Thread
Iraq Is A Trial Run By Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky , University Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political
activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United
States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely
Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research,
he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the
current attack on Iraq.
V. K. Ramachandran : Does the present aggression on Iraq represent a
continuation of United States' international policy in recent years or a
qualitatively new stage in that policy?
Noam Chomsky : It represents a significantly new phase. It is not
without precedent, but significantly new nevertheless.
This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy
and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that
the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the
U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and
military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will
follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it
could be others.
The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm"
in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war." Notice
that new norms are established only by the United States. So, for
example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous
massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention,
because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was
strenuously opposed to that action.
This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive
war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying
across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is
permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted
to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a
response to ongoing or imminent attack.
The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the
United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right
to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it.
So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may
sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.
The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National
Security Strategy last September. It sent shudders around the world,
including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition
to the war is unusually high. The Security Strategy said, in effect,
that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the
only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for
the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S.
domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge.
This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these
terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then
international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to
talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to
establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the
foreseeable future.
This is not without precedent, but it is extremely unusual. I shall
mention one precedent, just to show how narrow the spectrum is. In 1963,
Dean Acheson, who was a much respected elder statesman and senior
Adviser of the Kennedy Administration, gave an important talk to the
American Society of International Law, in which he justified the U. S.
attacks against Cuba. The attack by the Kennedy Administration on Cuba
was large-scale international terrorism and economic warfare. The timing
was interesting - it was right after the Missile Crisis, when the world
was very close to a terminal nuclear war. In his speech, Acheson said
that no "legal issue" arises when the United States responds to a
challenge to its "power, position, or prestige", or words approximating
that.
That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine. Although Acheson was an
important figure, what he said had not been official government policy
in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the
first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the
future.
Such "norms" are established only when a Western power does something,
not when others do. That is part of the deep racism of Western culture,
going back through centuries of imperialism and so deep that it is
unconscious.
So I think this war is an important new step, and is intended to be.
Ramachandran :Is it also a new phase in that the U. S. has not been able
to carry others with it?
Chomsky : That is not new. In the case of the Vietnam War, for example,
the United States did not even try to get international support.
Nevertheless, you are right in that this is unusual. This is a case in
which the United States was compelled for political reasons to try to
force the world to accept its position and was not able to, which is
quite unusual. Usually, the world succumbs.
Ramachandran :So does it represent a "failure of diplomacy" or a
redefinition of diplomacy itself?
Chomsky : I wouldn't call it diplomacy at all - it's a failure of
coercion.
Compare it with the first Gulf War. In the first Gulf War, the U.S.
coerced the Security Council into accepting its position, although much
of the world opposed it. NATO went along, and the one country in the
Security Council that did not - Yemen - was immediately and severely
punished.
In any legal system that you take seriously, coerced judgments are
considered invalid, but in the international affairs conducted by the
powerful, coerced judgments are fine - they are called diplomacy.
What is interesting about this case is that the coercion did not work.
There were countries - in fact, most of them - who stubbornly maintained
the position of the vast majority of their populations.
The most dramatic case is Turkey. Turkey is a vulnerable country,
vulnerable to U.S. punishment and inducements. Nevertheless, the new
government, I think to everyone's surprise, did maintain the position of
about 90 per cent of its population. Turkey is bitterly condemned for
that here, just as France and Germany are bitterly condemned because
they took the position of the overwhelming majority of their
populations. The countries that are praised are countries like Italy and
Spain, whose leaders agreed to follow orders from Washington over the
opposition of maybe 90 per cent of their populations.
That is another new step. I cannot think of another case where hatred
and contempt for democracy have so openly been proclaimed, not just by
the government, but also by liberal commentators and others. There is
now a whole literature trying to explain why France, Germany, the
so-called "old Europe", and Turkey and others are trying to undermine
the United States. It is inconceivable to the pundits that they are
doing so because they take democracy seriously and they think that when
the overwhelming majority of a population has an opinion, a government
ought to follow it.
That is real contempt for democracy, just as what has happened at the
United Nations is total contempt for the international system. In fact
there are now calls - from The Wall Street Journal ,people in Government
and others - to disband the United Nations.
Fear of the United States around the world is extraordinary. It is so
extreme that it is even being discussed in the mainstream media. The
cover story of the upcoming issue of Newsweek is about why the world is
so afraid of the United States. The Post had a cover story about this a
few weeks ago.
Of course this is considered to be the world's fault, that there is
something wrong with the world with which we have to deal somehow, but
also something that has to be recognised.
Ramachandran :The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and
present danger is, of course, without any substance at all.
