An enlightening interview with Noam Chomsky

[hiredgun]

It may be long, but it's definitely worth your time.

http://www.basketcasecomix.com/chomsky.htm

What's Happening?
Atilio A. Boron Interviews Noam Chomsky

14/6/03 (APR)

Atilio A. Boron: Looking at the recent US policies in Iraq, What do you think was the real goal behind this war?

Noam Chomsky: Well, we can be quite confident on one thing. The reasons we are given can't possibly be the reasons. And we know that, because they are internally contradictory. So one day, Bush and Powell would claim that "the single question," as they put it, is whether Iraq would disarm and the next day they would say it doesn't matter whether Iraq disarms because they will go on and invade anyway. And the next day would be that if Saddam and his group get out then the problem will be solved; and then, the next day for example, at the Azores, at the summit when they made an ultimatum to the United Nations, they said that even if Saddam and his group get out they would go on and invade anyway. And they went on like that. When people give you contradictory reasons every time they speak, all they are saying is: "don't believe a word I say." So we can dismiss the official reasons.

And the actual reasons I think are not very obscure. First of all, there's a long standing interest. That does not account for the timing but it does account for the interest. And that is that Iraq has the second large oil reserves in the World and controlling Iraqi oil and even ending up probably with military bases in Iraq will place the United States in an extremely strong position to dominate the global energy system even more than it does today. That's a very powerful lever of world control, quite apart from the profits that comes from it. And the US probably doesn't intend to access the oil of Iraq; it intends to use primarily safer Atlantic basin resources for itself (Western Hemisphere, West Africa). But to control the oil has been a leading principle of US foreign policies since the Second World War, and Iraq is particularly significant in this respect. So that's a long standing interest. On the other hand it doesn't explain the timing.

If you want to look at the timing, I think that it became quite clear that the massive propaganda for the war began in September of last year, September 2002. Before that there was a condemnation of Iraq but no effort to whip people into war fever. So we asked what else happened then September 2002. Well, two important things happened. One was the
opening of the mid term congressional campaign, and the Bush's campaign manager, Karl Rove, was very clearly explaining what should be obvious to anybody anyway: that they could not possibly enter the campaign with a focus on social and economic issues. The reason is that they are carrying out policies which are quite harmful to the general population and favourable to an extremely narrow sector of corporate power and the corrupt sectors as well, and they can't face the electorate on that. As he pointed out, if we can make the primary issue national security then we will be able to win because people will flock to power if they feel frightened. And that is second nature to these people; that's the way they have ran the country - right through the 1980 s - with very unpopular domestic programs but accustomed to press into the panic button - Nicaragua, Grenada, crime, one thing after another. And Rove also pointed out that something similar would be needed for the presidential election.

And that's true and what they want to do is not just to stay in office but they would like to institutionalise the very regressive program put forward domestically, a program which will basically unravel whatever is left of New Deal social democratic systems and turn the country almost completely into a passive undemocratic society, controlled totally by
high concentration of capitals. This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office and huge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalise these programs. They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. They know they cannot face an election declaring that they want to destroy very popular programs, but they can throw up their hands in despair and say, "What can we do, there's no money," after they have made sure there would be no money by huge tax cuts for the rich and sharp increase in spending for military (including high tech industry) and other programs beneficial to corporate power and the wealthy. So that's the second, that's the domestic factor and in fact, there was a spectacular propaganda achievement on that. After the government-media propaganda campaign began in September they succeeded in convincing a majority of the population very quickly that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and even that Iraq was responsible for September 11th. I mean, there is not a grain of truth in all that, but by now majority of the population believes those things and those
attitudes are correlated strongly with the commitment to war, which is understandable. If people think they are threatened with destruction by an enemy who's already attacked them it is likely that they'll go to war. In effect, if you look at the press today they describe soldiers as saying: "we are here for revenge - you know - because they blew up the World Trade Centre, they will attack us," or something. Well, these beliefs are completely unique to the United States.

No one in the World believes anything like this. In Kuwait and Iran people hate Saddam Hussein, but they are not afraid of him, they know they're the weakest country in the region. In any event the government-media propaganda campaign worked brilliantly as the population was frightened and to a large extent it was willing to support the war despite the fact that there was a lot of opposition. And that's the second factor.

And there was a third factor which was even more important. In September the government announced the national security strategy. That is not completely without precedent, but it is quite new as a formulation of state policy. What is stated is that we are tearing the entire system of the international law to shreds, the end of UN charter, and that we are going to carry out an aggressive war - which we will call "preventive" - and at any time we choose and that we will rule the world by force. In addition, we will assure that there is never any challenge to our domination because we are so overwhelmingly powerful in military force that we will simply crush any potential challenge.

Well, you know, that caused shudders around the world, including the foreign policy elite at home which was appalled by this. I mean it is not that things like that haven't been heard in the past. Of course they had, but it had never been formulated as an official national policy. I suspect you will have to go back to Hitler to find an analogy to that.
Now, when you propose new norms in the international behaviour and new policies you have to illustrate it, you have to get people to understand that you mean it. Also you have to have what a Harvard historian called an "exemplary war", a war of example, which shows that we really mean what we say.

And we have to choose the right target. The target has to have several properties. First it has to be completely defenceless. No one would attack anybody who might be able to defend themselves. That would be not prudent. Iraq meets that perfectly: it is the weakest country in the region, it's been devastated by sanctions and almost completely disarmed and the US knows every inch of the Iraq territory by satellite surveillance and overflights, and more recently U-2 flights. So, yes, Iraq it is extremely weak and satisfied the first condition.

