Changes

Gerhard SchroederIn The [[Minority Report]] (2002), Steven [[Spielberg]]'s Minority Report last [[film]] based on a Phillip Dick short story, criminals are arrested before they commit their crime, since [[three]] [[humans]] who, through monstrous [[scientific]] experiments, acquired the capacity to foresee the [[future]], can exactly predict their [[acts]] (the "minority report" from the title refers to those rare cases where one of the three mediums employed by the police disagrees with the [[other]] two [[about]] a crime to be committed)… If one transposes this [[idea]] to international relations, does one not get the new "[[Bush]] (or, rather, Cheney) [[doctrine]]," now publicly declared as the [[official]] US "[[philosophy]]" of international [[politics]] (in the 31 pages paper entitled "The National Security Strategy," issued by the White House on September 20 2002)? Its main points are: the American military might should remain "beyond challenge" in the foreseeable future; since the main [[enemy]] today is an "[[irrational]]" fundamentalist who, in contrast to Communists, [[lacks]] even the elementary [[sense]] of survival and Its ConsequencesSlavoj Zizekrespect of his own [[people]], America has the [[right]] to preemptive strikes, i.e.Frankfurter Rundschau 1/03, to attack countries which do not already pose a clear [[threat]] to the US, but MIGHT pose such a threat in the foreseeable future; while the US should seek ad hoc international coalitions for such attacks, it should reserve the right to act independently if it will not get sufficient international support.

In The Minority Report (2002), Steven Spielberg's last film based on So while the US presents its domination over other sovereign states as grounded in a Phillip Dick short storybenevolent paternalism which takes into account the interests of other states, criminals are arrested before they commit their crime, since three humans who, through monstrous scientific experiments, acquired it reserves for itself the capacity ultimate right to foresee the future, can exactly predict their acts (the DEFINE its allies' "minority report[[true]]" from interests. The [[logic]] is thus clearly formulated: even the title refers to those rare cases where one pretense of the three mediums employed by the police disagrees with the other two about a crime to be committed)… If one transposes this idea to neutral [[international relationslaw]] is abandoned, does one not get the new "Bush (or, rathersince, Cheney) doctrine," now publicly declared as when the official US "philosophy" of international politics (in the 31 pages paper entitled "The National Security Strategyperceive a potential threat," issued by the White House on September 20 2002)? Its main points are: the American military might should remain "beyond challenge" in the foreseeable future; since the main enemy today is an "irrational" fundamentalist who, in contrast they formally ask their allies to Communistssupport [[them]], lacks even but the elementary sense of survival and respect of his own peopleallies' agreement is optional, America has the right to preemptive strikesunderlying [[message]] is always "we will do it with or without you, " i.e.you are free to agree with, to attack countries which do but not already pose a clear threat free to disagree — the USold [[paradox]] of the [[forced]] [[choice]] is reproduced here, but MIGHT pose such the [[freedom]] to make a threat in the foreseeable future; while the US should seek ad hoc international coalitions for such attacks, it should reserve choice on condition that one makes the right to act independently if it will not get sufficient international supportchoice.

So while the The US presents its domination over other sovereign states as grounded [[displeasure]] of Gerhard Schroeder in a benevolent paternalism which takes into account September 2002, when he won the elections with his firm stance against the interests of other statesAmerican military [[intervention]] in Irak, it reserves for itself was a displeasure at the ultimate right to DEFINE its allies' "true" interests. The logic is thus clearly formulated: even the pretense fact that Schroeder did what a normal politician in a functioning [[democracy]] and a [[leader]] of a neutral international law sovereign [[state]] does — while agreeing that the Iraqi [[regime]] is abandoned, since, when the US perceive a potential threat, they formally ask their allies to support them, but he simply articulated his disagreement with the allies' agreement is optional, way the underlying message is always "we will do it US [[government]] proposed to deal with or without youthis threat," i.e. you are free to agree withthereby [[stating]] an opinion shared not only by many other states, but not free also by a considerable percentage of American people and congressmen. Schroeder was thus the first to disagree — get the old paradox [[full]] taste of the forced choice is reproduced hereBush doctrine — and, to pursue the homology even further, was his disagreement with the freedom US plans to make preventively attack [[Iraq]] not precisely a choice on condition that one makes kind of [[real]]-[[life]] "minority report," signaling his disagreement with the way [[others]] saw the right choice.future?

