IRAQ War -Interview with Noam Chomsky
(1) American Academic Criticizes US Policy on Iraq
February 14, 2003 Excerpts from radio interview with Canada AM
-Noam Chomsky interviewed by Lisa LaFlamme
QUESTION: Before we tackle the future, let's just look at the last ten days if we can. Colin Powell becomes a hawk. Bin Laden is back. Tariq Aziz has an audience with the Pope. And Home Depot is teaching people how to make safe rooms in their homes with duct tape. Can you help us make sense of all of this?
CHOMSKY: First of all, as far as Colin Powell is concerned, he always was a hawk and he remains a hawk. As far as the duct tape is concerned, I don't know what John Ashcroft knows. But it has been predicted by US intelligence and other intelligence agencies that an attack on Iraq, or a planned attack on Iraq, is likely to increase the threat of terrorism in the West -- for pretty obvious reasons. Either as a deterrent or later on as revenge.
So what was anticipated by the intelligence agencies and by independent analysts is that a war with Iraq is very likely to increase the threat of terror, maybe substantial terror. And this threat is taken extremely seriously.
QUESTION: Well, if you look at all the polls, can you help us understand why does President Bush have such overwhelming support here in the United States, seemingly, and such overwhelming opposition in the international community?
CHOMSKY: For one thing, he doesn't have overwhelming support from Americans. It's true that if you look at, say, the international Gallup polls -- which have not been reported in the United States, but they're very instructive -- they do show overwhelming opposition throughout Europe, Asia, Latin America particularly, all of Europe, in fact. And they do apparently show greater support in the United States and other English-speaking countries, higher in the United States than elsewhere.
But those figures are pretty misleading. Because there's another difference between the United States and the rest of the world. And one has to take that into account. Saddam Hussein is despised throughout the world, including the region. And everyone would like to see him disappear from the face of the earth. But there is only one country in which he's feared. And that's the United States. And that's, incidentally, since September. If you take a look at polls since the drumbeat of propaganda about Saddam being a threat to our existence it began in September. Since then on the order of two-thirds of the public in the United States does genuinely believe that if we don't stop him today he is going to kill us tomorrow.
QUESTION: Well, what if George Bush and Tony Blair are right? What if they are welcomed in Iraq as the great liberators? Then would it have been worth it to go in?
CHOMSKY: Would it be worth taking the risk of maybe killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and maybe destroying the country, maybe increasing terrorist threats in the West, because possibly a best-case scenario would work out? That's hardly sane and rational behaviour.
You have to have really strong arguments for the use of violence. The burden of proof for the resort to violence is very high. That's true whether it's personal affairs or international affairs. The argument that "Well, maybe it will turn out fine," that's not an argument for the use of violence.
QUESTION: Well, tomorrow hundreds of thousands of people really around the world, but particularly here in the United States, are going to be protesting a possible war with Iraq. Some of them have told us that they have been accused of being unpatriotic. So, if Americans don't support a war then they are unpatriotic. And if the UN doesn't support a war, it's irrelevant. So I wonder, where does this put the whole question of democracy in the United States?
CHOMSKY: First of all, the talk about patriotism is ridiculous. There are two kinds of patriotism. There is the kind of patriotism which says you follow the orders of your leaders reflexively. And that is one kind. And there's a kind of patriotism that is based on concern and care for the people of the country and of the society, their fate, what's going to happen to my grandchildren and neighbors and so on. That's another kind of patriotism. That's the sensible kind. And, in that sense, the protesters are the greatest patriots. They are the ones who are acting in the benefit of the country as they see it and, incidentally, as I see it, and as most of the world sees it.
As for the UN being irrelevant unless it follows orders, and Europe being irrelevant unless it follows orders and so on, that's kind of an interesting phenomenon. It's an incredible and maybe unprecedented expression of hatred and contempt for democracy on the part of the Anglo-American leadership for which it's pretty hard to think of an analog.
QUESTION: And they would say, "What are you supposed to do, ignore all of the violations that you've seen Iraq commit?"
CHOMSKY: Certainly not. You should in fact do exactly what the inspectors are doing. And the fact that Iraq has to a very large extent lived up to the resolutions, but not entirely, is a good reason to enforce them. And it's also a good reason to enforce Security Council resolutions which are violated massively by other countries.
(2) The Iraq Debate- February 13, 2003
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Carlo Invernizzi
QUESTION: Professor Chomsky, concerning US foreign policy and the War on Terror, what is your view on the current situation?
CHOMSKY: Let me start by making one thing clear: I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase "War on Terror." There can't be a war on terror. That is a logical impossibility. First of all because war is one of the principal means through which terror is perpetuated; and secondly because the USA is one of the leading terrorist states in the world.
QUESTION: Do you think there might be adverse effects from fighting this war?
CHOMSKY: A war on Iraq could have adverse effects on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world. At present the USA is giving a very dangerous lesson to the world. It is about to attack Iraq, which does not really seem to have such weapons of mass destruction. But when North Korea announced that it would leave the treaty of nonproliferation and build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons, George W. Bush said he would treat this as a diplomatic question. What is everybody around the world going to think? If we don't have weapons of mass destruction the USA may well attack us. But if we do develop weapons of mass destruction they are never going to take the risk.
