Chomsky on the anniversary of 9/11

Noam Chomsky, 9/7/2:

"September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the United States Government does in the world and how it is perceived.

Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That is all to the good.

It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting for Americans to pretend that their enemies "hate our freedoms", as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons.

The President is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?"

In a staff discussion 44 years ago, president Dwight Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us (in the Arab world), not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic argument: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.


Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, Western-oriented sectors in the region.

To cite just one recent example, in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, internationally recognised regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that, in Pakistan, "there is growing anger that US support is allowing (Musharraf's) military regime to delay the promise of democracy".

Today, Americans do themselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they, too, aspire.

For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.

We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.

In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states', in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower . . . the single greatest external threat to their societies."

Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that on September 11, for the first time, a Western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of Western power. The attack goes far beyond what is sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA or Red Brigade.

The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.

An international Gallup Poll in late September found little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2 per cent in Mexico to 16 per cent in Panama.

The present "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fuelled by US policies towards Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.

One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tension would be to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments).

In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.

Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush No. 1 was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after the Iraqi leader had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today.

As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences.

Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.

They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The President has announced that: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland". That's true.

Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well.

Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honourable solution to the Palestinians, respecting their right to self-determination - that is the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes."

At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally.

Well before September 11, it was understood that, with modern technology, the rich and powerful would lose their near-monopoly of the means of violence and could expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.

If America insists on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity for destruction.

If America devotes its resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", it can not only reduce the threats it faces but also live up to ideals that it professes and that are not beyond reach if Americans choose to take them seriously."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/06/1031115935105.html

[B-Man]

There are some good points in there, but also some absurd ones. For example, he writes:
***
For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him.
***

Bin Laden complaining about U.S. support for corrupt and brutal regimes is absurd. Besides that fact that he is a terrorist who murdered thousands of innocent people, what regime is more brutal and corrupt than the Taliban? Only North Korea and Iraq are in the ballpark, and the U.S. certainly does not support those regimes (we've even included them in the "Axis of Evil"). Yes, the U.S. does support some regimes which are brutal and undemocratic--Saudi Arabia and Pakistan being prime examples--and this is something we should examine. I've posted before that the Saudis are not friends of this country and that it is time we realized that and started acting accordingly. But thought also has to be given to the alternatives--if the Saudi royal family is overthrown by militants & religous zealots who are philosphically alligned with Bin Laden, will the world be better or worse off? Do the people of Saudi Arabia really want to be ruled by a Taliban-like government?

Nobody is suggesting that the U.S. is 100% right in every action it takes. But to blame 9/11 on U.S. policy is a sick perversion. Nothing justifies what happened that day, and terrorists should never be given into--that just encourages more terrorism.

Ideally, world peace, and the elimination of hunger & poverty are the only ways to end terrorism. There is just no easy way (or maybe even a tough way) to accomplish those goals. I think the real reason for arab terrorism against the U.S. is jealous--jealousy of our wealth and our way of life. As M has posted before, if these medieval societies don't start to integrate into the modern world, the clashes between the Islamic world and the rest of the world are only going to get worse.

[MMMMMM]

As usual, there are too many points in one post for me to be willing to address them all at once. Some of them are good points. If I were to respond with as many points and to also try to counter as many points as possible, and you were to do the same, and etc., we would quickly have a book-length debate. So I am just going to address one point which strikes me as patently false.

"Today, Americans do themselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they, too, aspire."

While many may hate us for what they see as our policies, many also do indeed hate us for our freedoms and for our secularism. Many consider the Western way of life to be "evil", and see world peace only if Islam becomes the ruling religion of the world. Now that's not a majority who believe this, but it is still a lot. And in Saudi Arabia kids are systematically taught in school to hate the West and the USA through state-sponsored teachings of Wahhabism which comprises 1/3 of the school curriculum. So the above quoted paragraph is only half-true, and the half that is untrue makes the whole paragraph false and propagandist, IMO. That's not to say that the point about US policies is entirely false but that the paragraph as a whole is. Also, I would point out that non-democratic societies harm themselves economically by not truly embracing capitalism and free enterprise. So they are keeping themselves down, unwittingly, through their outmoded style of government--probably much more so than our policies may be restricting them or hampering them (here I am addressing the issue of the Arab world as a whole rather rthan the Israeli/Palestinian issue).

