Chomsky -- selective memory and false doctrine

[Cain]

We recently had a thread on Chomsky and the media. Here's a good sampling of his general approach to U.S. foreign policy.

All people who have any concern for human rights, justice and integrity should be overjoyed by the capture of Saddam Hussein, and should be awaiting a fair trial for him by an international tribunal.

An indictment of Saddam's atrocities would include not only his slaughter and gassing of Kurds in 1988 but also, rather crucially, his massacre of the Shiite rebels who might have overthrown him in 1991.

At the time, Washington and its allies held the "strikingly unanimous view (that) whatever the sins of the Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for his country's stability than did those who have suffered his repression," reported Alan Cowell in the New York Times.

Last December, Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, released a dossier of Saddam's crimes drawn almost entirely from the period of firm U.S.-British support of Saddam.

With the usual display of moral integrity, Straw's report and Washington's reaction overlooked that support.

Such practices reflect a trap deeply rooted in the intellectual culture generally - a trap sometimes called the doctrine of change of course, invoked in the United States every two or three years. The content of the doctrine is: "Yes, in the past we did some wrong things because of innocence or inadvertence. But now that's all over, so let's not waste any more time on this boring, stale stuff."

The doctrine is dishonest and cowardly, but it does have advantages: It protects us from the danger of understanding what is happening before our eyes.

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sometimes, the repetition of this democracy-building posture reaches the level of rapturous acclaim.

Last month, for example, David Ignatius, the Washington Post commentator, described the invasion of Iraq as "the most idealistic war in modern times" - fought solely to bring democracy to Iraq and the region.

Ignatius was particularly impressed with Paul Wolfowitz, "the Bush administration's idealist in chief," whom he described as a genuine intellectual who "bleeds for (the Arab world's) oppression and dreams of liberating it."

Maybe that helps explain Wolfowitz's career - like his strong support for Suharto in Indonesia, one of the last century's worst mass murderers and aggressors, when Wolfowitz was ambassador to that country under Ronald Reagan.

As the State Department official responsible for Asian affairs under Reagan, Wolfowitz oversaw support for the murderous dictators Chun of South Korea and Marcos of the Philippines.

All this is irrelevant because of the convenient doctrine of change of course.

So, yes, Wolfowitz's heart bleeds for the victims of oppression - and if the record shows the opposite, it's just that boring old stuff that we want to forget about.

One might recall another recent illustration of Wolfowitz's love of democracy. The Turkish parliament, heeding its population's near-unanimous opposition to war in Iraq, refused to let U.S. forces deploy fully from Turkey. This caused absolute fury in Washington.

Wolfowitz denounced the Turkish military for failing to intervene to overturn the decision. Turkey was listening to its people, not taking orders from Crawford, Texas, or Washington, D.C.

The most recent chapter is Wolfowitz's "Determination and Findings" on bidding for lavish reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Excluded are countries where the government dared to take the same position as the vast majority of the population.

Wolfowitz's alleged grounds are "security interests," which are non-existent, though the visceral hatred of democracy is hard to miss - along with the fact that Halliburton and Bechtel corporations will be free to "compete" with the vibrant democracy of Uzbekistan and the Solomon Islands, but not with leading industrial societies.

What's revealing and important to the future is that Washington's display of contempt for democracy went side by side with a chorus of adulation about its yearning for democracy.

To be able to carry that off is an impressive achievement, hard to mimic even in a totalitarian state.

Iraqis have some insight into this process of conquerors and conquered.

The British created Iraq for their own interests. When they ran that part of the world, they discussed how to set up what they called Arab facades - weak, pliable governments, parliamentary if possible, so long as the British effectively ruled.

Who would expect that the United States would ever permit an independent Iraqi government to exist? Especially now that Washington has reserved the right to set up permanent military bases there, in the heart of the world's greatest oil-producing region, and has imposed an economic regime that no sovereign country would accept, putting the country's fate in the hands of Western corporations.

Throughout history, even the harshest and most shameful measures are regularly accompanied by professions of noble intent - and rhetoric about bestowing freedom and independence.

An honest look would only generalize Thomas Jefferson's observation on the world situation of his day: "We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

 

[Otther]

His timescale for the "doctrine of change" is a little off. Every 4 or 8 years seems like a solid estimate to me...

