Noam Chomsky

The New War on Terrorism: Fact and Fiction

by Jesse Fox Mayshark

26 December 2002

chomskynoam-newwar.jpg Note: Out of curiosity, I wrote Chomsky an email asking if any events of the past 13 months have surprised him or changed the views expressed in this particular lecture. Here’s what he wrote back: “I can’t recall anything that has much surprised me in what I was saying a year ago, including what’s in print. “The Taliban held out a lot longer than I predicted, but I don’t recall any other predictions that weren’t verified. Most important, it turned out, as was obvious at once (and as I predicted, but that took no insight) that governments all over the world would step up their repression and violence using 9-11 as a pretext, Russia in Chechnya, China in its Western provinces, etc., and would also exploit the opportunity to discipline their own populations (here as well). I didn’t predict, though I should have realized it, that the Bush administration would use 9-11 as a pretext for their war with Iraq. That’s the only failure I can think of. “On Afghanistan itself, it also turned out, as I predicted, that there would be a lot of attention to “collateral damage” but no serious investigation of the far more important question of the effect of the orders to Pakistan to terminate desperately needed food aid, and the disruption of such aid for several months (but that’s traditional, so no surprise). The moral depravity of carrying out those policies of course remains unchanged, just as—to take a case recently in the news—the criminal insanity of Khrushchev’s placing of missiles in Cuba is not changed by the fact that it did not lead to a terminal nuclear war, as was seriously expected at the highest levels, and did deter an invasion of Cuba—so one could say it “worked”, if one can sink to that level of depravity. All that’s pretty trivial, and easily understood when we think about enemies. I’ve been intrigued to see how some seem to find it hard to understand these trivialities when applied to themselves—e.g., when they see that, thankfully, the dire warnings of the NY Times, the aid agencies, Harvard U specialists on Afghanistan, and others were realized only partially—how much, of course, we do not know, with no investigations.”
:. e-mail this article
:. print this article
:. comment on this article

Noam Alone

This lecture by MIT linguistics prof and left-wing eminence grise Noam Chomsky begins with a fairly startling statement: “I’m going to assume two conditions for this talk. The first one is just what I assume to be a recognition of fact. That is that the events of Sept. 11 were a horrendous atrocity, probably the most devastating instant human toll of any crime in history outside of war. The second has to do with the goal. I’m assuming that our goal is that we’re interested in reducing the likelihood of such crimes, whether they’re against us or against someone else.”

cover art

Noam Chomsky

The New War on Terrorism: Fact and Fiction

(Alternative Tentacles)
US: 19 Nov 2002
UK: 9 Dec 2002

Shocking, right? Well, only if you put them in context—the context being that since the Sept. 11 attacks, Chomsky has been routinely excoriated, lambasted, and bitch-slapped by both the American right and (especially) the left. Along with Susan Sontag and a few other liberal intellectuals, he’s been reviled as a paragon of heartless anti-Americanism, a knee-jerk apologist for any and all enemies of Uncle Sam. If you only read what was written about Chomsky (by Christopher Hitchens, Andrei Codrescu, and other leftists eager to prove they hate bin Laden as much as any Fox News blowhard), as opposed to anything he’s written himself, you’d think he was celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center and the slaughter of innocents. Or at the very least that he saw Sept. 11 as a case of evil, imperial America finally getting what it had coming.

But Chomsky has said no such thing. As this recording of an 18 October 2001 speech at MIT makes clear, Chomsky’s post-9/11 views are exactly consistent with his pre-9/11 views. That is to say, he sees international politics as a complex realm of actions and reactions, one in which everything has a context and a history, a place where things happen for logical (if cold and brutal) reasons. And in that realm, he sees the United States as an often malevolent actor, one prone to selfish short-term thinking that has dreadful long-term consequences.

Little in the speech will be news to the kind of people most likely to listen to it (i.e., informed left-wingers). Chomsky traces the roots of terrorism both in broad terms and in the specific case of Islamic fundamentalism. It’s true that, in case after case, he finds the same culprits lurking behind the curtain: the United States, the CIA, and their designates. But almost all of this is undisputed fact. The United States really did fund and train a terrorist force to overthrow the Nicaraguan government (and the CIA really did mine the Managua harbor, leading to a blistering World Court rebuke that the Reagan administration blithely ignored). And the U.S. really did help organize and sponsor the Islamist mujahadeen, bringing Muslim radicals from across the Arab world together to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan (the whole time overlooking the Islamists’ vicious anti-Westernism). And the U.S. (along with Israel) really did vote against a U.N. anti-terrorism resolution. And so on and so forth.

None of this is offered by way of excusing or justifying the Sept. 11 attacks. Chomsky is no ideological kin to bin Laden; his point is the reverse, that bin Laden is in good part a product of the very American foreign policy establishment that now declares war on him. The same, of course, is true of Saddam Hussein, and that’s where this particular recording comes up a little short. Although you can certainly apply most of Chomsky’s broad points to the current rhetoric about Iraq, the lecture seems inevitably dated by its focus on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda. It’s also true that Chomsky’s tone can border on hectoring. There is a self-assurance here that would sound a bit smug to anyone not already enamored of Chomsky’s worldview. I think it is that tone, more than anything he actually says, that infuriates his critics. It may be effective when preaching to the choir, but it’s not going to win him any converts.

Still, tone schmone. Most of what Chomsky says is so straightforward, so well-documented, and so clearly relevant to the issues at hand that it’s little wonder his nemeses revert to dishonest characterizations of his views; it would be very hard to rebut him on the merits of his arguments.

Topics: noam chomsky
We all know how critical it is to keep independent voices alive and strong on the Internet. Please consider a donation to support our work. We are a wholly independent, women-owned, small company. Your donation will help PopMatters stay viable through these changing, challenging times where costs have risen and advertising has dropped precipitously. PopMatters needs your help to keep publishing. Thank you.

//Mixed media

20 Questions: Kasey Chambers

// Sound Affects

"Australia's country great Kasey Chambers embraced her ambition on a new double-album, but still wants to be remembered as "being real in a very fake world."

READ the article