Thursday, September 11, 2003

Chomsky's Radical Critique of 'The War on Terrorism'

By Abu Spinoza*

The atrocities of September 11, 2001 were heinous acts of terrorism. The United States immediately launched a war on Afghanistan. It resulted in the death of more than 3,000 Afghan civilians and the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban regime. The United States, however, has so far failed to bring Bin Laden to justice. Since then the United States launched another war against Iraq and is now occupying it. While most establishment intellectuals have rationalized U.S. policies since the events of 9-11, radical critiques of the United States remain limited. Among the radical critics of current policy, Noam Chomsky provides an uncompromising and encompassing assessment of U.S. imperialism. This essay discusses his critique of the so-called war on terrorism.

Introduction

Noam Chomsky remains one of the foremost critics of U.S. foreign policy. Chomsky’s (2001) booklet 9-11 offers a detailed analysis of the causes and the effects of the events of September 11 attacks. While there have been a good number of “coffee table” books about the tragic events and terrorist attacks of 9-11, the number of radical critiques of terrorism, its causes and context is still comparatively few. Among other critical books worthy of mention are: Chomsky (2003), Honderich (2002), Parenti (2002), Vidal (2002), and Zinn (2001).

While the rest of this review essay will provide an analysis of Chomsky’s radical critique, a few words should be said of other “left” analysts who have written about post 9-11 U.S. imperial foreign policy. The historian Zinn (2001) gives not just an overview of United States’ long record of war and state terrorism but claims that war and terrorism are inevitable outcomes of capitalism. Vidal’s (2002) offers some interesting insights and information but the literary brilliance of his critique is mitigated by occasional suggestions that hover around connivance on the part of U.S. state planners and businesses. Parenti’s (2002) analysis is right on the mark and deserves to be widely read. Honderich’s (2002) book is actually an important and controversial philosophical work. [While under international law an occupied people have a right to resist occupation, it is generally understood that resistance to colonial occupation should be directed against occupation forces and settlers, not civilians. Honderich’s views have generated quite a bit controversy because of his contention that under the present circumstances the Palestinians living under occupation have a moral right to kill Israelis, apparently including civilians. While this author strongly and vehemently disagrees with this view, it is beyond the scope of this essay to discuss, evaluate or critique Honderich’s views.] A reason for focusing on Chomsky’s work is due to its encompassing nature and lasting critical value.

9-11 and the War on Afghanistan

The atrocities of September 11 were serious and unparalleled heinous acts of terrorist attacks in the United States. There is no dispute that those responsible for perpetrating this outrageous violence should be brought to justice and punished according to U.S. and international laws. The U.S. authorities quickly launched a war on Afghanistan citing capturing or killing Bin Laden and routing al-Qaida terrorists as their goal, but later insisting that the overthrow of the Taliban regime was its objective.

This war against Afghanistan has led to the deaths of at least 3,000 civilians, according to Professor Marc Herold’s (2002a and 2002b) comprehensive study of available media reports. It also led to countless injuries, immense hardships, diseases, and dislocations of Afghans. Thus, grave sufferings were inflicted on one of the poorest people in the world. The US military actions put a large number of people on the brink of malnutrition and risk of starvation. The World Bank (2001) observed: “Afghanistan — suffering from more than 20 years of conflict, a three-year drought, loss or degradation of most of its infrastructure, depletion of its human resource base, and erosion of social capital — is one of the poorest and certainly the longest-suffering country. With an estimated 7 million people vulnerable to famine and millions already displaced from their homes (domestically or as refugees to neighboring countries), Afghanistan faces a dire humanitarian emergency.” It is doubtful that there will be a complete accounting of the deaths and the sufferings of the Afghans and other wretched masses because it is of little consequences to the rich and the powerful. Afghanistan faces enormous problems of reconstruction and eradication of poverty.

In attacking Afghanistan, the U.S. authorities deliberately ignored international norms. Even though the United States could have readily obtained UN endorsement, it ignored UN charter and did not consult the UN Security Council. The Taliban regime was no match for the United States. The Taliban regime quickly fell to the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance whose record of atrocities and human rights violation was comparable in type, if not in scale, to that of the previous regime. But much of Taliban’s leadership and that of al-Qaida, including those suspected to be the ringleaders of the terrorist attacks of September 11, seems to have escaped and survived intact. There is no reason to believe that U.S. actions have reduced the future possibility of terrorism either globally or against civilians in the West.