Only someone that has no sensitivity whatsoever would post this on 9-11.

Trying to claim that the USA is responsible for 9-11 is ludicrous. Suicide bombers, and that's what the terrorists on 9-11 were, are religious zealots that believe that only through force will they impose their beliefs upon others. The Middle-Eastern countries are religiuos dictatorships. This won't change if the USA would withdraw from the region.

History will demonstrate that even with the practice of real politik, the USA has been the primary beacon of civil rights in the world. The enemies of Capitalism have all laughed at the thought that capitalist countries even pay lip service to the concept. In the 20th Century, the Germans,Japanese, and Italians on the right had no respect for any human rights. Soviet Communism, Maoist Communism,
and radical Islamic zealots all have made a mockery of hunan rights once they gained power, and proceeded to systematically murder the opposition.

Once again, only a true believer in Osama Bin Laden would post this insane view on 9-11.

[MS Sunshine]

"USA...is becoming the rogue superpower . . . the single greatest external threat to their societies."

I enjoy your posts, they are well written and filled with facts. In this post I agree that most of the Arab world agrees with the reasons for the attacks against the USA. As to the governments, I think some do, some don't and others don't think it is their problem and do not wish it to become their problem.

USA's Middle East policy, for many reasons, may not have been the best.

But this passage from your post, using a poker analogy, implies that the USA is the big stack in a struggle. It lost a big pot to a well executed play. It was a larger pot in a series of pots lost to the same player, where there was very little in penalty to this player. We have been playing weak tight.

If the USA is attacked by an outside group, government or some group being protected by the government, then we should take the game to them. Not just for revenge, but as a warning. We may have caused great harm by our foreign policy, but if you kill Americans there should be the knowledge that those reponsible, their unobservant governments and their innocent countrymen will always pay a terrible price.

If this puts us in the position of the international bully, then this is better than be the international victim.

MS Sunshine

[MMMMMM]

Also, bin-Laden's rantings about American "invasion of Saudi Arabia" ( I never heard it put that way before) are nonsense. The US never "invaded" Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, we not only saved their asses from Saddam at their behest, but we also have paid them untold bilions (if not trillions) of dollars for their oil over the years. We have done nothing but help the Saudis. A few thousand US troops stationed in a remote corner of the country DOING NOTHING inimicable to Saudi interests is bin-Laden's primary complaint, and his excuse for fanatical violence. "Infidels"---that's what it's all about--the deluded twisted hateful passions of a true religious fanatic with a sociopathic violent streak a mile wide.

Chomsky claims a certain "resonance" with these wild-eyed rantings of bin-Laden? I think that says more about Chomsky than it does about America.

[MMMMMM]

John/Leslie:

You make a very good point in this post.

I would just like to add that merely because much of the Arab world may agree with the reasons for the attack on America, that doesn't mean that they're correct. Also, I'm not even convinced that "most" of the Arab world agrees with these reasons, although undoubtedly a great many of them do.

Good post.

Let's assume you are right: some people "hate us" for the things we like best about ourselves and have no interest in changing. Others, however, in NC's words, "admire much about the US ... but hate "official politices that deny them the freedoms to which they, too, aspire."

Question 1: If our government could adopt one of two general strategies consisting of (A) fighting for former (whether through actual war, subversion, economic retalliation or simply propaganda) and ignoring the complaints of the latter, or (B) ignoring the former and fothrightly addressing the complaints of the latter, which strategy would produce more long-range benefits to Americans?

Question 2: Based on what you've seen and heard in the press and from the U.S. government during the last year, which strategy is the U.S. inclined to follow?

