A couple of days ago, the Albuquerque Journal carried an AP story by John J. Lumpkin headlined "Rumsfeld Says He Cares for Troops." This was a Pentagon response to the criticism the Secretary of Defense received when he answered a soldier’s question about inadequate armor this way:
"You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."
In the seventh paragraph down, the reporter wrote:
"Critics called the response insensitive and castigated him for not doing more to prepare the US military for the Iraqi invasion and its aftermath."
Did somebody call the response "insensitive"? I guess so. But why?
What is this language of feelings? Where does it come from? And what is it doing in our political arena?
Because I am older, I would categorize Rumsfeld’s response as true or false, politically adept or stupid or, maybe, the product of quick or sluggish thinking.
It would never occur to me to say "insensitive."
But lots of folks use that language these days. How come? Well, wars usually give rationality a bad name and World War II was no exception. Then, in the 60s, came youth culture and television. Rock-and-rollers, hippies and other rebels exalted feeling and the senses. And though I do not fully understand how it works, the process of learning-by-seeing is about feeling, too.
We "linears" grew up getting not only specific information but a manual for using it - logic. The visual, however, offers – not hard information – but a "sense" of a person or situation. And its logic, the logic of pictures, is different. (In TV news, for example, we used to say, "Best video first." That meant rejecting chronology, an aid to logic.)
Perhaps that is why so many younger people use the language of feelings in the political arena. Me, I fear that concern with manners, feelings, emotion, will obscure what’s really at issue.
In this case, what's really at issue is the accuracy of Rumsfeld's answer. Fact: Rumsfeld went to war in Iraq with the Army he inherited from Clinton. Fact: Passionate about certain ideas about warfare in the new millennium, he rejected the advice of top brass to send a much bigger force to Iraq. Fact: he also ignored existing reports from the State Department and a few NGOs on what might happen after Saddam’s fall. And he didn’t adapt quickly to what was happening on the ground, The story today is about armor for vehicles, but not long ago parents were buying and mailing protective vests to their sons and daughters.
Thus, we have reaped the whirlwind. Not because of Rumsfeld’s language, but because his mind is closed.
Hey, I have my reservations about rationality, but feelings are an inferior tool for negotiating the world. I have never doubted the sincerity of Osama bin Laden’s feelings. Nor George W. Bush’s. It's just that, like Rumsfeld, they glory in their invincible ignorance.
Merry Christmas, everybody.
.