And see, this is the trouble I see with blaming the US for it's helping dictators in the past. It is the US's fault... but that US was in control of another goverment, and you can't blame the current goverment for the past ones' errors. If there is anyone to blame it is the american people... and yet no-one seems to want to standup and say "You stupid gits, think before you vote!"

 

[a_unique_person]

Governments come and go, but the institutions of the Military Industrial Complex persist.

It is also a little hard for voters to know what is going on when they are told lies repeatedly.

 

[Ziggurat]

International tribunal my ass. He needs to be tried by the Iraqis themselves. That is proper from both a legal and moral standpoint. Not surprised that Chomsky doesn't want it that way, though.

 

[Chaos]

International tribunal my ass. He needs to be tried by the Iraqis themselves. That is proper from both a legal and moral standpoint.

He cannot have a fair tribunal in Iraq. People there are biased either towards him (former cronies) or against him (everyone else).

Therefore, the tribunal must be international. Not because an international tribunal would likely get to another conclusion, but because this is the proper thing to do.

Not surprised that Chomsky doesn't want it that way, though.

Why not? Turned into a psychic lately?


By the way, I can see why our resident hyperpatriotic right-wingers don´t like Chomsky. He is not infected by their "whatever we do is right" sickness.

 

[Tony]

By the way, I can see why our resident hyperpatriotic right-wingers don´t like Chomsky. He is not infected by their "whatever we do is right" sickness.

Chomsky's "whatever we do is wrong" sickness is much worse.

 

[Chaos]

Chomsky's "whatever we do is wrong" sickness is much worse.

His sickness is "I will tell you what we do wrong". This is also called "constructive criticism".

D@mn it, are you blind or what? He is trying to HELP America!

 

[Grammatron]

His sickness is "I will tell you what we do wrong". This is also called "constructive criticism".

D@mn it, are you blind or what? He is trying to HELP America!

There's a difference between criticizing and finding conspiracy theories in everything the government does.

 

[Tony]

His sickness is "I will tell you what we do wrong". This is also called "constructive criticism".

Just like Rush Limbaugh? Actually no, Rush Limbaugh is merely a partisan demagogue; Chomsky is a conspiracy theory wacko.

D@mn it, are you blind or what? He is trying to HELP America!

So? Like that is suppose to matter? Jerry Fallwell is trying to "help" America too.

 

[corplinx]

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Sooo. Chomsky is supposed to be an intellectual but he falls for history revision memes?

The way some of you guys look at him like a demigod scares me.

Get a life.

 

[a_unique_person]

Sooo. Chomsky is supposed to be an intellectual but he falls for history revision memes?

The way some of you guys look at him like a demigod scares me.

Get a life.

You seem to be forgetting that Saddam was told numerous times that if he gave up the WMD, there would be no invasion. Who's the revisionist?

 

[Grammatron]

For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers.

The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East.

Since when? As far as I know the reason remains the same; Saddam was supporting terrorism, did not report what he did with his WMDs and because of such profitable resource as oil was in the position to do so indefinitely no matter how many sanctions UN put on him. Thus, the only way to change that was to remove Saddam and install a democracy.

 

[digitalmcq]

Chomsky's "whatever we do is wrong" sickness is much worse.

I'm not sure I understand where you get the idea that Chomsky believes that everything the US does is wrong. I've seen lectures and interviews where he has gone on praising the US as the most free country in the world (and has repeatedly attacked France and other countries for trying to curb the free speech rights of their citizens). Chomsky also spends a great deal of time discussing the philosophies of the founding fathers of the US (who he has a great deal of respect for). It is the policies of our government that Chomsky takes issue with. Why is this so wrong?

Also, I'd like someone to actually reference a so-called 'conspiracy' that Chomsky has supposedly hyped. Pick an example and we'll discuss it. Saying he is a conspiracy nut is a little empty unless you can demonstrate it.

 

[Cain]

By any standard the above criticisms are pathetically weak.

There's a difference between criticizing and finding conspiracy theories in everything the government does.

I am intensely curious to see you identify the conspiracy theory here, or how it fits within such a framework.


Corplinx provides with three characteristically idiotic remarks:

Sooo. Chomsky is supposed to be an intellectual but he falls for history revision memes?

How is it revisionism? We were constantly told Iraq posed a threat to the world because Saddam possessed biological and chemical weapons ("he even gassed his own people!" (with U.S. support in the 80s)) and he was developing nuclear capabilities. Cheney especially emphasized that point. Bush and Rice warned against the smoking gun coming in "the form of a mushroom cloud." The threat was "urgent", "grave", "signficiant" and so on. We needed to unleash an army on Baghdad before it was necessary for an army of firefighters, police, and medical personell descend on an American city in response to a catastrophic event.