QUESTION: How do you judge the position of Europe in the context of the present conflict?
CHOMSKY: Europe is divided. On one hand the UK, Italy and Spain are in favor of the war. Some European journalists have commented that they are acting as Bush's poodles. I tend to think that they are more like his attack dogs. We must not forget the size of the contingent that the UK has sent in the Middle East in preparation to this war. On the other hand, however, Germany and France seem to have put up a brave front against the war. In Germany, in particular, the Chancellor Schroeder owes much of his electoral success to the firm antiwar stance he adopted during the electoral campaign. It remains to be seen how long these two will be able to stand out and watch the others share the oil concessions amongst themselves.
QUESTION: And what is the perception of this war within the USA?
CHOMSKY: Support for the war on Iraq in the USA is thin. One survey conducted by Time magazine in the USA even found that most Americans believe that the USA is currently the greatest threat to world peace. [NOTE: This last sentence seems to be an error. In a recent talk, Chomsky notes accurately, "A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine, found that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are dramatic."] Various prominent institutions throughout the country, including the Chicago city council and the largest university in the USA (that is, the University of Texas), have passed antiwar resolutions.
It is important, therefore, not to demonize the USA as a monolithic front for war. There is a distinction to be made between what public opinion and civil society want on one hand and what the US administration is doing on the other. The people of the USA are a crucial component in the movement against the war.
QUESTION: Do you really think that this movement can do anything to stop the war?
CHOMSKY: The probability of success of the antiwar campaign depends crucially on the base of its popular support... Let's make a comparison with other antiwar campaigns in the past: compared with the Vietnam War movement... The war in Vietnam started in 1962, publicly, with a public attack on South Vietnam - air force, chemical warfare, concentration camps, the whole business. No protest... the protest that did build up four or five years later was mostly about the bombing of the North, which was terrible, but was a sideshow. The main attack was against South Vietnam and there was never any serious protest against that. Here you've got massive protest before war's even started. It's just phenomenal. Of course, I am not sure whether we will actually be able to stop the war -- the timing is really short. But we can make it costly, and that is important. Even if we don't succeed in stopping the war it is important that the warmongers know it will be costly for them so that perhaps we may succeed in stopping the next one.
IRAQ War -Interview with Noam Chomsky
(1) American Academic Criticizes US Policy on Iraq
February 14, 2003 Excerpts from radio interview with Canada AM
-Noam Chomsky interviewed by Lisa LaFlamme
QUESTION: Before we tackle the future, let's just look at the last ten days if we can. Colin Powell becomes a hawk. Bin Laden is back. Tariq Aziz has an audience with the Pope. And Home Depot is teaching people how to make safe rooms in their homes with duct tape. Can you help us make sense of all of this?
CHOMSKY: First of all, as far as Colin Powell is concerned, he always was a hawk and he remains a hawk. As far as the duct tape is concerned, I don't know what John Ashcroft knows. But it has been predicted by US intelligence and other intelligence agencies that an attack on Iraq, or a planned attack on Iraq, is likely to increase the threat of terrorism in the West -- for pretty obvious reasons. Either as a deterrent or later on as revenge.
So what was anticipated by the intelligence agencies and by independent analysts is that a war with Iraq is very likely to increase the threat of terror, maybe substantial terror. And this threat is taken extremely seriously.
QUESTION: Well, if you look at all the polls, can you help us understand why does President Bush have such overwhelming support here in the United States, seemingly, and such overwhelming opposition in the international community?
CHOMSKY: For one thing, he doesn't have overwhelming support from Americans. It's true that if you look at, say, the international Gallup polls -- which have not been reported in the United States, but they're very instructive -- they do show overwhelming opposition throughout Europe, Asia, Latin America particularly, all of Europe, in fact. And they do apparently show greater support in the United States and other English-speaking countries, higher in the United States than elsewhere.
But those figures are pretty misleading. Because there's another difference between the United States and the rest of the world. And one has to take that into account. Saddam Hussein is despised throughout the world, including the region. And everyone would like to see him disappear from the face of the earth. But there is only one country in which he's feared. And that's the United States. And that's, incidentally, since September. If you take a look at polls since the drumbeat of propaganda about Saddam being a threat to our existence it began in September. Since then on the order of two-thirds of the public in the United States does genuinely believe that if we don't stop him today he is going to kill us tomorrow.
QUESTION: Well, what if George Bush and Tony Blair are right? What if they are welcomed in Iraq as the great liberators? Then would it have been worth it to go in?
CHOMSKY: Would it be worth taking the risk of maybe killing tens of thousands of Iraqis and maybe destroying the country, maybe increasing terrorist threats in the West, because possibly a best-case scenario would work out? That's hardly sane and rational behaviour.
You have to have really strong arguments for the use of violence. The burden of proof for the resort to violence is very high. That's true whether it's personal affairs or international affairs. The argument that "Well, maybe it will turn out fine," that's not an argument for the use of violence.