And secondly, it has to be important. So there will be no point invading Burundi, you know, for example, it has to be a country worthwhile controlling, owning, and Iraq has that property too. It's, as mentioned, the second largest oil producer in the world. So it's perfect example and a perfect case for this exemplary war, intending to put the world on notice saying that this is what we're going do, any time we choose. We have the power. We have declared that our goal is domination by force and that no challenge will be accepted. We've showed you what we are intending to do and be ready for the next. We will proceed on to the next operation. Those various conditions fold together and they make
a war a very reasonable choice in taking to a test some principles.

Atilio A. Boron: According to your analysis then the question is: who is next? Because you don't believe that they are going to stop in Iraq,
wouldn't you?

Noam Chomsky: No, they already made this clear. For one thing they need something for the next presidential election. And that will continue. Through their first twelve years office this continued year after year; and it will continue until they manage to institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system
they want. So what's the next choice? Well the next choice has to meet similar conditions. It has to be valuable enough to attack, and it has to be weak enough to be defenceless. And there are choices, Syria is a possible choice. There Israel will be delighted to participate. Israel alone is a small country, but it's an offshore US military base, so it has an enormous military force, apart from having hundreds of nuclear weapons (and probably a kind of chemical and biological weapons), its air and armed forces are larger and more advanced that those in any Nato power, and the US is behind it overwhelmingly.

So Syria is a possibility. Iran is a more difficult possibility because it's a harder country to dominate and control. Yet there is a reason to believe that for a year or two now, efforts have been under way to try to dismantle Iran, to break it into internally warring groups. These US dismantling efforts have been based partly in Eastern Turkey, the US bases in Eastern Turkey apparently flying surveillance over Iranian borders. That's another possibility. There is a third possibility that can not be considered lightly, and is the Andean region. The Andean region has a lot of resources and it's out of control. There are US military bases surrounding the region, and US forces are there already. And the control of Latin-America is of course extremely important. With the developments in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia it's clear that US domination is challenged and that can't be accepted, in particular in a region so close and so crucial because of its resource base. So that is another possibility.

Atilio A. Boron: This is really frightening. Now the question is, do you think that this situation in Iraq, the invasion and the aftermath would affect in a non-reparable manner the political stability of the region? What are likely to be the side effects of this invasion in countries with a very fragile political constitution like the South Arabia or even Syria, Iran or even the Kurds? What may be the future of the Palestine question, which still is of paramount importance in the area?

Noam Chomsky: Well, what's going to happen in the Arab world is extremely hard to predict. It's a disorganised and chaotic world dominated by highly authoritarian and brutal regimes. We know what the attitudes are. The US is very concerned with attitudes in the region so they have pretty good studies made by US Middle East scholars on the
attitudes in the region, and the results are pretty dramatic. One of the more recent ones, a University of Maryland study covering from Morocco to the Gulf to Lebanon, the entire area, shows that a very large majority of the population wants religious leaders to have a greater role in government. It also shows that approximately another 95% believe that the sole US interest in the region is taking its oil, strengthening Israel and humiliating the Arabs. That means near unanimity. If there is any popular voice allowed in the region, any moves toward democracy, it could become sort of like Algeria ten years ago, not necessarily radical Islamists but a government with some stronger Islamist currents. This is
the last thing the US wants, so chances of any kind of democratic opening very likely will be immediately opposed.

The voices of secular democracy will also be opposed. If they speak up freely, about violation of UN resolutions for example, they will bring up the case of Israel, which has a much worse record than Iraq in this respect but is protected by the United States. And they will have concerns for independence that the US will not favour, so it will continue to support oppressive and undemocratic regimes, as in the past, and as in Latin America for many years, unless it can be assured that they will keep closely to Washington's priorities.

On the other hand these chaotic popular movements are so difficult to predict. I mean, even the participants can't or don't know what they want. What we know is this tremendous hatred, antagonisms and fear - probably more than ever before - on the Israel-Palestine issue that is, of course, the core issue in the Arab world. The Bush administration has
been very careful not to take any position, though there are actions, which undermine the prospects for peaceful resolution: funding more Israeli settlement programs, for example.

They don't say anything significant. The most they say is that we have a "vision," or something equally meaningless. Meanwhile the actions have been taken, and the US had continued to support the more extremist positions within Israel. So what the press describes as George Bush's most significant recent statements, then later reiterated by Colin Powell, was the statement that said that settlement in the occupied territories can continue until the United State determines that the conditions for peace have been established, and you can move forward on
this mythical "Road Map."

The statement that was hailed as "significant" in fact amounts to a shift in policy, to a more extremist form. Up until now the official position has been that there should be no more settlements. Of course, that's hypocritical of the United States because meanwhile it continues to provide the military, and economic, and diplomatic support for more
settlements, but the official position has been opposed to it. Now the official position is in favour of it, until such time as the US determines unilaterally that the "peace process" has made enough progress, which means, basically indefinitely. Also it wasn't very well noticed that last December, at the UN General Assembly, the Bush administration shifted the US policy crucially on an important issue. Up until that time, until last December, the US has always officially endorsed the Security Council resolutions of 1968 opposing Israel's annexation of Jerusalem, and ordering Israel to withdraw the moves to take over East Jerusalem and to expand Jerusalem, which is now a huge area.

The US had always officially opposed that, although, again hypocritically. As of last December the Bush administration came out in support of it. This was a pretty sharp change in policy, and it is also significant that it was not reported in the United States. But it took place. So this is the only concrete act, and continues like that. The US has in the past vetoed the European efforts to place international monitors in the territories, which would be a way of reducing political,
violent confrontations. The US undermined the December 2001 meetings in Geneva to implement the Geneva conventions and as almost all the other contracting parties appeared the US refused and that, essentially, blocked it. Bush then declared Sharon to be "a man of peace" and supported his repressive activities, as was pretty obvious. So the indications are that the US will move towards a very harsh policy in the territories, granting the Palestinians at most some kind of meaninglessformal status as a "state". Of course, this would dress up as democracy, and peace, and freedom, and so on. They have a huge public relations operation and it would be presented in that way, but I don't think the reality looks very promising.

