Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

The Not-So-Quiet American

197 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 [[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]].”{{BSZ}}
It is difficult to disagree with The [[BushIraq]] here: He effectively did touch i elections appear to authenticate the Achilles’ heel of many [[Weststatement]]ern progressives, who were often disarmed by the one good argument, repeatedly evoked by [[Christopher HitchensGeorge W. Bush]], for the [[war]] against made in his January inauguration [[Iraqspeech]]: The majority of Iraqis were [[SaddamAmerica]]’s victims, and they would be really glad to get rid of him. He was such a catastrophe for his country will not pretend that an American occupation in whatever form would be preferable to them in terms of daily survival and much lower levels of jailed [[feardissidents]]. We are not talking here of “bringing prefer their chains or that [[Westwomen]]ern welcome [[democracyhumiliation]] to and [[Iraqservitude]],.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?
WhyIt is difficult to disagree with [[Bush]] here: He effectively did touch the Achilles’ heel of many [[West]]ern progressives, thenwho were often disarmed by the one [[good]] argument, does repeatedly evoked by [[Christopher Hitchens]], for the old story repeat itself in [[war]] against [[Iraq]]? : The majority of Iraqis were [[Saddam]]’s victims, and they would be really glad to get rid of him. America brings new hope 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 people[[Iraq]], but instead of hailing simply getting rid of the U[[nightmare]] called Saddam.S. 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 the global American [[ideology|ideological]] offensiveWhy, then, does the fundamental insight of old story [[Graham Greenerepeat]]’s "itself in [[The Quiet AmericanIraq]]" is more relevant than ever: We ? America brings new hope and [[witnessdemocracy]] the resurgence to people, but instead of hailing the figure of the “U.S. [[quiet AmericanArmy]],” a naive, benevolent agent who sincerely wants to bring the ungrateful people do not [[democracywant]] it. They look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth, and America then responds like a sullen [[Westchild]]ern [[freedom]]. It is just that his intentions totally misfire, or, as Greene put in reaction to the ingratitude of those it: “I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he causedselflessly helped.
The underlying presupposition is that under our skin, if we scratch With the surface, we are all Americans. That is our true [[desireglobal]] — all that is needed is just to give people a chance, liberate them from their imposed constraints and they will join us in our American [[ideology|ideological]] offensive, the fundamental insight of [[Graham Greene]]’s "[[The Quiet American]]" is more relevant than ever: We [[dreamwitness]]. It’s fitting that in February 2003 the resurgence of the [[right-wingfigure]] journalist Stephen Schwartz used of the phrase “[[capitalist revolutionquiet American]],a naive, benevolent [[agent]] who sincerely wants to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their bring [[revolutiondemocracy]] around the entire world. No wonder they moved from “containing” the and [[enemyWest]] to a more ern [[aggression|aggressivefreedom]] stance. 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.”
It The underlying presupposition is that under our skin, if we scratch the surface, we are all Americans. That is our [[United Statestrue]] [[desire]] — all that is nowneeded is just to give people a [[chance]], as the defunct liberate them from their imposed constraints and they will join us in our [[USSRideology|ideological]] was decades ago, the subversive agent of a [[world revolutiondream]]. When It’s fitting that in February 2003 the [[Bushright-wing]] said, “Freedom is not America’s gift to the world, it is journalist Stephen Schwartz used the almighty phrase “[[Godcapitalist revolution]]’s ” to describe what Americans are now doing: exporting their [[giftrevolution]] to every around the entire [[manworld]] and . No wonder they moved from “containing” the [[womanenemy]] in the world,” his apparent modesty nonetheless concealed, in the best to a more [[totalitarianismaggression|totalitarianaggressive]] fashion, its very oppositestance.
Recall It is the standard claim of a [[totalitarian leaderUnited 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 defunct [[leaderUSSR]] do not only oppose himwas decades ago, but also oppose the deepest and noblest strivings subversive agent of the a [[peopleworld revolution]]. And does the same not hold for When [[Bush]]’s claim? If [[freedom]] effectively were to be just said, “Freedom is not 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 the almighty [[God]]’s [[gift]] to every [[humanityman]] (and — herein resides the hidden proviso — if the [[United Stateswoman]] perceives itself as in the chosen [[instrument]] for distributing this world,” his [[divineapparent]] [[giftmodesty]] to all the nations of the world)nonetheless concealed, then those who oppose U.S. policy are eo ipso rejecting in the noblest gift of [[God]] to best [[humanity]]. No wonder many authentic [[theologytotalitarianism|theologians]] are appalled by these kinds of statements from [[Bushtotalitarian]]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 [[democracy]]very opposite.
