Home > Should Noam Chomsky Reset His Compass?
Wars and conflicts International USA
“Don’t tell fish stories where the people know you.” - Mark Twain
Recently I read the book: “Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/II World,” (2005, Metropolitan Books),” which contains interviews by David Barsamian with Noam Chomsky on a wide range of issues, including the Iraqi War. I was deeply disappointed with it. Not because there wasn’t a lot of solid analysis in it. There was. My misgivings dealt with what was left out of the paperback. If the comedian Stephen Colbert could take on the hawkish Neocon William Kristol and his warmongering Project for the New American Century (PNAC)-a group which Kristol cofounded-why couldn’t the leading Guru of the Left, also do so? In addition, Chomsky failed to mention either the repulsive Kristol or the PNAC.
Another thing missing: In Chomsky’s book, the word, “Zionism,” only appears once, and that is on p. 173, where he admitted that in his youth, during his Philadelphia salad days, he was “very involved in the Zionist Movement.” I also noticed that the enormously powerful Israeli Lobby wasn’t worth a cite at all in this paperback. Yet, we now know, thanks to the prestigious Harvard Study, that the Israeli Lobby, for over 40 years has exercised “unmatched power,” which was not in the national interest, over the foreign policy of the U.S. (1) Yet, Chomsky ignored this group completely! Why? Is this the same Chomsky, that Barsamian solemnly tells us, “sets the compass headings and describes the topography”? Barsamian goes on to say, “It is up to us to navigate the terrain...He [Chomsky] has an extraordinary power to distill and synthesize reams of information. And he misses nothing. ”Really? Misses nothing! How can that be true if Chomsky missed that six ton elephant in the room of American politics: the Israeli Lobby?
When asked why the U.S. invaded Iraq, Chomsky said, at p. 6, it was about “the control of oil.” Later on in the book, Chomsky cites Chalmers Johnson’s tome, “Sorrows of Empire,” but he doesn’t tell the readers that Johnson believed that the Iraqi War was the result of the confluence of three special interests: “Big Oil,” the Military Industrial Complex and the Israeli Lobby. Now, despite everything we know about Israel’s role and the role of the Israeli Lobby in pushing for the Iraqi War, Chomsky insisted on stating, at p. 8, “As far as Israel is concerned, Iraq has never been much of an issue. They consider it a kind of a pushover.” If the Zionists considered Iraq a “pushover,” then why didn’t they invade it? Isn’t this the same Israel that invaded Lebanon, in 1982?
Although Chomsky co-wrote a book, called “Manufacturing Consent,” about how the Establishment shapes the opinion of the masses, he didn’t think about using that same kind of keen analysis in this book. In particular, with respect 9/11-neither here nor in his earlier book, entitled, “9/11,” did Chomsky touch on the powerful idea that the power brokers both cause and interpret what’s going on in a way that supports their agenda. This leads me to wonder: Was 9/11, too, manufactured? Did the Bush-Cheney Gang know it was coming and let it happen? Or, was it Machiavellian plot put into play by sinister intelligence agencies looking for a pretext to set the U.S. up to demonize Islam, attack Iraq and turn this country into a police state? Chomsky declines to open up that kind of necessary inquiry.
Chomsky talks a lot about “Propaganda,” but he doesn’t tell us who owns the biggest stake in the U.S. media market. He also make a big fuss over how corporate interests prevail over social concerns. Yet, he doesn’t inform the readers the means by which the corporations, incluging huge multinationals, exercise their massive control. If you search the index of this book, you will not find any groups, for instance, such as: The Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome or the Bilderbergers. (2)
On p. 28, Chomsky admits that Israel is a “superpower,” possessing “hundreds of nuclear weapons and massive armed forces.” Then, he cleverly puts it all back on the U.S., labeling Israel - just “an offshore U.S. military base.” Now, that’s interesting, too, especially when you consider that this so-called “offshore U.S. military base” deliberately attacked the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967, killing 34 members of its crew; bulldozed to death Olympia,WA peace activist, Rachel Corrie, in 2003; let loose that traitor Jonathan Pollard to steal our most sensitive military secrets; and since 1948, has extracted over $140 billion in aid from our national treasury. If a Mafia Boss had to pay tribute of $140 billion to someone, would he still be considered the Boss?
