Conghaileach
1st April 2003, 19:48
Noam Chomsky: The big gun takes a pop-shot at peace
[SMH Home | Text-only index]
Date: March 29 2003
If anything is obvious from the history of warfare, it's that very
little can be predicted.
In Iraq, the most awesome military force in human history has attacked
a much weaker country, an enormous disparity of force.
It will be some time before even preliminary assessments of the
consequences can be made. Every effort must be dedicated to minimising
the harm, and to providing the Iraqi people with the huge resources
required for them to rebuild their society, post-Saddam - in their own
way - not as dictated by foreign rulers.
There is no reason to doubt the near-universal judgement the war in
Iraq will only increase the threat of terrorism and the development and
use of weapons of mass destruction, for revenge or deterrence.
In Iraq, the Bush Administration is pursuing an "imperial ambition"
that is, rightly, frightening the world and turning the United States
into an international pariah.
The avowed intent of current US policy is to assert a military power
that is supreme in the world and beyond challenge. US preventative wars
may be fought at will; preventative, not pre-emptive. Whatever the
justifications for pre-emptive war might sometimes be, they do not hold
for the very different category of preventative war; the use of force
to eliminate a contrived threat.
That policy opens the way to protracted struggle between the United
States and its enemies, some of them created by violence and aggression
and not just in the Middle East. In that regard, the US attack on Iraq
is an answer to Osama bin Laden's prayers.
For the world the stakes of the war and its aftermath almost couldn't
be higher. To select just one of many possibilities, destabilisation in
Pakistan could lead to a turnover of "loose nukes" to the global
network of terrorist groups, which may well be invigorated by the
invasion and military occupation of Iraq. Other possibilities, no
less grim, are easy to conjure up.
Yet the outlook for more benign outcomes isn't hopeless, starting with
the world's support for the victims of war and murderous sanctions in
Iraq.
A promising sign is that opposition to the invasion has been entirely
without precedent.
By contrast, 41 years ago this month, when the Kennedy administration
announced that US pilots were bombing and strafing in Vietnam, protest
was almost nonexistent. It did not reach any meaningful level for
several years.
Today there is large-scale, anti-war protest all over the world. The
peace movement acted forcefully even before the new Iraq war started.
That reflects a steady increase over these years in unwillingness to
tolerate aggression and atrocities, one of many such changes worldwide.
The activist movements of the past 40 years have had a civilising
effect.
By now, the only way for the United States to attack a much weaker
enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive depicting it as the
ultimate evil, or even as a threat to our very survival. That was
Washington's scenario for Iraq.
Nevertheless, peace activists are in a far better position now to stop
the next turn to violence, and that is a matter of extraordinary
significance.
A large part of the opposition to Bush's war is based on recognition
that Iraq is only a special case of the "imperial ambition" declared
forcefully in last September's National Security Strategy.
For perspective on our current situation, it may be useful to attend to
very recent history. Last October the nature of threats to peace was
dramatically underscored at the summit meeting in Havana on the 40th
anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, attended by key participants
from Cuba, Russia and the US.
The fact we survived the crisis was a miracle. We learned that the
world was saved from nuclear devastation by one Russian submarine
captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire nuclear
missiles when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near
Kennedy's "quarantine" line. Had Arkhipov agreed, the nuclear launch
would have almost certainly set off an interchange that could "destroy
the Northern hemisphere", as Eisenhower had warned.
The dreadful revelation is particularly timely because of the
circumstances. The roots of the missile crisis lay in international
terrorism aimed at "regime change", two top-of-mind concepts today.
US terrorist attacks against Cuba began shortly after Castro took
power, and were sharply escalated by Kennedy, right up to the missile
crisis and beyond.
The new discoveries demonstrate with brilliant clarity the terrible and
unanticipated risks of attacks on a "much weaker enemy" aimed at
"regime change", risks that could doom us all.
The US is forging new and dangerous paths over near-unanimous world
opposition.
There are two ways for Washington to respond to the threats that are,
in part, engendered by its actions and startling proclamations.
One way is to try to alleviate the threats by paying some attention to
legitimate grievances, and by agreeing to become a civilised member of
a world community, with some respect for world order and its
institutions.
The other way is to construct even more awesome engines of destruction
and domination, so any perceived challenge, however remote, can be
crushed, provoking new and greater challenges.
Noam Chomsky is a political activist, professor of linguistics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author.