Given the large number of deaths and the immense hardships that the war on Afghanistan caused on the Afghans and the fact that al-Qaida has been merely dislocated rather than eradicated, the bombing seems to have been unnecessary and unjustified. The historic record shows the United States rejected the path of negotiations. It ruled out of hand the Taliban’s offer to turn over Bin Laden if sufficient evidence of his complicity were given to them. In itself this was not an unreasonable demand. While Taliban’s offer may well have been a ruse, the fact remains that the United States never seriously contemplated the possibility of negotiations. Had the Taliban refused to comply with Washington’s demand for handing over Bin Laden after the evidence of his role was made available, there was still further alternatives available, such as concerted actions by the international community coordinated by the UN. The U.S. intelligence agencies and Interpol could have undertaken prolonged investigations and painstaking searches for the culprits. The objective could have been the compilation of evidence to prove the case against the terrorists in independent national or international courts. At the international level and among world public opinion, there was no objection whatsoever to police (and military) actions to arrest or apprehend those responsible for planning the terrorism of 9-11.

The most compelling evidence linking Bin Laden and al-Qaida to the atrocities of September 11, such as the videotapes in which Bin Laden and his associates boasts of the damages caused, express their admiration for such crimes, and speak of their support of the men responsible for flying the planes and so on, either surfaced or were all obtained after the bombing of Afghanistan began. While it is possible that the authorities had other additional evidence before the bombing, these are yet to be made public. Since the people of Afghanistan were not responsible for the atrocities, one can infer that the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan was a form of collective punishment on them. The Afghans, who were already victims of the Taliban regime and the al-Qaida network, became subject to Western vengeance and indiscriminate bombing.

Chomsky’s Analysis

9-11 is based on a collection interviews conducted with Noam Chomsky following the atrocities of September 11. The author and the editor made some edits, revisions, and additions incorporating the latest news and cutting repetitions of the same points. Chomsky holds that the attacks of September 11 were something new in world affairs because this was the first time that the national territory of the United States was under attack. But in terms of terrorist attacks and assaults on civilians resulting in large numbers of deaths, massive destructions and sufferings, there are far too many examples, such as Western annihilation of Native Americans; U.S. conquests of Mexico, Hawaii, Philippines, and the invasion of Vietnam; and European colonization of South Asia (Indian subcontinent), Congo, Algeria, and Ethiopia, and so on.

According to Chomsky the official U.S. doctrine and practice of what is euphemistically called “low intensity warfare” is actually a form of terrorism as understood in U.S. laws. While there is some truth to the dictum that terrorism is often the weapon of the weak, terrorism actually is a frequently used tool of the powerful. He points out that the United States has often supported a variety of terrorist criminal wars. It was responsible for the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua and backed terrorist contras. It gave critical supply of arms for Turkey’s brutal suppression of Kurds and attacks on about 3,500 villages and towns. It gives substantial aid to Israel’s illegitimate occupation of Palestinian territories.

Chomsky points out that the United States, UK, Egypt, France, and Pakistan organized, financed, trained, and armed Islamic fundamentalists. (He goes on to provide a good analysis of the evolution and the structure of the al-Qaida.) The Western countries consistently supported Saddam Hussein without any hesitation when he was committing atrocities against Kurds and other Iraqis. They also supplied Indonesia’s military with weapons when East Timor was invaded and occupied. The post-September 11 alliance between USA, Russia, China, Indonesia, Algeria, Egypt has enabled these countries to carry out their own terrorist atrocities. Cuba has also been subject to the United States’ direct and proxy terror for many years. So far the United States has not extradited Emmanuel Constant, a brutal paramilitary leader tried in absentia for carrying out massacres in Haiti. John Negroponte, who is now the U.S. representative at the UN, served as the “proconsul” to Honduras while it carried out atrocities. The terrorist attack of September 11 was a major setback for Palestinians. The Israeli authorities used the rhetoric of combating terrorism to crush Palestinian resistance, kill Palestinian civilians, imprison activists, and destroy infrastructure and ruin whatever semblance of an independent state that the incompetent Palestinian Nationality Authority was able to put.

Chomsky cites the bombing of al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan as an example of the arrogance of the Western power. It is known that there was no credible evidence linking al-Shifa to terrorism. It is known that this substantially effected Sudan’s ability to produce critical medical drugs. Although reports of the lack of ties of al-Shifa to terrorism and the potential consequences of the bombing of this factory to the Sudanese population were available in the mainstream press, the international community (which effectively means the Western countries) have neither investigated this crime nor labeled those responsible for this as terrorists, let alone calling for their punishment. No U.S. official has bothered to apologize for the destruction of this factory. Because the indirect victims of the destruction of al-Shifa are Sudanese, little will be heard about them.