Jeffrey Blankfort, a gutsy critic of Chomsky’s selective moralizing, particularly when it comes to his making excuses for Israel, said that because the Neocons and the Israeli Lobby have “paid no price for it [the Iraqi warmongering]...they are prepared to do the same with Iran.” (3) On Iran, Chomsky, at p. 8, said, “But Iran is a different story. Iran is a much more serious military and economic force. And for years Israel has been pressing the United States to take on Iran. Iran is ‘too big’ for Israel to attack so they want the ‘big boys’ to do it.” Now, let’s get this straight. Israel, “a superpower,” according to Chomsky, which possesses tons of “nuclear weapons,” (but is only as an “offshore” military base for America), wants the U.S. to take Iran down because it’s “too big” for it to pull off. What a stretch this one is! How about if the inverse is true? Chomsky is big on utilizing the inverse concept in the book. Try this: Israel, the real Boss, who has extracted $140 billion from our treasury, wants its lackey, the U.S. to do its dirty work for it and attack Iran? What about that scenario, Chomsky?
Talking about Israel’s nuclear weapons. There was one U.S. president who dared to oppose its nuclear weapon schemes. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. We all know what happened to him in Dallas, Texas. In fact, the author Stephen Green wrote: “Perhaps the most significant development in 1963 for the Israeli nuclear weapons program... occurred on November 22 on a plane flying from Dallas to Washington, D.C. Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn in as the 36th President of the United States, following the assassination of JFK. In the early years of the Johnson Administration, the Israeli nuclear weapons program was referred to in Washington as the ‘delicate topic.’ Lyndon Johnson’s White House’s,” contrary to JFK’s, “saw no Dimona, [Israel’s Los Alamos], heard no Dimona, and spoke no Dimona when the reactor went critical in early 1964.” Green also emphasized that under the reign of LBJ, a rabid Zionist partisan, U.S. military aid to Israel also dramatically increased, reaching by then unprecedented levels of freebees, and that even more importantly, as corroborated by the scholarly Harvard Study, “Israel steadily began to act in ways that ignored U.S. national security interests.” (4) Chomsky, however, claims that Israel is merely an “offshore U.S. military base.”
Chomsky also tried to smear our martyred president, JFK, for supposedly wanting to escalate the Vietnam War. The truth is that Kennedy wanted a withdrawal of U.S. troops, whether military conditions allowed it or not, and issued, on Oct. 11, 1963, “NSAM 263” to that effect. Johnson, with strong ties to the Military Industrial Complex, immediately reversed that policy after taking power. The author Peter Dale Scott, in his book, “Deep Politics and the Death of JFK,” took Chomsky to task for his badly-flawed analysis of JFK’s intentions, calling it, a theory that “assumes the continuity of a mind-set that he is trying to prove.”
Another topic in this book, which I found irritating, dealt also with the issue of Iraq. Chomsky pontificated, at p. 2, “The new doctrine was not one of preemptive war...The U.S. will rule the world by force, and if there is any challenge to its domination...[it] will have the right to destroy that challenge before it becomes a threat. That’s preventive war, not preemptive war.” Well, I’m sure that Paul Wolfowitz, the prime architect of the “Preemption Doctrine,” along with Dick Cheney, another flaming Neocon, are going to feel off the hook after reading that one. Chomsky said the “preventive war” idea goes back to diplomat Dean Acheson, in 1963, which is of course, far removed from those crafty Neocons.
In another odd twist, Chomsky quotes a poll that was taken in Iraq where Iraqis were asked, why they thought their country was invaded. Seventy percent, at p. 79, said, “The goal was to take over Iraq’s resources and to reorganize the Middle East. They agreed with Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz...” Now, here was a point in the book, where Chomsky could have easily added his critical position, and elaborated on the Neocons’, Israel’s and the Israeli Lobby’s roles in agitating for the war against Iraq. But, the man who “misses nothing,” let it pass by. Ask yourself, “Why?”
