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."
To the extent that no state is literally "innocent" because this is a messy, complicated world, and the only possible "innocent" state would be one that no longer existed because its policies had allowed it to be overrun by the predators and picked over by the scavengers, I am happy to say the U.S. is not an "innocent," i.e. naive, milksop, easily manipulated country. But this doesn't make it a "terrorist" state, or make it deserving of terrorism, and Chomsky was just plain wrong about the Afghan civilians. Chomsky is so wrong so often, he makes Francis Fukuyama look like the Oracle of Delphi.
Article comments
1 - Jamie
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.
2 - Eric Olsen
Thanks Jamie, though I was rather preachy.
3 - Bill Sherman
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?
4 - Eric Olsen
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.
5 - moriveth
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.
6 - M. Upton
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.
7 - Thatsrightjack
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?