To Attack Thee, Mr. Sensitivity

August 26 2004
Counterbias.com
by Kelley K. Merriam

In a recent campaign stop, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry used the word “sensitive” to indicate one of the differences between a war he would run and the war on terrorism currently being led by the Bush administration.  Bush’s cronies have since attacked Kerry on this issue, implying that a “sensitive” President could not possibly lead a war against terrorism.  But what exactly does the word “sensitive” mean?  In the 2003 desktop edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, sensitive has three definitions:  1) Subject to excitation by or responsive to stimuli; 2) having power of feeling; and 3) of such a nature as to be easily affected.  Bush’s campaign machine has latched on to definition three as it howls at Kerry, scoffing at the very concept that one so easily affected could head any war at all.

Perhaps a bit of sensitivity training would serve the Bush campaign well.  Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States enjoyed the greatest international support and rapport this country has experienced for over a century.  Even Fidel Castro, our sworn enemy since the early 1960s, spoke out against the 9/11 attacks and affirmed Cuba’s solidarity with the United States.  The U.S. move into Afghanistan was widely supported, while nations around the world offered what aid they could to help the U.S. search for Osama Bin Laden.  The moment we turned to Iraq, however, international support waned.  A much reduced collaboration of troops moved into a small Middle Eastern country that had no demonstrated connection to the September 11 attacks.  Riots erupted in countries that provided troops, while other nations endured a tongue-lashing from the United States as they withdrew their support completely. 

Could John Kerry’s criticism of Bush’s insensitivity refer to this transition from international support to bull-headed isolationism?  Perhaps Kerry means to suggest that the United States should create a foreign policy that uses more diplomacy, fewer threats, and less name-calling to achieve its international goals.  This type of foreign policy would make use of definition two of the word sensitive (“having power of feeling”):  for example, being aware of the sentiments of nations around the world, and allowing international democracy to work.  After all, the United States defines itself as a promoter of democracy.  Yet this democratic nation tramples on the majority voice of the United Nations in international affairs.

 Bush’s style of sensitivity appears to equate more closely with definition one (“Subject to excitation”).  Bush has unquestionably demonstrated an ability to act quickly and decisively with violence.  Bin Laden was not found, his name forgotten in the excitement over a new target.  Iraq’s image was craftily equated with the war on terror and we attacked with rigor.  Psychologists call this phenomenon “transference”:  when the real enemy cannot be defeated, pick one that can.  We see this frequently in the schoolyard.  The bully can’t defend himself against his real enemy, an alcoholic father for example, so he beats up every other kid on the playground.  This is the “subject to excitement” we see in Bush.  He is a bristling ball of action, not interested in hearing other opinions, content to destroy the pride and support of other nations to achieve limited, short-sighted goals. 

Bush did act.  The United States went to war.  The troops removed Saddam Hussein from power.  But to what end?  What happens now?  When can the military leave?  And where will this international bully image take the United States?  Can the U.S. repair the mistrust it has created with other nations? And just exactly where IS Osama Bin Laden?  Who supports Al Qaeda?  With all the resources spent on a tangential war, can the United States really be safer than it was in September 2001?

If one must choose between an “easily excitable” Bush and a Kerry “with power of feeling”, Kerry’s definition number two reflects a more sound international policy in a time when attacks on U.S. soil are potentially being crafted by groups around the globe.  International alliance and support will help the United States detect and stop any hopefuls who want to cause destruction on the continent much more successfully than will U.S. isolationism.  In this respect, Bush’s sensitivities are all wrong.

Kelley K. Merriam is the newest Counterbias columnist.