Chomsky : Nobody pays any attention to that accusation, except,
interestingly, the population of the United States.
In the last few months, there has been a spectacular achievement of
government-media propaganda, very visible in the polls. The
international polls show that support for the war is higher in the
United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite
misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the
United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the
world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in
the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an
imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or
Iran.
Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq
was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has
happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack,
the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed
to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that
Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States
and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support
the war.
Technology, founder of the modern science of linguistics and political
activist, is a powerhouse of anti-imperialist activism in the United
States today. On March 21, a crowded and typical - and uniquely
Chomskyan - day of political protest and scientific academic research,
he spoke from his office for half an hour to V. K. Ramachandran on the
current attack on Iraq.
V. K. Ramachandran : Does the present aggression on Iraq represent a
continuation of United States' international policy in recent years or a
qualitatively new stage in that policy?
Noam Chomsky : It represents a significantly new phase. It is not
without precedent, but significantly new nevertheless.
This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy
and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that
the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the
U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and
military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will
follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it
could be others.
The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm"
in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war." Notice
that new norms are established only by the United States. So, for
example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous
massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention,
because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was
strenuously opposed to that action.
This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive
war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying
across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is
permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted
to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a
response to ongoing or imminent attack.
The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the
United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right
to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it.
So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may
sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.
The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National
Security Strategy last September. It sent shudders around the world,
including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition
to the war is unusually high. The Security Strategy said, in effect,
that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the
only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for
the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S.
domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge.
This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these
terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then
international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to
talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to
establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the
foreseeable future.
This is not without precedent, but it is extremely unusual. I shall
mention one precedent, just to show how narrow the spectrum is. In 1963,
Dean Acheson, who was a much respected elder statesman and senior
Adviser of the Kennedy Administration, gave an important talk to the
American Society of International Law, in which he justified the U. S.
attacks against Cuba. The attack by the Kennedy Administration on Cuba
was large-scale international terrorism and economic warfare. The timing
was interesting - it was right after the Missile Crisis, when the world
was very close to a terminal nuclear war. In his speech, Acheson said
that no "legal issue" arises when the United States responds to a
challenge to its "power, position, or prestige", or words approximating
that.
That is also a statement of the Bush doctrine. Although Acheson was an
important figure, what he said had not been official government policy
in the post-War period. It now stands as official policy and this is the
first illustration of it. It is intended to provide a precedent for the
future.
Such "norms" are established only when a Western power does something,
not when others do. That is part of the deep racism of Western culture,
going back through centuries of imperialism and so deep that it is
unconscious.
So I think this war is an important new step, and is intended to be.
Ramachandran :Is it also a new phase in that the U. S. has not been able
to carry others with it?
Chomsky : That is not new. In the case of the Vietnam War, for example,
the United States did not even try to get international support.
Nevertheless, you are right in that this is unusual. This is a case in
which the United States was compelled for political reasons to try to
force the world to accept its position and was not able to, which is
quite unusual. Usually, the world succumbs.
Ramachandran :So does it represent a "failure of diplomacy" or a
redefinition of diplomacy itself?
Chomsky : I wouldn't call it diplomacy at all - it's a failure of
coercion.
Compare it with the first Gulf War. In the first Gulf War, the U.S.
coerced the Security Council into accepting its position, although much
of the world opposed it. NATO went along, and the one country in the
Security Council that did not - Yemen - was immediately and severely
punished.
In any legal system that you take seriously, coerced judgments are
considered invalid, but in the international affairs conducted by the
powerful, coerced judgments are fine - they are called diplomacy.
What is interesting about this case is that the coercion did not work.
There were countries - in fact, most of them - who stubbornly maintained
the position of the vast majority of their populations.
The most dramatic case is Turkey. Turkey is a vulnerable country,
vulnerable to U.S. punishment and inducements. Nevertheless, the new
government, I think to everyone's surprise, did maintain the position of
about 90 per cent of its population. Turkey is bitterly condemned for
that here, just as France and Germany are bitterly condemned because
they took the position of the overwhelming majority of their
populations. The countries that are praised are countries like Italy and
Spain, whose leaders agreed to follow orders from Washington over the
opposition of maybe 90 per cent of their populations.
That is another new step. I cannot think of another case where hatred
and contempt for democracy have so openly been proclaimed, not just by
the government, but also by liberal commentators and others. There is
now a whole literature trying to explain why France, Germany, the
so-called "old Europe", and Turkey and others are trying to undermine
the United States. It is inconceivable to the pundits that they are
doing so because they take democracy seriously and they think that when
the overwhelming majority of a population has an opinion, a government
ought to follow it.