Weapons of mass destruction have not been found even in spite of Rumsfeld's blustering comment that we know where they are (apparently in or around Tikrit).

How often does the administration and the administration's loyal apologists now discuss weapons of mass destruction? Nah, we were there to liberate Iraq (because we love democracy).

That was the primary justification and Bush linked into the broader fight of the war on terror.

If you want to insist that we're now fighting terrorism by installing a democracy -- which remains to be seen -- fine.

That's just not at all persuasive, however, to anyone who paid any attention to the news in the run-up to war.

This is why non-Republicans and centrists and quasi liberals are better apologists. They're willing to criticize and disagree with the Bush team on a few minor points thereby lending them credibility on the more important issue of war in general. (Think Thomas Friedman or Christopher Hitchens).

The way some of you guys look at him like a demigod scares me.

Get a life.

In fact, I would fault Chomsky for his own selective memory for something he recently said to the _Independent_ about his past comments on Afghanistan. There's no urge to sidetrack this thread with unnecessary praise or irrelevant criticism.

I've seen lectures and interviews where he has gone on praising the US as the most free country in the world (and has repeatedly attacked France and other countries for trying to curb the free speech rights of their citizens).

Adding to this, I've heard Chomsky say before 9/11 that France is an "illiterate country" and he generally avoids it when giving talks abroad.

 

[corplinx]

Corplinx provides with three characteristically idiotic remarks:

You should be a creationist, your style reminds me a lot of them.

 

[a_unique_person]

Since when? As far as I know the reason remains the same; Saddam was supporting terrorism, did not report what he did with his WMDs and because of such profitable resource as oil was in the position to do so indefinitely no matter how many sanctions UN put on him. Thus, the only way to change that was to remove Saddam and install a democracy.

The only problem with this logic is that right up until the last months before the invasion, the US was saying that if Saddam could prove he had no WMD, or gave up what he had, the invasion would not proceed.

 

[Grammatron]

The only problem with this logic is that right up until the last months before the invasion, the US was saying that if Saddam could prove he had no WMD, or gave up what he had, the invasion would not proceed.

There's no problem with that logic. Like I said, Saddam refused to report what he had which was a final nail in the coffin.

 

[Suddenly]

You should be a creationist, your style reminds me a lot of them.

You mean how they tend to give terse dismissals with little or no supporting facts or argument?

Or am I just thinking of your hated "woo-woos" in general?

 

[corplinx]

You mean how they tend to give terse dismissals with little or no supporting facts or argument?

Or am I just thinking of your hated "woo-woos" in general?

I was just trying to bait Cain. These Chomsky marks are fun to play with. Did you read the thread where I "reviewed" the video manufacturing consent?

 

[corplinx]

You mean how they tend to give terse dismissals with little or no supporting facts or argument?

Okay, I'll bite. I think that Cain and Chomsky should support the arguement that the war was all about WMD instead of me debunking this popular urban legend.

A. Bush had a stated policy of regime change even before 9/11
B. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his links to international terrorism as part of the war on terror
C. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam because of his unaccounted for WMD (and his propensity to use them in the past)
D. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to stabilize the region
E. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam to liberate his people (a nice gesture since the west really screwed them by not supporting the post-Gulf I insurgency)
F. Bush claimed we needed to take out Saddam since Saddam was in violation of the treaty that was supposed to end the first Gulf War


Chomsky says:
"For example, the Bush administration's original reason for going to war in Iraq was to save the world from a tyrant developing weapons of mass destruction and cultivating links to terror. Nobody believes that now, not even Bush's speech writers."

This is rubbish and all of you know it.

Furthermore:
"The new reason is that we invaded Iraq to establish a democracy there and, in fact, to democratize the whole Middle East."

Did Chomsky miss all of the freedom and liberation talk in Bush's state of the union speech before the war? He is such an intellectual you know, that I am sure he actually pays attention to current events and watches the raw sources since the media manufactures consent.

I may have missed the quote where Bush said:
"Iraq was step one of our master plan to democratize the entire mideast". Would someone point out this quote for me?


Noam Chomsky is a great intellectual........



FOR ME TO POOP ON!