Changes

Before We all [[remember]] the war, old [[joke]] [[about]] the same inconsistency characterized borrowed kettle which [[Freud]] [[quotes]] in [[order]] to render the general justification strange [[logic]] of [[dreams]], namely the attack on Iraqenumeration of mutually exclusive answers to a reproach (that I returned to a friend a broken kettle): (1) there is I never borrowed a link between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda, so Saddam should be punished as part of the revenge for 9/11: Saddam's regime is a really bad one, a threat to its neighbors, and we should liberate the Iraqi peoplekettle from you; (2) of course there are many bad regimes, but what makes Saddam special is the possession of the Weapons of Mass Destruction which Saddam is ready I returned it to useyou unbroken; (3) and the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. For Freud, such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments of course confirms <i>per negationem</i> what is so bad in going it endeavors to war for oil? The US has deny - that I returned you a legitimate strategic interest in the Middle East oil reservesbroken kettle... The problemNow, in June 2003, againwhen, was that there after hundreds of investigators were TOO MANY reasons for [[looking]] after the attack. And one is tempted to claim that there WMD, none were also three REAL reasons for the attack: (1) the "sincere" ideological belief that the US are bringing to other nations democracy and prosperity; (2) found, the urge answer to brutally assert and signal the unconditional US hegemony; (3) the control of critics who ask the Iraqi oil reserves. And it seems as if these three elementary question "real" reasons If there are the "truth" of the three official reasons (the need to destroy Iraq's no WMD is evoked to justify the brutal need to assert the US hegemony), with the last term in each of the two series being the same - oil (in each of the two series, this term is given a different ideologico-political twist: first the "normal" need to maintain international trade, why then the ruthless determination did we attack [[Iraq]]? Did you lie to control other countries' resources).<br><br>Andus?", incidentally, opponents of is [[structured]] precisely like the war seemed to repeat argument about the same inconsistent logicborrowed kettle: (1) it is all really about the control of oil and American hegemony - the true rogue state which terrorizes others are the US themselves; We DID find [[them]] (2) even if it is not only about oil and hegemony and the attack is justified, since Saddam is a murderer and torturer, and his regime a criminal catastrophe, it will be counterproductive - it will give a big boost to a new wave of the anti-American terrorism; (3) even iof successful, the attack on Iraq destined to overthrow Saddam will cost too much, and the money could be better spend elsewheretwo mobile labs...<br><br>The problem with the basic refrain ); ("Iraq is a big country2) OK, Saddam had lots of time to hide the WMDthese two labs do not really prove anything, so but give us more [[time ]], and we will definitely find them!") is that its structure is the same as that of a judge who first punishes the accused and then, when forced there HAVE to admit that he has be some WMD in Iraq; (3) even if there are no proof the crime has effectively been committed, he says: "Give me more time and I promised you that I will find material proofs that will justify my punishment!" So first you punishWMD in Iraq, and then you look for proofs of the crime... Not to mention the fact that this, precisely, was what before not the only [[reason]] we went to war the UN weapons inspectors were asking for - more time - , there are also [[other]] [[good]] reasons to topple a brutal dictator and were scathingly dismissed by the USaggressor like [[Saddam]].<br><br>

HereBefore the war, then, we have the first practical demonstration same [[inconsistency]] characterized the general justification of what does the Bush doctrine of preventive strikes meansattack on Iraq: (1) there is a link between Saddam's [[regime]] and [[al-Qaeda]], a doctrine now publicly declared so Saddam should be punished as the official American "philosophy" part of international politics (in the thirty-revenge for 9/11: Saddam's regime is a really bad one page paper entitled "The National Security Strategy," issued by the White House on September 20a [[threat]] to its neighbors, 2002)? Its main points are: American military might and we should remain "beyond challenge" in liberate the foreseeable futureIraqi [[people]]; since the main enemy today (2) of course there are many bad regimes, but what makes Saddam special is an "irrational" fundamentalist who, in contrast to Communists, lacks even the elementary sense possession of survival and respect the Weapons of his own people, America has the right Mass [[Destruction]] which Saddam is ready to preemptive strikes use; (i.e., 3) and what is so bad in going to