That is real contempt for democracy, just as what has happened at the
United Nations is total contempt for the international system. In fact
there are now calls - from The Wall Street Journal ,people in Government
and others - to disband the United Nations.
Fear of the United States around the world is extraordinary. It is so
extreme that it is even being discussed in the mainstream media. The
cover story of the upcoming issue of Newsweek is about why the world is
so afraid of the United States. The Post had a cover story about this a
few weeks ago.
Of course this is considered to be the world's fault, that there is
something wrong with the world with which we have to deal somehow, but
also something that has to be recognised.
Ramachandran :The idea that Iraq represents any kind of clear and
present danger is, of course, without any substance at all.
Chomsky : Nobody pays any attention to that accusation, except,
interestingly, the population of the United States.
In the last few months, there has been a spectacular achievement of
government-media propaganda, very visible in the polls. The
international polls show that support for the war is higher in the
United States than in other countries. That is, however, quite
misleading, because if you look a little closer, you find that the
United States is also different in another respect from the rest of the
world. Since September 2002, the United States is the only country in
the world where 60 per cent of the population believes that Iraq is an
imminent threat - something that people do not believe even in Kuwait or
Iran.
Furthermore, about 50 per cent of the population now believes that Iraq
was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. This has
happened since September 2002. In fact, after the September 11 attack,
the figure was about 3 per cent. Government-media propaganda has managed
to raise that to about 50 per cent. Now if people genuinely believe that
Iraq has carried out major terrorist attacks against the United States
and is planning to do so again, well, in that case people will support
the war.
This has happened, as I said, after September 2002. September 2002 is
when the government-media campaign began and also when the mid-term
election campaign began. The Bush Administration would have been smashed
in the election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront,
but it managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues -
and people huddle under the umbrella of power.
This is exactly the way the country was run in the 1980s. Remember that
these are almost the same people as in the Reagan and the senior Bush
Administrations. Right through the 1980s they carried out domestic
policies that were harmful to the population and which, as we know from
extensive polls, the people opposed. But they managed to maintain
control by frightening the people. So the Nicaraguan Army was two days'
march from Texas, and the airbase in Grenada was one from which the
Russians would bomb us. It was one thing after another, every year,
every one of them ludicrous. The Reagan Administration actually declared
a National Emergency in 1985 because of the threat to the security of
the United States posed by the Government of Nicaragua.
If somebody were watching this from Mars, they would not know whether to
laugh or to cry.
They are doing exactly the same thing now, and will probably do
something similar for the presidential campaign. There will have to be a
new dragon to slay, because if the Administration lets domestic issues
prevail, it is in deep trouble.
Ramachandran :You have written that this war of aggression has dangerous
consequences with respect to international terrorism and the threat of
nuclear war.
Chomsky : I cannot claim any originality for that opinion. I am just
quoting the CIA and other intelligence agencies and virtually every
specialist in international affairs and terrorism. Foreign Affairs,
Foreign Policy , the study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
and the high-level Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorist threats to the
United States all agree that it is likely to increase terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The reason is simple: partly for revenge, but partly just for
self-defence.
There is no other way to protect oneself from U.S. attack. In fact, the
United States is making the point very clearly, and is teaching the
world an extremely ugly lesson.
Compare North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is defenceless and weak; in fact, the
weakest regime in the region. While there is a horrible monster running
it, it does not pose a threat to anyone else. North Korea, on the other
hand, does pose a threat. North Korea, however, is not attacked for a
very simple reason: it has a deterrent. It has a massed artillery aimed
at Seoul, and if the United States attacks it, it can wipe out a large
part of South Korea.
So the United States is telling the countries of the world: if you are
defenceless, we are going to attack you when we want, but if you have a
deterrent, we will back off, because we only attack defenceless targets.
In other words, it is telling countries that they had better develop a
terrorist network and weapons of mass destruction or some other credible
deterrent; if not, they are vulnerable to "preventive war".
For that reason alone, this war is likely to lead to the proliferation
of both terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Ramachandran :How do you think the U.S. will manage the human - and
humanitarian - consequences of the war?
Chomsky : No one knows, of course. That is why honest and decent people
do not resort to violence - because one simply does not know.
The aid agencies and medical groups that work in Iraq have pointed out
that the consequences can be very severe. Everyone hopes not, but it
could affect up to millions of people. To undertake violence when there
is even such a possibility is criminal.
There is already - that is, even before the war - a humanitarian
catastrophe. By conservative estimates, ten years of sanctions have
killed hundreds of thousands of people. If there were any honesty, the
U.S. would pay reparations just for the sanctions.
