tBlog - Chomsky’s Errors Are Becoming More Frequent.

Chomsky’s Errors Are Becoming More Frequent.

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March

My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

Bookmark this site!

Chomsky’s Errors Are Becoming More Frequent.

05.02.04 (11:29 pm) [edit]

I can not help but think that the muddled thinking of many young activists can be traced back to Chomsky. Although Chomsky has done some decent work and there is certainly a place for him, he is as dogmatic as they come and this dogmatism leads him to say and do some stupid things. The one documented example that comes to mind is the support he gave to holocaust denier Robert Faurisson.

Chomsky, in classic civil libertarian fashion, threw his support behind Faurisson when a number of people tried to prevent his work from being disseminated. The problem was Chomsky had never bothered to read a thing Faurisson had put to pen and so was embarrassed when the debate turned to what is hate literature and whether Faurisson’s work could be described as such. The upshot of all this was Chomsky admitted that he should have familiarized himself with Faurisson’s writings before publicly saying that he should have the right to disseminate his work.

This though is, in the greater scheme of things, a forgivable mistake and besides he willingly ate crow for it. There are other more dubious causes for which he has been questioned about in the past (e.g. his selective reading of Pol Pot’s litany of crimes). However, it is only in recent times that people on the both the Left and Right have really started to openly question the accuracy of his moral compass. For example, he was, rightly, taken to task by Hitchens for saying that the bombing of the pharmaceutical factor in Sudan was on the same level as the 911 attack. http://www.thenation.com/doc....

What is just is bad is that some of predications and analysis of late have been so horribly wrong. Consider, for example, the following monumental gaffe about what he thought might happen in Afghanistan. “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. Let me repeat: the US has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of the Taliban. This has nothing to do 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. We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand.”

Then there was his willingness to defend France, Germany and his old whipping boy Turkey from those who would question their motives for opposing the US lead war in Iraq. “There is now a whole literature trying to explain why France, Germany, the so-called "old Europe", and Turkey and others are trying to undermine the United States. It is inconceivable to the pundits that they are doing so because they take democracy seriously and they think that when the overwhelming majority of a population has an opinion, a government ought to follow it.”

To say the least, Chomsky is being a tad hypocritical here. Could anyone imagine Chomsky ever saying that the American government is doing X because it takes democracy seriously? Did he forget that the majority of the Americans supported the war and by the same logic the American government did the right thing? At any rate, what he said was flat wrong. France did not snuggle up to the thugs in Zimbabwe because they wanted to ensure the will of the French people prevailed and the war was stopped. (Three members of the UN Security Council are small African nations. Both France and the US both tried to curry favor with them. One of the things France did was invite, as Guinea, Cameron and Angola wanted, Zimbabwean leader Mugabe to EU conference dealing with EU sanctions against Zimbabwe for its poor human rights record. One of the impositions placed on the Zimbabwean leader had been a European wide travel ban. Now, the travel ban had ended the day before the conference. So, by inviting Mugabe, France technically played by the rules. However, the other council members viewed the invitation as a direct challenge to the authority of the council and the decision to invite Mugabe was highly unpopular with the French people.)

Finally there is the following.

“This should be seen as a trial run. Iraq is seen as an extremely easy and totally defenceless target. It is assumed, probably correctly, that the society will collapse, that the soldiers will go in and that the U.S. will be in control, and will establish the regime of its choice and military bases. They will then go on to the harder cases that will follow. The next case could be the Andean region, it could be Iran, it could be others.

The trial run is to try and establish what the U.S. calls a "new norm" in international relations. The new norm is "preventive war" (notice that new norms are established only by the United States). So, for example, when India invaded East Pakistan to terminate horrendous massacres, it did not establish a new norm of humanitarian intervention, because India is the wrong country, and besides, the U.S. was strenuously opposed to that action.

This is not pre-emptive war; there is a crucial difference. Pre-emptive war has a meaning, it means that, for example, if planes are flying across the Atlantic to bomb the United States, the United States is permitted to shoot them down even before they bomb and may be permitted to attack the air bases from which they came. Pre-emptive war is a response to ongoing or imminent attack.

The doctrine of preventive war is totally different; it holds that the United States - alone, since nobody else has this right - has the right to attack any country that it claims to be a potential challenge to it. So if the United States claims, on whatever grounds, that someone may sometime threaten it, then it can attack them.

The doctrine of preventive war was announced explicitly in the National Strategy Report last September. It sent shudders around the world, including through the U.S. establishment, where, I might say, opposition to the war is unusually high. The National Strategy Report said, in effect, that the U.S. will rule the world by force, which is the dimension - the only dimension - in which it is supreme. Furthermore, it will do so for the indefinite future, because if any potential challenge arises to U.S. domination, the U.S. will destroy it before it becomes a challenge.

