Noam Chomsky and the War on Terror
Tags:
This one is so quintessentially Chomsky, I had to respond:
In the case of crimes, the first steps are (1) determining who was probably guilty, apprehending them, and bringing them to a fair trial; and (2) attending to the background circumstances, and where there are legitimate grievances in the background, addressing them, as should be done quite apart from the crimes.
It's the same whether the crime is a street robbery or large-scale international terrorism. In the latter case, there is a virtual consensus on this among specialists and intelligence agencies (including former heads of Israeli intelligence).
...
Hysterical intellectuals who prefer to shriek rather than reduce the threat of terror choose to interpret (2) [dealing with "root causes" of terrorism] as "appeasement" or "submission to terror" or "rationalization of terror," etc. In sharp contrast, specialists in terror and intelligence agencies typically take the opposite stand. Comment is hardly necessary, apart from questions of intellectual history.
First, let me point out the two instances of that linguistic game he plays: "there is a virtual consensus" and "comment is hardly necessary". Chomsky makes blanket statements and then qualifies them with conversation-enders, instead of elaborating on such remarks.
Do you not agree with his claim that terrorism must be treated like any other crime? Well, before you even get to the substance of your remarks, you are already aligned against what is portrayed as "a virtual consensus".
Would you like to posit that being the victim of a crime (e.g. terrorism) isn't necessarily your own fault, for not keeping your assailant happy? Well, "comment is hardly necessary" — what are you, some kind of idiot who needs the smallest things explained to him?
Now, onto the substance of the essay:
Yes, I do think that "root causes" matter. And, of course, the anti-terrorist "police work" is crucial.
But what Chomsky outlines is a recipe for disaster, and exactly the reason why Kerry got hammered on his (perceived) policies on terrorism: you can't just sit on your hands, waiting until terrorists attack.
Chomsky brings up the issue of preemptive strikes, but only in the context of one nation acting on another — such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or Bush's current war in Iraq — not one nation acting against a group or individuals.
It's kind of funny that he cites Israeli intelligence on this matter; they would not hesitate to eliminate a terrorist still assembling his suicide bomb.
If the US knew, on 9/10, of the next day's attacks, what does Chomsky suggest they should have done? Left Mohammed Atta et al. alone, save for giving them a good customer-service-style "What can I do to make you happy?", and then arrest their corpses the next day?
Even that is flawed. Perhaps he is one of the people (I am not among them) who believe that bin Laden's anti-US hatred has its basis in rational considerations. What would appease some would-be terrorists (e.g. the KKK) is unacceptable and yet others (e.g. doomsday cults like Japan's Aum Shinrikyo) cannot be appeased.
Then what?
In the paragraph you didn't quote, he says:
"In contrast, Cheney’s preferred method has consistently increased the threat of terrorism, which is quite natural: violence tends to increase violence and support for it in response. The current Iraq war is an illustration. It was undertaken with the expectation that it would probably lead to an increase in terrorism, as it did."
I think that's a very good point. Something has to be done, but what is going on is too extreme and the media and our government soften how bad it really is. ~3,000 Americans being killed is treated as the worst thing that has ever happened, but the 20,000 civilians we have killed in Iraq means almost nothing to us.
Between their innocents being killed by us and the feeling that the US (and Israel) are trying to end their way of life, many will take to drastic measures.
Posted by: O'dell on November 15, 2004 4:10 PM | permalinkO'dell:
Another good example -- "It was undertaken with the expectation that it would probably lead to an increase in terrorism."
Oh really? Whose expectation? Certainly not the administration -- they claimed we'd be greeted as liberators and that it would be a cakewalk once Saddam was captured.
And what is "it"? Just the Iraq War? Or is Chomsky claiming that the Afghan war also increased terrorism and that removing bin Laden's safe haven and replacing the Taliban with a (sorta-) Democracy was somehow counter-productive?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 15, 2004 4:35 PM | permalinkOn pre-emptive strikes, I think Chomsky's point stands. The US hasn't made a pre-emptive strike against a person or group yet. The war against Afghanistan was in retaliation for not giving up the perpetrators of 9/11. The war against Iraq was a preemptive strike against a nation.
There was an opportunity for a preemptive strike against a group before the Iraq war, but the administration decided against it - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
I think too, that you misinterpret Chomsky's phrase "the opposite stand." He's not saying that wealthy countries should appease terrorists. Rather he's saying that if terrorist can stir up support by playing on misgiving that the general population has with the US, the US would do well to address those misgivings. And he's agreeing with government agencies, which is kind of wierd for Chomsky.