Atilio A. Boron: I have two more questions to go. One is about the future of the United Nations system. An article by Henry Kissinger recently reproduced in Argentina argued that multilateralism is over and that the world has to come to terms with the absolute superiority of the American armed forces and that we've better go alone with that because
the old system is dead. What is your reflection on the international arena?

Noam Chomsky: Well you know, it's a little bit like financial and industrial strategy. It is a more brazen formulation of policies which have always been carried out. The unilateralism with regard to the United Nations, as Henry Kissinger knows perfectly well, goes far back. Was there any UN authorisation for the US invasion of South Vietnam 40 years ago? In fact, the issue could not even come up at the United Nations. The UN and all the countries were in overwhelming opposition to the US operations in Vietnam, but the issue could literally never arise and it was never discussed because everyone understood that if the issues were discussed the UN would simply be dismantled.

When the World Court condemned the United States for its attack on Nicaragua, the official response of the Reagan administration, which is the same people now in office, the official response when they rejected World Court jurisdiction was that other nations do not agree with us and therefore we will reserve to ourselves the right to determine what falls
within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. I am quoting it. In this case, that was an attack on Nicaragua. You can hardly have a more extreme unilateralism than that. And American elites accepted that, and so it was applauded and, in fact, quickly forgotten. In your next trip to the US take a poll in the Political Science Department where you are visiting and you will find people who never heard of it. It's as wiped out as this. As is the fact that the US had to veto the Security Council's resolutions supporting the Court's decision and calling on all states to observe international law. Well, you know that is unilateralism in its extreme, and it goes back before that.

Right after the missile crisis, which practically brought the world to a terminal nuclear war, a major crisis, the Kennedy administration resumed its terrorist activities against Cuba and its economic warfare which was the background for the crisis and Dean Acheson, a respected statesman and Kennedy advisor at the liberal end of the spectrum, gave an important address to the American Society of International Law in which he essentially stated the Bush Doctrine of September 2002. What he said is that no "legal issue" arises in the case of a US response to a challenge to its "power, position, and prestige." Can't be more extreme than that. The differences with September 2002 is that instead of being
operative policy now it became official policy. That is the difference. The UN has been irrelevant to the extent that the US refused to allow it to function. So, since the mid 1960's when the UN had become somewhat more independent, because of decolonisation and the recovery of other countries of the world from the ravages of the war, since 1965 the US is far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions on a wide range of issues - Britain is second - and no one else is even close. All that renders the UN ineffective. It means, you do as we say or else we will kick you in the pants. Now it is more brazen.

The only correct statement that Kissinger is making is that now we will not conceal the policies that we are carrying out.

Atilio A. Boron: OK. Here is my last question: What has been the impact of the Iraqi War on the freedoms and public liberties of the American public? We have heard horrific stories about librarians being forced to indicate the names of people checking out books regarded as suspicious or subversives. What has been the real impact of the war in the domestic politics of the US?

Noam Chomsky: Well, those things are taking place but I don't think they are specifically connected with the Iraq War. The Bush administration, let me repeat it again, they are not conservatives; they are statist reactionaries. They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways. That's one of their long term objectives, and they have to do it quickly because in the US there is a strong tradition of protection of civil rights. But the kind of surveillance you are talking about of libraries and so on is a step towards it. They have also claimed the right to place a person - even an American citizen - in detention without charge, without access to lawyers and family, and to hold them there indefinitely, and that in fact has been upheld by the Courts, which is pretty shocking. But they have a new proposal, sometimes called Patriot II, an 80-page document inside the Justice department. Someone leaked it and it reached the press. There have been some outraged articles by law professors about it. This is only planned so far, but they would like to implement as secretly as they can. These plans would permit the Attorney General to remove citizenship from any individual whom the attorney general believes is acting in a way harmful to the US interests. I mean, this is going beyond anything contemplated in any democratic society. One law professor at New York University has written that this administration evidently will attempt to take away any civil rights that it can from citizens and I think it s basically correct. That fits in with their reactionary statist policies which have a domestic aspect in the economy and social life but also in politicallife.

Atilio A. Boron: Professor Chomsky, it was a great pleasure to have you expressing your words for the Argentine audience. I want to thank you very much for this interview and I hope that we can be in touch again in the future. Have a good day!

[ARTelevision]

Some people think a linguist can have expert knowledge of things beyond linguistics. I'm not one of them.

[globegate]

Not to flame, but Chomsky believes like many other liberals that we should not be fighting in Iraq. He bases this conclusion on what he refers to in this interview as a hidden agenda on behalf of the bush administration to get reeelcted and ensure we have oil.

Noam is like the John Madden of politics: 1) restates the obvious. 2) is sincere 3) Is Sincerely wrong.

Ok tell me this doesn't sound like a left wing wackjob to you " this administration evidently will attempt to take away any civil rights that it can from citizens and I think it s basically correct. That fits in with their reactionary statist policies which have a domestic aspect in the economy and social life but also in politicallife."

That is total crap. We are taking civil liberties away from terrorists, suspected terrorists, and their supporters. The ffounding fathers never intended our laws and customs to extend to enemys within our mist.

Oh and to hiredgun, I'm sorry you buy into this liberal nonsense. I just hope you aren't an American citizen, because our men in uniform shouldn't be defending ignorant people like you who support socialists like Chomsky.

[SLM3]

Noam Chomsky isn't a "liberal" in the broad sense that you are describing. You should here the things he has to say about the liberals you are thinking of.

