Bear with me. You know it funny; for at least a decade, in the African-American community (at least in the places I've lived over that decade where I've supported the local barbershop, i.e. Dallas, Miami Beach, D.C. Metro, Phila. Metro, and NYC Metro), the debate has raged: Is Luther Vandross gay? Now, for me, my thing has always been "Who gives a fuck? The man did not ask to be recognized on his sexual orientation. He submitted by virtue of his albums that he is a singer. So the question is not any of this extraneous stuff, the question is, CAN HE SING?" Which, of course, he can. I apply a similar analysis to Noam Chomsky, and deride critics accordingly. I've heard "shoot the messenger"-type analyses of Chomsky that range from "He's arrogant" to "He's extremist" to "He's insane,"...yes, yes...fine...even if those who submit all that are RIGHT, the question remains: IS CHOMSKY ACCURATE? Because in the end, I don't buy albums based upon sexual orientation, and I don't buy INTO arguments based upon anything but a compelling accuracy. You've got to be able to sing; you've got to be able to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Now, with that in mind, I'll ask you to read the following from Chomsky, and answer the question, IS THIS ACCURATE? If you submit "No," then there is no further discussion expected from you along these lines. If you answer "Yes," then the question must be "How does this affect our thinking, if at all, on these issues?" The excerpt is from "9-11," by Chomsky, pages 23-26; it's a question and answer format, as the entire "book" is a collection of interviews of Chomsky on the 9-11 tragedy The interviews that comprise this excerpt were conducted on 9/20 and 9/21 of 2001. Q. Is the nation's so-called war on terrorism winnable? If yes, how? If no, then what should the Bush administration do to prevent attacks like the ones that struck New York and Washington? CHOMSKY: If we want to consider this question seriously, we should recognize that in much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason. We might bear in mind, for example, that in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force" (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law. Only one of countless examples. But to keep to the narrow question - the terrorism of others directed against us - we know quite well how the problem should be addressed, if we want to reduce the threat rather than escalate it. When IRA bombs were set off in London, there was no call to bomb West Belfast, or Boston, the source of much of the financial support for the IRA. Rather, steps were taken to apprehend the criminals, and efforts were made to deal with what lay behind the resort to terror. When a federal building was blown up in Oaklahoma City, there were calls for bombing the Middle East, and it probably would have happened if the source turned out to be there. When it was found to be domestic, with links to the ultra-right militias, there was no call to obliterate Montana and Idaho. Rather, there was a search for the perpetrator, who was found, brought to court, and sentenced, and there were efforts to understand the grievances that lie behind such crimes and to address the problems. Just about every crime - whether a robbery in the streets or colossal atrocities - has reasons, and commonly we find that some ofthem are serious and should be addressed. There are proper and lawful ways to proceed in the case of crimes, whatever their scale. And there are precedents. A clear example is the one I just mentioned, on that should be entirely uncontroversial, because of the reaction of the highest international authorities. Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed; it may never recover. The international terrorist attack was accompanied by a devastating economic war, which a small country isloated by a vengeful and cruel superpower could scarcely sustain, as the leading historians of Nicaragua, Thomas Walker for one, have reviewed in detail. The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which ruled in their favor, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the Court judgment with contempt, respondign with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. alone vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed with the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That's the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobody's going to block them. That's what they're being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies... ...That is the course one follows if the intention is to reduce the probability of further atrocities. There is another course: react with extreme violence, and expect to escalate the cycle of violence, leading to still further atrocities such as the one that is inciting the call for revenge. The dynamic is very familiar. Let's not have the Chomsky-bashing; rather, let's have the clear and insightful affirmation or refutation of the compelling accuracy and weighty relevance of the above.
Interestingly, Chomsky is largely guilty of the sin which you rightfully condemn. He really does not get to the issue of how to, or if one can, win the war on terrorism, and instead tries to talk about how bad the U.S. is. I guess he makes a vague claim that terrorism should be combatted through arrests and trials, rather than war. That's cool, as long as it works. Of course, it doesn't always work. Chomsky doesn't say what to do then. As for his worldview, I find it a bit patronizing to assume that the reason for misery in every third world country is due to U.S. or some other Western colonial intervention. These certainly have some affects, but Chomsky pretty much can't face up to the fact that these countries have problems of their own that are exploited, though not caused, by the U.S. To assume that, say, the Middle East would be filled with peaceful democratic countries were it not for the U.S. and Israel pretty much ignores a few centuries of a track record that is not one to brag of at all. The U.S. has done some pretty horrendous things, but has also been a force for good in this world, both in using it's military might as well as it's diplomacy. U.S. foreign policy is as much about the Marshall Plan and Camp David accords as it is about supporting the Shah or the Contras.