Stupid illustration: let's say you live in an apartment and have two cars, but only one parking spot, so you park your second car in your neighbour's spot, without his permission. He gets more and more pissed off. Eventually, he spray paints your car windows bright orange. Should he have done that? No. Should you call the cops and have him punished? Yes. Should you park your car somewhere else in future, or would that be giving into terrorism?
Chomsky says park your car somewhere else - and preferably do it before your neighbour loses his temper. In contrast, the current administration would have you go into your neighbour's house with a shotgun and tell him to shut the fuck up with his stupid whining about his stupid fucking car park.
Posted by: Alan Green on November 15, 2004 5:31 PM | permalinkAlan:
There were strikes against al-Qaeda. Chomsky was probably the West's most outspoken critic of the strike against an alleged chemical weapons plant in Sudan.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 15, 2004 6:37 PM | permalinkDid they ever prove if that plant was really a weapons site or was it really something related to pharmaceuticals?
The owner of the company is trying to sue the US government for $50 million for the strike.
Posted by: O'dell on November 15, 2004 10:01 PM | permalinkYou are right, that IS a stupid illustration.
Here is a better one.
"let's say you live in an apartment and have two cars, but only one parking spot, so you park your second car in your neighbour's (Saudi Arabia) spot, WITH his full permission. Some rotten apple in his family doesn't like it. He doesn't even live there, staying in some slums across the street, in fact. You ignore him as he doesn't represent the interest of your neighbor.
He comes over and break a window in your house. You arrest him and he goes to jail for a little while (the first WTC bombing).
Still upset, he then busts up your mailbox (embassy bombings) and then kicks your dog (USS Cole).
He gets more and more pissed off. Eventually, he spray paints your car windows bright orange.
Should you park your car somewhere else in future, or would that be giving into terrorism?"
Even if the kid is popular with his group of friends, giving in to his demands opens the floodgates for any a-hole in the neighborhood to start pushing folks around.
The problem with the whole concept of calling the police is that there is nothing equivalent at the nation state level, that war/military action is the closest equivalent, especially when the host states do not cooperate. And that is what happened.
Andy:
I would add that Alan's example presumes that there is a rational reason for the vandal's ire and, furthermore, that it's a change you can and should make.
Hogging a parking spot is wrong, if not deserving of such a harsh response. The three stated grievances of Osama bin Laden were our stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, enforcing U.N. sanctions against a horrific dictator and supporting the sole democracy in the Middle East — I'm not so sure that those are things the US should abandon.
Turning a blind eye to allies' human rights abuses (e.g. Egypt, Turkey, Jordan) instead of pressuring them to end such practices? Yeah, I think that does increase ire.
But what about other offensive ideas, such as the airing the notion that a woman should be Secretary of State and not suffocated under a burqa? Or that it's not right to treat non-Muslims as second-class citizens (at best)?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 16, 2004 6:08 PM | permalinkOne should be careful not to put the mantra "never give in to terrorism" above all else. This makes you pretty susceptible to the terrorists' influence: Instead of giving in to them you absolutely completely refuse to do anything that could be interpreted as yielding to the terrorists. Depending on how broadly the terrorists' goals are interpreted this could very much limit your possible courses of action.
A goal like "to protect ones citizens" would be more appropriate. Every policy decision should be regarded from this point of view. Should you refuse to act one way, simply because the result could be something that the terrorists claim to be their goal? No.
Clearly there are situations when giving in to terrorists would increase the likelihood of further harm to a country's (or continent's, or whatever) population, for instance a hijacking. And there's always the risk that the terrorists themselves will claim an action that you take was due to their pressure. (Consider the problem that Israel is facing with giving up settlements in the Gaza Strip.)
In the end, though, I believe that the mere fact that some people are using terrorist methods in order to achieve a goal does not say anything about the morality of the goal itself, and consequently whether one should support that goal or not.
Posted by: mrdoc on November 16, 2004 10:39 PM | permalinkWhoa! I'm not suggesting that these terrorist organisations have a point. Their demands aren't reasonable, their grievances aren't legitimate.