I wonder if any of you have ever read a book written by Chomsky. I mean, this guy isn't just the most important linguist of our time, perhaps of all time. I've studied him in Psychology as well as in poli sci classes on the media which were basically based wholly on his concepts. His ideas have spanned many disciplines

Right now I'm reading The Fateful Triangle. It's fascinating stuff because he doesn't just spout off his ideas like those running the US right now as if they were gospel, he backs up everything he says with so many sources it'll make your head spin.

In my opinion, Chomsky is a brilliant man and one of the most important scholars of our time. He's world renowned and constantly on speaking tours but you never see him on American telivision because no one would stand a chance against him.

By the way, if you're interested in Lebanon, besides The Fateful Triangle I would HIGHLY recommend Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon by Robert Fisk. I just finished this mammoth work while I was in Lebanon this past month. It's easily the best account of what went on there I've ever read.

SLM3

[human]

Originally posted by globegate
Not to flame, but Chomsky believes like many other liberals that we should not be fighting in Iraq. He bases this conclusion on what he refers to in this interview as a hidden agenda on behalf of the bush administration to get reeelcted and ensure we have oil.

Noam is like the John Madden of politics: 1) restates the obvious. 2) is sincere 3) Is Sincerely wrong.

Ok tell me this doesn't sound like a left wing wackjob to you " this administration evidently will attempt to take away any civil rights that it can from citizens and I think it s basically correct. That fits in with their reactionary statist policies which have a domestic aspect in the economy and social life but also in politicallife."

That is total crap. We are taking civil liberties away from terrorists, suspected terrorists, and their supporters. The ffounding fathers never intended our laws and customs to extend to enemys within our mist.

Well, given the argument leading up to that, it does sound like he believes it. He doesn't sound any less a wackjob than a lot of the right wing tools that spout about Iraq's nucular arsenal and how we need to protect ourselves from terrorists with ICBMs.

Chomsky makes points, some are valid, some are not. Something other than a personal attack is usually more effective. Is the current administration not showing signs of being a reactionary statist organization? Does TIA, Carnivore and the ability to arrest without Miranda protect your rights? Is Patriot II a myth? etc. Obviously you feel strongly, I honestly would like to hear the other side as well. That's the point of these things.

@ARTelevision : You are right, an expert in Linguistics does not imply expertise in other topics. But media and politics are topics that he's been studying and writing about in depth since the mid 1970's at least. His degree may have been in Linguistics, but the essays and documents produced since then show that he has turned to different topics. And, agree with him or not, he is respected in that field.

[hiredgun]

Originally posted by globegate
That is total crap. We are taking civil liberties away from terrorists, suspected terrorists, and their supporters. The ffounding fathers never intended our laws and customs to extend to enemys within our mist.

Oh and to hiredgun, I'm sorry you buy into this liberal nonsense. I just hope you aren't an American citizen, because our men in uniform shouldn't be defending ignorant people like you who support socialists like Chomsky.

Back off. I am an American citizen, Socialism has nothing to do with the article (if you even bothered to read it), and I don't see how you can magically infer my ignorance when my original post barely contained a sentence of my own.

You obviously know nothing about the recent blows against civil liberties. How exactly do you take liberties away from only the enemies within our "mist"? Is there a "terrorist-only" clause in the patriot act? Perhaps the FBI will ask me nicely if I am a terrorist before intercepting my email or checking up on my reading habits at the local library? When you take away a civil liberty, it is damaging to everyone.

[Pennington]

Chomsky is by no liberal by any meaning of the word. He may be an idiot when it comes to domestic policy, but he is no liberal. Chomsky has even stated that he considers himself to be a conservative (Chomsky's Politics, p. 188, note Ch.6 #24), presumably of the Classical liberal variety. He spoke out against Clinton as much or maybe even more than he does about GW. He is critical of state ownership and state control of the economy. Chomsky describes himself as an anarcho-syndicalist, libertarian socialist, and anti-Bolshevik. In the '60s, when he was getting into politics, the one thing that interested him was the vietnam war. He joined with the student protesters at MIT and began to write books. It would only make sense with this kind of start in politics that he would be most vocal in foreign policy issues. That is the one place where I can really agree with him. He has criticized the US government for its involvement in the Vietnam War and the larger Indochina conflict; its interference in Latin American affairs in countries like Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, and Argentina; and its military support of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Chomsky gives horrible interviews, even if his books are much more coherant. He has a bad habit of stating the obvious, like in this interview, and then also sprinkling some radical views along with them. For example, if you ask anyone with a fair knowledge about recent US foreign policy about which country America would most likely liberate next, if they chose to do so, the majority would probably say Syria, because it has been metioned as a target, or Iran, because its part of the Axis of Evil and has large oil reserves. Anyone in their right mind knows we won't go after N. Korea as long as there is a chance that they have nuclear weapons. Now Chomsky states Syria and Iran, but he goes on to talk about Latin America as a possible target when there is little to no proof of anything of the sort. He says that we might go in to reestablish American superiority in the region. That is bullshit and he knows it. He is playing to his Argentine audience and telling them what they want to hear. He does this alot.

Chomsky is a genius in many areas, linguistics, psychology and in many of his books he does say alot of truth. Manufacturing Consent is a good example of this. But alot of crap does come out of his mouth and much like any other political thinker, you have to be careful to take the good and avoid the bad.

[Peetster]

I have opinions on this matter, but I am going to withhold them for now.

I am more interested in civil discourse and non-insulting adult dialogue. Let's be mature here.

Thank you.

[Darkblack]

Great interview, thanks for posting. I read The Fateful Triangle but that is about all. I think I will hit the book store today and see what else he has out.

[Charlatan]

I find it very interesting that the majority of the usual posters in Politics have left this one alone... I wonder why that is?

[hiredgun]

Charlatan: probably because the libs feel that the interview is too liberal for them to defend, and the conservatives don't wanna read more than a paragraph.

