24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Abstract [[pacifism]] is intellectually stupid and morally wrong — one has to stand up against a threat. Of course the fall of [[Saddam]] would be a relief to a large majority of Iraqi people, and a whiff of [[liberal]] hypocrisy does taint many of the stated reasons against [[war]]. But the impending invasion and occupation of Iraq is still wrong — because <i>who is leading it</i> makes it wrong. This is not a question of [[war]] or [[peace]] in the short term, but of the "gut feeling" that something is terribly wrong with this war, that something will irretrievably change with it.
One of [[Jacques Lacan’s Lacan]]'s more outrageous statements is that, even if what a [[jealousy|jealous ]] husband claims about his unfaithful wife is all true, his [[jealousy ]] is still [[pathology|pathological]]. The same should be said today about the claim that “Saddam "[[Saddam]] has [[weapons of mass destruction]]!” " Even if this [[enunciation|claim ]] is [[truth|true ]] (and it probably is, at least to some degree), it is still [[false ]] with regard to the position from which it is [[enunciated]]. Everyone knows that this [[war ]] is about more than [[weapons of mass destruction]]. But it is about more than [[oil]], too. As ardent hawks [[William Kristol ]] and [[Lawrence F. Kaplan ]] write in their recent <i>The War Over Iraq,</i> , the impending occupation “is "is about more even than the future of the [[Middle East ]] and the [[war on terror]]. It is about what sort of role the [[United States ]] intends to play in the twenty-first century.”<br><br>"
One cannot but agree: The future of the international [[community ]] is at stake now—the now — the new [[rules ]] that will regulate it, what the [[new world order ]] will be. We are in the midst of a “silent "[[silent revolution]],” " in which the unwritten rules that determine the most elementary international logic are changing. Washington scolded [[German ]] Prime Minister [[Gerhard Schröder]], a democratically elected leader, for maintaining an anti-war stance supported by the large majority of Germans. In [[Turkey]], according to opinion polls, 94 percent of the people are opposed to allowing U.S. troops in their country for the war. Where is [[democracy ]] here? Those who pose as global defenders of democracy are the ones who are effectively undermining it.<br><br>
It is crucial to remember that the present regime in [[Iraq ]] is ultimately a [[secularism|secular ]] [[nationalism|nationalist ]] one, out of touch with [[Muslim ]] [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist ]] [[populism]]. Obviously, [[Saddam ]] only superficially flirts with pan-Arab Muslim sentiment. As his past clearly demonstrates, he is a pragmatic ruler striving for [[power]], who shifts alliances when it fits his purposes—first purposes — first against [[Iran ]] to grab their oil fields, then against [[Kuwait ]] for the same reason, bringing against himself a pan-Arab coalition allied with the [[United States]]. [[Saddam ]]is <i>not</i> a fundamentalist obsessed with the “Great "Great Satan,” " ready to blow the world apart just to get him. What can emerge as a result of U.S. occupation, however, is a truly [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist ]] [[Muslim]], anti-American movement, directly linked to such movements in other Muslim countries.<br><br>
On March 5, MSNBC’s <i>Buchanan & Press</i> show displayed a photo of the recently captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the “third "third man of [[al-Qaeda”—a Qaeda]]" — a mean visage, in an unspecified nightgown prison-dress, half opened and with something like bruises half-discernible, hints that he was already tortured[[torture]]d. [[Pat Buchanan’s Buchanan]]’s fast voice was asking: “Should "Should this man who knows all the names, all the detailed plans for the future terrorist attacks on the United States, be tortured, so that we get all this out of him?” " The horror was that the photo already suggested the answer. No wonder the response of other commentators and viewers’ calls was an overwhelming “Yes"Yes!”<br><br>"
This is a pretty close realization of what [[Orwell ]] imagined in <i>[[1984]]</i>’s “hate "[[hate sessions]],” " where the [[citizenship|citizens ]] are shown photos of the traitors and supposed to boo and yell at them. And the story goes on: A day later, a [[FOX News ]] commentator claimed that we are allowed to do with this prisoner whatever we want—deprive want — deprive him of sleep, break his fingers, etc.—because — because he is “a "a piece of human garbage with no rights whatsoever.” " That such [[public statements ]] [[statement]]s are possible today is the true catastrophe.<br><br>
We should therefore be very attentive not to fight ancillary battles: the debates on how bad [[Saddam ]] is, or on how much the [[war ]] will cost, even on how well (or poorly) the occupation is proceeding. The focus should be on what effectively goes on in our [[culture]], on what kind of society is emerging here as the result of the “war "[[war on terror]].” " The ultimate result of this war will be a change in our [[political ]] [[order]].
==See Also==* [[war]]* [[peace]]* [[torture]]* [[culture]]* [[liberal democracy]]* [[jealous]]* [[paranoia]]* [[war on terror]]* [[emergency state]]* [[western liberals]] ==Source==* [[Today, Iraq. Tomorrow ... Democracy?]] ''In These Times''. March 18, 2003. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/565/> [[Category:Politics]][[Category:Culture]][[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Works]][[Category:Articles]]