Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

The Not-So-Quiet American

1,489 bytes added, 00:59, 21 May 2019
The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).
The Iraqi 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.”{{BSZ}}
It is difficult The [[Iraq]]i elections appear to disagree with Bush here: He effectively did touch the Achilles’ heel of many Western progressives, who were often disarmed by the one good argument, repeatedly evoked by Christopher Hitchens, for authenticate the war against Iraq: The majority of Iraqis were Saddam’s victims, and they would be really glad to get rid of him[[statement]] [[George W. He was such a catastrophe for Bush]] made in his country January inauguration [[speech]]: “[[America]] will not pretend that jailed [[dissidents]] prefer their chains or that an American occupation in whatever form would be preferable to them in terms of daily survival [[women]] welcome [[humiliation]] and much lower levels of fear[[servitude]]. We are not talking here of “bringing Western democracy to Iraq,but of simply getting rid of the nightmare called Saddam. To this majority, the caution expressed by Western liberals can only appear deeply hypocritical—do they really care about how the Iraqi people feel?
WhyIt 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, thenrepeatedly evoked by [[Christopher Hitchens]], does for the old story repeat itself [[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 Iraq? America brings new hope 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 people[[Iraq]], but instead of hailing simply getting rid of the U.S[[nightmare]] called Saddam. Army To this majority, the ungrateful people caution expressed by [[West]]ern [[liberals]] can only appear deeply hypocritical — do not want it. They look they really care [[about]] how 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.Iraqi people feel?
With Why, then, does the global American ideological offensiveold story [[repeat]] itself in [[Iraq]]? America brings new hope and [[democracy]] to people, but instead of hailing the fundamental insight of Graham Greene’s The Quiet American is more relevant than ever: We witness U.S. [[Army]], the resurgence of ungrateful people do not [[want]] it. They look the figure of proverbial gift horse in the “quiet Americanmouth,and America then responds like a naive, benevolent agent who sincerely wants sullen [[child]] in reaction to bring democracy and Western freedom. It is just that his intentions totally misfire, or, as Greene put the ingratitude of those it: “I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he causedselflessly helped.
With the [[global]] American [[ideology|ideological]] offensive, the fundamental insight of [[Graham Greene]]’s "[[The underlying presupposition Quiet American]]" is that under our skin, if we scratch more relevant than ever: We [[witness]] the resurgence of the [[figure]] of the surface“[[quiet American]], we are all Americans. That is our true desire—all that is needed is just to give people a chancenaive, liberate them from their imposed constraints benevolent [[agent]] who sincerely wants to bring [[democracy]] and they will join us in our ideological dream[[West]]ern [[freedom]]. It’s fitting It is just that in February 2003 the right-wing journalist Stephen Schwartz used the phrase “capitalist revolution” to describe what Americans are now doinghis intentions totally misfire, or, as Greene put it: exporting their revolution around the entire world. No wonder they moved from “containing” “I never knew a man who had better motives for all the enemy to a more aggressive stancetrouble he caused.
It The underlying presupposition is the United States that is nowunder our skin, as if we scratch the defunct USSR was decades agosurface, the subversive agent of a world revolutionwe are all Americans. When Bush said, “Freedom That is our [[true]] [[desire]] — all that is needed is not America’s gift 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 world, it is [[right-wing]] journalist Stephen Schwartz used the almighty God’s gift phrase “[[capitalist revolution]]” to every man and woman in describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their [[revolution]] around the entire [[world,” his apparent modesty nonetheless concealed, in ]]. No wonder they moved from “containing” the best totalitarian fashion, its very opposite[[enemy]] to a more [[aggression|aggressive]] stance.