I KID, I KID!

*waits to be beaten by a moderator*

[smooth]

Originally posted by Darkblack
Great interview, thanks for posting. I read The Fateful Triangle but that is about all. I think I will hit the book store today and see what else he has out.

If you see it take a look at Rogue States: The Use of Force in World Affairs.

"In Rogue States, Noam Chomsky holds the world’s superpowers to their own standards of the rule of law—and finds them appallingly lacking. Described in a 1998 profile in the New York Times as "an exploder of received truths," Noam Chomsky is the world’s most informed, controversial, and articulate opponent of political hypocrisy and abuse of power.

Rogue States is the latest result of his tireless efforts to measure the world’s superpowers by their own professed standards and to hold them responsible for the indefensible actions they commit in the name of democracy and human rights. The United States and its allies come in for particular scrutiny for their numerous recent violations of the very international laws they claim to uphold, making them the real "rogue states" in the world today.

In analyzing the recent war in the Balkans, Chomsky challenges the legal and humanitarian arguments in favor of NATO’s aggression, instead calling attention to the West’s failure to support democratic movements in the region. Chomsky also turns his penetrating gaze toward U.S. involvement in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Central America, relying on both historical context and recently released government documents to trace the paths of self-interest and domination that fueled these violent regional conflicts.

Throughout, Chomsky reveals the United States’ increasingly open dismissal of the United Nations and international legal precedent in justifying its motives and actions. As his analysis of U.S. statecraft reveals, the rule of law has been reduced to a mere nuisance. Characteristically incisive, provocative, and rousing, Chomsky leaves no bombshell unexploded in his evaluation of the West’s shameless reliance on the rule of force today."

--http://www.southendpress.org/books/rogue.shtml

Here's a longer piece regarding the content:
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

and an exerpt:
http://www.southendpress.org/books/rogueexc.shtml

Edit: Forgot to add that this was my first exposure to Chomsky back in undergrad and I thought his writing was eletrifying. This is actually a collection of lectures--so feel free to thumb around the book as it won't mess up the tempo.

[Nad Adam]

This man could axe anyone in a debate.

[nofnway]

Charlatan. hack. nutjob. But that's just me

Nice Link to Zmag finally links to contact us.....lends to the credibilty..... Critical thinking is great...ad hominems, straw men, red herrings. They have all the good logical fallacies

I love all the "facts" Noam uses,and details like....

Atilio A. Boron: According to your analysis then the question is: who is next? Because you don't believe that they are going to stop in Iraq,
wouldn't you?

Noam Chomsky: No, they already made this clear. For one thing they need something for the next presidential election. And that will continue. Through their first twelve years office this continued year after year; and it will continue until they manage to institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system
they want

Twelve years in office? they......you mean Reagan and bush the elder?

Then this nice factoid...

"The Bush administration, let me repeat it again, they are not conservatives; they are statist reactionaries. They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways."

All this time people have been telling me conservatives were statist reactionaries. I'm so confused..

Genius, pure genius....nice hero

" This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office and huge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalise these programs. They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. "

Good, good. Slash spending while increasing spending while slashing tax rates while raising tax revenues while..... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Thanks that was worth the time.were

[Pennington]

I'd hate to do it, but I guess I'll have to defend the guy here.
--------
'For one thing they need something for the next presidential election.'

Obviously, the last election was close. No politician in the world would want to go through a repeat of that, so Bush needs something to get him votes, alot of votes to guarentee his victory.
----------
'Through their first twelve years office this continued year after year; and it will continue until they manage to institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system
they want'

By the first twelve years, he is refering to the Reagan/Bush era. I think I'll just list some examples of where those two used force to 'institutionalise the domestic policies to which they are committed and to ensure the global system they want':
Reagan - 'The US was condemned by the World Court during the Reagan years for its "unlawful use of force," meaning aggression in Nicaragua.'
Reagan - 'In southern Africa about 1.5 million people were killed and over $60 billion of damage were done according to the UN commission which reviewed it later from 1980 to 1988. That's from South African forces that the US was directly supporting.'
Bush - 'The invasion of Panama for example was simply outright aggression. It was condemned internationally -- the US was able to veto the security counsel condemnations, that doesn't change the fact that they were there.'

-------
"The Bush administration, let me repeat it again, they are not conservatives; they are statist reactionaries."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

'A reactionary is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era.' Sounds like Bush to me.
Statist- Advocate of a strong and centralised governing body. Patriot act, TIA, Rumsfeld- all examples of statism.
----------
"They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways."

Again, Patriot act one and two, TIA and Rumsfeld.
-------


" This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office and ahuge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalise these programs."

A little harder- Republicans have been pushing for privitisation of SS and also for private school vouchers, both of which would pretty much destroy both SS and public school in their current forms. Conservatives tend to want to lower state spending, these guys have increased it. They did give tax cuts to the rich, while leaving out working people like my family.
-------

"They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. "
What he is saying is that the Republicans have cut taxes and increased spending without worrying about the deficit. However, they can now use the deficit to justify cutting programs that they don't like or they think they could do without.This is conjecture and may or may not be true based on the evidence, but it is an interesting opinion none the less, even if we don't agree with it.
------

Again, I'd like to state my position on Chomsky- Says alot of intelligent stuff but also alot of crap. There is evidence to back up the majority of his opinions and you have got to realize that, but there is also some stuff that he says that is completly his opinion, just like any other person in politics. Read his books and listen to what they say, but don't base your entire philosophy around them.

[Coppertop]

Just found this thread (searching for something completely unrelated, strangely enough) and thought I'd bump it. Any of the more recent posters in Tilted Politics care to comment on it? How much of what Chomsky mentioned regarding US actions in the Middle East have since come true or failed to come to pass?

