Noam Chomsky on the prospects for war

Date: 24th Sept '01

Name: Newsbhoy

Noam Chomsky on the prospects for war

American activist, writer and broadcaster, Noam Chomsky on the prospects for
war

Tue Sep 18 '01

"If Pakistan does submit to U.S. 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. At this point we are
considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human
society."

Interviewing Chomsky on Radio B92, Belgrade

~ Why do you think these attacks happened?

To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of
the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the
Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama
Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless inspired
by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his control. Let us assume
that this is true. Then to answer your question a sensible person would try
to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the sentiments of the large reservoir of
supporters he has throughout the region. About all of this, we have a great
deal of information. Bin Laden has been interviewed extensively over the
years by highly reliable Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent
correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk (London 'Independent'), who
has intimate knowledge of the entire region and direct experience over
decades.

A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden, became a militant Islamic
leader in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of
the many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed
by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm
to the Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts
suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct contact with
the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the
CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The
end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one,
from groups recklessly financed by the Americans" ('London
Times'correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a specialist on the region). These
"Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from
Afghanistan)carried out terror operations across the border in Russia, but
they terminated these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against
Russia,which they despise, but against the Russian occupation and Russia's
crimes against Muslims.

The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They
joined Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just
as it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need
not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the
Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are also fighting the
Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying out
terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin Laden
and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established
permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- 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 shrines.

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: Washington's decisive diplomatic,
military, and economic intervention in support of the killings, the harsh
and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which
Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the
occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the
resources, the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions
that are recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the
US, which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts
Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with 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 favored friend and ally of the US
and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the
gassing of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if
Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely
shared.

The 'Wall Street Journal' (Sept. 14) published a survey of opinions of
wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers, professionals,
businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They expressed much the same
views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting Israeli crimes and
blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement for many
years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and
repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing
barriers against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes."
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, as commonly understood by those
who are interested in the facts.

The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To
quote the lead analysis in the 'New York Times' (Sept. 16), the perpetrators
acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom,
tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S.
actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge
Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the general stance is not
unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is close to the norm. It
happens to be completely at variance with everything we know, but has all
the merits of self-adulation and uncritical support for power.

It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause "fanatics
to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar.
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, to cite only one of many cases.

What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the American
self preception?

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." Congress has authorized 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. That is
easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people would have reacted if
Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the U.S. 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.

As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex. One
should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites generally
have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to this question is,
in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many other cases, with
sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate fanaticism, blind
hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all know that very
well.

Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to 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
hardline elements of the leadership: increased militarization, 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.

After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. 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.

The U.S. 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 U.S. 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. 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. 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.

If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may
come under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan
does submit to U.S. 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. At this point we are considering the possibility
of a war that may destroy much of human society.

Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an
attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts
expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as
he hopes. Even if he 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. It is
worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck driven into a U.S.
military base -- drove the world's major military force out of Lebanon 20
years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless. And suicide
attacks are very hard to prevent.

"The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so?

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. 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. The same is true, even more dramatically,
of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal
wars, meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has
not been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA
in England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally to
the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have an
enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture.

It is correct to say that 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, in a familiar dynamic, 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 honorable course.

Back to discussion page                    RA home page