[afish]

As a liberal, I am amazed that some leftists (like Alger and Chomsky) try to fit 9/11 into their anti-imperialist world view. In this regard, I found this article interesting. It is titled Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology; To understand Sept. 11, think of it as theater, not politics (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002122).

Well at least you aren't a terrorist wanna be like your friend. Even though you may collude with him in internet poker, everyone can clearly see that you are not a radical Islamic fundamentalist that is hell bent on destroying the American lifesyle.

I think the better analogy is taking a horrible beat from the ultimate maniac when the table is full of maniacs. Perseverence is hard on the ego and requires much humility and discipline (harder still when being taunted by kibbitzers that thrive on conflict, like the commentators on Fox). But the last thing one wants to do is "fight fire with fire" and "take the game to them."

Bin Laden and co. would love nothing more than our going to war in the Middle East (to say nothing of three or four wars there, proposed by a recent guest editorial in the Wall Street Journal that received a favorable reception here).

I don't disagree with all uses of force, but there are two things I know, considering only the practical, pragmatic aspects of policies:

(1) Military force is overrated. Its utility is surprisingly limited (e.g., dropping more tons of bombs on Vietnam than Japan; guessing when we'll get to leave Afghanistan). It also carries a high risk of unexpected and unwelcome consequences (e.g., WWI--Versailles--Hitler; Civil War--emancipation--reconstruction--Jim Crow). If recent history has taught us anything, it's that there's only so much you can do with overwhelming firepower. The commentators and pundits that tend to favor "unleashing" U.S. power are, in the final analysis, no more realistic than those in the 1920's that sought to "outlaw" war.

(2) Diplomacy is underrated. It has a good track record: countries are held together and borders are preserved all over the world, despite hatred and fierce competition, thanks to the intricate deals hammered out by those willing to compromise. It is not merely compelled by weakness, but a forceful alternative in its own right. Consider that the leaders of the American civil rights movement favored pacifism not just because they had to, but because they wanted to create something more powerful than what comes from the barrel of a gun, not just a solution that the loser had to live with but a paradigm shift, a new way of thinking, a higher plain so far above mere "victory" that few could resist loving it.

M, by beginning your post with "Also,..." you seem to be supporting everything in the post you responded to. If so, are you really supporting what I think many would see as the twisted, vengeful comments toward Chris in that post - comments like:

"Once again, only a true believer in Osama Bin Laden would post this insane view on 9-11."

For anyone to call Chris, or Chomsky for that matter, a "true believer in Osama Bin Laden" is not only obviously inaccurate, but is a low blow which should be beneath you. Chris makes his arguments rationally and civilly from what I've seen. It's a shame people like Springfield occasionally are able to manipulate you and others onto what is nearly his level. Please tell me you weren't supporting that statement. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[Chris Alger]

He wasn't discussing 9/11 but our reaction to it, and specifically our reaction to the reaction of others to 9/11. To summarize: we see indifference or even outright applause for a monstrous crime, and some of us interpret this as a world full of favoritism for monstrous criminals, and suggest we act accordingly. There's obviously something else going on, however, relating to a simmering resentment over U.S. power and arrogance (yes, anti-imperialism works as a term), that we don't want to confront or even consider. Frankly, your post is a good example of this kind of myopia.

The WSJ link has an interesting analogy. Alone among the major nations, the U.S swamps all competition in military spending and technology, has more than 800 foreign military installations, eight or so carrier battle groups and a "backup" nuclear force of tens of thousands of warheads capable of landing anywhere we want. And this is just the silhouette of overt military forces. So the writer proposes: we are like Montezuma, excessively trusting and vulnerable, and our unnamed "culturally exotic enemy" is like Cortez. In other words, a year after 9/11 we can still only vaguely define who we're at war with (or should be at war with, he's not clear), and our best analogy amounts to hysterical paranoia.

Give me NC anyday.

"but if you kill Americans there should be the knowledge that those reponsible, their unobservant governments and their innocent countrymen will always pay a terrible price."