Chomsky rejects the conceited misconception articulated by various establishment intellectuals, such as Samuel Huntington (1997) and Bernard Lewis (1994), that there is a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam. The notion that the quest for freedom, tolerance, prosperity, democracy, and peaceful coexistence is alien to Muslims or Arab has no real basis. Contrary to the claims of “experts” who assert that the United States is hated for its freedom, democracy, and wealth or that Arabs and Muslims are against fast food chains or blue jeans, he sticks to the facts: The resentment of the United States in the Muslim and the Arab countries, even among the Westernized elites, stems from its policy of harsh sanctions against Iraq and support for Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza. The United States supported Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in which about 17,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed.

The Western countries are quite eager to support fundamentalist Islamic regimes, such as that of Saudi Arabia, as long as they can secure cooperation from the Arab ruling elites in the exploitation of Middle Eastern oil. The United States supported the Latin American elite when it crushed the progressive elements of the Catholic Church inspired by liberation theology.

Against Rationalizing and Imperialism

Chomsky has strongly reiterated that nothing can justify terrorist crimes such as those of September 11. It has become fashionable to denounce anyone suggesting that one has to try to fathom the causes of terrorism. Christopher Hitchens (2001a) denounced what he called “the Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein quarter,” as if examining the plausible connections between the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and Western state terrorism is either sacrilege or rationalizing terrorism. An attempt to understand the causes of terrorism is not a rationalization of violence but is essential if one is serious about reducing or eliminating terrorism. Hitchens (2001b) has subsequently gone on to praise the United States for “bombing a country back out of the Stone Age,” arguably because of marginal improvements of women’s rights in particular and other human rights in Afghanistan. Whether there has indeed been a real and sustainable improvement in human rights, especially women’s rights, in Afghanistan is an empirical question that has to be careful examined, judged and shown, not merely proclaimed. The deaths and the sufferings that the Afghan people had to go through for the reported gains and the great risk of further violence and instability are far too excessive a price to pay for what appears at best to be marginal improvements of social conditions. For those who reject the vulgarity of “bombing a country back out of the Stone Age” and instead seek peace, justice, establishment of human right and an end to terrorism and war, Chomsky’s 9-11 will enable one to recall the long history of Western state terrorism, understand the context of events of September 11, and discuss what alternatives are available to reduce violence in today’s world.

Chomsky correctly observes that for the U.S. media the problem of state censorship is insignificant but there is a real problem of self-censorship and self-induced conformity to the interests of the powerful. The U.S. authorities did, however, apply pressure on Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV because of its exposure to the corruption and the abuse of power of monarchies and dictators in Arab states. Like Zinn (2001), Chomsky rejects the notion that activists must abide by the dictums of power and privilege. He notes in the United States there are many undercurrents of resistance underway to the war of terrorism. Chomsky presciently observes that terrorist attacks serve as “a gift to the harshest and most repressive elements on all sides, and sure to be exploited ... to accelerate the agenda of militarization, regimentation, reversal of social democratic programs, transfer of wealth to narrow sectors, and undermining democracy any meaningful form.” He envisions that people in the West are unlikely to let this happen without challenge. Chomsky’s (2001) interviews are supplemented by recent ones (Chomsky 2003). It provides an uncompromising critique of more recent developments and supplements in his earlier lectures and talks available in various collections, such as Chomsky (1988 and 2002). Chomsky (2002) is a fairly comprehensive collection of his analysis of the events of the past three decades, covering the Vietnam War, the propaganda model (proposed jointly by Edward Herman and Chomsky (1988)), Reaganomics, Haiti, East Timor and other issues.

The War Against Iraq

Within a year of the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the United States and the UK turned their attention to the overthrow of the regime Iraq. Today, Anglo-American forces occupy Iraq. According to Iraqbodycount.net, at least 6,118 civilians have died to due to Anglo-American war on Iraq. The same organization reports that 20,000 civilian injuries on top of these deaths.

Chomsky (2003) has been a vocal critic of the planned war against Iraq. Initially the Bush administration tried to justify its war plans by trying to link the Iraqi regime to al-Qaida terrorists. In spite of concerted efforts, the administration failed to produce any concrete evidence either of weapons of mass destruction or of any links between the nefarious (but secular) Iraqi regime and al-Qaida, even after months of occupation of Iraq.

U.S. authorities have tried to accuse Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the lives of Westerners. Even before the latest war Iraq has paid a heavy price for U.S.-imposed and UN-backed sanctions, which have been in force for more than a decade (Arnove 2002). At least half a million children have died as a result of the sanctions. Child mortality in Iraq has risen from a level that was comparable to advanced countries to that of least developed countries that either face chronic shortage of food or have been devastated by civil war. More than 1 million Iraqis have died due to the sanctions. Iraq’s water supply facilities and waste disposal system are in ruins because the sanctions have prevented Iraq from importing spare parts to operate them. It is now known that U.S. war planners did not hesitate to damage Iraq’s water system (Nagy 2001). The country’s environment, agriculture, health care system, educational institutions, and civic society are in shambles due to the sanctions and destruction caused by war. In its internal scenario planning document that was leaked, the United Nations (2002) estimated that in the event of a war that direct and indirect casualties can be around half a million and that 5.2 million people will be put in a highly vulnerable condition. They estimated that the nutritional status of some 3 million people will be dire and will require therapeutic feeding. The electricity network, ports, the railway system, road transportation, water treatment facilities, and sanitation systems could be seriously damaged, causing immense hardship on the Iraqis. That, however, was completely immaterial to Anglo-American leadership as it went to along to conduct the war against Iraq.