The US displeasure We all [[remember]] the MAD ("mutually assured [[destruction]]") logic elaborated at the height of Gerhard Schroeder in September 2002the [[Cold War]]; from our retrospective view, when he won the elections compared with his firm stance against the American military intervention in IrakBush doctrine, was a displeasure at the fact that Schroeder did what a normal politician MAD logic cannot but appear today relatively [[rational]]. Back in the 1970s, Bernard Brodie pointed out how this logic effectively worked: "It is a functioning democracy and a leader strange paradox of a sovereign state does — while agreeing our [[time]] that one of the Iraqi regime crucial factors which make the /nuclear/ dissuasion effectively function, and function so well, is the underlying [[fear]] that, in a threatreally serious crisis, he simply articulated his disagreement with the way the US government proposed to deal with this threatit can fail. In such circumstances, thereby stating an opinion shared one does not only by many other states, but also by a considerable percentage of American people and congressmenplay with fate. Schroeder was thus If we were absolutely certain that the first to get the full taste nuclear dissuasion is one hundred per cent efficient in its [[role]] of the Bush doctrine — andprotecting us against a nuclear assault, then its dissuasive [[value]] against a conventional war would have dropped to pursue the homology even further, was his disagreement with the US plans close to preventively attack Iraq not precisely a kind of real-life zero."minority report," signaling his disagreement with the way others saw the future?

We all remember In short, the MAD strategy worked not because it was perfect, but on account of its very imperfection. The perfect strategy ("mutually assured destruction"if one sides nukes the [[other, the]] other will automatically respond, and both sides will thus be destroyed) logic elaborated at had a fatal flaw: what if the height of attacking side counts on the Cold War; from our retrospective viewfact that, even after its first strike, compared the opponent continues to act as a rational [[agent]]? His choice is now: with his country mostly destroyed, he can either strike back, thus causing [[total]] catastrophe, the Bush doctrineend of humanity, or NOT STRIKE BACK, thus enabling the MAD logic cannot but appear today relatively survival of humanity and thereby at least the possibility of a later revibal of his own country? A rational. Back in agent would [[chose]] the second option… What makes the strategy efficient is the 1970s, Bernard Brodie pointed very fact that we cannot ever be sure that it will [[work]] perfectly: what if a [[situation]] spirals out how this logic effectively worked: of [[control]] for a variety of easily imaginable reasons (from the "irrational"[[aggressivity]] of the one part to simple technological failures or miscommunications)? It is a strange paradox because of our time this permanent threat that one both sides do not [[want]] to come even too close to the prospect of MAD, so they avoid even conventional war; if the crucial factors which make the /nuclear/ dissuasion effectively functionstrategy were perfect, and function so wellit would, is on the underlying fear thatopposite, in endorse the attitude "Let's fight a really serious crisisfull conventional war, it can fail. In such circumstancessince we both [[know]] that no side will risk the fateful step towards a nuclear strike!" So the actual constellation of MAD is not "If we follow the MAD strategy, one does the nuclear catastrophe will not play with fate. take [[place]]," but: "If we were absolutely certain that follow the MAD strategy, the nuclear dissuasion is one hundred per cent efficient in its role catastrophe will not take place, expect for some imprevisible incident." (And the same goes today for the prospect of protecting us against a nuclear assaultthe ecological catastrophe: if we do [[nothing]], it will occur, and if we do all we can do, it will not occur, then its dissuasive value against a conventional war would have dropped to close to zeroexpect for some imprevisible accident.")

