This post originated from an RSS feed registered with PHP Buzz
by Joe Grossberg.
Original Post: Noam Chomsky and the War on Terror
Feed Title: Joe Grossberg
Feed URL: http://feeds.feedburner.com/joegrossbergatom/
Feed Description: My bullshit, your brain.
This one is so quintessentially Chomsky, I had to respond:
In the case of crimes, the first steps are (1) determining who was probably guilty, apprehending them, and bringing them to a fair trial; and (2) attending to the background circumstances, and where there are legitimate grievances in the background, addressing them, as should be done quite apart from the crimes.It's the same whether the crime is a street robbery or large-scale international terrorism. In the latter case, there is a virtual consensus on this among specialists and intelligence agencies (including former heads of Israeli intelligence)....Hysterical intellectuals who prefer to shriek rather than reduce the threat of terror choose to interpret (2) [dealing with "root causes" of terrorism] as "appeasement" or "submission to terror" or "rationalization of terror," etc. In sharp contrast, specialists in terror and intelligence agencies typically take the opposite stand. Comment is hardly necessary, apart from questions of intellectual history.
First, let me point out the two instances of that linguistic game he plays: "there is a virtual consensus" and "comment is hardly necessary". Chomsky makes blanket statements and then qualifies them with conversation-enders, instead of elaborating on such remarks.
Do you not agree with his claim that terrorism must be treated like any other crime? Well, before you even get to the substance of your remarks, you are already aligned against what is portrayed as "a virtual consensus".
Would you like to posit that being the victim of a crime (e.g. terrorism) isn't necessarily your own fault, for not keeping your assailant happy? Well, "comment is hardly necessary" — what are you, some kind of idiot who needs the smallest things explained to him?
Now, onto the substance of the essay:
Yes, I do think that "root causes" matter. And, of course, the anti-terrorist "police work" is crucial.
But what Chomsky outlines is a recipe for disaster, and exactly the reason why Kerry got hammered on his (perceived) policies on terrorism: you can't just sit on your hands, waiting until terrorists attack.
Chomsky brings up the issue of preemptive strikes, but only in the context of one nation acting on another — such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or Bush's current war in Iraq — not one nation acting against a group or individuals.
It's kind of funny that he cites Israeli intelligence on this matter; they would not hesitate to eliminate a terrorist still assembling his suicide bomb.
If the US knew, on 9/10, of the next day's attacks, what does Chomsky suggest they should have done? Left Mohammed Atta et al. alone, save for giving them a good customer-service-style "What can I do to make you happy?", and then arrest their corpses the next day?
Even that is flawed. Perhaps he is one of the people (I am not among them) who believe that bin Laden's anti-US hatred has its basis in rational considerations. What would appease some would-be terrorists (e.g. the KKK) is unacceptable and yet others (e.g. doomsday cults like Japan's Aum Shinrikyo) cannot be appeased.
Then what?
Previous Topic
