Feminist theories provide explanations that differ from both realist and liberal theories. In the case of response to aggression, such as in Kuwait and Bosnia, feminists might call attention to the importance of gender roles such as the desire on the part of state leaders to prove their manhood by standing up to the bad guys. In the case of Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush had long been criticized as being a “wimp” (an insult to his manhood), and his determination to respond to Iraq’s aggression became a personal battle with Saddam Hussein.
A key moment in Bush’s decision process was said to be when Britain’s prime minister, Margaret Thatcher—a woman—urged him to act firmly, saying, “Don’t go all wobbly on us, George.” Some of the initial reaction to the attacks against the United States on September 11 also indicated that a swift, tough and manly reaction was demanded. Former Defense Intelligence Agency officer Thomas Woodrow wrote that, “To do less [than use tactical nuclear capabilities against the bin Laden camps in the desert of Afghanistan] would be rightly seen . . . as cowardice on the part of the United States.” Journalist Steve Dunleavy commented that, “This should be as simple as it is swift— kill the bastards.
A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts.” Not to be outdone, George W. Bush sought to establish his credentials when he said of Osama bin Laden: “Wanted Dead or Alive.” For feminists, this kind of masculinist frame can lead decision-makers down paths that could, and should, be avoided. In turn, it likely forecloses other policy options precisely because they are not “manly” enough. Some observers suggested that the U.S. government could make an enormously profound statement after September 11 by “bombarding Afghanistan with massive supplies of food instead of warheads. Such an approach would surely earn America’s commander-in-chief the media label of wimp—and much worse. Obviously, it’s the sort of risk that the president wouldn’t dare to take.”*