The situation is similar to the bombing of Afghanistan, of which you and
I spoke when the bombing there was in its early stages. It was obvious
the United States was never going to investigate the consequences.
Ramachandran :Or invest the kind of money that was needed.
Chomsky : Oh no. First, the question is not asked, so no one has an idea
of what the consequences of the bombing were for most of the country.
Then almost nothing comes in. Finally, it is out of the news, and no one
remembers it any more.
In Iraq, the United States will make a show of humanitarian
reconstruction and will put in a regime that it will call democratic,
which means that it follows Washington's orders. Then it will forget
about what happens later, and will go on to the next one.
Ramachandran :How have the media lived up to their propaganda-model
reputation this time?
Chomsky : Right now it is cheerleading for the home team. Look at CNN,
which is disgusting - and it is the same everywhere. That is to be
expected in wartime; the media are worshipful of power.
More interesting is what happened in the build-up to war. The fact that
government-media propaganda was able to convince the people that Iraq is
an imminent threat and that Iraq was responsible for September 11 is a
spectacular achievement and, as I said, was accomplished in about four
months. If you ask people in the media about this, they will say, "Well,
we never said that," and it is true, they did not. There was never a
statement that Iraq is going to invade the United States or that it
carried out the World Trade Centre attack. It was just insinuated, hint
after hint, until they finally got people to believe it.
Ramachandran :Look at the resistance, though. Despite the propaganda,
despite the denigration of the United Nations, they haven't quite
carried the day.
Chomsky : You never know. The United Nations is in a very hazardous
position.
The United States might move to dismantle it. I don't really expect
that, but at least to diminish it, because when it isn't following
orders, of what use is it?
Ramachandran :Noam, you have seen movements of resistance to imperialism
over a long period - Vietnam, Central America, Gulf War I. What are your
impressions of the character, sweep and depth of the present resistance
to U.S. aggression? We take great heart in the extraordinary
mobilisations all over the world.
Chomsky : Oh, that is correct; there is just nothing like it. Opposition
throughout the world is enormous and unprecedented, and the same is true
of the United States. Yesterday, for example, I was in demonstrations in
downtown Boston, right around the Boston Common. It is not the first
time I have been there. The first time I participated in a demonstration
there at which I was to speak was in October 1965. That was four years
after the United States had started bombing South Vietnam. Half of South
Vietnam had been destroyed and the war had been extended to North
Vietnam. We could not have a demonstration because it was physically
attacked, mostly by students, with the support of the liberal press and
radio, who denounced these people who were daring to protest against an
American war.
On this occasion, however, there was a massive protest before the war
was launched officially and once again on the day it was launched - with
no counter-demonstrators. That is a radical difference. And if it were
not for the fear factor that I mentioned, there would be much more
opposition.
The government knows that it cannot carry out long-term aggression and
destruction as in Vietnam because the population will not tolerate it.
There is only one way to fight a war now. First of all, pick a much
weaker enemy, one that is defenceless. Then build it up in the
propaganda system as either about to commit aggression or as an imminent
threat. Next, you need a lightning victory. An important leaked document
of the first Bush Administration in 1989 described how the U.S. would
have to fight war. It said that the U.S. had to fight much weaker
enemies, and that victory must be rapid and decisive, as public support
will quickly erode. It is no longer like the 1960s, when a war could be
fought for years with no opposition at all.
In many ways, the activism of the 1960s and subsequent years has simply
made a lot of the world, including this country, much more civilised in
many domains
when the government-media campaign began and also when the mid-term
election campaign began. The Bush Administration would have been smashed
in the election if social and economic issues had been in the forefront,
but it managed to suppress those issues in favour of security issues -
and people huddle under the umbrella of power.
This is exactly the way the country was run in the 1980s. Remember that
these are almost the same people as in the Reagan and the senior Bush
Administrations. Right through the 1980s they carried out domestic
policies that were harmful to the population and which, as we know from
extensive polls, the people opposed. But they managed to maintain
control by frightening the people. So the Nicaraguan Army was two days'
march from Texas, and the airbase in Grenada was one from which the
Russians would bomb us. It was one thing after another, every year,
every one of them ludicrous. The Reagan Administration actually declared
a National Emergency in 1985 because of the threat to the security of
the United States posed by the Government of Nicaragua.
If somebody were watching this from Mars, they would not know whether to
laugh or to cry.
They are doing exactly the same thing now, and will probably do
something similar for the presidential campaign. There will have to be a
new dragon to slay, because if the Administration lets domestic issues
prevail, it is in deep trouble.
Ramachandran :You have written that this war of aggression has dangerous
consequences with respect to international terrorism and the threat of
nuclear war.