[roachboy]

so far, chomsky seems to have been pretty much on target, yes?
i do not agree with his assessment of the reasons for war--i do not think oil was a primary motivation for it--rather it was more geopolitical (unilateral american action as over against the united nations--iraq made sense as a target because of the first iraq war)...
the "discussion" of chomsky above is quite old and seems not to be terribly interesting in the main.
kinda iwsh i had been playing around here when it was posted, however: it could have been a fun debate. maybe it will be now.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by roachboy

so far, chomsky seems to have been pretty much on target, yes?
i do not agree with his assessment of the reasons for war--i do not think oil was a primary motivation for it--rather it was more geopolitical (unilateral american action as over against the united nations--iraq made sense as a target because of the first iraq war)...
the "discussion" of chomsky above is quite old and seems not to be terribly interesting in the main.
kinda iwsh i had been playing around here when it was posted, however: it could have been a fun debate. maybe it will be now.

Roachboy, I disagree with your assessment of Chomsky's points in regard to the "reasons" for the war.
I read his statement to say that we have interests in that regard, but they don't explain why we actually went to war. I hinge that on his statement that those interests don't explain the timing.

So I interpret his position as control over oil resources is a benefit derived from when we establish ourselves in Iraq, including military bases, but that is by no means a "primary motivation." I think he would agree with you that geopolitics drove our decisions to war. But I wonder if he would argue that geopolitics are driven by oil interests. Well, perhaps limited resources in general, but oil being a resource of much importance as various nation-states' economies became integrally linked with the production and control of oil.

I guess my nutshell question is how do you de-link interest in oil from the modern geopolitical context?

[Mojo_PeiPei]

As a neo-con I believe the motivating factor for war was oil, just viewed in the proper context.

That having been said, I don't think you can de-link oil, it's the life blood of every major country and especially it's military, namely western Europe and China/Russia/Japan. America never got it's oil from the Middle East (only 20% +/-). China is projected to account for 70% of the new demand for oil in the next 10-20 odd years, as we all know America is trying to counter the maturation of China into a super power. At the same time Western European countries and Russia all got their oil from Iraq, I think the idea held by Rummy and Wolfowitz was if we have a presence in Iraq (and the larger Mideast region), if we can stabilize it, they won't have to. In a sense they are right on the money because current trends and Europe seem to show a decrease in the countries respective militaries. If we are protecting their interests they won't have to, and they will be less of a challenge to our imperial might.

[matthew330]

"Some people think a linguist can have expert knowledge of things beyond linguistics. I'm not one of them."

THAT SHIT ROCKS!!!(how's that for linguistics) What a wonderfull quote.

[sob]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I find it very interesting that the majority of the usual posters in Politics have left this one alone... I wonder why that is?

Because Chomsky makes Baghdad Bob look truthful. He's also a complete waste of time.

Here are a few reasons I say the above, and I don't really care to discuss him further, because he nauseates me.

America’s war in Afghanistan is "a plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by ‘depraved opponents of civilization.’"

"The Reagan administration responded [to the perceived terrorist threat] by creating an extraordinary international terrorist network, totally unprecedented in scale, which carried out massive atrocities all over the world,…"

So pick the Nazis. They weren’t carrying out terror in occupied Europe. They were protecting the local populations from the terrorism of the partisans. And like other resistance movements, there was terrorism. The Nazis were carrying out counter-terror. Furthermore, the United States essentially agreed with that.

Chomsky originally said that there was "no evidence" for Osama bin Laden's role or that of his Al Qaeda network in the 9-11 attacks. According to him, America is responsible for the attack itself because its government supported the Afghan resistance to the 1979 Soviet invasion.

He has invented what he calls the "U.S. invasion of Saudi Arabia."

Our actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan were "intended to starve Afghan civilians and perpetrate a 'silent genocide.'"

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it).

"legally speaking, there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes."

Chomsky first denied and then minimized the post-Vietnam Cambodian genocide until the facts overwhelmed his case. Now,he blames the genocide on the United States.

If that hasn't painted a clear picture, here's a speech from his visit to Vietnam:

"YESTERDAY AND TODAY, my friends and I visited Tanh Hoa province. There we were able to see at first hand the constructive work of the social revolution of the Vietnamese people. We saw luxurious fields and lovely countryside. We saw brave men and women who know how to defend their country from brutal aggression, but also to work with pride and with dignity to build a society of material prosperity, social justice, and cultural progress. I would like to express the great joy that we feel in your accomplishments.

"We also saw the ruins of dwellings and hospitals, villages mutilated by savage bombardments, craters disfiguring the peaceful countryside. In the midst of the creative achievements of the Vietnamese people, we came face to face with the savagery of a technological monster controlled by a social class, the rulers of the American empire, that has no place in the 20th century, that has only the capacity to repress and murder and destroy.

"We also saw the (Ham Ranh) Bridge, standing proud and defiant, and carved on the bills above we read the words, 'determined to win.' The people of Vietnam will win, they must win, because your cause is the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny.

"This is my first visit to Vietnam. Nevertheless, since the moment when we arrived at the airport at Hanoi, I've had a remarkable and very satisfying feeling of being entirely at home. It is as if we are renewing old friendships rather than meeting new friends. It is as if we are returning to places that have a deep and personal meaning.

"In part, this is because of the warmth and the kindness with which we have been received, wherever we have gone. In part, it is because for many years we have wished all our strength and will to stand beside you in your struggle. We are deeply grateful to you that you permit us to be part of your brave and historical struggle. We hope that there will continue to be strong bonds of comradeship between the people of Vietnam and the many Americans who wish you success and who detest with all of their being the hateful activities of the American government.

