Don't be a girly man

Size shouldn't matter, but lately it seems to.

USA Today reported on Tuesday that US troops in Iraq are forced to spend far more time in combat without a significant break, than troops in previous wars. This in spite of recommendations by army psychologists that troops receive a one month break for every three months in combat, a policy similar to that used in World War II. An Army mental health study reports that 30% of troops are experiencing some sort of mental health problem, including anxiety, depression, and acute stress. This comes from having to be continuously wary of surprise insurgent attacks.

US commanders reject the concern.

They (U.S. troops) are out there consistently every single day. So you have to be mentally and physically tough.

So says Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of ground forces in Iraq, suggesting that anyone who can't handle fifteen months of continuous combat isn't "mentally and physically tough." Odierno's chief aide, Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson, says they can't afford to allow breaks.

We would never get the job done of securing (of Baghdad) if we went out [into combat] for three months and came back [for one].

What he means is that having a better-rested military force would require more manpower, so troops would be available to replace those taken out for R-and-R. Since the voluntary forces, including the reserves and National Guard are already stretched to the limit, a larger force could only be achieved by means of a draft. The president would much rather quietly subject 30% of his volunteers to lasting mental health problems, than face a public uproar over the true cost of this war.

While this may seem like un-American cruelty to most of us, to the Bush Administration and its supporters it's just part of the job. A significant percentage of the population thinks America is too soft, that it needs to become more muscular and manly. Needless to say, a disproportionate number who think so, are men.

A great explanation of this cultural phenomenon can be found in a book by Stephen Ducat, "The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity." Ducat shows how recent politicians and their advisors have discovered the importance of being phallic, of behaving as though possessed of floods of testosterone. The public eats it up. The book is a rather graphic but entertaining exposee that uses a framework of masculinity to explain the recent electoral successes of Republican politicians.

The book explores the context of paternalism that we have inherited from the many cultures contributing to our Melting Pot. A possible explanation for the recent ascendance of macho may come from looking at recent changes in America's economic position in the world. Once we were the alpha male nation, unquestionably dominant in the world economy on the strength of our natural resources and level of education. Recently, however, other much larger nations have been catching up. Our "package" hasn't really gotten any smaller, but others have grown, and we're no longer the pride of the locker room.

Like middle school boys who haven't yet learned adult problem solving skills, our leaders are trying to compensate for the loss of dominance by using their fists. They will always attract a crowd of admirers who are similarly stunted.

Democrats so far have tried to compete by displaying their own military masculinity, exemplified especially by John Kerry's jingoistic performance at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. But that isn't the only choice. For one thing, women aren't nearly as impressed with size as men are, and don't need masculine imagery to persuade them in a political decision. For another thing, militarism isn't the only way to demonstrate strength and virility to men. We can attack hard problems such as economic growth, energy, education, and health care using imagery of power, confidence, and ingenuity, showing how we're brave enough to confront these problems while Republicans shy away.