consciouschoice.com
Iraq and the "Principles" of a Superpower
Some reviewer once called Chomsky an "exploder of
received truths." Chomsky builds his case from logic and
documented facts as solid as stainless steel. Yet if his
writing can at times seem almost too unvarnished or to
lack flourish, the dynamite in this intellectual arsenal is
also lit by a deep passion for justice. You certainly feel
that passion in his critique of the Gulf War, in his
condemnation of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq
by presidents Bush and Clinton, sanctions that medical
groups estimate over the last ten years have directly
contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi children.
In fact, Chomsky's writings on the 1991 Gulf War illustrate
how truly interwoven the news media is with conservative
corporate interests. In World Orders Old and New,
Chomksy describes a big-business media almost utterly
compliant with Washington's decision to go to war in the
wake of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. President George Bush,
of course, had declared that such aggression could never
go unanswered, and answer it he did, with a massive show
of military force that left a trail of devastation and death
in its wake. Accordingly, the media took its cue from the
outset of the budding conflict. In the weeks building up to
the war, the American public was saturated with flurries of
outraged editorials and news coverage on the evil that was
Saddam Hussein.
"As the bombs fell," Chomsky writes, citing remarks of
New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, "the American
population was called upon to admire 'the stark and vivid
definition of principle...[baked into] George Bush during his
years at Andover and Yale, that honor and duty compels
you to punch the bully in the face.'" Stirring words. Yet
Chomsky reminds us that Hussein had always been a bully
and a tyrant. It's just that before invading Kuwait he was
"our" bully and tyrant, one blessed with a steady supply of
arms shipments and support from none other than the
Republican administration of Ronald Reagan and George
Bush.
In fact, when Hussein gassed a Kurdish village in March
1988, Reagan and Bush -- these two self-declared "men of
principle" -- chose to politely look the other way. But this
should come as no surprise, notes Chomsky. President
Bush was in some ways actually a man after Hussein's
heart, having earned the dubious distinction of being the
only world leader then in office officially condemned by the
World Court for "unlawful use of force," in this case
against Nicaragua.
According to Chomsky, the Bush administration was also
determined to go to war at all cost, rejecting from the
outset any "diplomatic track" to a peaceful settlement.
This despite Iraqi withdrawal offers (barely mentioned in
the press) that were considered "serious" and "negotiable"
at the time by at least one administration Middle East
specialist. Consequently, whether Hussein was considered
good or evil came down to a matter of not how democratic
he was but how compliant he was with Western interests.
In Chomsky's estimation, supporters of the war who later
criticized the administration for not going all the way to
oust Hussein from office misinterpret the war's objectives.
Hussein's survival (to this day) was not so much a failure
of American policy as its consummation (or at least it was
not inconsistent with U.S. objectives). Because the goal of
the war was never to help the people of Iraq rid their
country of the iron fist of tyranny, only to tame and rein in
that fist. That's why when rebellious Iraqis in the south
rose up against Hussein in the wake of his defeat, a story
dramatically captured in the Hollywood movie, Three
Kings, "Stormin'" Norman Schwartzkopf and all the other
"heroes" of the war stood passively to the sidelines -- and
the Iraqi dictator was once again allowed to terrorize his
own people.
Chomksy's critique of Operation Desert Storm will
challenge anyone who thought the Gulf War was motivated
by high-minded principles of democracy or respect for the
sovereignty of nations. One of Brazil's leading newspapers
editorialized at the time of the war that in the events then
unfolding the world now stood witness to "pure barbarism,"
condemning the actions of both George Bush and Saddam
Hussein as evidence of "an absolute scorn for human life."
It was not an opinion you were likely to find in a
newspaper in the United States. But Chomsky would not
disagree. The U.S. war against Iraq, he concludes, was
driven not by principles of honor or democracy or real
concern for the people of Kuwait as much as the American
(and British) desire to control the oil resources of the
region, to protect the enormous profits associated with
that control.
Even if it cost many thousands of Iraqi people their lives. |
