[andyfox]

There's a lot in the article, but I would like to address two points:

1) Note that the author calls Chomsky and his writings "despicable," "crackpot," "ridiculous," "irresponsible," "dangerous junk," "warped," and "lunacy." Those on the left are "spoiled children." This tells me that the author may not be the best person to carefully analyze Chomsky's message, since it reveals an obvious bias.

2) Here is the author's own analysis of the history of America's foreign policy:

"American foreign policy has long been correctly directed by the “lesser of two evils” theory which has kept America afloat on the world stage for more than two hundred years. The foundation for this policy was laid down by President James Monroe who announced what came to be called the “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823. According to this doctrine, America would accept no more European incursions in the Western Hemisphere. This was a step away from George Washington’s admonition to avoid any “entangling alliances” that might draw America into a foreign war. Washington articulated this caution in his farewell address, at a time when the United States was very vulnerable and the threat of European warfare loomed on the horizon. But by the time of the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. had witnessed substantial growth and the act of European colonization in the Western Hemisphere could be taken as a threat to American sovereignty.

From that time forward, U.S. foreign policy has traveled through different stages, but one tenet has remained constant: The protection and welfare of U.S. citizens is always the most important objective. This sometimes means that America must ally itself with regimes that do not meet the standards the U.S. government holds for itself. But just because America works with a corrupt government against a mutual enemy does not mean that America is responsible for the corruption of its ally. The unsavory regime is responsible for its own shortcomings. The world is a dirty, dangerous place, and the responsibility of the American government is to protect its own citizens.

My comments:

1) How could European colonization in other places in the western hemisphere be a threat to America sovereignty? What it was a threat to was American expansion. All of our leaders from the very beginning saw us an an imperal nation destined to control the entire continent and beyond. When other nations got in the way, we pushed them aside.

2) The protection and welfare of U.S. citizens has often been used as a pretext for invasion and control of small countries in the western hemisphere and elsewhere. Alliance with regimes that do not meet our "standards" has nothing at all to do with the protection and of U.S. citizens. What did Diem and the muderous "thugs" (to use a word President Bush seems to like these day) in Guatemala and Somoza and the Shah of Iran and Mobutu and the murderous thugs in El Salvador have to do with the protection of U.S. citizens?

3) Many unsavory regimes have been trained in unsavoriness by the United States. Diem wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Lansdale. We were responsible for installing murderous thugs in Guatemala and Chile and for maintaining murderous thugs in El Salvador, to cite three 20th century examples. We trained many Latin American thugs.

The author's view of the history of American foreign policy is flawed.