Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle

I think its interesting to note that the irony of the two comments above, who claim that Zizek is actually wrong in the book since now they found those old shells with sarin residues, perfectly reinforces the logic of the book. The War was not about the weapons, and neither is book, as its focus was rather the pretexts under which modern war can be waged. The actual weapons here were irrelevant (plus finding a few artillerly shells with expired toxins surely dont qualify as the thousands of liters of deadly chemicals that were promiced to us before the invasion)- and yes Saddam did have WMDs at one point, we should know, we sold it to him - the focus of the book is on the status of "reality" and "truth" in the modern media culture, which are very disturbing. Rather the book explores the implications and fallout of what might be considered a grand political experiment that was tried by the Bush administration on America and the world: make up a fake reason for war and handouts, break international law, put the media machine to reinforce your claims, see it be proven false, dont even bother covering ass but just change the topic (WMDs > Freeedom), refuse to talk about a blatant lie, get reelected, and then watch the world leaders come to make amends. This is what the Left is ignoring, and this is the challenge to "reality" that needs to be addressed. <br /> <br />So yes put down the New York Times, and read this book.

The real value of Zizek is he stimulates a discussion in a certain direction that you will never find within the establishment media press,(Michael Moore included here) for they own and control the discourse. Zizek is independent enough (and he knows he's an intellectual supported by the system) where he need not simply fall like sheep into line with the various/nefarious propaganda machines as practiced by The Heritage Fnd.Wm.Kristol,Thom.Freidman, Wm.Safire. They all have easy jobs simply make some nice waverings from Right to Left,Neoliberal is the buzz these days(you needn't be consistent either)summoning the time honored icons of truth,justice,civilization,terror where is it? etc. or in Safire's case simply Right-Wing all the way, no swinging allowed!, there is simply evil out(The "Other" or today "Islam"(those who have oil) (it was communism) there to be extinguished or made docile, so the discourse is further made one-dimensional. So let's turn to the real world and that's where Zizek begins. Zizek uses Lacan's conception of reality where what is real is never really really "real" because it is "tainted" or "diseased" with the imaginary and the symbolic. So the line of arguments and facts he follows are always placed within this Lacanian context and it makes for interesting reading. It is fairly commonplace now that Bush and Company always knew that Saddam had no weapons(WMD) otherwise why would Washington send over 150,000 troops ready to be slaughtered by these weapons. (We are talking about, well they, Washington etc. talked about weapons of MASS destruction, what does that mean?) Well weapons that can be sent to New York,intercontinental?It really doesn't matter for the WMD symbolic has been and continues to be grist for the mill of the media and now the Presidential Election.So Zizek is telling us; it is all a distraction from the real issues.And he here clearly sees it's all propaganda, and summons the "borrowed kettle" story from Freud as a means of identifying the "missing" component here. As the book progresses(For Iraq is only the first part) there is/are some nice dialogues between pure theory, Lacan,Hegel and real facts, here, and Zizek is simply doing the intellectuals job relating philosophy and culture, politics to the reality,or "reality" which is now, or was "now".

Well ,unlike a certain French intellectual he doesn't think MidEast Wars are PR stunts. It's all well and good that he criticises do nothing pacifism but as a student of Lenin he should have looked for "internal contradictions" in the war and occupation itself. Pehaps a Soreliazation of Nietzshe's squib about The Good War justifying the Cause.

The only other review of this book is just so sad. So Zizek was mistaken about the WMD because we have found sheels that may have sarin gas residue. Don't you think that Bush and the rest of the team would be screaming about this all day, everyday but they have remained strangely silent. There are problems with this book. Zizek has a tendency to use the same stories and jokes over and over agian. But this does not take away from his ability to critize both the right and pseudo-Left position on the war. He also does a quite amazing job moving from the particular to the theoretical. But his shing moment appears in the formation of a question. The question is not "Are Iraqis better off without Saddam?" but "Is the world better off with the new logic that led to his fall?"