Changes

The [[Iraq]]i elections appear to authenticate the [[statement ]] [[George W. Bush]] made in his January inauguration [[speech]]: “[[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 [[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 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 [[West]]ern [[democracy]] to [[Iraq]],” but of simply getting rid of the [[nightmare ]] called Saddam. To this majority, the caution expressed by [[West]]ern [[liberals]] can only appear deeply 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 "[[The Quiet American]]" is more relevant than ever: We [[witness]] the resurgence of the [[figure ]] of the “[[quiet American]],” a naive, benevolent [[agent ]] who sincerely wants to bring [[democracy]] and [[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 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]]” 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 [[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 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 claim? If [[freedom]] effectively were to be just America’s gift to [[other ]] nations, things would have been much 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 [[gift]] to [[humanity]] (and — herein resides the hidden 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 [[West]]ern [[modernity|modernization]], with the [[paradox|paradoxical]] result of giving [[birth ]] to a “[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]]” [[revolution]]? From this perspective, the “successful” elections did not [[change ]] 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 “[[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 "[[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 smoke of this fire.

In her 1979 Commentary essay, “Dictators and [[Double ]] Standards,” [[Jeanne Kirkpatrick]] elaborated the [[distinction ]] between “[[authoritarianism|authoritarian]]” and “[[totalitarianism|totalitarian]]” [[regimes]], which served to justify the U.S. policy of collaborating with [[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]] [[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 [[threat]]s, [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] [[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 [[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 “[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]]” opposition that precludes any pragmatic compromises.

* [[The Not-So-Quiet American]]. ''In These [[Times]]''. February 14, 2005. <http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1959/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizbush.htm>.