The last part of this sentence makes me sick. Making the "innocent countrymen" pay with their lives for something they do not know about, or believe in, is a terrorist act perpetrated by those that are supposed to be of a higher moral standard.

Tuco.

[MMMMMM]

Good questions. The immediate problem, however, is sadly that those who plan to harm us have no intention of halting in their attacks. Therefore the US must respond to the immediate threats, and to force with force.

[andyfox]

"Bin Laden complaining about U.S. support for corrupt and brutal regimes is absurd. Besides that fact that he is a terrorist who murdered thousands of innocent people, what regime is more brutal and corrupt than the Taliban?"

Bin Laden's pronouncements should certainly be described, as Chomsky did, as "rantings." But in fact they do have a certain resonance because of the element of truth in them. The Taliban themselves would not have been in power were in not for the United States.

"to blame 9/11 on U.S. policy is a sick perversion"

I don't see where Chomsky did that. To consider the U.S. blameless for causing trouble in the world, which may sometimes come back to haunt us, is to hide one's head in the sand.

I don't see much difference between Chomsky's "drain the swamp and eliminate mosquitos," and your call for world peace and the elimination of hunger and poverty.

[MMMMMM]

Of course I'm not supporting the entirety of everything in the post above mine--I'm just adding a thought or two to the entire thread. Sorry if the placement of my response bred some confusion.

[MMMMMM]

The main difference I see, Andy, is that Chomsky appears to be blaming the US for most of the swamp in the first place--and while the US is indeed to blame for SOME of it, that fraction is not even close to "most"--especially when you consider all the contributions to the swamp from the despots, fanatics, backwards societies, and of course dictatorships and corrupt monarchies. Hardly all the USA's fault.

[MMMMMM]

Well maybe it is shocking and immoral, but if we just flattened any group who attacked us as a policy, we might sustain fewer attacks in the future. Don't want a bloody nose or to get killed? Don't pick a fight. The kid who breaks the bully's nose probably won't get picked on again for a few years, and the guy in prison who bites through the windpipe of the would be shower-rapist just might be left alone by all the other perverts too. Just something to think about. Immoral or otherwise.

[MMMMMM]

Much of this simmering resentment over US power and arrogance is simply JEALOUSY combined with the unwillingness to do the things which make us successful...open markets, competition, resaonably low taxes, etc. Some of the resentment is of course justified, but much of it isn't, especially when you add in the fact that we contribute more to the world's welfare than any other country. Less per capita perhaps than many other countries...ok, fine...but still MORE. And more is more. More helps others more, and those being helped don't care what percent of income it represents to those who gave it--they just care about how much it is and how long the food will last. So maybe if we produce more we are doing something righ--and others, instead of resenting us, should be emulating us and bettering their own situations at the same time. While this applies a bit to Europe, it ESPECIALLY applies to the Middle East. Monarchies, dictatorships and collectivist societies will always hate growing enterprising democracies, and will always underperform them, and will always therefore resent them the more.

[Tuco]

Then you are no better than the terrorists, and from that point on, I don't want to hear how horrible the terrorists are.

Tuco.

[brad]

we may have to report you to homeland security for that.

in the words of ashcroft, either youre with 'us' (him) or youre for the 'terrorists'.

also those who cry about the 'phantoms of lost liberties' are with the terrorists.

brad

p.s. now that i think about it i guess im a ... (can i still take the 5th?)

[ripdog]

When I was in high school, we had some sort of "day" where different people came and spoke to our class. One guy was a Vietnam veteran who served as a battlefield medic. More specifically, I'll never forget how angry he was that he was sent out to do this job, while some other "[censored]" thought up the glass grenade. He spoke passionately about having to extract tiny shards of glass from his patients and how he thought about the grenade's designer sitting by a pool, enjoying the fruits of his idea. The intensity of his anger was impossible to ignore.

Years ago, I saw an interview with an angry middle eastern man. He was the interviewee, but had somehow managed to turn the tables on the interviewer. He was asking the questions. He asked why the U.S. remained in Saudi Arabia. The interviewer responded predictably: "To protect Saudi Arabia." The man responded with a passionate anger that I hadn't seen since that day back in high school. "Don't tell me that. You're here for your own interests, nothing more. If there were no oil here, you wouldn't care about Saudi Arabia at all."