QUESTION: Well, tomorrow hundreds of thousands of people really around the world, but particularly here in the United States, are going to be protesting a possible war with Iraq. Some of them have told us that they have been accused of being unpatriotic. So, if Americans don't support a war then they are unpatriotic. And if the UN doesn't support a war, it's irrelevant. So I wonder, where does this put the whole question of democracy in the United States?
CHOMSKY: First of all, the talk about patriotism is ridiculous. There are two kinds of patriotism. There is the kind of patriotism which says you follow the orders of your leaders reflexively. And that is one kind. And there's a kind of patriotism that is based on concern and care for the people of the country and of the society, their fate, what's going to happen to my grandchildren and neighbors and so on. That's another kind of patriotism. That's the sensible kind. And, in that sense, the protesters are the greatest patriots. They are the ones who are acting in the benefit of the country as they see it and, incidentally, as I see it, and as most of the world sees it.
As for the UN being irrelevant unless it follows orders, and Europe being irrelevant unless it follows orders and so on, that's kind of an interesting phenomenon. It's an incredible and maybe unprecedented expression of hatred and contempt for democracy on the part of the Anglo-American leadership for which it's pretty hard to think of an analog.
QUESTION: And they would say, "What are you supposed to do, ignore all of the violations that you've seen Iraq commit?"
CHOMSKY: Certainly not. You should in fact do exactly what the inspectors are doing. And the fact that Iraq has to a very large extent lived up to the resolutions, but not entirely, is a good reason to enforce them. And it's also a good reason to enforce Security Council resolutions which are violated massively by other countries.
(2) The Iraq Debate- February 13, 2003
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Carlo Invernizzi
QUESTION: Professor Chomsky, concerning US foreign policy and the War on Terror, what is your view on the current situation?
CHOMSKY: Let me start by making one thing clear: I think we ought to be very cautious about using the phrase "War on Terror." There can't be a war on terror. That is a logical impossibility. First of all because war is one of the principal means through which terror is perpetuated; and secondly because the USA is one of the leading terrorist states in the world.
QUESTION: Do you think there might be adverse effects from fighting this war?
CHOMSKY: A war on Iraq could have adverse effects on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world. At present the USA is giving a very dangerous lesson to the world. It is about to attack Iraq, which does not really seem to have such weapons of mass destruction. But when North Korea announced that it would leave the treaty of nonproliferation and build up its arsenal of nuclear weapons, George W. Bush said he would treat this as a diplomatic question. What is everybody around the world going to think? If we don't have weapons of mass destruction the USA may well attack us. But if we do develop weapons of mass destruction they are never going to take the risk.
QUESTION: How do you judge the position of Europe in the context of the present conflict?
CHOMSKY: Europe is divided. On one hand the UK, Italy and Spain are in favor of the war. Some European journalists have commented that they are acting as Bush's poodles. I tend to think that they are more like his attack dogs. We must not forget the size of the contingent that the UK has sent in the Middle East in preparation to this war. On the other hand, however, Germany and France seem to have put up a brave front against the war. In Germany, in particular, the Chancellor Schroeder owes much of his electoral success to the firm antiwar stance he adopted during the electoral campaign. It remains to be seen how long these two will be able to stand out and watch the others share the oil concessions amongst themselves.
QUESTION: And what is the perception of this war within the USA?
CHOMSKY: Support for the war on Iraq in the USA is thin. One survey conducted by Time magazine in the USA even found that most Americans believe that the USA is currently the greatest threat to world peace. [NOTE: This last sentence seems to be an error. In a recent talk, Chomsky notes accurately, "A poll without careful controls, by Time magazine, found that over 80% of respondents in Europe regarded the US as the greatest threat to world peace, compared with less than 10% for Iraq or North Korea. Even if these numbers are wrong by some substantial factor, they are dramatic."] Various prominent institutions throughout the country, including the Chicago city council and the largest university in the USA (that is, the University of Texas), have passed antiwar resolutions.
It is important, therefore, not to demonize the USA as a monolithic front for war. There is a distinction to be made between what public opinion and civil society want on one hand and what the US administration is doing on the other. The people of the USA are a crucial component in the movement against the war.
QUESTION: Do you really think that this movement can do anything to stop the war?
CHOMSKY: The probability of success of the antiwar campaign depends crucially on the base of its popular support... Let's make a comparison with other antiwar campaigns in the past: compared with the Vietnam War movement... The war in Vietnam started in 1962, publicly, with a public attack on South Vietnam - air force, chemical warfare, concentration camps, the whole business. No protest... the protest that did build up four or five years later was mostly about the bombing of the North, which was terrible, but was a sideshow. The main attack was against South Vietnam and there was never any serious protest against that. Here you've got massive protest before war's even started. It's just phenomenal. Of course, I am not sure whether we will actually be able to stop the war -- the timing is really short. But we can make it costly, and that is important. Even if we don't succeed in stopping the war it is important that the warmongers know it will be costly for them so that perhaps we may succeed in stopping the next one.
