Changes

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).

[[Category:Works]]

[[Category:Zizek]]

[[Category:Essays]]