wicked, either they or you aren't spotting something about the outcome.
The repugnant Canadian hostages are more open about their disdain for those who saved them. At least Kember was persuaded to release a graceless and clearly grudging "thank-you" to those who saved his life. Loney and Sooden refuse to even help their rescuers by giving information that might save the lives of others in captivity. They prefer to maintain their distaste for soldiers rather than help save others' lives. I am quite serious when I say that they should stick to their glorious principles and hand themselves over to their kidnappers. I hope that we make clear that any other such collaborationists will not be rescued. If a soldier was scratched by a nail while saving them it would be too high a price.
Do I seem angry? Do I seem harshly and needlessly judgemental? I know of two young men who would have grown up, had families, bounced their grandchildren on their knees and died in old age surrounded by their loved ones but for the fact that they were called up to free Europeans from Hitler's Germany, in one case dying in a field in Normandy, victim of a sniper's bullet. Those men might not have wanted to fight, and certainly didn't want to die. But they understood that some evils will prevail until defeated in battle. I have the greatest of respect for those "conscientious objectors" who served as medical aides in that conflict, and who suffered a great many deaths and injuries from amongst their ranks. But they were wrong.
I cannot even understand those who say it is better to impose sanctions - to starve comfortably distant, unseen children to death while the elite eat caviar - rather than send our volunteer soldiers in harm's way. And I am repelled by those who say that if we cannot interfere everywhere, we should not do so anywhere. That is like saying that if the lifeboats only hold one hundred, and two hundred stand on the deck, all should drown.
When there are no more evil people in the world, we will not need men in uniform to defend us from them. And until the Rapture, we have that need.