Changes

The Iraqi [[Iraq]]i elections appear to authenticate the statement [[George W. Bush ]] made in his January inauguration speech: “America “[[America]] will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains or that women welcome [[humiliation ]] and [[servitude]].”

It is difficult to disagree with [[Bush ]] here: He effectively did touch the Achilles’ heel of many Western [[West]]ern progressives, who were often disarmed by the one good argument, repeatedly evoked by [[Christopher Hitchens]], for the [[war ]] against [[Iraq]]: The majority of Iraqis were Saddam’s [[Saddam]]’s victims, and they would be really glad to get rid of him. He was such a catastrophe for his country that an American occupation in whatever form would be preferable to them in terms of daily survival and much lower levels of [[fear]]. We are not talking here of “bringing Western [[West]]ern [[democracy ]] to [[Iraq]],” but of simply getting rid of the nightmare called Saddam. To this majority, the caution expressed by Western [[West]]ern [[liberals ]] can only appear deeply hypocritical—do hypocritical — do they really care about how the Iraqi people feel?

Why, then, does the old story repeat itself in [[Iraq]]? America brings new hope and [[democracy ]] to people, but instead of hailing the U.S. Army, the ungrateful people do not want it. They look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth, and America then responds like a sullen child in reaction to the ingratitude of those it selflessly helped.

With the global American [[ideology|ideological ]] offensive, the fundamental insight of [[Graham Greene’s Greene]]’s "[[The Quiet American ]]" is more relevant than ever: We [[witness ]] the resurgence of the figure of the “quiet “[[quiet American]],” a naive, benevolent agent who sincerely wants to bring [[democracy ]] and Western [[West]]ern [[freedom]]. It is just that his intentions totally misfire, or, as Greene put it: “I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.”

The underlying presupposition is that under our skin, if we scratch the surface, we are all Americans. That is our true desire—all [[desire]] — all that is needed is just to give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints and they will join us in our [[ideology|ideological ]] [[dream]]. It’s fitting that in February 2003 the [[right-wing ]] journalist Stephen Schwartz used the phrase “capitalist revolution” “[[capitalist revolution]]” to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their [[revolution ]] around the entire world. No wonder they moved from “containing” the [[enemy ]] to a more [[aggression|aggressive ]] stance.

It is the [[United States ]] that is now, as the defunct [[USSR ]] was decades ago, the subversive agent of a [[world revolution]]. When [[Bush ]] said, “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is the almighty God’s [[God]]’s [[gift ]] to every [[man ]] and [[woman ]] in the world,” his apparent modesty nonetheless concealed, in the best [[totalitarianism|totalitarian ]] fashion, its very opposite.

Recall the standard claim of a [[totalitarian leader ]] that he himself is nothing at all—his all — his strength is only the strength of the [[people ]] who stand behind him, he only expresses their deepest strivings. The catch, of course, is that those who oppose the [[leader ]] do not only oppose him, but also oppose the deepest and noblest strivings of the [[people]]. And does the same not hold for Bush’s [[Bush]]’s claim? If [[freedom ]] effectively were to be just America’s gift to other nations, things would have been much easier—those easier — those opposing U.S. policy would be doing just that, opposing the policy of the [[United States ]] as a single [[nation state]]. However, if [[freedom ]] is God’s [[God]]’s [[gift ]] to [[humanity ]] (and—herein and — herein resides the hidden proviso—if proviso — if the [[United States ]] perceives itself as the chosen [[instrument ]] for distributing this [[divine ]] [[gift ]] to all the nations of the world), then those who oppose U.S. policy are eo ipso rejecting the noblest gift of [[God ]] to [[humanity]]. No wonder many authentic [[theology|theologians ]] are appalled by these kinds of statements from [[Bush]], detecting in them a terrifying sacrilege. We therefore know now what “bringing democracy” means: The [[United States ]] and its “willing partners” impose themselves as the ultimate judges who decide if a country is ripe for [[democracy]].

