24,656
edits
Changes
no edit summary
We all remember the old joke about the borrowed kettle which Freud quotes in order to render the strange logic of dreams, namely the enumeration of mutually exclusive answers to a reproach (that I returned to a friend a broken kettle): (1) I never borrowed a kettle from you; (2) I returned it to you unbroken; (3) 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 it endeavors to deny - that I returned you a broken kettle... Now, in June 2003, when, after hundreds of investigators were looking after the WMD, none were found, the answer to the critics who ask the elementary question "If there are no WMD, why then did we attack Iraq? Did you lie to us?", is structured precisely like the argument about the borrowed kettle: (1) We DID find them (the two mobile labs...); (2) OK, these two labs do not really prove anything, but give us more time, and we will find them, there HAVE to be some WMD in Iraq; (3) even if there are no WMD in Iraq, this was not the only reason we went to war, there are also other good reasons to topple a brutal dictator and aggressor like Saddam.<br><br> Before the war, the same inconsistency characterized the general justification of the attack on Iraq: (1) there is 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 people; (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 to use; (3) and what is so bad in going to war for oil? The US has a legitimate strategic interest in the Middle East oil reserves... The problem, again, was that there were TOO MANY reasons for the attack. And one is tempted to claim that there 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) the urge to brutally assert and signal the unconditional US hegemony; (3) the control of the Iraqi oil reserves. And it seems as if these three "real" reasons are the "truth" of the three official reasons (the need to destroy Iraq's 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, then the ruthless determination to control other countries' resources).<br><br>
And, incidentally, opponents of the war seemed to repeat the same inconsistent logic: (1) it is all really about the control of oil and American hegemony - the true rogue state which terrorizes others are the US themselves; (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 elsewhere...<br><br>
The 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 same as that of a judge who first punishes the accused and then, when forced to admit that he has 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 punish, and then you look for proofs of the crime... Not to mention the fact that this, precisely, was what before the war the UN weapons inspectors were asking for - more time - and were scathingly dismissed by the US.<br><br>
* [[The Iraqi Borrowed Kettle]] ''Lacan.com''. 2004. <http://www.lacan.com/zizekkettle.htm>.
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:ZizekSlavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Essays]]