Unlike those who choose to forget history, Chomsky’s works bring forth the facts that intellectuals who serve power interest would have one forget. Concerning Iraq, for instance, it is not typically recalled that the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, as well as Russia and conservative Arab states were consistent supporters of the Iraqi regime during its worst days of human rights violation and aggression. Following Iraq’s invasion of Iran, Western authorities provided substantial military and financial support, which continued until its invasion of Kuwait. Chomsky reminds his readers that Iraq was a favored ally of the Western countries when it was repressing Kurds and allegedly using chemical weapons against them.

In Lieu of a Conclusion

Chomsky’s recent speeches, booklets, and articles are stark because they remind those in the West, who care to know, of patterns of deaths and destruction that today engulf the world in all corners: Afghanistan, the Balkans, Colombia, East Timor, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and Turkey.

George Orwell (1947 [1946]) once remarked:

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”

It is hard to surpass Orwell’s observations about the use of language as it pertains to the mainstream media’s and intellectuals’ rationalization of aggression and violence. The ease with which Anglo-American leadership continues to masquerade state-sponsored violence, terrorism, bombing of civilians, occupation, control over the resources of the Third World, and wars of conquest as legitimate counteractions against terrorism is a testimony to the uncritical acceptable in mainstream press and scholarship of the terms of and the legitimization of unaccountable and corrupt power.

It takes common sense, commitment to honesty, and above all courage to uncover propaganda. Chomsky has long maintained that his political analysis has nothing to do with his work on linguistics. Indeed Zinn (2001), Parenti (2002) and others’ works in a similar vein prove that the skills of the linguists are unnecessary in telling the truth. The value of Chomsky’s political work (1988, 2002, 2003) rests in his detailed mastery of the facts, his commitment to liberty, and his compassion for fellow human beings. For the sake of broader public discussion of war and terrorism, it is hoped that the mainstream media will pay attention to those who support peace and justice, refuse to sing hymns of war, and challenge the rationalization of state-sponsored terrorism.

*Abu Spinoza is a pseudonym for an economist.

References:

Arnove, Anthony, ed., (2002). Iraq under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War, updated edition. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1988). Language and Politic, ed., Carlos Peregin Otero. Cheektowage, NY: Black Rose Books.

Chomsky, Noam (2001). 9-11, ed., Greg Ruggiero. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.

Chomsky, Noam (2002). Understanding power: The Indispensable Chomsky, eds., Peter R. Mitchell and John Schoeffel. New York, NY: The New Press.

Chomsky, Noam (2003). Power and Terrorism: Post-9/11 Talk and Interviews, eds., John Junkerman and Takei Masakazu. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, and Tokyo, Japan: Little More.

Herman, Edward and Noam Chomsky (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Herold, Marc W., (2002a). “A Dossier on the Civilian Victims of United States’ Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting [revised].”

Herold, Marc W., (2002b). “Truth about Afghan Civilian Causalties comes Through American Lens for the U.S. Corporate Media,” in Peter Phillips and Project Censored, Censored 2003. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press 2002.

Hitchens, Christopher (2001a). “Against Rationalization,” The Nation, October 8.

Hitchens, Christopher (2001b). “The Ends of War,” The Nation, December 17.

Honderich, Ted (2002). After the Terror. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

Huntington, Samuel (1997). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Lewis, Bernard (1994). Islam and the West. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nagy, Thomas J., (2001). “The Secret Behind the Sanctions,” The Progressive (August).

Orwell, George (1947 [1946]). Politics and the English language: An Essay. New York, NY: Typophiles, 1947.

Parenti, Michael (2002). The Terrorism Trap: September 11 and Beyond. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.

Vidal, Gore (2002). Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated. New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books.

United Nations (2002). “Likely Humanitarian Scenarios,” (December 10th).

World Bank (2001). “Afghanistan: World Bank Approach Paper.”

World Bank (2003). “Afghanistan: Transition Support Strategy.”

Zinn, Howard (2001). Terrorism and War, ed., Anthony Arnove. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.

More from Abu Spinoza

Comments (0)

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: Pledge of Grievance -->

<-- Previous: Parable for Cancun

Support Press Action