Chomsky : I cannot claim any originality for that opinion. I am just
quoting the CIA and other intelligence agencies and virtually every
specialist in international affairs and terrorism. Foreign Affairs,
Foreign Policy , the study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
and the high-level Hart-Rudman Commission on terrorist threats to the
United States all agree that it is likely to increase terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The reason is simple: partly for revenge, but partly just for
self-defence.
There is no other way to protect oneself from U.S. attack. In fact, the
United States is making the point very clearly, and is teaching the
world an extremely ugly lesson.
Compare North Korea and Iraq. Iraq is defenceless and weak; in fact, the
weakest regime in the region. While there is a horrible monster running
it, it does not pose a threat to anyone else. North Korea, on the other
hand, does pose a threat. North Korea, however, is not attacked for a
very simple reason: it has a deterrent. It has a massed artillery aimed
at Seoul, and if the United States attacks it, it can wipe out a large
part of South Korea.
So the United States is telling the countries of the world: if you are
defenceless, we are going to attack you when we want, but if you have a
deterrent, we will back off, because we only attack defenceless targets.
In other words, it is telling countries that they had better develop a
terrorist network and weapons of mass destruction or some other credible
deterrent; if not, they are vulnerable to "preventive war".
For that reason alone, this war is likely to lead to the proliferation
of both terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Ramachandran :How do you think the U.S. will manage the human - and
humanitarian - consequences of the war?
Chomsky : No one knows, of course. That is why honest and decent people
do not resort to violence - because one simply does not know.
The aid agencies and medical groups that work in Iraq have pointed out
that the consequences can be very severe. Everyone hopes not, but it
could affect up to millions of people. To undertake violence when there
is even such a possibility is criminal.
There is already - that is, even before the war - a humanitarian
catastrophe. By conservative estimates, ten years of sanctions have
killed hundreds of thousands of people. If there were any honesty, the
U.S. would pay reparations just for the sanctions.
The situation is similar to the bombing of Afghanistan, of which you and
I spoke when the bombing there was in its early stages. It was obvious
the United States was never going to investigate the consequences.
Ramachandran :Or invest the kind of money that was needed.
Chomsky : Oh no. First, the question is not asked, so no one has an idea
of what the consequences of the bombing were for most of the country.
Then almost nothing comes in. Finally, it is out of the news, and no one
remembers it any more.
In Iraq, the United States will make a show of humanitarian
reconstruction and will put in a regime that it will call democratic,
which means that it follows Washington's orders. Then it will forget
about what happens later, and will go on to the next one.
Ramachandran :How have the media lived up to their propaganda-model
reputation this time?
Chomsky : Right now it is cheerleading for the home team. Look at CNN,
which is disgusting - and it is the same everywhere. That is to be
expected in wartime; the media are worshipful of power.
More interesting is what happened in the build-up to war. The fact that
government-media propaganda was able to convince the people that Iraq is
an imminent threat and that Iraq was responsible for September 11 is a
spectacular achievement and, as I said, was accomplished in about four
months. If you ask people in the media about this, they will say, "Well,
we never said that," and it is true, they did not. There was never a
statement that Iraq is going to invade the United States or that it
carried out the World Trade Centre attack. It was just insinuated, hint
after hint, until they finally got people to believe it.
Ramachandran :Look at the resistance, though. Despite the propaganda,
despite the denigration of the United Nations, they haven't quite
carried the day.
Chomsky : You never know. The United Nations is in a very hazardous
position.
The United States might move to dismantle it. I don't really expect
that, but at least to diminish it, because when it isn't following
orders, of what use is it?
Ramachandran :Noam, you have seen movements of resistance to imperialism
over a long period - Vietnam, Central America, Gulf War I. What are your
impressions of the character, sweep and depth of the present resistance
to U.S. aggression? We take great heart in the extraordinary
mobilisations all over the world.
Chomsky : Oh, that is correct; there is just nothing like it. Opposition
throughout the world is enormous and unprecedented, and the same is true
of the United States. Yesterday, for example, I was in demonstrations in
downtown Boston, right around the Boston Common. It is not the first
time I have been there. The first time I participated in a demonstration
there at which I was to speak was in October 1965. That was four years
after the United States had started bombing South Vietnam. Half of South
Vietnam had been destroyed and the war had been extended to North
Vietnam. We could not have a demonstration because it was physically
attacked, mostly by students, with the support of the liberal press and
radio, who denounced these people who were daring to protest against an
American war.
On this occasion, however, there was a massive protest before the war
was launched officially and once again on the day it was launched - with
no counter-demonstrators. That is a radical difference. And if it were
not for the fear factor that I mentioned, there would be much more
opposition.
