[Peace-discuss] Liberal account of terrorism

[C. G. Estabrook]

[It was reported that a principal source for Obama's August 1 foreign 
policy speech (an account of which was posted here with the subject line 
"Obama's take out") was Samantha Power, author of "'A Problem From 
Hell': America and the Age of Genocide" (2002). She teaches at Harvard's 
Kennedy School of Government, an institution the reputation of which is 
directly proportional to the distance from Harvard Square.  She wrote a 
review essay for the front page of the 29 July NYT Book Review, entitled 
"Our [sic] War on Terror"  <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/
books/review/Power-t.html?ex=1187496000&en=e337832d456ebd60&ei=5070>.
Below Noam Chomsky offers an extensive comment on this leading liberal 
account of terrorism. --CGE]


It was an interesting article, and her work, and its popularity, gives 
some insight into the reigning intellectual culture.

There are many interesting aspects to the article.  One is that 
"terrorism" is implicitly defined as what THEY do to US, excluding what 
WE do to THEM.  But that's so deeply engrained in the state religion 
that it's hardly worth mentioning.

A little more interesting is Power's tacit endorsement of the Bush 
doctrine that states that harbor terrorists are no different from 
terrorist states, and should be treated accordingly: bombed and invaded, 
and subjected to regime change.   There is, of course, not the slightest 
doubt that the US harbors terrorists, even under the narrowest 
interpretation of that term: e.g., by the judgment of the Justice 
Department and the FBI, which accused Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch of 
dozens of terrorist acts and urged that he be deported as a threat to US 
security.  He was pardoned by Bush I, and lives happily in Florida, 
where he has now been joined by his associate Luis Posada, thanks to 
Bush II's lack of concern about harboring terrorists.  There are plenty 
of others, even putting aside those who have offices in Washington. 
Like John Negroponte, surely one of the leading terrorists of the late 
20th century, not very controversially, so naturally appointed to the 
position of counter-terrorism Czar by Bush II, with no particular notice.

Even keeping to the completely uncontroversial cases, like Bosch, it 
follows that Power and the NY Times are calling for the bombing of 
Washington.  But -- oddly -- the Justice Department is not about to 
indict them, though people are rotting in Guantanamo on far lesser 
charges.  What is interesting and enlightening is that no matter how 
many times trivialities like this are pointed out -- and it's been many 
times -- it is entirely incomprehensible within the intellectual 
culture.  That reveals a very impressive level of subordination to 
authority and indoctrination, well beyond what one would expect in 
totalitarian states.

A little more subtle, perhaps, is her observation that "if you continue 
to believe (as I do) that there is a moral difference between setting 
out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians 
unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective, you 
will indeed find "On Suicide Bombing" disturbing, if not always in the 
way he intends." Let's accept her judgment and proceed.

Evidently, a crucial case is omitted, which is far more depraved than 
massacring civilians intentionally.  Namely, knowing that you are 
massacring them but not doing so intentionally because you don't regard 
them as worthy of concern.  That is, you don't even care enough about 
them to intend to kill them.  Thus when I walk down the street, if I 
stop to think about it I know I'll probably kill lots of ants, but I 
don't intend to kill them, because in my mind they do not even rise to 
the level where it matters.  There are many such examples.  To take one 
of the very minor ones, when Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical 
facility in Sudan, he and the other perpetrators surely knew that the 
bombing would kill civilians (tens of thousands, apparently).   But 
Clinton and associates did not intend to kill them, because by the 
standards of Western liberal humanitarian racism, they are no more 
significant than ants.  Same in the case of tens of millions of others.

I've written about this repeatedly, for example, in 9/11.  And I've been 
intrigued to see how reviewers and commentators (Sam Harris, to pick one 
egregious example) simply cannot even see the comments, let alone 
comprehend them.  Since it's all pretty obvious, it reveals, again, the 
remarkable successes of indoctrination under freedom, and the moral 
depravity and corruption of the dominant intellectual culture.

It should be unnecessary to comment on how Western humanists would react 
if Iranian-backed terrorists destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies 
in Israel, or the US, or any other place inhabited by human beings.  And 
it is only fair to add that Sudanese too sometimes do rise to the level 
of human beings.  For example in Darfur, where their murder can be 
attributed to Arabs, the official enemy (apart, that is, from "good 
Arabs," like the tyrants who rule Saudi Arabia, "moderates" as Rice and 
others explain).

There's a lot more like this.  It's of some interest that Power is 
regarded -- and apparently regards herself -- as a harsh critic of US 
foreign policy.  The reason is that she excoriates Washington for not 
paying enough attention to the crimes of others.  It's informative to 
look through her best-seller Problem from Hell to see what is said about 
US crimes.  There are a few scant mentions: e.g., that the US looked 
away from the genocidal Indonesian aggression in East Timor.  In fact, 
as has long been indisputable, the US looked right there and acted 
decisively to expedite the slaughters, and continued to do so for 25 
years, even after the Indonesian army had virtually destroyed what 
remained of the country, when Clinton, under great international and 
domestic pressure, finally told the Indonesian generals that the game 
was over and they instantly withdrew -- revealing, as if we needed the 
evidence, that the immense slaughter could have been easily terminated 
at any point, if anyone cared.  The implications cannot be perceived.

But in general US participation in horrendous crimes is simply ignored 
in Problem from Hell.  Few seem to able to perceive that a similar book, 
excoriating Stalin for not paying enough attention to US crimes, would 
very likely have been very highly praised in the old Soviet Union.  What 
better service could one provide to the cause of massacre, torture, and 
destruction -- by the Holy State and its clients, of course, whose only 
fault is that they do not attend sufficiently to the crimes of others.

I don't think, incidentally, that it would be fair to criticize Power 
for her extraordinary services to state violence and terror.  I am sure 
she is a decent and honorable person, and sincerely believes that she 
really is condemning the US leadership and political culture.  From a 
desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School at 
Harvard, that's doubtless how it looks.  Insufficient attention has been 
paid to Orwell's observations on how in free England, unpopular ideas 
can be suppressed without the use of force.  One factor, he proposed, is 
a good education.  When you have been through the best schools, finally 
Oxford and Cambridge, you simply have instilled into you the 
understanding that there are certain things "it wouldn't do to say" -- 
and we may add, even to think.

His insight is quite real, and important.  These cases are a good 
illustration, hardly unique.

NC