attack countries which do not already pose war for oil? The US has a clear threat to legitimate strategic interest in the U[[Middle East]] oil reserves.S.. The problem, again, but MIGHT pose such a threat in was that there were TOO MANY reasons for the foreseeable future); while the Uattack.S. should seek ad hoc international coalitions And one is tempted to [[claim]] that there were also [[three]] REAL reasons for such attacks, it should reserve the right to act independently if it does not get sufficient international support. So, while attack: (1) the U.S. presents its domination over other sovereign states as grounded in a benevolent paternalism which takes into account "sincere" [[ideological]] [[belief]] that the interests of US are bringing to other nations [[democracy]] and their people, it reserves for itself prosperity; (2) the ultimate right urge to DEFINE its allies' brutally assert and [[signal]] the unconditional US [[hegemony]]; (3) the [[control]] of the Iraqi oil reserves. And it seems as if these three "true[[real]]" interests. The logic is thus clearly formulated: even reasons are the pretense "[[truth]]" of a neutral international law the three [[official]] reasons (the [[need]] to destroy Iraq's WMD is abandoned, since, when evoked to justify the U.S. perceives a potential threat, they formally ask their allies brutal need to support themassert the US hegemony), but with the last term in each of the two series [[being]] the same - oil (in each of the allies' agreement two series, this term is optional. The underlying message is always given a different ideologico-[[political]] twist: first the "we will do it with or without younormal" (i.e., you are free need to agree with usmaintain international trade, but not free then the ruthless determination to disagreecontrol other countries' resources). The old paradox <br><br>And, incidentally, opponents of the forced choice is reproduced here: the freedom war seemed to make a choice on condition that one makes [[repeat]] the right choice. The "Bush doctrine" relies on same inconsistent logic: (1) it is all really about the violent assertion control of oil and American hegemony - the paranoiac logic of total control over FUTURE threats, justifying preemptive strikes against these supposed threats. The ineptness of such an approach for today's universe, in [[true]] rogue [[state]] which knowledge circulates freely, terrorizes [[others]] are the US themselves; (2) even if it is patent. The loop between the present not only about oil and hegemony and the future attack is closed: the prospect of a breathtaking terrorist act justified, since Saddam is evoked in order to justify incessant preemptive strikes now. This closed loop was perfectly formulated in a TV debate in February 2002murderer and torturer, when the actor and ex-Congressman Fred Thompson saidhis regime a criminal catastrophe, in defense of President Bush's Iraq politics: "When antiit will be counterproductive -war protesters say 'But what did Iraq effectively DO to the US? It did not attack us!', one should answer it with the question 'And what did the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers effectively DO will give a big boost to the U.S. before September 11? They also did nothing!'" So, in short: in the same way that, if we had known a new wave of the plans for 9/11anti-American [[terrorism]]; (3) even iof successful, we would have been fully justified in attacking the terrorists before the actattack on Iraq destined to overthrow Saddam will cost too much, we now have and the right to attack Iraq[[money]] could be better spend elsewhere... The problem with this logic is that it presupposes that we can treat the future as something that, in a way, already took place.<br><br>The ultimate paradox problem with the basic refrain ("Iraq is a big country, Saddam had lots of time to hide the WMD, so give us more time and we will definitely find them!") is that its [[structure]] is the very strategy same as that of preemptive strikes will contribute to a judge who first punishes the proliferation of nuclear weapons. When US attacked Iraq accused and not North Koreathen, when [[forced]] to admit that he has no proof the underlying logic was clearcrime has effectively been committed, he says: once a "rogueGive me more time and I promised you that I will find [[material]] proofs that will justify my [[punishment]]!" state crosses So first you punish, and then you look for proofs of the critical limit and already acquires substantial nuclear weapons, one cannot simply attack it because one risks a nuclear backlash killing millions on our sidecrime... ThisNot to mention the fact that this, precisely, was what before the lesson North Korea drew from war the attack on Iraq: the regime sees nuclear UN weapons as the only guarantee of its survival; in their view, the mistake of Iraq was to accept in the first place the collaboration with the UN inspectors were asking for - more time - and were scathingly dismissed by the presence of international inspectorsUS.<br><br>