In shortThe problem with today's "Bush doctrine" is that, the MAD strategy worked not because with it was perfect, but on account of its very imperfection. The perfect strategy (if one sides nukes the otherloop is closed, there is no longer any room even for the "realistic" opening to the imprevisible which sustained the other will automatically respond, and both sides will thus be destroyed) had a fatal flawMAD doctrine: what if the attacking side counts "Bush doctrine" relies on the fact that, even after its first strike, violent assertion of the opponent continues to act as a rational agent? His choice is now: with his country mostly destroyed, he can either strike back, thus causing [[paranoiac]] logic of total catastrophe, control over the end of humanity, or NOT STRIKE BACK, thus enabling the survival of humanity FUTURE threat and thereby at least preemptive strikes against it — the possibility ineptness of a later revibal of his own country? A rational agent would chose such an approach for today's [[universe]] in which [[knowledge]] circulates freely is patent. The loop between the second option… What makes [[present]] and the strategy efficient future is thus closed: the very fact that prospect of breath-taking terrorist act is evoked in [[order]] to justify incessant preemptive strikes now. The state in which we cannot ever be sure that it will work perfectly: what if a situation spirals out of control for a variety of easily imaginable reasons (from live now, in the "irrationalwar on [[terror]]," aggressivity of is the one part to simple technological failures or miscommunications)? It is because of this permanent the endlessly suspended terrorist threat that both sides do not want to come even too close to : the catastrophe (the prospect of MADnew terrorist attack) is taken for granted, yet endlessly postponed — whatever will actually happen, so they avoid even conventional war; if the strategy were perfect, it would, on the opposite, endorse the attitude "Let's fight will be a full conventional war, since we both know much more horrible attack than that no side will risk the fateful step towards a nuclear strike!" So the actual constellation of MAD is not "If we follow the MAD strategy9/11, the nuclear catastrophe will not take place,yet be " but: "If we follow the MAD strategy, the nuclear catastrophe will not take place, expect for some imprevisible incidentthat." (And it is crucial here to grasp how the same goes today for true catastrophe ALREADY IS this life under the prospect shadow of the ecological permanent threat of a catastrophe: if we do nothing, it will occur, and if we do all we can do, it will not occur, expect for some imprevisible accident.)

The problem with today's "Bush doctrine" is that, with it, the loop is closed, there is no longer any room even for the "realistic" opening Terry Eagleton recently drew attention to the imprevisible which sustained the MAD doctrinetwo opposed modes of [[tragedy]]: the "Bush doctrine" relies on big, spectacular catastrophic [[Event]], the violent assertion of abrupt irruption from some other [[world]], and the paranoiac logic dreary persistence of total control over a hopeless condition, the FUTURE threat and preemptive strikes against it — the ineptness of such an approach for today's universe in blighted [[existence]] which knowledge circulates freely goes on indefinitely, life as one long emergency. This is patent. The loop the [[difference]] between the present big First World catastrophies like [[September 11]] and the future is thus closed: the prospect dreary permanent catastrophe of breath-taking terrorist act is evoked , say, Palestinians in order to justify incessant preemptive strikes nowthe West Bank. The state in which we live nowfirst mode of tragedy, in the [[figure]] against the "normal"war on terrorbackground," is the one characteristic of the endlessly suspended terrorist threat: the catastrophe (the new terrorist attack) is taken for grantedFirst World, yet endlessly postponed — whatever will actually happen, even if it will be a while in much more horrible attack than that of 9/11the [[Third]] World, will not yet be "that." And it is crucial here to grasp how the true catastrophe ALREADY IS this life under designates the shadow of the permanent threat of a catastropheall-present background itself.

Terry Eagleton recently drew attention to And this is how the two opposed modes of tragedySeptember 11 catastrophe effectively functioned: the big, spectacular as a catastrophic Eventfigure which made us, in the abrupt irruption from some other worldWest, and aware of the dreary persistence blissful background of a hopeless conditionour [[happiness]], AND of the [[necessity]] to [[defend]] it against the [[foreigners]]' onslaught… in short, it functioned exactly according to [[Chesterton]]'s [[principle]] of Conditional Joy: to the question "Why this catastrophe? Why couldn't we be happy all the blighted existence which goes on indefinitelytime?", life as one long emergency. This the answer is "And why should we be happy all the difference between the big First World catastrophies like remaining time?" September 11 served as a proof that we are happy and that others ENVY us this happiness. Along these lines, one should thus risk the dreary permanent catastrophe of[[thesis]] that, say, Palestinians in far from shattering the West Bank. The first mode of tragedyUS from its [[ideological]] [[sleep]], September 11 was used as a sedative enabling the figure against the hegemonic [[ideology]] to "normalrenormalize" backgrounditself: the period after the Vietnam war was one long sustended [[trauma]] for the hegemonic ideology — it had to defend itself against critical doubts, is characteristic of the First Worldgnawing worms was continuously at work and couldn't be simply suppressed, while in much every [[return]] to innocence was immediately experienced as a fake… until September 11, when US was a [[victim]] and thus allowed to reassert the innocence of its mission. In short, far from awakening us, September 11 served to put us to sleep again, to continue our [[dream]] after the Third World, catastrophe designates [[nightmare]] of the all-present background itselflast decades.