This is the first exercise of that doctrine. If it succeeds on these terms, as it presumably will, because the target is so defenceless, then international lawyers and Western intellectuals and others will begin to talk about a new norm in international affairs. It is important to establish such a norm if you expect to rule the world by force for the foreseeable future.”

Where should I start? Well, first of all, it was a lot more strategically important to oust Saddam than take out the leadership in either say Syria or the Sudan. They are not of a piece. As Ken Pollack has pointed out, Saddam loved to upset the apple cart, frequently miscalculated, was extremely risk tolerant, and the information his yes man provided him meant he lived in a kind of Never Never Land. No one and mean no one wanted Saddam to get his hands on a nuke.

Two, Chomsky has this annoying habit of using international law to buttress his arguments and ignoring it when it harms them. This is particularly true in this case. Technically speaking the US did not launch a unilateral War back in March. They were already at with war with Iraq and so technically was the UN. For this reason alone, Chomsky’s likening (not quoted above) of what the US did to what Japan did back in 1941 is way off base.

Three, the Iraq situation was different from, say, Iran. Attacking Iraq did not have the backing of the world public opinion, but at least it had certain degree of legitimacy. UN resolution 1441 passed and it is possible to argue that the US was doing what the UN itself lacked the political will to do. Plus, let us not forget that everyone believed that Saddam possessed WMD. Indeed, German intelligence believed that he would have a bomb in 2 to 3 years time.

Four, far from proving that America will strike preventatively whenever it sees fit, the Iraq case has revealed that the doctrine of preventive war is a dead letter and that the likelihood of any adventures in the near future is close to zero. Despite what Bushies have to say about Libya, the doctrine of preventative war now scares no one. (The negotiations with Libya were under way well before Iraq. By all accounts, it was not the Libyans who were softened their position, but desperate for some good news, the Bushies who softened theirs.) This administration lacks the economic, political, and diplomatic wherewithal to carry the battle to, say, Syria. What is more, although the supremacy of the American military goes without saying, every available soldier the US has in Iraq.

Now, the failure to find any WMD was not foreseeable and a result neither was the amount of political and diplomatic fallout. However the simple fact of the matter is that many inside and outside government foresaw the costs of the Iraq campaign and how this would tie the administration’s hands (see, for example, James Fallows 51st state in the Atlantic Monthly). What is more, the General staff thought Wolfowitz’s suggestion that only 75,000 troops would be needed to take Iraq was completely absurd. They thought his rider that the US would be able to draw down their troop strength after three months to 30,000 too stupid to comment on. Then head of the US military, General Eric Shinseki was quite clear on March 19th of last year that at least 200,000 would be needed to secure the peace and that a least a good chunk of those would be needed for the foreseeable future. As the US only had about 130,000 non-committed troops with which to work with, without re-imposing the draft, something that just is not going to happen, just where did Chomsky think the US was going to get the troop strength to occupy, say, Iran which has more than 2 times as many people as Iraq and territorially is much larger? The only one it would seem that bought into the rosy post war scenario being painted by the Pentagon was Chomsky.

The ironic thing about the doctrine of preventive war and the surrounding intellectual infrastructure is that far from laying down the scary precedent in terms of American will do. It reveals that there is a large gap between what American says it wants to and what it can do.

posted by: ScubaDiva (reply)
post date: 05.02.04 (11:34 pm)

Granted, it's almost 3am and I haven't slept in eons, but I was reading this thinking what does Norm Chomsky the psychiatrist have to do with this???

I need to go to bed.

posted by: koby (reply)
post date: 05.03.04 (12:17 am)

Go to bed! The post is about Chomsky. So it is only natural to talk about him. By the way, Chomsky by is not a psychiatrist. He is a very famous linguist, but most people these know him as a critic of US foreign policy. He is according to some the most cited author alive and according to the Chicago Tribune one of the most cited authors of all time.

posted by: George (reply)
post date: 05.03.04 (12:20 am)

Reply to: ScubaDiva
Thanks for the laugh ScubaDiva. That was too funny. Kinda surreal actually. Pleasant dreams

posted by: WhyNot (reply)
post date: 05.03.04 (8:46 am)

Reply to: George

"That was too funny. Kinda surreal actually"

LOL, sure was - especially with the double instance of it. I can just about picture Scuba falling asleep at the puter trying to make sense of the article while already in deamland.

Yes, pleasant dreams, Scuba :-)