The government knows that it cannot carry out long-term aggression and
destruction as in Vietnam because the population will not tolerate it.
There is only one way to fight a war now. First of all, pick a much
weaker enemy, one that is defenceless. Then build it up in the
propaganda system as either about to commit aggression or as an imminent
threat. Next, you need a lightning victory. An important leaked document
of the first Bush Administration in 1989 described how the U.S. would
have to fight war. It said that the U.S. had to fight much weaker
enemies, and that victory must be rapid and decisive, as public support
will quickly erode. It is no longer like the 1960s, when a war could be
fought for years with no opposition at all.
In many ways, the activism of the 1960s and subsequent years has simply
made a lot of the world, including this country, much more civilised in
many domains
.
You mean there was a time when Chomsky didn't do this?
Chomsky personifies what is wrong with universities.
Chomsky personifies what is wrong with universities.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by daimoni: Ugh. I'm beginning to think less and less of Chomsky these days. I wish he wouldn't cling to only one side of the issue... as if that's the whole story. It's either agree with him chapter and verse... or else you're not an honest and decent person. |
I'm a bit surprised by your reaction. This struck me as one of Chomsky's more mild and restrained rants.
The only claim I find a bit unfounded is that the media had a calculated role in making Americans think Iraqis were involved in 9/11. I do think the media sent a lot of mixed signals (along with politicians), but I chalk the mixup up to good old public ignorance.
Once a story has more than 5 characters (especially with foreign names) and any substantial plot twists, most brains turn off. Too many Americans rely on TV news and it's ridiculously shallow level of information.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by BasketofPuppies: You mean there was a time when Chomsky didn't do this? Chomsky personifies what is wrong with universities. |
Free Thinking?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: Free Thinking? |
Extreme-liberal propaganda.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: Free Thinking? |
You insult that concept by claiming Chomsky does it. He's as blind as the blindest hawk, just in the opposite direction. But that doesn't make him any better than them. Did I mention that he actually manages to be too paranoid about the US government, which is no small feat given how much paranoia about them is justified?
The man's not a total disgrace to academia, because he's done some very good work in his actual field. Unfortunately, outside of this field, he is the epitome of the arrogant, pretentious blowhard.
Good post. I agree fully that this is going to push nations that can to get involved in a huge arms race. From the link I posted yesterday, it seems as if the Indians are already worried about the USA and are calling for massive increases in armements. Iran will likewise have read the writing on the wall and will push to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. China already knows this, from their confrontations with the USA over Taiwan, and Russia will probably likewise think earnestly about rearming and breaking off the disarmement of their strategic nuclear forces.
If that isn't bad enough, I think sooner or later there will be a really major clash, where the USA pushes some country up against the wall so to speak, with no room to manouver, which either means backing down or fighting.
If that isn't bad enough, I think sooner or later there will be a really major clash, where the USA pushes some country up against the wall so to speak, with no room to manouver, which either means backing down or fighting.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by BasketofPuppies: Extreme-liberal propaganda. |
What does his strong personal politics have to do with "what's wrong with universities"?
What does his politics have to do with his job as a scientist?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Millennium: You insult that concept by claiming Chomsky does it. He's as blind as the blindest hawk, just in the opposite direction. But that doesn't make him any better than them. Did I mention that he actually manages to be too paranoid about the US government, which is no small feat given how much paranoia about them is justified? The man's not a total disgrace to academia, because he's done some very good work in his actual field. Unfortunately, outside of this field, he is the epitome of the arrogant, pretentious blowhard. |
My point is that his politics don't have much to do with "what's wrong with universities". Unless, of course, academics shouldn't be allowed to have strong opinions on politics or express them.
He wouldn't have a job if he wasn't a very well regarded scientist and a leader in his field.
Lots of "liberals" in universities is no more a problem than lots of "conservatives" in law enforcement.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Millennium: You insult that concept by claiming Chomsky does it. He's as blind as the blindest hawk, just in the opposite direction. But that doesn't make him any better than them. Did I mention that he actually manages to be too paranoid about the US government, which is no small feat given how much paranoia about them is justified? The man's not a total disgrace to academia, because he's done some very good work in his actual field. Unfortunately, outside of this field, he is the epitome of the arrogant, pretentious blowhard. |
well, his personality aside, I thought he made some very cogent points at the beginning. Notably, the difference between a pre-emptive war and a preventative war. He also correctly points out it is a change in the norms of "diplomacy".
He also correctly points out that we need to be concerned about the very important question: What next?
