[Peace-discuss] Q&A on the war

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Chomsky on War
	ZNet forum questions and responses by Noam Chomsky;
	ZNet Sustainer Program; March 31, 2003

Below are some questions and answers from the ZNet forum system; the ZNet
forums are a benefit offered to ZNet sustainers.  Though the questions
have been edited for space, we have tried to retain the original intent of
the questions.

Reasons For War

Q. In recent discussions I've had with people who support a war on Iraq
one of the issues for them which seems to trump all the others is that
they feel Saddam hates America.  Are you aware of any actions or
statements by Saddam Hussein that would support such an opinion? Has
Saddam ever threatened the U.S.?

CHOMSKY. I have no idea what's in Saddam's head, and even if he hates
America (whatever that means), the idea that that could be a justification
for war is so lunatic that it's not worth discussing. Even the Nazis
didn't go that far.

Has Saddam ever posed a threat to the US? The idea verges on absurdity. Up
to 1990, when he was committed by far his worst crimes, he was a friend
and ally of those running the show in Washington today. Far from seeing
him as a threat, they even provided him with means to develop weapons of
mass destruction. The Gulf war and the sanctions reduced Iraq to the
weakest military force in the region. Even the countries Saddam invaded
don't regard him as a threat, and have been trying for years to
reintegrate Iraq into the region, over strong US objections. The US is
alone in the world, to my knowledge, in regarding Iraq as a threat, either
military or terrorist. By "US" here I mean the image portrayed by
government-media since September, primarily, which has had its effects on
popular attitudes.

Super Patriotism, The Media, and Ideological Obedience

Q. Where does this superpatriotism come from, this arrogance (as many
non-Americans see it), this idea that the US is almost God-like, that it
can do no wrong, that whatever it says or does -no matter how unfair
objectively- is ok simply because it's the US that does it? When did it
originate? Was it always a feature of the American psyche? I suspect the
elites and their propaganda system promote this actively and consciously,
but did they create it?

CHOMSKY. It is pretty astonishing. Within two years the Bush
administration has succeeded in making the US the most feared nation in
the world, and the most disliked, even hated. That's quite an achievement.
Conspiracy theorists might conclude they're really working for Bin Laden.

On the superpatriotism, yes, it runs through the culture, from way back,
but it's not unusual. Britain in its day in the sun was much the same, and
the echoes still reverberate. The classic essay on "humanitarian
intervention" by John Stuart Mill is a remarkable example -- and
interesting particularly because he was a person of quite unusual
intelligence and integrity. And the same was true of every other
conquering power that I know anything about, even small ones, like Israel.

As to what the roots are, that's a hard question. The consistency suggests
it can't be attributed solely to historical peculiarities, though these
surely exist. In the US, for example, it was necessary to find some
justification for eliminating the indigenous population and running the
economy on slavery (including the economy of the north in the early days;
cotton was the oil of the 19th century industrial revolution). And the
only way to justify having your boot on someone's neck is that you are
uniquely magnificent and they are uniquely awful. A leading source of
racism, which persist to the present moment, so deeply entrenched in the
culture -- of the West generally -- that it is far beyond consciousness
and can barely be understood by properly educated people when it is
pointed out.

So the answers to your questions are not likely to be simple. Some have
sought evolutionary scenarios. The trouble is that these can be concocted
for just about anything, and the comparative evidence tells us very little
(violent chimpanzees, peaceful bonobo, just as closely related; etc.).

Q.  I am wondering, what is your general assessment of the media's
treatment of the war in this stage? While it is noticeable that an elite
split on the war is a reason for more openness in the media, are you
noticing more critical coverage than usual?

CHOMSKY. I haven't looked at TV except sporadically, including CNN. My
impression (it's only that) is that it's basically cheerleading for the
home team. Almost worthless, except that one can tease out the basic facts
if one can stand the incredible bias, not even concealed. Press coverage
is somewhat more complex, though it still overwhelmingly proceeds within
the anticipated propaganda framework of an invading army. If you want to
look into the matter, a good way would be to compare what you find abroad,
not too hard now with internet access for British, Irish, and other press,
often in translation these days. I don't like to give a very general
impression, and without more specific query, wouldn't know how to proceed.

A suicide attack by military forces resisting an invasion can't possibly
be called an act of terrorism. Suppose the Iraqi army were surrounding New
York and the Iraqi air force were bombing it unopposed. If an American
carried out a suicide attack against the invading forces, would anyone
call it "terrorism"? Or a violation of the laws of war? Or would we rather
regard it as remarkable heroism, and grant the person an honored place in
history?

The US isn't committing state terrorism. This is aggression, pure and
simple, a textbook case. Even CNN provides more than enough information to
make that conclusion crystal clear. One can perhaps argue that the
aggression is justified on some grounds, but there can hardly be any
argument about what it is. Again, simply reverse the picture. Suppose that
huge Iraqi armies had invaded the US, were attacking cities, etc. Would we
call it "state terrorism"?

It's true that news reporting doesn't adopt that framework when the US is
the invader, but that gives a good part of the answer to your first
question, I think.