[[BushRecall]] the standard [[claim]] of a [[totalitarian leader]] that he himself is [[nothing]] was again right in opposing at all — his strength is only the idea strength of exporting the [[freedompeople]]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 [[leader]] do not only oppose him, but also oppose the case deepest and noblest strivings of the [[Iraqpeople]], this rule was violated. The And does the same not hold for [[choiceBush]] was obviously a ’s claim? If [[forced choice|forcedfreedom]] one, not only in the sense that effectively were to be just America’s gift to [[freedomother]] was imposednations, but also in the sense things would have been much easier — those opposing U.S. policy would be doing just that , opposing the allegedly benevolent imposer reserved for himself policy of the right to define what freedom is[[United States]] as a single [[nation state]]. It However, if [[freedom]] is instructive to remember the case of [[IranGod]]’s [[gift]]: not today’s, but the Shah’s. Did not Reza Pahlavi also want to impose [[Westhumanity]]ern (and — herein resides the hidden proviso — if the [[modernity|modernizationUnited States]], with perceives itself as the chosen [[paradox|paradoxicalinstrument]] result of giving birth to a “for distributing this [[fundamentalism|fundamentalistdivine]][[revolutiongift]]? From this perspective, to all the “successful” elections did not change anything — nations of the true test for world), then those who oppose U.S. policy are eo ipso rejecting the noblest gift of [[United StatesGod]] to [[humanity]] lies ahead. What if, sooner or later, the unfortunate Iraqis will “misuse” No wonder many authentic [[democracytheology|theologians]] and give majority rule, not necessarily to so-called “are appalled by these kinds of statements from [[fundamentalism|fundamentalistBush]],” but to anti-Western and anti-detecting in them a terrifying sacrilege. We therefore [[Zionism|Zionistknow]] pan-now what “bringing democracy” means: The [[ArabUnited States]] and its “willing partners” impose themselves as the ultimate judges who decide if a country is ripe for [[nationalism|nationalistsdemocracy]]?.
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]],” the unintended irony this rule was violated. The [[choice]] was that he used obviously a phrase from [[Dostoevskyforced choice|forced]] one, not only in the [[sense]]’s "that [[The Possessedfreedom]]"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 [[Dostoevskyremember]] used the phrase to describe the ruthless activity case of radical [[anarchism|anarchistsIran]] who burned a village: “The fire is in not today’s, but the minds of menShah’s. Did not Reza Pahlavi also want to impose [[West]]ern [[modernity|modernization]], not on with the roofs [[paradox|paradoxical]] result of houses.giving [[birth]] to a “[[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]][[revolution]]? TodayFrom this perspective, we already see — and smell the “successful” elections did not [[change]] anything — the smoke of this firetrue [[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]]?
In her 1979 Commentary essay, “Dictators and Double Standards,” When [[Jeanne KirkpatrickBush]] elaborated celebrated the distinction between “[[authoritarianism|authoritarian]]” explosive and irrepressible thirst for [[totalitarianism|totalitarianfreedom]]” [[regimes]], which served to justify as a “fire in the U.S. policy minds of collaborating with [[right]]ist [[dictatorship|dictators]]men, while treating ” the unintended irony was that he used a phrase from [[Communism|CommunistDostoevsky]] ’s "[[regimesThe Possessed]] much more harshly". [[authoritarianism|AuthoritarianDostoevsky]] used the phrase to describe the ruthless [[dictatorship|dictators]] are pragmatic rulers who care about their [[poweractivity]] and wealth and are indifferent toward of radical [[ideologyanarchism|ideologicalanarchists]] issues, even if they pay lip service to some big cause; who burned a village: “The fire is in contrastthe minds of men, [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] [[leader]]s 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 [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] rulers who react [[rationality|rationally]] and predictably to material and military [[threat]]sToday, [[totalitarianism|totalitarian]] [[leader]]s are much more dangerous we already see — and have to be directly confrontedsmell — 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.
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?
==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>.
Anonymous user

Navigation menu