Paul Krugman asks a very good question today in his NY Times column: “Where’s the Apology?” He’s asking why the Bush administration, after a series of mistakes and hyped intelligence reports that launched an invasion, after leaks from the White House that compromised the identity and perhaps the safety of a CIA employee, and after giving no-bid contracts to companies run by friends, there’s not a word of acknowledgement or admission that maybe, just maybe, it’s wrong.

Well, Mr. Krugman, don’t hold your breath. The Bush administration will never admit to doing anything wrong and they will fight you tooth and nail to prove you are wrong for suggesting they are wrong. Not only would it be devastating in an election year, it would be counter to everything that makes up the character of George W. Bush. It wouldn’t be manly, and woe betide anyone who suggests that George W. Bush and his administration is anything less than that.

This administration reeks of manliness, or at least their vision of it. To them, Real Men don’t apologize. Real Men don’t take crap from little guys – or in this case, little countries with megalomanic dictators. Real Men don’t ask questions – they kick ass and take names. Real Men display their virility without shame and they make fun of others in whom they perceive weakness – or humility. And as any first-year psychology student – or good episode of The View – will tell you, it all stems from a mortal fear of being seen as anything less than 100% all male. It’s as if there’s something really powerful being repressed.

The signs are all there. The rush to engage in combat is a defense mechanism that every bully uses to shield himself for fear that he will be found out as a coward or to avenge a perceived slight to his honor. The war in Iraq would have occurred regardless of 9/11; they were laying the groundwork for it before the inauguration stand was taken down. If anything, 9/11 was a distraction – he had to go to Afghanistan before he could go to Baghdad – but it also played into his hands by providing him with a nebulous threat to the world: “Terrorism” became the new Red Menace. Equating it with a primal force – evil – made it an everlasting threat. (Terrorism has been with us since the beginning of time and is the stuff of heroic myths and legends: what else would you call the Greeks hiding out in a wooden horse to attack the Trojans in the night?) By doing so, Bush has made it a war that will have no end and provide him with the cover that he needs to do whatever it takes to win. He’s also staked his personal reputation on it – lose and his very manhood is called into question.

A friend suggests that George W. Bush is overcompensating. His overly butch and fratboy mannerisms, his toughguy attitude (“Bring ’em on”), his latching onto fundamentalism, even his stroll across the flightdeck of the Lincoln, all make my friend wonder if somewhere back in his youth Mr. Bush had a boarding school or college freshman dorm “Christ-was-I-drunk-last-night” encounter with another guy that has led to a pathological revulsion to anything that might suggest he is anything other than straight. (My friend, by the way, is happily straight.) While I have my doubts about long-distance psychology and I really do not wish to contemplate the vision evoked by that idea, it does at least suggest that there is more going on here than just bad intelligence and neocon foreign policy. It would not be the first time in human history that nations went to battle for personal reasons – the aforementioned Trojan war being the classic example. And as a student of playwriting and dramatic theory, I have long believed that we spend our adult lives making up for the slights and torments of childhood. Playwrights have long used the stage as the psychiatrist’s couch.

But that’s theatre. It’s over when the lights come up. War is another matter, and when lives are at stake, it is no longer a matter of male pride – “a guy thing.” It’s life and death.