Hi chalu2; Here's my answer to Noam Chomsky's comments. I'll leave out the questions from the interviewer because his answers appear to be complete without them:
timesofindia.com
Why do you think these attacks happened?
Osama bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia. It was, from his point of view, a counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest of shrines. Osama bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which he regards as un-Islamic, including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins.
Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year and the decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein who was a favoured friend and ally of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the Kurds.
[Bilow: As far as I know, this is an accurate treatment of why Osama Bin Laden attacked us, other than the rather unfair suggestion that the US and Britain are responsible for the consequences of Saddam Hussein's foolishment, and that the assault is targeted at civilians. Anyone who thinks the attacks were targeted at civilians should ask surviving members of the Iraqi military for their opinions. If my memory serves me correct, Saudi Arabia and the Kuwaitis in exile were screaming bloody murder for revenge. In fact, most of the rest of the world wholeheartedly approved. But note that by making this statement, Noam Chomsky is admitting that Osama Bin Laden, (and therefore the Taliban that supports him) is, in fact, the party responsible for the attack. I really wouldn't have expected him to make an admission like that.]
Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings. The US, and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the recent history of the Balkans, for example.
[Bilow: Here Chomsky makes a verbal sleight of hand. After listing the sins of the Americans, he notes that the people in the Middle East are "suffering deep poverty and oppression". But that deep poverty and oppression has little to do with actions of the United States, except possibly in Iraq. The fact is that most of the people from these nations that throng US embassies for visas to come over here are trying to escape the violence and oppression of their own governments, not the United States. The third world was backwards, poor and oppressed long before the United States ever got involved with it. Since that time, several 3rd world countries have become advanced, rich and free despite having strong connections to the United States.]
What consequences will this cycle of violence have on US inner policy?
US policy has already been officially announced. The world is being offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect of death and destruction."
[Bilow: No such "stark choice" has been offered to the "world". The stark choice was offered instead to a few countries that are now or have recently been supporting the terrorists who attacked the United States. This is included in the rights of the United States to self defense.]
Congress has authorised the use of force against any individuals or countries the president determines to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as ultra-criminal.
[Bilow: It's hard to figure out what Chomsky is implying here. I haven't seen anyone else say that the use of force in defense of a country is "ultra-criminal". Perhaps he's suggesting that war, if undeclared, is ultra-criminal. If so, he doesn't have much of history in favor of his stand because the vast majority of America's wars were never formally declared.]
That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the US had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than this atrocity.
[Bilow: Nicaragua, like the United States, has the same rights of self defense. That Nicaragua didn't choose to use its extensive military to threaten an invasion of the United States is not because they were morally higher than the US, it's simply because they didn't have the ability to do so. In fact, what Nicaragua did do is support cross border terrorism in their neighbors, the same neighbors (Honduras, El Salvador) who asked for the United States to take action. And Nicaragua's neighbors are also possessed of a right of self defense, and were entirely within their rights to ask the help of the United States. In short, there is no "law" against war, declared or undeclared.]
Do you expect the US to profoundly change its policy towards the rest of the world?
The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased militarisation, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course.
[Bilow: By this logic, all war simply creates an "escalating cycle of violence". In fact, the vast majority of wars are the culmination of escalating cycles of violence, not the continuation of them, and result in an elimination of the escalating cycle of violence. If this weren't the case, everybody would always be fighting everybody. The United States has carried on war, declared or undeclared against every major power, including Britain, Germany, France, Japan, China, Russia and Italy. Is there still an "escalating cycle of violence" making us ever more violent towards each other? No! Chomsky's point is incompatible with history. The other point he is making is that war results in an increase in the political power of the militaristic part of a society. This shouldn't be a surprise. Who would want to trust a guy who "loathed the military" as the leader in war? People want war run by those who are competent in it, not by those who are competent in blaming America first.]
After the first shock, came fear of what the US answer is going to be. Are you afraid, too?
Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction - the one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale.
[Bilow: Interviews with Bin Laden suggest that he (like Saddam Hussein and Hitler before him) did not believe that the United States had the guts to fight. I would think that events have been playing out rather unhappily for Bin Laden. Most of the Moslem world has signed up to be part of his destruction, most significantly including Pakistan. It's hard to understand what Chomksy is suggesting by "far greater scale". The deep divisions of the Moslem countries suggests that there will be no "far greater scale". As far as war, yes, we are in one now, and the power of the alliance that we are creating is stronger than any alliance the world has ever seen before. All this against a country with 14 million citizens before half of them fled the country, and no technology, economy or allies. Some "far greater scale".]
The US has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will die, possibly millions.
[Bilow: No such demand has been indicated in the papers. In fact, food is still being allowed into Afghanistan across the Pakistan border, as can be seen here, for instance:
newsoftheworld.co.uk
It takes time to move food around, just like it takes time to move military forces around. The only reason the United States is not (deliberately) using starvation against Afghanistan is because it is generally believed that the Afghanistan people do not support their government, and will support a call for a new, less repressive, government. Starvation has been a prominent and legitimate feature of warfare since before Homer.]
The US has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed.