The only thing our government protects is its own interest. If a country happens to benefit along with us, so be it. If a country refuses to capitulate, like Cuba or Iraq, we put our collective feet on their throats. To sit by and pretend that our government acts with noble intentions seems ridiculous to me. The "They hate our freedom and what we stand for" line always made me cringe. What a crock.

Knowing that our government's policies breed this kind of intense hatred doesn't equal support of the terrorists. The thought of all of those lives being shredded brings a tear to my eye. I think the perpetrators must pay a heavy price, but I won't bury my head in the sand and pretend that my government acts in the world's collective best interests.

[B-Man]

Once again, a poster fails to make any moral distinction between a terrorist and one acting in self defense. That kind of thinking is what is sick.

[MMMMMM]

This is nonsense. Firstly, you are baselessly presuming (from the tone of my post) that I completely support MS Sunshine's position. Actually, I am somewhat unclear as to what degree I share his view--I think it may depend partially on particular circumstances--but my point is that his point is not entirely without merit. Truly vigorous defensive action/counterattack may discourage future attacks on us.

It is also generally IMPOSSIBLE to avoid any collateral damage in any large-scale warfare today. So if we defend ourselves, innocent people are going to get hurt. I'm not saying we should simply target the peasants out in the countryside--rather, that if the bastards who attacked us are gathered in one area, that we might blow that area away to be sure we get them.

There is also the concept that the governments of certain countries are allowing and encouraging certain terrorist groups to flourish. I like the Bush doctrine of holding these governments responsible for this. If these groups attack us, and we have to couinterattack them, well if we have to blast some of the host government as well, so be it. In fact once we get ground troops in Iraq and a firm control of the country, I think we should warn the other regional sponsors of terror that, as Kasparov put it, "this game is up." In other words if they don't quickly dismantle the terrorist groups in their own countries, we go in and do it for them and replace their damn dictatorships and totalitarian governments at the same time. And if they don't like THAT plan, well, they better clamp down on their terrorists themselves--pretty damn fast.

In other words there can be no excuse for attacking us as on 9/11--and those who do should be wiped out.

[MMMMMM]

Well... I do pretty much agree with the body of the post...I just don't think that it means Alger is a true follower of bin-Laden or that he necessarily has no sensitivity whatsoever. The points throughout the body of the post in question seemed pretty good, though.

[andyfox]

Then it's a much needed corrective to our government's official line, which is that the U.S. did not create or help moisten any of the swamps, that the mosquitoes are completely unrelated to the existence of the swamps, and the best solution for both swamp and mosquito is bombs. Of course it's not all the USA's fault. But to claim it's simply a case of unmitigated good against unmitigated evil is a recipe for disaster.

Note that while Chomsky does indeed blame the U.S. for some of the swamp and the consequent breeding of mosquitos, he talks about the "rantings" of Bin Laden, calls Saddam a "murderer," and refers to the September 11 attacks as "horrendous."

[MMMMMM]

The US doesn't have to have any "noble" interest to be in Saudi Arabia. We are there AT THEIR REQUEST and we aren't doing anything to harm or bother them either. If they ask us to leave, we will do so.
The idea that we must have a "noble interest" to justify our actions is the crock. It is also a crock for this jerk to be mad at us because we DON'T have a "noble interest." Who the hell is he to be mad at someone because they DON'T have a "noble" interest? But we did save their asses from Saddam--that isn't a crock. Where's our thanks???

It is also a crock to deny that many in the Middle East hate us for our freedoms---don't you READ??? Many Wahhabists HATE the USA and the West precisely because we embrace secularism and do things such as let our women run around in skimpy outfits. They simply hate that which is non-Islamic. Believe It Or Not.