"Those bonds of friendship are woven of many strands. From our point of view there is first of all the deep sympathy that we felt for the suffering of the Vietnamese people, which persists and increases in the southern part of your country, where the American aggression continues in full force.

"There is, furthermore, a feeling of regret and shame that we must feel because we have not been able to stop the American war machine. More important still is our admiration for the people of Vietnam who have been able to defend themselves against the ferocious attack, and at the same time take great strides forward toward the socialist society.

"But, above all, I think, is the feeling of pride. Your heroism reveals the capabilities of the human spirit and human will. Decent people throughout the world see in your struggle a model for themselves. They are in your debt, everlastingly, because you were in the forefront of the struggle to create a world in which the chains of oppression have been broken and replaced by social bonds among free men working in true solidarity and cooperation.

"Your courage and your achievements teach us that we too must be determined to win--not only to win the battle against American aggression in Southeast Asia, but also the battle against exploitation and racism in our own country.

"I believe that in the United States there will be some day a social revolution that will be of great significance to us and to all of mankind, and if this hope is to be proven correct, it will be in large part because the people of Vietnam have shown us the way.

"While in Hanoi I have had the opportunity to read the recent and very important book by Le Duan on the problems and tasks of the Vietnamese revolution. In it, he says that the fundamental interests of the proletariat of the people of all the world consists in at the same time in safeguarding world peace and moving the revolution forward in all countries. This is our common goal. We only hope that we can build upon your historic achievements. Thank you."

Noam Chomsky, originally delivered on April 13, 1970

"The socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny," my ass.

I just wish he'd STAYED at "home."

[matthew330]

It'll take a lil while, SOB. That one's gonna require a lot of googling, and linguistics.

[matthew330]

"kinda iwsh i had been playing around here when it was posted, however: it could have been a fun debate. maybe it will be now."

for you roachboy, i'll see what i can do.

[matthew330]

This thread reminds me of PCU. I read it and think..."STOP THE PENIS PARTY, STOP THE PENIS PARTY, FEED ME DRINKS, GET ME LAID"

sorry coppertop, didn't mean to disappoint.

[roachboy]

gee, so chomaky has been wrong in the past.
but he has also produced a large body of very interesting, very precise work on political questions--material that you should read (manufacturing consent, the follow-up work on the "terrorism industry).

the combination of the two results in a requirement that one read his work critically, that one question his sources--in short that one engage with it and continue thinking---chomsky is a social/political critic who operates from a particular situation which he does not try to conceal--his works are not the Word of a Prophet brought down from the Mountain--a relation to critique that ends up being little more than the inversion of the present mode of domination.

i have never understood teh value of intellectual passivity right or left.
i so see nothing of value in sob's post, which rehearses well-known, well-documented questions that have arisen across chomsky's political writings--they do not invalidate everything chomsky has to say--the list of questions does not even address what he has to say in this particular situation--instead, you get typical conservative character assassination. cant deal with the argument? smear the messenger.

i want to be clear about this: i am not (obviously) a unabashed fan of chomsky. i am far from uncritical of his positions--i disagreed with his position on the faurisson case, for example. but then i disagree at one point or another with most anarchists. but he is saying, and has been saying, things about the gap that seperates what america has become from what it pretends to be--these things are important--they should give reason to pause and wonder what exactly "we" have allowed to happen (allowed because in principle the people have power in the states--that it works out such that this "power" is exercized one day every four years, and that wihtin a context of oligarchy is the sad fact of the matter--but this reality never stops conservatives from bragging about the amazing level of (purely formal) freedoms american enjoy. in fact, the people have no power unless they organize themselves and force change--a prospect that the right hates--except when it comes to themselves of course)


============
as for the earlier question of linking or not linking interests shaped by oil and/or other raw materials and the geopolitics that seem to have informed the iraq war: perhaps i was not sufficiently clear--questioning the priority chomsky ascribed to oil interests does not mean that they are irrelevant. it simply means that focussing on the war in iraq across the medium of oil gives you nothing specific to explain why iraq, why at this time.

it also puts you in the position of having to assume that statements like you find via the project for a new american century are simply false--i do not buy that--i think these people really believe in their vision of america as military hegemon--they really believe in the reagan-era policy that was once described as military keynesianism--and i think these people know that if globalization was allowed to continue to unfold as it appeared it would under clinton (via multilateral accords in which the united states acted as a partner--in principle at least), the era of nation-states would soon become an antique--and along with it would slide into a type of quaintness the entirety of nationalist-based ideology--and conservative politics would become useless, outmoded, even more incoherent, because without the nation-state, they have nothing to say--nothing at all.

the iraq war seems more theater--its logic follows from the reaganite reading of the first gulf war, which understood america as having been "stabbed in the back" by the un, prevented from johnwayne action against hussein in 1991. that this reading is wholly false, empirically wrong, does not mean that it is any less compelling as a mythology for these folk.

the best argument for the oil interest interpretation can be found in michael klare's book "resource wars"--it outlines the history of american stratgy shifts as a function of shifting relations to raw material supplies. it is a compelling argument, but like i said it doesnt provide any real way to understand why iraq at the particular time, why this way, etc. it pushes to the side the grotesque theater put on by the bush administration before the un--makes the administration's contempt for the un accidental (a contempt that is dutifully repeated by the population of bushworld). so the question is more which reading provides a more detailed, compelling reading of a particular set of actions (bushwar) rather than which one provides a more global context. it is not an either/or question.

[Coppertop]

Originally Posted by matthew330

"Some people think a linguist can have expert knowledge of things beyond linguistics. I'm not one of them."

THAT SHIT ROCKS!!!(how's that for linguistics) What a wonderfull quote.

Indeed, it's impossible for someone to have expert knowledge in more than one field now, isn't it? Especially one in which someone has been actively participating in for more than 30 years.