Thing is that countries are truly afraid of the USA. I've been posting that for a while here now, and it doesn't seem to be taken seriously, but you have to discuss the war with people here, and 90% of them are angry and afraid. And fear doesn't breed trust.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by theolein: Thing is that countries are truly afraid of the USA. I've been posting that for a while here now, and it doesn't seem to be taken seriously, but you have to discuss the war with people here, and 90% of them are angry and afraid. And fear doesn't breed trust. |
As a Canadian I can say that I feel the greatest threat to our sovereignty comes from south of the boarder.
"Let them hate us so long as they fear."
The more I think about that statement (from that diplomat's resignation letter to Powell), the more I think it's a very insightful assessment of the current thinking in Washington.
The more I think about that statement (from that diplomat's resignation letter to Powell), the more I think it's a very insightful assessment of the current thinking in Washington.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: What does his strong personal politics have to do with "what's wrong with universities"? What does his politics have to do with his job as a scientist? |
I agree, that's the problem. What DOES his politics have to do with his job as a scientist? Nothing. If he wouldn't use his prestigious position as a scientist to promote his ranting political views, that would be OK. Instead, he trades on his legitimate success in his field to propagandize about other things and draw attention to his cause, except that his opinion is just that -- not the opinion of an expert or responsible authority in the political arena.
And yes, that's what's wrong with academia. Along with the "you're with me or else" mentality that Chomsky represents.
When I look around for "free-thinking" I certainly don't look to the American Left.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: "Let them hate us so long as they fear." The more I think about that statement (from that diplomat's resignation letter to Powell), the more I think it's a very insightful assessment of the current thinking in Washington. |
The more that I think about it, the more I see a career bureaucrat who had political differences and wanted to get some attention by resigning, therefore boosting his potential speaking fees in the future and making sure that he gets lots of face-time on Leftist talking head news hours.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by BasketofPuppies: You mean there was a time when Chomsky didn't do this? Chomsky personifies what is wrong with universities. |
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: I agree, that's the problem. What DOES his politics have to do with his job as a scientist? Nothing. If he wouldn't use his prestigious position as a scientist to promote his ranting political views, that would be OK. Instead, he trades on his legitimate success in his field to propagandize about other things and draw attention to his cause, except that his opinion is just that -- not the opinion of an expert or responsible authority in the political arena. And yes, that's what's wrong with academia. Along with the "you're with me or else" mentality that Chomsky represents. When I look around for "free-thinking" I certainly don't look to the American Left. |
So he rants on politics in his Linguistics books? He preaches politics in his lectures on linguistics? Is that the accussation?
Or are you saying that the overwhelming celebrity status of being a Linguist affords him a prominent platform from which to rant? We all know how the little girls swoon over Linguists.
Or is it that when he's asked to speak at a Linguistics conference that he launches into political diatribes?
I think Chomsky keeps his profession and politics pretty clearly separated. He wouldn't keep his cushy job if he didn't.
Sometimes he is invited to speak as a scientist. Other times he is invited to speak as a political activist. If he mixed the two, I doubt he'd have audiences for very long. He also seems to have no trouble dividing the two in his writing. The books are clearly marked.
Hell, I'd say quite a few of the people I know that love Chomsky's politics didn't know anything about his professional life or work. The idea that one is some kind of platform for the other is pretty far fetched.
I'm also constantly amazed when you're upset that people speaking out in the "political arena" don't meet your qualifications. In a democracy, everyone is allowed to be a political activist. In fact, in a healthy democracy everyone should be a political activist.
I'm also curious what your definition of "free thinking" is and why no one on the "Left" would qualify?
Seem to recall that your job is in Academia. Get the hell out of the poltical forum then and stop spouting your unqualified nonsense! Or are you just jealous that you don't draw the same kind of crowd or get the same attention?
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: The more that I think about it, the more I see a career bureaucrat who had political differences and wanted to get some attention by resigning, therefore boosting his potential speaking fees in the future and making sure that he gets lots of face-time on Leftist talking head news hours. |
You obviously don't know who chomsky is.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: What does his strong personal politics have to do with "what's wrong with universities"? What does his politics have to do with his job as a scientist? |
Nothing whatsoever. However, the fact that he is both a) overly paranoid towards something that it's practically impossible to be overly paranoid about and b) a complete jerk about his opinions (which is not unique to liberals by any means) do have a lot to do with "what's wrong with universities".