[MMMMMM]

I get the impression that Chomsky is ascribing a very disproportionate amout of blame in general to the US. I also think that in the specific case of 9/11 it was more a religious-cult-fanatical attack than an expression of outrage against US policies. For instance, bin-Laden's chief complaint was regarding the US "infidels" stationed in Saudi Arabia--who happened to be doing nothing at all inimicable to Saudi interests.

[CORed]

This interpretation of events answers one quetion I have had? Why didn't Al Queda set of bombs in airports in the first few weeks after 9/11? The tightened security caused enormous backups, creating huge crowds of people in the unsecured part of airports. Suicide bombers, or for that matter bombs left in suitcases, could have killed a lot of people, and further disrupted air travel.

Then again, maybe Bin Laden just wasn't smart enough to anticipate this and plan for it. Whatever the reason, we were very fortunate that the logical followup attack didn't happen.

Your post makes complete sense. No one should mock any dead, American or otherwise, on the anniversary of a brutal heinous act. Anyone that dares suggest that the USA was responsible for 9-11 is a fanatic.

It is sad that Islamic terrorist cells exist in America. It is also sad that anyone that challenges the obvious here risks banishment while the policy of the forum permits racists and criminals unrestricted access.

[Chris Alger]

He was denouncing the killing of innocents as "retalliation" against terrorism. If you think that killing innocent people can be "self-defense," then you are the one who is failing to make the obvious distinction.

[Chris Alger]

"We are there AT THEIR REQUEST"

Who's "them?" The Royal House of Saud and it's thousands of unelected princes kept in power by the U.S. "beacon of civil rights," virtually none of which exist in Saudi Arabia? This is a classic case of fuzzing over the interests of a brutal U.S.-backed dictatorship with those of the people it lords over. It is identical to Soviet excuse for invading Afghanistan and Hitler's annexation of the Sudentanland.

Interesting take on the nobility of our involvement there. To summarize, "[t]he U.S. doesn't have to have a 'noble interest" but in any event is there "AT THEIR REQUEST" without doing "any harm," will leave if requested, and "saved their asses" from Saddam. Sounds both pretty familiar and pretty noble.

I take it that your real point is this: the U.S. intervenes in foreign countries out of enlightened self-interest, and our invervention, while awkward at times, tends to benefit the people of those countries as well as the people of the U.S.

This is what the whole debate should be about, but it isn't because of the logic that follows: if the people of those countries remain unconvinced about the benefits of intervention and demand that we leave, our staying makes us just another imperial aggressor. And since few Americans want to be associated with any such power, official discussions about foreign policy are shrouded in high rhetoric about noble ideals -- a "beacon of civili rights" that regretfully must sometimes prop up murderers and tyrants -- to prevent us from even questioning the assumptions about our purposes.

Accordingly, we very much need our invovlement to be associated with "noble" purposes, but for the purpose of selling the policy to the public rather than as an actual basis for policy.

[andyfox]

Yes, Bin Laden is a Saudi and sees his country as being occupied by "infidels." You might not see this as inimical to Saudi interests, but Bin Laden does (or did, if he's dead). While you and Chomsky come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, you both agree that Bin Laden's pronouncements are best characterized as "rantings" and Saddam as a "murderer" (as do I).

I see Chomsky's comments as ascribing a more proportionate amount of blame to the US than the zero percent figure being used by our government. It seems to me that ascribing 0% or 100% in any situation is usually a simplification that begs for trouble. Note that he quoted establishment figures, not other leftists, to try to strengthen his argument.

[MS Sunshine]

"but if you kill Americans there should be the knowledge that those reponsible, their unobservant governments and their innocent countrymen will always pay a terrible price."

I have no problem with this statement as it is. I'm not advocating fire bombing Bagdad. Embargoes cost innocent lives in Iraq and strikes against command and control would also cost innocent lives directly. I'm talking about strikes against major infrastructure, dams, industry and oil fields which leave innocent cilivians paying a terrible price for years for allowing terrorists to strike the USA using their country as a shield. If a country does nothing to stop home grown terrorists, and imported terrorists, then when the bill comes due, yes, they should pony up their share even if they did nothing. but sit back.