[Bilow: No such demand has been made. Pakistan has been asked to assist the United States in the elimination of a threat to the United States. There undoubtedly will be innocent lives lost to starvation as a result of Pakistani (and world) actions, but the onus on ending the war lies with the Taliban, not Pakistan. Chomsky seems to be assuming that all war is illegal, and that it is therefore impossible for a country to defend itself.]
I think we can be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to seek historical precedents.
[Bilow: The historical precedents are evident to anyone who has read significant military history. Countries have the right to defend themselves, even from an enemy who professes to be friendly. Probably the most similar situation in the past was piracy. It is perfectly normal for a country to ask another to keep its "pirates" under control.]
If Pakistan does submit to US demands, it is not impossible that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban who in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the region, including the oil producing states.
[Bilow: If Pakistan is overthrown by the Taliban, their nuclear forces will be eliminated by the United States. Pakistan knows this, that's one of many reasons their government is cooperating. Right now, the largest threat to Pakistan and the Pakistani government is the Taliban itself. The Taliban has moved SCUD missiles up to the Pakistan border, preparing for an attack on the crowded cities of Pakistan. Islamic fundamentalism is the primary threat to all the Moslem nations, that's why they are signing up to help the United States eliminate the Afghanistan problem. Chomsky goes on and on about US actions, but he completely ignores what the Islamic Fundamentalists have done, not just in Afghanistan, but also in countries like Algeria, the Philippines and Egypt. These countries know which side of the bread has butter on it, and they're signing up on the US side. But Chomsky, since he hates the United States, is unable to see its strengths.]
At this point we are considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society.
[Bilow: Chomsky is "considering the possibility" of a war that may destroy much of human society. The rest of us are considering the possibility of a short police action that will restore peace, health, and freedom to Afghanistan. And as far as the worst case goes, the United States is hardly unable to defend itself.]
Even if Bin Laden is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring others.
[Bilow: Even if Hitler is killed, it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on recordings that are distributed throughout the Germanic world, and he will likely be revered as a martyr, inspiring others. The Islamic extremists already have all the martyrs they'll ever need. All we do by acquiescing to their demands is make them look like winners. Ignoring Hitler would not have solved the problem in Europe, and ignoring the people who profit from terror isn't going to solve the problem now. Hitler killed himself in Berlin but he's still a hero to a lot of people. The difference is that no major countries are run by fascists who believe that they can use violence to take over the world. The problem with Islamic extremists is that once they take over a country, even a backwards country like Afghanistan, they obtain a safe harbor where they can then plan horrors like the one visited on the NYC. We must eliminate these nests, and do it with a demonstration of our power that is so convincing that when Islamic extremists take over the next nation, they concentrate on their own nation instead of bombing us.]
It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing - a truck driven into a US military base - drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20 years ago.
[Bilow: I guess this means Chomsky believes that one suicide airliner attack will drive the world's major military force out of New York City. I don't think that this is a viable option.]
Can the world be the same after September 11?
The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory has been under attack, even threat. It's colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself.
[Bilow: Interesting logic. When US territories were attacked the United States correctly responded with war, but when the US itself is attacked we're supposed to be peaceful?]
During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way.
[Bilow: I suppose that since England ran rough-shod over the world in the 19th century means that it's okay to bomb London. Or that it's okay to kill Germans, they started WW2, after all. So where is this major nation without blood on its hands? Even Sweden was once known for the viciousness of its Vikings. The natives in the Americas were hardly peace loving. For the life of me I can't think of that pure and innocent nation that Chomsky must be comparing the US to and finding us lacking. This is just more US bashing from Chomsky.]
This is a novel event in world history, not because of the scale of the atrocity -regrettably - but because of the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, with long-term consequences that could be awesome. Of course, that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within the more free and democratic societies can direct policies towards a much more humane and honourable course.
[Bilow: "Peace in our time." Chamberlain couldn't have said it better. Yes war is heck, and international diplomacy is a brutal affair. If Noam Chomsky were running our foreign affairs things would only be worse. The fact is that the first world is a paragon of peace and virtue compared to the third world. Every nation of NATO has fought bloody wars against every other nation of NATO, and yet they're now democratic capitalist societies and are at full, complete and long lasting peace with each other. This is in complete contradiction to Noam Chomsky's suggestion that we are vicious and violent. Why is it that the democracies don't attack each other? The Communist nations used to regularly beat the hell out of each other, and every part of the third world is in a constant fight over national boundaries. The apologists blame war in the third world on arbitrary boundaries drawn by the first world, but the truth is that the boundaries in the first world are just as arbitrary. Do you see the Germans setting off bombs against the French in Alsace or Danzig? Are the British trying to bring the American colonies back under the Queen? Is Sweden trying to bring Norway and Finland back to heel? Is France dreaming of Napoleon and infiltrating saboteurs into the Piedmont? No! The truth is that these cheesy little 3rd world cesspits educate their citizens to hate the countries around them, and sometimes the US as well. Why do they do this? The only explanation I can think of is that when you're poorer than dirt the only thing you have is pride, so you walk around with a big chip on your shoulder. The free world doesn't have these problems, we are very sure of ourselves. But that doesn't mean that we can allow our foreign policies to be chosen by 3rd world countries, much less fanatical minorities of 3rd world countries. They didn't end up in the third world because they're enlightened and rational, they got there by being backwards and inefficient.]
-- Carl |