And this The ultimate irony is how the September 11 catastrophe effectively functioned: as a catastrophic figure which made ushere that, in order to restore the West, aware innocence of the blissful background of our happinessAmerican patriotism, AND the [[conservative]] US establishment mobilized the key ingredient of the necessity to defend Politically Correct ideology which it against officially despises: the foreigners' onslaught… in short, it functioned exactly according to Chesterton's principle logic of Conditional Joy: to [[victimization]]. Relying on the idea that [[authority]] is conferred (only on) those who [[speak]] from the question "Why this catastrophe? Why couldn't we be happy all [[position]] of the time?"VICTIM, it relied on the answer is implicit reasoning: "And why should we be happy all the remaining time?" September 11 served as a proof that we We are happy now victims, and it is this fact that others ENVY legitimizes us this happinessto speak (and act) from the position of authority. Along these lines" So when, today, one should thus risk we hear the thesis slogan thatthe [[liberal]] dream of the 1990s is over, far from shattering the US from its ideological sleepthat, September 11 was used as a sedative enabling with the hegemonic ideology to "renormalize" itself: attacks on the period after WTC, we were violently thrown back into the Vietnam war was one long sustended trauma for real world, that the hegemonic ideology — it had easy [[intellectual]] [[games]] are over, we should remember that such a call to defend itself against critical doubts, confront the gnawing worms was continuously harsh [[reality]] is ideology at work and couldnits purest. Today't be simply suppresseds "American, every return to innocence was immediately experienced as awaken!" is a fake… until September 11distant call of [[Hitler]]'s "Deutschland, when US was a victim and thus allowed to reassert the innocence of its mission. In shorterwache!", far from awakening uswhich, September 11 served to put us to sleep againas [[Adorno]] wrote long ago, to continue our dream after the nightmare of the last decadesmeant its exact opposite.

The ultimate irony is here thatWhat, then, in order are we blinded for when are dreaming the dream of the "war on [[terror"]]? Perhaps the first [[thing]] to restore note here is the innocence deep [[satisfaction]] of the American patriotismcommentators in ascertaining how, after September 11, the conservative US establishment mobilized the key ingredient of the Politically Correct ideology which anti-globalist movement has lost its raison — what if this satisfaction tells more than it officially despises: meant to say? What if the logic of victimization. Relying War on Terror is not so much an answer to the idea that authority is conferred (only on) those who speak from terrorist attacks themselves as an answer to the position rise of the VICTIManti-globalist movement, a way to contain it relied on the implicit reasoning: "We are now victims, and distract attention from it is ? What if this fact that legitimizes us to speak (and act) from the position of authority." So when, today, we hear the slogan that the liberal dream collateral damage" of the 1990s War on Terror is over, its true aim? One is tempted to say that, we are dealing here with a [[case]] of what Stephen Jay Gould would have called (ideological) ex-aptation: the attacks on [[apparent]] secondary effect or profit (the WTC, we were violently thrown back into the real world, fact that the easy intellectual games are over, we should remember that such a call to confront anti-globalist protest is now also listed in the harsh reality is ideology at its purest. Today's series of "American, awaken!terrorist" supporters) is a distant call of Hitler's "Deutschland, erwache!", which, as Adorno wrote long ago, meant its exact oppositecrucial.

What, then, are we blinded for when are dreaming the dream of the "war on terror"? Perhaps the first thing to note here is the deep satisfaction of the American commentators in ascertaining how, after September 11, the anti-globalist movement has lost its raison — what if this satisfaction tells more than it meant to say? What if the War on Terror is not so much an answer to the terrorist attacks themselves as an answer to the rise of the anti-globalist movement, a way to contain it ==Source==* [[Gerhard Schroeder's Minority Report and distract attention from it? What if this "collateral damage" of the War on Terror is its true aim? One is tempted to say that we are dealing here with a case of what Stephen Jay Gould would have called (ideological) ex-aptationIts Consequences]]. ''Frankfurter Rundschau''. 1/03. <http: the apparent secondary effect or profit (the fact that the anti//www.fr-globalist protest is now also listed in the series of "terrorist" supporters) is crucialaktuell.de/uebersicht/alle_dossiers/politik_ausland/krieg_gegen_i/>

From: Frankfurter Rundschau 1/03Available: http[[Category://www.fr-aktuell.de/uebersicht/alle_dossiers/politik_ausland/krieg_gegen_i/ Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:ZizekSlavoj Žižek]]