I guess I don't see it as vague. I see Chomsky as walking us through what other nations have done when confronted with acts judged as unlawful, and then submitting that the U.S. should at least START with embracing the idea of lawful methods of catching criminals. Interestingly, you sumbit that "arrests and trials" are "cool, as long as it works." Let me ask you this: if ALL the lawful methods of stopping terrorism did NOT work, is there any limit you would then place on the methods the U.S. could then employ to "deal with the threat?" In other words, is the U.S., in your opinion, allowed to transform itself into whatever it has to become to win, to become "safe"? I find the rest of your post (asking for balance in Chomsky's view of the U.S.) eminently fair; maybe its a belief that a balanced message is not in the mainstream domain that drives Chomsky to describe the "dark side" of the U.S. so fervently; maybe its that he believes that, on balance, we've done far more harm to other nations than help.
In response to what can the U.S. do. I believe war is a last resort. I prefer diplomatic solutions so long as they don't amount to appeasement, extraditing and convicting terrorists to the fullest extent possible, and stregthening border security to the extent that it doesn't amount to a violation of legitimate civil rights (being forced to check in a couple of hours early at the airport is not a violation of civil rights in my book, forcing all Arab males to submit to full body cavity searches is). If a threat doesn't exist, I cannot rule out the use of military force. I do not thing war is illegal per se, but I don't think that it should be done except out of necessity. I don't think the war against Iraq meets that threshold, at least not yet. As for what would we become. Even in war you have rules, and I couldn't justify wholesale civilian massacres, etc. Nor would I justify mass detention of Arabs as was done with the Japanese in WW II.
I guess many places have very different definitions of "necessity" and "rules". The question remains, however: is what Chomsky posed factually correct, and the conclusions he draws eminently plausible, or no? If no, why not?
Basically, this is Chomsky simply summarizing many of the calls from the left in the aftermath of 9/11: "Terrorism is a crime, not an act of war." And this is of course correct: the only way it makes sense to even use the term "War on Terror" is if you are openly speaking metaphorically. Sure, it's a metaphoric war. Just like the "War on Drugs," or dentists calling for "War on Plaque." I'm not sure where he gets his info on how we dealt with the Patriot Movement, though. "Recognizing and addressing their grievances" is NOT how I remember it.
Nations deal with terrorism in different ways. Hafez Assad bombed the city of Hama, killing over 30,000 people, to wipe out an entire resistance movement. The British may not have bombed Belfast, and the Israelis may not have carpet bombed the West Bank, but both have gone beyond traditional law enforcement means to deal with terror. That's not to say anything goes in fighting terrorism. I certainly don't think Assad is a model for the U.S., or England or Israel for that matter. But if your question is "Is Chomsky Correct" in his assertion that terrorism is in fact dealt with in a law enforcement capacity in all cases, the answer is "No." I want the U.S. to live up to its ideals, so I do not want it to run off to war using "terror" as an excuse. But when nations harbor and give support to terrorists, that may have to be an option in some circumstances. I do not think we should go to war in Iraq, and I even thought we went into Afghanistan prematurely. But to say that the use of the military is never the way to address terror is incorrect.
I would say the greater questions are: Is it indeed appropriate for the U.S. to claim that it is "the greatest nation/democracy/model of the rule of law in the world" when it is clearly not prepared to embrace the "lesser" models of violent restraint in favor of law that a "democratic" Britain, a "communist" Nicaragua, and countless other nations employ when they use the law to appeal an injustice, or to pursue criminals? If it is not, then to whom ought the world be looking for authentic, and not hypocritical (particularly given the example Chomsky is willing to provide both above and throughout the compilation, from which the above is an excerpt) global leadership? See, to me, this is about calling ourselves (the U.S.) to task for claiming a mantle for itself that is EASY to claim when times are good, and DIFFICULT to maintain when times are hard; my premise is that a nation MUST be defined by what it does when times are tough; THAT is what the nation really is, what it really stands for. And when we abandon our commitment to the rule of law(or, more accurately, we begin to reflect in the mainstream discourse the same disdain we've always held for legal bodies and processes that rule against our short-term and mid-term interest, our world-view) when it becomes difficult to STAND for something, then what the fuck ARE we, other than survivalists who transform our values to fit our immediate circumstances? What would the Founders say about that? My sense is that many of them would find Chomsky a futuristic compatriot, and Bush representative of a real dis-ease, a real national sickness...