Recall It is the standard claim of a totalitarian leader [[United States]] that he himself is nothing at all—his strength is only the strength of the people who stand behind himnow, he only expresses their deepest strivings. The catch, of course, is that those who oppose as the leader do not only oppose himdefunct [[USSR]] was decades ago, but also oppose the deepest and noblest strivings subversive agent of the peoplea [[world revolution]]. And does the same When [[Bush]] said, “Freedom is 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. Howeverworld, if freedom it 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 almighty [[God]]’s [[gift ]] to all the nations of every [[man]] and [[woman]] in the world), then those who oppose U.S. policy are eo ipso rejecting ” his [[apparent]] [[modesty]] nonetheless concealed, in the noblest gift of God to humanity. No wonder many authentic theologians are appalled by these kinds of statements from Bushbest [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] fashion, 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 democracyvery opposite.
Bush was again right in opposing [[Recall]] the standard [[claim]] of a [[totalitarian leader]] that he himself is [[nothing]] at all — his strength is only the idea strength of exporting freedomthe [[people]] who stand behind him, when he said: “Freedom, by its nature, must be chosenonly expresses their deepest strivings. The hidden catch here , of course, is that precisely in those who oppose the case of Iraq, this rule was violated. The choice was obviously a forced one, [[leader]] do not only in the sense that freedom was imposedoppose him, but also in oppose the deepest and noblest strivings of the sense that [[people]]. And does the allegedly benevolent imposer reserved same not hold for himself the right [[Bush]]’s claim? If [[freedom]] effectively were to define what freedom is. It is instructive be just America’s gift to remember the case of Iran: not today’s[[other]] nations, but the Shah’sthings would have been much easier — those opposing U.S. Did not Reza Pahlavi also want to impose Western modernizationpolicy would be doing just that, with opposing the paradoxical result policy of giving birth to the [[United States]] as a “fundamentalist” revolution? From this perspectivesingle [[nation state]]. However, if [[freedom]] is [[God]]’s [[gift]] to [[humanity]] (and — herein resides the “successful” elections did not change anything—the true test for hidden proviso — if the [[United States lies ahead]] perceives itself as the chosen [[instrument]] for distributing this [[divine]] [[gift]] to all the nations of the world), then those who oppose U.S. What if, sooner or later, policy are eo ipso rejecting the unfortunate Iraqis will “misuse” democracy and give majority rule, not necessarily noblest gift of [[God]] to so-called “fundamentalists[[humanity]]. No wonder many authentic [[theology|theologians]] are appalled by these kinds of statements from [[Bush]],” but to anti-Western detecting in them a terrifying sacrilege. We therefore [[know]] now what “bringing democracy” means: The [[United States]] and anti-Zionist pan-Arab nationalists?its “willing partners” impose themselves as the ultimate judges who decide if a country is ripe for [[democracy]].
When [[Bush celebrated ]] was again right in opposing the explosive and irrepressible thirst for [[idea]] of exporting [[freedom as a “fire ]], when he said: “Freedom, by its [[nature]], must be chosen.” The hidden catch here is that precisely in the minds [[case]] of men[[Iraq]],this rule was violated. The [[choice]] was obviously a [[forced choice|forced]] one, not only in the unintended irony [[sense]] that [[freedom]] was imposed, but also in the sense that he used a phrase from Dostoevsky’s The Possessedthe allegedly benevolent imposer reserved for himself the right to define what freedom is. Dostoevsky used the phrase It is instructive to describe [[remember]] the ruthless activity case of radical anarchists who burned a village[[Iran]]: “The fire is in not today’s, but the Shah’s. Did not Reza Pahlavi also want to impose [[West]]ern [[modernity|modernization]], with the minds [[paradox|paradoxical]] result of mengiving [[birth]] to a “[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]]” [[revolution]]? From this perspective, the “successful” elections did not on [[change]] anything — the roofs of housestrue [[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]],Today, we already see—and smell—the smoke of this fire.but to anti-Western and anti-[[Zionism|Zionist]] pan-[[Arab]] [[nationalism|nationalists]]?