[SMH Home | Text-only index]
Date: March 29 2003
If anything is obvious from the history of warfare, it's that very
little can be predicted.
In Iraq, the most awesome military force in human history has attacked
a much weaker country, an enormous disparity of force.
It will be some time before even preliminary assessments of the
consequences can be made. Every effort must be dedicated to minimising
the harm, and to providing the Iraqi people with the huge resources
required for them to rebuild their society, post-Saddam - in their own
way - not as dictated by foreign rulers.
There is no reason to doubt the near-universal judgement the war in
Iraq will only increase the threat of terrorism and the development and
use of weapons of mass destruction, for revenge or deterrence.
In Iraq, the Bush Administration is pursuing an "imperial ambition"
that is, rightly, frightening the world and turning the United States
into an international pariah.
The avowed intent of current US policy is to assert a military power
that is supreme in the world and beyond challenge. US preventative wars
may be fought at will; preventative, not pre-emptive. Whatever the
justifications for pre-emptive war might sometimes be, they do not hold
for the very different category of preventative war; the use of force
to eliminate a contrived threat.
That policy opens the way to protracted struggle between the United
States and its enemies, some of them created by violence and aggression
and not just in the Middle East. In that regard, the US attack on Iraq
is an answer to Osama bin Laden's prayers.
For the world the stakes of the war and its aftermath almost couldn't
be higher. To select just one of many possibilities, destabilisation in
Pakistan could lead to a turnover of "loose nukes" to the global
network of terrorist groups, which may well be invigorated by the
invasion and military occupation of Iraq. Other possibilities, no
less grim, are easy to conjure up.
Yet the outlook for more benign outcomes isn't hopeless, starting with
the world's support for the victims of war and murderous sanctions in
Iraq.
A promising sign is that opposition to the invasion has been entirely
without precedent.
By contrast, 41 years ago this month, when the Kennedy administration
announced that US pilots were bombing and strafing in Vietnam, protest
was almost nonexistent. It did not reach any meaningful level for
several years.
Today there is large-scale, anti-war protest all over the world. The
peace movement acted forcefully even before the new Iraq war started.
That reflects a steady increase over these years in unwillingness to
tolerate aggression and atrocities, one of many such changes worldwide.
The activist movements of the past 40 years have had a civilising
effect.
By now, the only way for the United States to attack a much weaker
enemy is to construct a huge propaganda offensive depicting it as the
ultimate evil, or even as a threat to our very survival. That was
Washington's scenario for Iraq.
Nevertheless, peace activists are in a far better position now to stop
the next turn to violence, and that is a matter of extraordinary
significance.
A large part of the opposition to Bush's war is based on recognition
that Iraq is only a special case of the "imperial ambition" declared
forcefully in last September's National Security Strategy.
For perspective on our current situation, it may be useful to attend to
very recent history. Last October the nature of threats to peace was
dramatically underscored at the summit meeting in Havana on the 40th
anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, attended by key participants
from Cuba, Russia and the US.
The fact we survived the crisis was a miracle. We learned that the
world was saved from nuclear devastation by one Russian submarine
captain, Vasily Arkhipov, who countermanded an order to fire nuclear
missiles when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near
Kennedy's "quarantine" line. Had Arkhipov agreed, the nuclear launch
would have almost certainly set off an interchange that could "destroy
the Northern hemisphere", as Eisenhower had warned.
The dreadful revelation is particularly timely because of the
circumstances. The roots of the missile crisis lay in international
terrorism aimed at "regime change", two top-of-mind concepts today.
US terrorist attacks against Cuba began shortly after Castro took
power, and were sharply escalated by Kennedy, right up to the missile
crisis and beyond.
The new discoveries demonstrate with brilliant clarity the terrible and
unanticipated risks of attacks on a "much weaker enemy" aimed at
"regime change", risks that could doom us all.
The US is forging new and dangerous paths over near-unanimous world
opposition.
There are two ways for Washington to respond to the threats that are,
in part, engendered by its actions and startling proclamations.
One way is to try to alleviate the threats by paying some attention to
legitimate grievances, and by agreeing to become a civilised member of
a world community, with some respect for world order and its
institutions.
The other way is to construct even more awesome engines of destruction
and domination, so any perceived challenge, however remote, can be
crushed, provoking new and greater challenges.
Noam Chomsky is a political activist, professor of linguistics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author.