Dare I ask if you or Art have read any of Chomsky's works? Something tells me Art possibly has and you have not. Please, prove me wrong.

[smooth]

thank you for the response, roachboy.

I think, if I interpret your statements correctly, that you, Chomsky, and myself do not differ on our persectives regarding whatever linkages between our foreign policies and oil interests, among other factors.

Chomsky said something very similar to you, according to my reading: that our oil interests are present, important, but not sufficient to explain the timing.

What I do see as a difference, however, is this notion that buttressing our status as a nation-state is a primary motivator, which Chomsky doesn't seem to outline very well in that interview. He seems to hinge it upon establishing power and unraveling social systems (which, I'd like to point out, we are seeing and have seen come into fruition since his analysis). I suspect you agree with these ramifications as do I.

I think your analysis fits with some of his other writings, I was just trying to discern where the critical differences were between his position and yours. I wasn't trying to present an either/or fallacy, although I recognized my response to you implied some implicit assumptions I didn't mean it to carry. Such is the medium and the result of forming viewpoints of one another from our posts' residuals .

I thought, too late to worry about it, that a better way to phrase my nutshell question would have been: in what ways, if at all, do you distinguish your views regarding oil interests and geopolitics from Chomsky's?

But that's answered enough for me to move on.
I don't really know where to move it to, however, for it appears that not much substance is coming from people who might otherwise present alternate interpretations/critiques of this piece.

[sob]

Originally Posted by roachboy

gee, so chomaky has been wrong in the past.

No shit.

i so see nothing of value in sob's post, which rehearses well-known, well-documented questions that have arisen across chomsky's political writings--they do not invalidate everything chomsky has to say--the list of questions does not even address what he has to say in this particular situation--instead, you get typical conservative character assassination. cant deal with the argument? smear the messenger.

I love it when I quote someone and get accused of "smearing" him.

By the way, there were no questions in my post.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

As a neo-con I believe the motivating factor for war was oil, just viewed in the proper context.

That having been said, I don't think you can de-link oil, it's the life blood of every major country and especially it's military, namely western Europe and China/Russia/Japan. America never got it's oil from the Middle East (only 20% +/-). China is projected to account for 70% of the new demand for oil in the next 10-20 odd years, as we all know America is trying to counter the maturation of China into a super power. At the same time Western European countries and Russia all got their oil from Iraq, I think the idea held by Rummy and Wolfowitz was if we have a presence in Iraq (and the larger Mideast region), if we can stabilize it, they won't have to. In a sense they are right on the money because current trends and Europe seem to show a decrease in the countries respective militaries. If we are protecting their interests they won't have to, and they will be less of a challenge to our imperial might.

Let me start by saying I highlighted the area of utmost importance to me.....

We are trying to counter China's growth???????? Goddamn we're fucking selling them our country dirt ass cheap (the trade deficits and the fact they are buying a lot of our personal credit debts prove that fact).

Hey Zeus Freaking Christine....... we're not trying to counter shit from China we're giving it to them freely, and the flipping thing is the GOP wants to say the Dems are lefties yet the GOP refuses to raise tariffs, refuses to force China to recognize human rights or face trade embargoes..... Hell, no, the freaking GOP claims "capitalism" and sits back with a grin as we ship our jobs and money over there.....

And we won't even discuss how we allow them to infringe on copyrights and patnets and sell their pirated materials over here destroying our businesses..... I point to Gorman Rupp Pumps as a prime example of China destroying a once strong and proud company.....

Wake the F up....... trying to counter China's growth.....

[Bookman]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

Some people think a linguist can have expert knowledge of things beyond linguistics. I'm not one of them.

Yet this linguist raises points and questions which can't and won't be answered by experts.

[ObieX]

Originally Posted by roachboy

so far, chomsky seems to have been pretty much on target, yes?

Yes.

Originally Posted by roachboy

the "discussion" of chomsky above is quite old and seems not to be terribly interesting in the main.

Yea it did seem to veer away from what the article covered. It's still having a hard time.

[hammer4all]

Originally Posted by pan6467

Let me start by saying I highlighted the area of utmost importance to me.....

We are trying to counter China's growth???????? Goddamn we're fucking selling them our country dirt ass cheap (the trade deficits and the fact they are buying a lot of our personal credit debts prove that fact).

Hey Zeus Freaking Christine....... we're not trying to counter shit from China we're giving it to them freely, and the flipping thing is the GOP wants to say the Dems are lefties yet the GOP refuses to raise tariffs, refuses to force China to recognize human rights or face trade embargoes..... Hell, no, the freaking GOP claims "capitalism" and sits back with a grin as we ship our jobs and money over there.....

I don't think it's such an unrealistic statement.

WASHINGTON - An influential foreign-policy neo-conservative with long-standing ties to top hawks in the administration of President George W Bush has laid out what he calls ''a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.''

The list, which begins with the destruction of Fallujah in Iraq and ends with the development of ''appropriate strategies'' for dealing with threats posed by China, Russia and ''the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America,'' also calls for ''regime change'' in Iran and North Korea.

The list's author, Frank Gaffney, the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), also warns that Bush should resist any pressure arising from the anticipated demise of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to resume peace talks that could result in Israel's giving up ''defensible boundaries.''

While all seven steps listed by Gaffney in an article published Friday morning in the 'National Review Online' have long been favored by prominent neo-cons, the article itself, 'Worldwide Value', is the first comprehensive compilation to emerge since Bush's re-election Tuesday.

Neo-Con Agenda: Iran, China, Russia, Latin America...

The GOP won't do anything about trade because their corporate benefactors are making a killing shipping jobs overseas and paying their workers 30 cents an hour. Same thing can be said for the Democrats. So as long as both parties see their constitutions as corporations and not people, trade will remain off the agenda and the ‘free market’ myth will continue.