Here, then, we have the first [[practical]] demonstration of what does the [[Bush]] [[doctrine]] of preventive strikes means, a doctrine now publicly declared as the official American "[[philosophy]]" of international [[politics]] (in the thirty-one page paper entitled "The National Security Strategy," issued by the White House on September 20, 2002)? Its main points are: 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 respect of his own people, America has the [[right]] to preemptive strikes (i.e., to attack countries which do not already pose a clear threat to the U.S., but MIGHT pose such a threat in the foreseeable future); while the U.S. should seek ad hoc international coalitions for such attacks, it should reserve the right to act independently if it does not get sufficient international support. So, while the U.S. presents its domination over other sovereign states as grounded in a benevolent paternalism which takes into account the interests of other nations and their people, it reserves for itself the ultimate right to DEFINE its allies' "true" interests. The logic is thus clearly formulated: even the pretense of a neutral [[international law]] is abandoned, since, when the U.S. perceives a potential threat, they formally ask their allies to support them, but the allies' agreement is optional. The underlying [[message]] is always "we will do it with or without you" (i.e., you are free to agree with us, but not free to disagree). The old [[paradox]] of the forced [[choice]] is reproduced here: the [[freedom]] to make a choice on condition that one makes the right choice. The "Bush doctrine" relies on the violent assertion of the [[paranoiac]] logic of [[total]] control over FUTURE [[threats]], justifying preemptive strikes against these supposed threats. The ineptness of such an approach for today's [[universe]], in which [[knowledge]] circulates freely, is patent. The loop between the [[present]] and the future is closed: the prospect of a breathtaking terrorist act is evoked in order to justify incessant preemptive strikes now. This closed loop was perfectly formulated in a TV debate in February 2002, when the actor and ex-Congressman Fred Thompson said, in [[defense]] of President Bush's Iraq politics: "When anti-war protesters say 'But what did Iraq effectively DO to the US? It did not attack us!', one should answer it with the question 'And what did the terrorists who destroyed the Twin Towers effectively DO to the U.S. before [[September 11]]? They also did [[nothing]]!'" So, in short: in the same way that, if we had known of the plans for 9/11, we would have been fully justified in attacking the terrorists before the act, we now have the right to attack Iraq... The problem with this logic is that it presupposes that we can treat the future as something that, in a way, already took [[place]].<br><br>The ultimate paradox is that the very strategy of preemptive strikes will contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. When US attacked Iraq and not North Korea, the underlying logic was clear: once a "rogue" state crosses the critical [[limit]] and already acquires substantial nuclear weapons, one cannot simply attack it because one risks a nuclear backlash killing millions on our side. This, precisely, was the lesson North Korea drew from the attack on Iraq: the regime sees nuclear weapons as the only [[guarantee]] of its survival; in their view, the mistake of Iraq was to accept in the first place the collaboration with the UN and the [[presence]] of international inspectors.<br><br> This, then, is what the Bush doctrine effectively means: first you attack, then you look for reasons to justify it. The problem with today's US is not that it is a new [[global ]] [[Empire]], but that it is NOT, i.e., that, while pretending to be, it continues to act as a [[Nation]]-State, ruthlessly pursuing its interests. And this fact also provides the background that the above-mentioned inconsistent argumentation conceals and, simultaneously, cannot but point towards. What were the actual ideological and political stakes of the attack on Iraq? Here, one is tempted to propose the hypothesis that the US-Iraq war was, as to its actual socio-political [[content]], "the first war between the US and [[Europe]]." Today, the united Europe is the main obstacle to the New [[World ]] Order the Us [[want ]] to impose, and the reasons that move the US are again triple: (1) naive [[ideology ]] (the sincere believe that the US are ready to act, to fight for democracy and [[human ]] rights, while Europe is caught in the old Munich 38 syndrome of indefinite postponement); (2) the need to brutally impose the US hegemony; (3) [[economic ]] interests (the safe access to oil supply is the condition for the US to win in the forthcoming competition with the united Europe).

* [[The Iraqi Borrowed Kettle]] ''[[Lacan]].com''. 2004. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekkettle.htm>.