The point I was trying (and I think Chomsky is trying) was not about the terrorists in particular, but about the middle east population in general. The people of the middle east have a number of unresolved grievances - legitimate and not - against the US(*). These grievances allow terrorists to draw support from the people in the form of warm bodies and money.
The more effectively those grievances are addressed the less support the terrorists have, the less trouble they can cause. The war in Iraq is creating additional grievances amongst the general population, as it could have reasonably expected to. No, these people should not have supported terrorism. Yes, the terrorists needs to be dealt with. But if you really want to "drain the swamp," the hundred plus billions spent on the war so far could have been spent making people's lives happier, depriving terrorists of their anti-US support base.
(*) One example: How many Arabs have had relatives killed by US made bombs or missiles pre-2001?
Posted by: Alan Green on November 16, 2004 10:50 PM | permalinkWho's parking spot is it?
Typically, having a parking spot means you have entered into a legal contract with your apartment complex.
If someone parked in my spot,and it was a problem, I would politely go to the management and explain the situation and ask them to handle it. No big deal. If they refused to handle it, I would politely explain to them that might be in breach of contract, and let them consider the repercusions.
The current middle east situation is far more complex, and these naive analogies are quite pointless and quite misleading. There is no management. There is no common law. Indeed, just the opposite--there is a long history of intolerance, violence, inhumanity towards jews, christians, non-arabs, non-believers, women, and just about everybody else.
Chomsky is a well know populist of anti-semetic hatred against Israel. Period.
If Chomsky has something to say about the mathematical lingusitics, it might be worth listening to. And that was years ago.
And that is about it.
To be partisan, or ethnocentric, as most of these comments are, is to be dishonest. For example, in reference to Joe's comment of the 16th:
* Are US troops simply stationed in Saudi Arabia, or are Christian soldiers polluting sacred Moslim soil?
* If Saddam was only a horrific dictator, why did the electricity, water and oil flow better than under the Americans, and life go on for most people?
* Is Israel simply a "democracy", or is it also a harshly violent racist regime?
* Is it a universal truth that women shouldn't wear burqas?
American terrorism in Nicaragua was justified, but foreign terrorism in America is not?
The point is, it's dishonest to pretend that others can have no rational grievances against the US, and vice versa. (Or that Chomsky bears simple "hatred against Israel. Period." Whenever you see that "Period", you know you're supposed to stop thinking those bad thoughts.)
We'll never solve this if people are not more honest. OK, I admit it: we'll never solve this, and only the honest people among us will ever understand why.
Hey, "Village Idiot". Stop trolling here. I won't let you use my website to promote idiotic conspiracy theories.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 17, 2004 4:17 PM | permalinkSince you had to respond why didn't you respond in the blogg on Zmag where Chomsky says those things and give him the chance to respond (http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/entry/how_to_fight_terrorists/)?
I come from New Zealand and I have to say that a lot of the comments made about terrorism etc by people from USA are so totally loaded with (cultural) assumptions that they appear to come from another planet.
I'm not going to comment on them at this point because I suspect it'll become like debates I have with the religous far right.
I don't know if you've investigated "world opinion" on these matters but I can inform you that the USA is way out on a limb in the way its going.
I note I'm not anti-American (i.e. the people) but in many ways I am have become anti America - your government is really scary...
regards
--malcolm
Posted by: malcolm on November 17, 2004 7:01 PM | permalinkmalcolm:
Thank you for your opinion. I'm sorry you declined to elaborate. I'm pretty anti-Religious Right myself, and I voted against Bush.
If you're reading Z-mag, well, I hope you balance it with other news sources.
As far as why I didn't comment there, I no longer comment on sites unless I'm one of the first few commenters. I find that peoples' opinions get buried under an avalance and that it's very difficult to track who's responding to me. Here, it's obvious who's speaking to whom. Threaded forums, like Slashdot, LiveJournal, etc. make it much easier, though they have their own problems.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on November 17, 2004 7:54 PM | permalinkAbout Chomsky's linguistic choices-
He frames his arguments in such a way that it’s difficult, even embarrassing to argue with him. (The same sort of covert tactic politicians use all the time.) Nobody wants to be the lone jackass who challenges the “virtual consensus.”
Whenever I read his political stuff, I feel a little queasy. Yeah he's entitled to his opinion, and people listen to him because he’s got cachet... but I still kind of wish he'd just stick to universal grammar and syntax theory.
Posted by: S on November 18, 2004 11:13 AM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.