Chomsky Redux
Published October 08, 2002
Gene Healy reviewed Noam Chomsky's 9/11 book here extremely well last month, and since I agree with virtually all of his judgments, I will not reinvent this particular wheel. But I ran across this article that tells us Mr. Chomsky's book has sold well over 100,000 copies, is even now ranked #392 by Amazon, and I couldn't leave these facts unremarked upon.
I have no desire whatsoever to stifle Mr. Chomsky - let the 100 flowers bloom - but his perverse self-hatred and the implication that "we deserved it" need to be fought with all the vigor we can muster. This kind of laughable drivel can't be left unchallenged because a lot of people don't get the joke. Per the NY Times article:
- While the attacks were "horrifying atrocities," he writes, "we can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies."
The United States, he asserts, is "a leading terrorist state," basing his opinion on actions like its interventions in Central America, its imposition of sanctions on Iraq, its support for General Suharto in Indonesia and its backing of what he calls "Israeli atrocities" in the occupied territories.
As for Afghanistan, Professor Chomsky argued against military action, maintaining that an attack by the United States would probably kill "enormous numbers" of "innocent civilians."
There is no possible equivocation of the intentional, cynical, inhuman destruction of over 3,000 truly innocent lives (the terrorists didn't attack a "nation," they attacked individual people from all over the world, none of whom bore any culpability whatsoever for the attacks that took their lives) for the purpose of political theater (mass murder as pamphleteering, I'm surprised Chomsky didn't defend the atrocities as "free speech") with any action the U.S. has EVER taken in defense of itself, its policies, or allies.
I can only hope that a large measure of the Chomsky book's appeal is novelty: its sheer perversity, the audacity of its twisted agitprop. The core of Chomsky's audience is made up of college students in their most experimental, contrarian phases, who are thrilled to be told something naughty that confirms their natural inclination toward mistrust of the "adult world," that buttresses their impulse to rip it all down just because. And Chomsky is an "adult" who tells them these impulses are correct and justified. How fun.
But the fact that he finds an audience, that he influences thinking, that he poisons minds redoubles our duty to tell the other side, to speak up for core American values and the fundamental rightness of the American way, and to renew the stark, almost incomprehensible reality of 9/11 over and over like Sisyphus resolutely pushing his rock up the hill one more time.
- Chomsky Redux
- Published: October 08, 2002
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Filed Under: Books: History, Books: News
- Writer: Eric Olsen
- Eric Olsen's BC Writer page
- Eric Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Thanks Jamie, though I was rather preachy.
Chomsky's an easy target (sad to see a mind once so challenging calcify over time), but I wouldn't worry about all those young-and-innocent college minds being "poisoned" by his writing. After all, when you're in the Marketplace of Ideas aren't you supposed to squeeze the fruit?
Good point Bill, but as I said, I'm afraid his position gives him far more authority than he would otherwise have and his endless blather is taken by many as gospel.
I don't think Chomsky is a very insightful political thinker. But I agree with him to the extent that the 9/11 terrorists became terrorists for actual reasons. These reasons are complex but derive, in part, from anger directed at US actions and policies (some of which have indeed been unsavory, if not quite to the extent that Chomsky thinks). And it's in our interest to understand these reasons (support for Israel, the Shah and other despotic regimes, our decadent culture, and so forth), even if we think our policies are wholly justified.
I honestly can't see how Oliver North himself could quarrel with the above. (Recalling the Susan Sontag furor, it hardly takes an Ollie...)
This does not mean that the attacks were justified, that our policies were the only reason for the attack, or even that our policies are wrong and should be changed (though the latter is frequently the implication of many lefties--Chomsky certainly included).
Chomsky isn't saying that US citizens "deserved" to die in terrorist attacks. He's arguing that the attacks occurred as a consequence of US actions--that is, US policy indirectly helped create a world in which there are a number of fanatics who want to kill Americans. It's possible to hate America a lot less than Chomsky and still grasp the distinction.
Action and reaction. If we fight against an enemy, there are going to be left-overs that continue on their war.
The thing to remember is that terrorist leaders are usually educated individuals who are after power. They will create a "cause" to gather followers, then twist history to justify that "cause". Successful attacks increase the leaders' popularity, and then increase their following and power. Addressing "root causes" does not erase past wrongs, perceived or otherwise, so does nothing to end terrorism.
Interesting to read a few years later. And interesting to observe that after these years Chomsky is "about right" on most acounts. The invasion of Agfanistan is a fiasco, with huge human costs and results for the average person just as bad as it was with the Taliban power (who of course the US indirectly helped to power with the aid of good friends Pakistan) - or worse for some in the world with the resumption of the opium trade.
US actions abroad (Iraq invasion is a clear illustration)continue to increase terror. Even the CIA say so. On what basis do you think differently?
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/1167)
Preach on. Chomsky has been spouting idiocies for years. Sadly, it's taken 9/11 and the emotion and willpower it stirred up for people to start being outraged by the outrageous.