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.
Kmareka.com 
There’s no question that 100 years of inept foreign policy has brought us to this, on both the part of England and America. England’s contribution includes the partitioning of India and the creation of Pakistan, and the support of Wahabbiist extremists, both a product of a divide and conquer strategy. America’s contribution was to support extremist theocratic elements, in the hopes that they would oppose “Godless” communism, and to undermine democratically elected governments in favour of puppet regimes. America’s installation of the Shah eventually led to the revolution and the current theocracy; had it not been for this, Iran might be the voice of moderation in the Middle East and not the central distributor of terrorism. And the invasion of Iraq is enough to put Bush up there with the worst of them–it was probably the worst policy possible under the circumstances.
However, to blame this all on support for Israel and discount the genuine antipathy of Muslim extremists for Western values and freedoms is simply naive. Israel is a vanishingly small portion of the Middle East. The body count on terrorist attacks shows a complete lack of concern for the safety of Palestinians on the part of the terrorists. Believing that Muslims go to heaven as martyrs when killed in Jihad, the terrorists actually think they are doing Palestinians a favour by killing them. Nesrallah isn’t after Zionists; he said that it would be better if all Jews came to Israel, so that he would be able to kill them all. Israel is a political red herring, played up by dictators and populist demagogues in the Middle East to keep their people distracted from the real issues. And it works–the people fall for it, the DSB fell for it, and even you fell for it.
Good fences make good neighbours, as the old saying goes, but the internet and the flow of culture from America has brought American values directly into the homes of millions of people in the Middle East. The fences have come down. This challenges the ideological monopoly of the clerics, and what they really want us to do is shut up; they want to stop the flow of information and influence at source, if possible. That means, yes, that they do actually oppose your freedoms. This may not be the view of the majority of the citizenry, but it is what is motivating the terrorist extremist groups, who are led by Imams and fight in the name of Islam. They’re afraid that if their own people get a taste of these freedoms, they might want them too, and the theocratic stranglehold that exists in their countries will end. So as much as I hate to agree with Bush on anything, Islamic terrorists really do hate your freedoms.
The point Mark makes about leaders fearing freedom because of the potential loss of control and power it brings is completely universal around the world amongst all people at all levels. It drives the Ayatollah as much as it drives George Bush as much as it drives everyone on the street. It is in fact the very basis of democracry… forcing everyone else to live by the rules of the group that wins. A truly free society would have no elections.. no debates, no laws.. people would be free to live as they please.
As an example, US election debates are essentialy about freedoms.. the right to choose, the right to have one’s relationship recognised by law, the right to smoke.. it goes on and on… every single issue is basically about whether one section of a society is prepared to allow another section do something else.
Everyone hates everyone else’ freedom… we all hate any attempt made by anyone to curb or determine our lifestyles.
The argument is therefore pretty much moot.
For those on the ground in the occupied territories, the division of the region is the nearest root cause… whilst the US and Israel’s ongoing policies and actions have been the core issue ever since. Don’t make it up… just ask them. They are the best judges of their own pains and fear.
Great insight, I remember it being said (cant remember the source) that the societies we construct and live in mirror our mental makeup. Maybe it should be amended to mirror the mental make up of those who think they are in charge!
Terrific piece!
I only wish Bush had the maturity or mental fortitude to be that self-aware. I believe he has all of the behaviors you ascribe to him, but absolute and total indifference to public perception of him.
Surely there’s a phenomenon in child psychology that fits? uh… “frat-brat” syndrome, or “mommy’s little avenging devil” … something like that?
I agree, David. This is one of your finer efforts, a piece where your talent as a writer really shines. You raise provocative questions, and while I would agree with Rob that the features that Bush displays are features displayed by many leaders and by many people, I think it is important to point out the enormous repercussions of the “reaction formation” (isn’t that what it’s called?) of our defender-in-chief.
The point is not moot, because everyone else is not trying to blow us up–although I would agree that George Bush hates our freedoms, as do most of the people on the Religious Right.
Societies must mediate conflicts, which is why you have laws, debates, and elections. If someone decides that one of their freedoms is to shoot you and take everything you own, you might object. Well, most people might, but maybe you wouldn’t. Some freedoms contradict the freedoms of others, and must be negotiated within society. But a gay person’s right to marry has no impact on the marriages of straight people, and our freedoms in the media and the internet have no impact on the freedoms of the people of the Middle East. The effort to limit these, and other similar campaigns, are essentially fascist. They are the attempt to impose control for the sake of control. Do not dignify them as an inevitable result of democracy.
People in the occupied territories are pissed at Israel. Iran is not an occupied territory. Neither is Saudi Arabia. The Muslim extremists aren’t even concerned with the people in the occupied territories, as the casualty list indicates. And say we get rid of the tyrannies they complain about, as Bush did in Iraq? Look at what happened. So what are we supposed to do? We can’t go back in time and undo what’s been done.
You are too willing to take the opinions of a small vocal group in the Middle East, just as they are too willing to assume that we are all Dubya. Most of them just want to get on with their lives. The motivations of terrorists are every bit as twisted as the psychology of Bush. Don’t presume that they speak for all Muslims or all Arabs, any more than you would assume that gangsta rappers speak for all blacks.