To put it bluntly, the inmates are basically running the asylums. Chomsky is probably the most extreme example of that.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: And yes, that's what's wrong with academia. Along with the "you're with me or else" mentality that Chomsky represents. When I look around for "free-thinking" I certainly don't look to the American Left. |
Not that I see how Chomsky in any way represents that mentality... to the contrary, I've found that people of his ilk tend to enjoy being questioned.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: The more that I think about it, the more I see a career bureaucrat who had political differences and wanted to get some attention by resigning, therefore boosting his potential speaking fees in the future and making sure that he gets lots of face-time on Leftist talking head news hours. |
The more I think about it, it's obvious that anyone who doesn't share your opinions is obviously insincere and motivated by personal gain rather than principle.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Millennium: Nothing whatsoever. However, the fact that he is both a) overly paranoid towards something that it's practically impossible to be overly paranoid about and b) a complete jerk about his opinions (which is not unique to liberals by any means) do have a lot to do with "what's wrong with universities". To put it bluntly, the inmates are basically running the asylums. Chomsky is probably the most extreme example of that. |
I don't see how it has anything to do with his job as an Academic unless you want to prove that he blurs the lines between his role as scientist/researcher/instructor and his role as a political activist.
Is he biased against students who don't share his views? Is he unfair to students who don't share his views?
If not, his political life has absolutely nothing to do with his job at a university.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by finboy: And yes, that's what's wrong with academia. Along with the "you're with me or else" mentality that Chomsky represents. When I look around for "free-thinking" I certainly don't look to the American Left. |
Your first statement is very funny, and it's funnier because you don't seem to know why. There is a quote from the President that might clarify this, if you're curious.
Your second statement interests me because it raises the question of whether you even want to hear from people who disagree with you. Do you? If you don't, how will you ever think through your own arguments and beliefs?
.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: I don't see how it has anything to do with his job as an Academic unless you want to prove that he blurs the lines between his role as scientist/researcher/instructor and his role as a political activist. Is he biased against students who don't share his views? Is he unfair to students who don't share his views? If not, his political life has absolutely nothing to do with his job at a university. |
While I agree with the spirit of these sentiments, Chomsky was interviewed in his academic office (at least that's the implication) on a "uniquely Chomskyan day" (oh, to have my last name adjective-ized in print).
Quote:
|
From the interview: This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack. |
Either I disagree with his definition of "preemptive war" or his example is flawed (or his definition of "war" is very broad). If bombers were flying the Atlantic (strangely, not the Pacific), and the U.S. shot them down, the only aspect it preempted was the planes' success. That's actually self-defense. If the U.S. were to take out from wherever the flights originated (somewhere on the other side of the Atlantic), it would be retaliation and probably justified in the world view (maybe not).
Preemption would be if, by having intelligence that the strikes would occur, the U.S. bombed the air bases before the planes took flight.
Anyway, the only reason Chomsky's being interviewed is his activism and celebrity--it's not because of his field; he didn't give a linguist's perspective of the war. There are plenty of innovators in other academic disciplines, and I don't see the press beating down their office doors for some face time.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by itai195: I disagree. I don't very often agree with his ideas, but I must admit that they're all well thought... |
Here's Chomsky from the fall of 2001 commenting on Afghanistan:
Quote:
| Looks like what's happening is some sort of silent genocide... It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don't know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next few months... very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it... Well that's what's happening now. What's happening now is very much under our control... that we're in the midst of apparently trying to murder three or four million people..." -- Noam Chomsky, October 11, 2001 |
Not exactly what I would call "well thought".
Quote:
|
Originally posted by itai195: I disagree. I don't very often agree with his ideas, but I must admit that they're all well thought out and very consistent. He challenges people to see the world from a different perspective... you don't have to agree with it, but I don't see how it's a bad thing. |
Except that he ignores facts that don't help his case and makes things up when the truth doesn't fit his cause.
Noam Chomsky: the Michael Moore of the academic world.
Which isn't to say that it's only the far-left doing this sort of thing at universities; the far-right is guilty of the same thing, but it seems like there are far more on the left doing this.
Quote:
|
Originally "posted" by Noam Chomsky: [...] In many ways, the activism of the 1960s and subsequent years has simply made a lot of the world, including this country, much more civilised in many domains. |
Quote:
|
Originally posted by thunderous_funker: [...] In fact, in a healthy democracy everyone should be a political activist. [...] |
Well said!
Here, BTW, are some of the (IMO, of course) most interesting Chomsky links on the web; there seems to be quite a lot of misunderstandings about his views, anyway: in particular, how are his views some form of "left-wing extremism"? I think they are quite balanced, and an acceptable approximation of what really happens (or tends to happen) in today's political world. Even as an anarchist, he's rather of the "soft" kind, not even being totally against the state (provided, of course, it serves the people, and not vice versa!)...
... A few links, for those interested:
- The Noam Chomsky Archive;
- Another Noam Chomsky Archive;
- Noam Chomsky on Anarchism, etc.;
- Noam Chomsky's MIT Homepage;
- ...