Lessons In Power

Q.  I am curious to know where you would stand vis a vis North Korea in
the event of military action.

CHOMSKY.  As far as I am aware, there's a straightforward reason why the
US is not attacking North Korea: it has massed artillery which would
quickly wipe out Seoul. I presume that Pentagon planners are working on
some way to counter that: maybe precision-guided weapons, maybe tactical
nukes, who knows? Certainly not me.

South Korea, Japan, China, in fact just about everyone sane hopes for a
peaceful solution of these problems. The least bad approach, though not a
great one, is to follow their lead. There are no delightful outcomes in
view, but these seem the most hopeful.

Note that the US government is teaching the world a very ugly lesson: if
you want to keep us from attacking you, you'd better have a credible
deterrent. That's one reason why so much of the mainstream establishment
opposes Bush administration adventurism, including the Iraq war, only a
special case. They can see that it is likely to increase proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, terror, and other pretty awful outcomes, if
only as a deterrent to a rogue superpower -- as the US is regarded in much
of the world, maybe most.

Outcomes And Alternatives To War

Q.  With this "war" now underway, and it becoming increasingly clear it
will not be over as quickly as U.S. military planners led the public to
believe, what outcomes for the war should those who opposed it be hoping
for?

CHOMSKY.  The choice was never restricted to war or murderous sanctions
that destroy the society and strengthen the dictator. Another possibility
was allowing the society to reconstitute so Iraqis could determine their
own fate, in which case Saddam Hussein would probably have gone the way of
a string of other tyrants supported by the present incumbents in
Washington when they were supporting him, and plenty of others. Actions to
prevent development of weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems
are a different matter -- and should be undertaken throughout the region
(in accord with UN Resolution 687, to which Bush-Blair-etc. selectively
refer), and in fact the world; we may recall that the nuclear powers are
committed to "good faith" efforts to eliminate these awful weapons, which
may destroy us all.

Right now, what we should hope for is termination of a destructive war,
vast reparations for the victims (or if that is too much to ask, at least
aid, which they can use in their own way to reconstruct their society),
and measures to increase the likelihood that repressive and brutal regimes
will be contained and internally undermined. There's no simple formula
that applies for all cases.

Q.  The idea that the Iraqis can only be freed from a regime like Saddam's
through bombing is really disturbing. This seems to be the message the US
is sending through Operation Iraqi Freedom.  What, in your view, are
alternative policies America could have pursued to help Iraqis other than
resorting to a violent and destructive "liberation"?

CHOMSKY.  Probably most of the population of the world regards the US as
the major threat to world peace, which is a rather serious matter: a
superpower threat to world peace is a threat to survival. If they're
right, the world would be much better off (for example, there'd be a
higher chance for the survival of the species) if the current regime were
eliminated. Or maybe even the institutions of the society. Does it follow
that we all ought to join al-Qaeda and try to achieve that goal?

There are a great many horrible regimes in the world. To take just one,
the world's longest military occupation. There's litttle doubt that those
under the military occupation would be much better off if the occupation
were terminated. Does it follow that we should bomb Tel Aviv?

It's easy to continue. Such questions can, perhaps, be raised by those who
regard themselves as God-like, entitled to determine how to use violence
to "rid the world of evil," as in fairy tales and ancient epics. Are we so
exalted that we have the right to make such decisions?

We all agree that Iraqis would be better off without Hussein. Just as
their subjects would have been better off without Ceausescu, Suharto,
Marcos, Duvalier, Mobutu,..... -- quite a long list. I've just listed
those who were supported by the present incumbents in Washington, just as
they supported Saddam Hussein. Some, like Ceausescu, were easily
comparable to Saddam Hussein as tyrants and torturers. All were
overthrown, from within. There's every reason to believe that SH would
have gone the same way if the US hadn't insisted on devastating the
civilian society, strengthening the tyrant, and compelling people to rely
on him for survival -- the primary effect of the US-UK sanctions, as has
been pointed out for years by the Westerners who know Iraq best, the
administrators of the UN programs, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck --
among others.

If there had been any interest in allowing Iraqis to determine their own
fate, these considerations point the way. But there wasn't. Hence the call
that their torturers must use violence to "liberate them." An intelligent
Martian watching this would be bemused, to put it mildly.

At the time of the 1991 uprising there were many things that could have
been done, had there been any interest in allowing Iraqis to run their own
affairs. It would have been possible, for example, not to authorize Saddam
to use military aircraft to crush the uprising. Or not to deny rebels
access to captured Iraqi military equipment.

Inspectors were in the country constantly until 1998. If you review the
details, you'll find that US-UK actions contributed materially to their
withdrawal. They didn't improve the human rights situation, but they did
carry out very extensive disarmament, to the extent that Iraq is now one
of the weakest states in the region. Otherwise it's unlikely the Bush
administration would have attacked.

  ============================
  Carl Estabrook
  Five Litchfield Lane
  Champaign IL 61820 USA
  office 217.244.4105
  mobile 217.369.5471
  residence 217.359.9466
  <cge at shout.net>
  <www.carlforcongress.org>
  ============================