Despite all of the above, I’m recommending this book. It has plenty of wisdom from the iconic Chomsky on matters, like: Regime Change; a new vision for the future; the need for dedicated activism; the Cult of Ronald Reagan; and rebutting the attacks on the Labor Movement, Social Security and the proposals for a Universal Health Care System. It’s only on the subjects of Israel and JFK, where Chomsky’s advice, at p. 32, needs to be strictly followed. He said that one is mandated in combatting propaganda to use common sense and to ask, “Where is the evidence?”
Notes:
1. http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/%24File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
2. “Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300,” by Dr. John Coleman.
3. http://sf.indymedia.org/print.php?id=1727000
For more perspective on Chomsky’s theories, check out these critical two pieces: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=22210 and http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
4. Stephen Green’s “Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations with a Militant Israel.”
© William Hughes 2006.
William Hughes is the author of “Saying ‘’No’ to the War Party” (IUniverse, Inc.). He can be reached at liamhughes@comcast.net
Forum posts
24 May 2006, 10:44
Chomsky is a Jew....this makes him much less critical and leads to him putting on the blinders or holding his opinions, and possibly clouds his ability to see how terrible things really are concerning Israel’s actions and influence over the U.S.....but never the less, he is brilliant in his wealth of knowledge and his ability to formulate and disseminate information to his students.
24 May 2006, 11:05
I think that a very clear distinction needs to be made between Jews and Zionists, they are two vastly different animals. Jews are people, like the rest of us with a diversity of opinion, well informed or otherwise. Zionists are extremists. like the Neocon Christians, or Muslim Radicals, and they are the ones who stir up the global war along with those other two factions and need to be isolated and discounted.
25 May 2006, 08:16
88-58: I think Chomsky has ideas and knowledge worth the time it takes to seek thm out. Just because he is a Jew has no bearing, I only said I think he shys away from criticizing Israel’s policies because he does not want to go down that road. None the less, I still think he has a wealth of information on the subject of world governments and the idea that he is working for the CIA is silly to say the least. This man is a scholar and a teacher and an author, he is very critical of the CIA.
To the poster who said he is CIA, I say don’t be an ignorant fool, read some of his writing and find out a little about him before you make such ridiculous statements.
24 May 2006, 12:35
Why recommend Chomsky’s book for other reasons than his failings when it comes to critical analysis regarding Israel when there are lots of other works that treat Hughes’ touted subjects with equal acumen? Haven’t we had enough of Chomsky?
29 May 2006, 05:51
Why recommend Chomsky’s book?
Read it and find out, he is brilliant and has much to share in his knowledge.
26 May 2006, 16:53
""The Bellaciao article "When Did the World Learn of The Holocaust" May, 22, 2006 seems to have disappeared from this site (very mysteriously) it was posted by Suzette and we were having a nice discussion about holocausts.....""
who is Suzette ???
29 May 2006, 04:31
I do not know who Suzette is, but she posts lots of articles here...
Our discussion was about how the Jewish people who love to play the martyer and beat the holocaust thing into the ground always accuse others of being antisemetic...
My question was why do the Jewish people always intorduce themselves as "Hi my name is David and I’m a Jew?.....They think the rest of us single them out for ridicule for being Jewish. I think it is because they single themselves out by insisting that every conversation should be centered around them being Jewish. If they would simply intorduce themselves as Hi I am David...and let the conversation be about topics of interest to all including those of us who do not think about people being Jewish or Catholic or atheist or whatever, they might just find that no one cares about antisemetic ideas at all, and the term antisemetic would die a natural death as it should.
The other thing Suzette, are the American taxpayers supposed to allow the Jewish state to be their welfare child forever? 60 years have passed now, when are they going to stop asking us all to support them? Even the blacks of the U.S. who contributed to the wealth and building of this country have been cut off of a lifetime of welfare.....what’s up with that?
29 May 2006, 04:47
213:0......notice things will now disappear......it is very mysterious....certain things evaporate into cyber space....some topics are not allowed to be discussed.....take note.