The human psyche is a marvel. It is at once tremendously resilient yet ever so fragile. In the face of assaultive forces or events which challenge its integrity, it can stand firm. But, when pushed to the limits of tolerance, it can crumble, much like the levees of New Orleans. Confronted with the threat—real or imagined—of some breach, the psyche will muster the resources at its disposal (the psychological equivalent of sandbags) to defend itself from the emotional waters that may overwhelm it. Among the most common of these waters are anxiety and shame.

Imagine a situation, not all that atypical, wherein a man—who perhaps has long lived in the shadow of a powerful parent and, as a result, possesses (or is possessed by) deep-seated feelings of inadequacy—compensates for such by engaging in behavior that makes him feel powerful but is nevertheless wrong. (Bullies often manifest this dynamic.) Consciously or unconsciously sensing that he has violated some moral stricture, or perhaps because others have pointed such out to him, he begins to feel ashamed and to admonish himself for his actions. In so doing, his latent anxiety about his perceived inadequacy is stirred. He is also anxious about the potential ramifications of his wrongful behavior. Unable to tolerate either the shame or the anxiety, he comes to his own defense by rationalizing, minimizing, or denying his behavior; asserting a false sense of entitlement or superiority; shiftng blame onto others; or the like. Until such time as this man is able to honestly confront both his behavior and the feelings that underlie them, this unhappy dynamic is apt to recur.

Yesterday, following revelation of an aborted terrorist plot to ignite liquid explosives on multiple passenger planes bound for the United States, President Bush offered a brief statement, in which he made the following comments:

The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation….

This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11. We’ve taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously, we’re still not completely safe, because there are people that still plot and people who want to harm us for what we believe in. [full text]

The refrain that the terrorists are motivated to inflict harm upon Americans because of our beliefs and freedoms—though oft asserted by Mr. Bush and members of his administration—is fallacious. It is contrary to the informed opinion of a great many, including the members of the Defense Science Board (DSB), a well-established and well-respected advisory committee working within the Department of Defense. In September of 2004, the DSB issued an unclassified report on strategic communication as it relates to national security and foreign policy. On page 40 of this report, the writers offered the following analysis:

• Muslims do not “hate our freedom,� but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states.
• Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that “freedom is the future of the Middle East� is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.
• Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination. [full report]

Despite the DSB’s expert analysis and much other evidence to support their perspective, President Bush continues to stick to his guns and perpetuate the simplistic notion that the terrorists “want to harm us for what we believe in.� The question is why. Is he unaware of alternate viewpoints? Is he being obstinate? Is he being deceptive? Or is he defended against the truth, deceiving himself above all others? Perhaps, as previously posited, Mr. Bush is aware on some level that he has engaged in major wrongdoing but cannot tolerate the shame and anxiety associated with such. Therefore, in order to preserve his fragile sense of self, he denies the reality of the situation (and his role in such), develops a less psychologically threatening outlook, and asserts his—and, by extension, America’s—moral superiority. And many citizens and politicians go along with him, in part because the very idea that their leader has misled them and done wrong and, in so doing, tarnished the image of the country they have supported and idealized is too painful to bear. Thus, it would appear, do the psychological defenses influence the national defense.