In her 1979 Commentary essay, “Dictators When [[Bush]] celebrated the explosive and Double Standardsirrepressible thirst for [[freedom]] as a “fire in the minds of men,” Jeanne Kirkpatrick elaborated the distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes, which served unintended irony was that he used a phrase from [[Dostoevsky]]’s "[[The Possessed]]". [[Dostoevsky]] used the phrase to justify describe the U.S. policy ruthless [[activity]] of collaborating with rightist dictators, while treating Communist regimes much more harshly. Authoritarian dictators are pragmatic rulers radical [[anarchism|anarchists]] who care about their power and wealth and are indifferent toward ideological issues, even if they pay lip service to some big cause; burned a village: “The fire is in contrastthe minds of men, totalitarian leaders are selfless fanatics who believe in their ideology and are ready to put everything at stake for their idealsnot on the roofs of houses. So while one can deal with authoritarian rulers who react rationally and predictably to material and military threats” Today, totalitarian leaders are much more dangerous we already see — and have to be directly confrontedsmell — the smoke of this fire.
The irony is that this In her 1979 Commentary essay, “Dictators and [[Double]] Standards,” [[Jeanne Kirkpatrick]] elaborated the [[distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with ]] between “[[authoritarianism|authoritarian]]” and “[[totalitarianism|totalitarian]]” [[regimes]], which served to justify the U.S. occupation policy of Iraqcollaborating with [[right]]ist [[dictatorship|dictators]], while treating [[Communism|Communist]] [[regimes]] much more harshly. Saddam was a corrupt authoritarian dictator striving for [[authoritarianism|Authoritarian]] [[dictatorship|dictators]] are pragmatic rulers who care about their [[power ]] and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations—a pragmatism that led him wealth and are indifferent toward [[ideology|ideological]] issues, even if they pay lip service to collaborate with the United States throughout the ’80s. The ultimate proof of this secular nature is the ironic fact that, some big [[cause]]; in the Iraqi elections of October 2002contrast, [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] [[leader]]s are selfless fanatics who believe in which Saddam Hussein got a 100 percent endorsement (their [[ideology]] and thus outdid the best Stalinist results of 99are ready to put everything at stake for their ideals.95 percent) So while one can deal with [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] rulers who react [[rationality|rationally]] and predictably to [[material]] and military [[threat]]s, 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 [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] [[leader]]s are much more uncompromising “fundamentalist” opposition that precludes any pragmatic compromisesdangerous and have to be directly confronted.
Recall The [[irony]] is that this distinction encapsulates perfectly what went wrong with the old story about a worker suspected [[U.S.]] occupation of stealing: Every evening, when he [[Iraq]]. [[Saddam]] was leaving a corrupt [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] [[dictatorship|dictator]] striving for [[power]] and guided by brutal pragmatic considerations — a [[pragmatism]] that led him to collaborate with the factory, [[United States]] throughout the wheelbarrow he was rolling in front ’80s. The ultimate proof of him was carefully inspectedthis [[secularism|secular]] nature is the ironic fact that, but in the guards could not find anythingIraqi elections of October 2002, it was always empty—until, finally, they in which [[Saddam Hussein]] got a 100 percent [[endorsement]] (and thus outdid the pointbest [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] results of 99. What 95 percent), the worker campaign song played again and again on all the [[state]] [[media]] was stealing were the wheelbarrows themselvesnone other than Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always [[Love]] You. 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 One of the effects outcomes of the military U.S. [[intervention against Saddam. Yes, the world is better without Saddam—but ]] is that it better if we also include in the overall picture the ideological and political effects of this very occupation?generated a much more uncompromising “[[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 — 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 is it better if we also include in the overall picture the [[ideological]] and [[political]] effects of this very occupation?
 
==See Also==
* [[fundamentalism]]
* [[totalitarianism]]
* [[leader]]
* [[freedom]]
* [[ideology]]
* [[iraq]]
* [[bush]]
* [[democracy]]
 
==Source==
* [[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>.
 
 
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
Anonymous user

Navigation menu