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