[[Bush ]] was again right in opposing the idea of exporting [[freedom]], when he said: “Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen.” The hidden catch here is that precisely in the case of [[Iraq]], this rule was violated. The [[choice ]] was obviously a [[forced choice|forced]] one, not only in the sense that [[freedom ]] was imposed, but also in the sense that the allegedly benevolent imposer reserved for himself the right to define what freedom is. It is instructive to remember the case of [[Iran]]: not today’s, but the Shah’s. Did not Reza Pahlavi also want to impose Western [[West]]ern [[modernity|modernization]], with the [[paradox|paradoxical ]] result of giving birth to a “fundamentalist” “[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]]” [[revolution]]? From this perspective, the “successful” elections did not change anything—the anything — the true test for the [[United States ]] lies ahead. What if, sooner or later, the unfortunate Iraqis will “misuse” [[democracy ]] and give majority rule, not necessarily to so-called “fundamentalists“[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]],” but to anti-Western and anti-[[Zionism|Zionist ]] pan-[[Arab ]] [[nationalism|nationalists]]?

When [[Bush ]] celebrated the explosive and irrepressible thirst for [[freedom ]] as a “fire in the minds of men,” the unintended irony was that he used a phrase from Dostoevsky’s [[Dostoevsky]]’s "[[The Possessed]]". [[Dostoevsky ]] used the phrase to describe the ruthless activity of radical [[anarchism|anarchists ]] who burned a village: “The fire is in the minds of men, not on the roofs of houses.” Today, we already see—and smell—the see — and smell — the smoke of this fire.

In her 1979 Commentary essay, “Dictators and Double Standards,” [[Jeanne Kirkpatrick ]] elaborated the distinction between “authoritarian” “[[authoritarianism|authoritarian]]” and “totalitarian” “[[totalitarianism|totalitarian]]” [[regimes]], which served to justify the U.S. policy of collaborating with rightist [[right]]ist [[dictatorship|dictators]], while treating [[Communism|Communist ]] [[regimes ]] much more harshly. [[authoritarianism|Authoritarian ]] [[dictatorship|dictators ]] are pragmatic rulers who care about their [[power ]] and wealth and are indifferent toward [[ideology|ideological ]] issues, even if they pay lip service to some big cause; in contrast, [[totalitarianism|totalitarian leaders ]] [[leader]]s are selfless fanatics who believe in their [[ideology ]] and are ready to put everything at stake for their ideals. So while one can deal with [[authoritarianism|authoritarian ]] rulers who react [[rationality|rationally ]] and predictably to material and military threats[[threat]]s, [[totalitarianism|totalitarian leaders ]] [[leader]]s are much more dangerous and have to be directly confronted.

The [[irony ]] is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the [[U.S. ]] occupation of [[Iraq]]. [[Saddam ]] was a corrupt [[authoritarianism|authoritarian ]] [[dictatorship|dictator ]] striving for [[power ]] and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations—a considerations — a pragmatism that led him to collaborate with the [[United States ]] throughout the ’80s. The ultimate proof of this [[secularism|secular ]] nature is the ironic fact that, in the Iraqi elections of October 2002, in which [[Saddam Hussein ]] got a 100 percent endorsement (and thus outdid the best [[Stalinism|Stalinist ]] results of 99.95 percent), the campaign song played again and again on all the state [[media ]] was none other than Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You.” One of the outcomes of the U.S. intervention is that it generated a much more uncompromising “fundamentalist” “[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]]” opposition that precludes any pragmatic compromises.

Recall the old story about a worker suspected of stealing: Every evening, when he was leaving the factory, the wheelbarrow he was rolling in front of him was carefully inspected, but the guards could not find anything, it was always empty—untilempty — until, finally, they got the point. What the worker was stealing were the wheelbarrows themselves. This is the trick that those who claim “but the world is nonetheless better off without Saddam!” are trying to pull on us: They forget to include in their calculation the effects of the military intervention against Saddam. Yes, the world is better without Saddam—but Saddam — but is it better if we also include in the overall picture the [[ideological ]] and [[political ]] effects of this very occupation?