MS Sunshine

[MMMMMM]

There are a few thousand soldiers stationed in a remote corner of Saudi Arabia. Bin-Laden does NOT claim his country is "occupied" by infidels (as in the sense of a great military occupation); rather, he urges attacking, killing and plundering Americans everywhere until the "last infidel" has left Saudi soil. He wants Saudi Arabia to be 100% "pure" in a religious sense--this is simply religious fanatacism...there is no logical basis for thinking that the country is "occupied" and indeed, the soldiers are there at Saudi Arabia's own request.

[MMMMMM]

I tend to agree that the governments which support, or condone by action, terrorism, should have to PAY for some portion of the damage wrought...financially speaking, that is.

[MMMMMM]

So what are you saying? That the majority of the Saudi people themselves want us to leave that remote corner of their land? And if so, then did they want us to let Saddam roll over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia essentially unopposed?

Also, I think we need to make a distinction regarding this "noble purpose" issue. There's nothing wrong with self-serving, non-noble purposes if these same purposes are not harmful. In other words, if they are not "bad" purposes or actions, then self-interest is a perfectly acceptable purpose. It is wrong to fault the US for self-interested actions, although it may npot be wrong to fault the US for self-interested "bad" actions such as propping brutal regimes such as the Shah of Iran. There's a big difference between such things. So what I took exception to in the reported interview was the outrage expressed by the interviewee that we were there because of our interest in oil. So what. On the other hand, if we are doing very bad things because of this interest, that's another story. But the few thousand US soldiers in the remote corner are not doing anything bad and in fact they even take great pains to not offend Saudi traditions and their sense of propriety. As for just how "bad" the current Saudi regime is with regards to how it treats its own people, I don't really know.

[brad]

'Anyone that dares suggest that the USA was responsible for 9-11 is a fanatic.'

gee, it was on the drudge report a few days ago confirming that the US knew pearl harbor was going to be attacked in advance and did nothing.

a sixth grade view of history wont get you very far.

brad

[MMMMMM]

My limited exposure to this theory suggests that this is far from conclusive. Isn't it just a theory-a speculation--somewhat similar to the JFK conspiracy and some other uncertain events? It really strains the bounds of credibility to assume that a US President would allow such a devastating attack to catch us off-guard. I mean if indeed the US decided to allow the attack, wouldn't they have taken greater precautions to remove our assets and personnel from harm's way? Let the Japanese strike an empty nest...it would still have been excuse enough to attack Japan.

Don't say our reaxtion. You do not represent in any swnsw the USA. You are sa sick and twisted man that defield the anniversary of 9-11 by posting a post which basically says to the dead that they had it coming. You are truly digusting.

[brad]

'I mean if indeed the US decided to allow the attack, wouldn't they have taken greater precautions to remove our assets and personnel from harm's way?'

well, the carriers were all at sea (luckily).

heres the story that was on drudge report. (copy and paste whole into address bar, for some reason you cant click on it.)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61592,00.html

'HONOLULU — Two University of Hawaii research submarines on routine test dives Wednesday found a Japanese midget submarine sunk an hour before the 1941 aerial attack on Pearl Harbor, researchers said.'

'Wiltshire said the midget sub was discovered in several hundred feet of water near the mouth of Pearl Harbor, surrounded by other discarded military debris.'

so basically the US sunk an enemy sub that was basically in the harbor, then waited an hour because those guys on the USS Arizona needed their beauty sleep. (apologies to those offended).

brad

[ripdog]

What bothers me is that we always parrot the party line--"We're here to protect YOU". I think of myself as moderately intelligent and don't assume that the people of that region are a bunch of complete idiots. I put myself in their shoes and wonder how I'd feel if some other government was feeding me the same line. I'd be pissed off. It's obvious B.S. That so many Americans believe it has me wondering about the collective intelligence of our nation. The next time some arrogant prick treats you in a similar manner (like a dumbass), think about how they feel when our government does it to them.