Noam Chomsky's position on the attack of September 11 was carried by
B92, and reprinted in Counterpunch.
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyintv.html
The initial question and its answer are striking. Chomsky is asked,
"Why do you think these attacks happened?" In response, he engages in a
long, predictable diatribe against US foreign policy. Bin Laden was a
creature of the CIA, etc, etc.
Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive, fallacious, and contentious. I
call for Chomsky to apologize to the families of the victims. Below are
the reasons.
Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive. Chomsky never answers the
question of why the attacks happened. He only speaks about the
injustice that the US has perpetrated upon the world. Not explicitly,
but by implication Chomsky sends the message that "we" deserved it.
The meaning of "we" is unclear. It could mean the body politic of the
United States. It could mean the people who actually died, many of whom
were not political decision makers. For example, did the 300 fire
fighters deserve to die because they were too uncritical of US foreign
policy?
Chomsky does not answer the question of why the attack happened. He
only asserts that Muslims resent the United States. Yet, resentment
does not generally lead to such atrocities.
Why is there evil in the world? Let us leave that question to the
philosophers and theologians. To answer the question that Chomsky
leaves open, it happened because someone conceived of unleashing an
attack of grand magnitude against the United States, and then put that
idea into effect. In failing to address the question as put, Chomsky's
analysis is non-responsive.
It would behoove the Left to develop the reputation that its
commentators answer questions in a straightforward manner. Chomsky's
analysis is of no help in this regard.
Chomsky's analysis is also fallacious. The attacks were well
coordinated, meticulously planned, and executed by agents who had to
have received extensive training. Four airplanes were successfully
hijacked, and no airplanes were targets of unsuccessful hijack
attempts. The hijackers carried nothing more than short knives and
boxcutters (comparable to x-acto knives). They made some bomb threats.
The audacity of the attacks indicates either total idiocy on the part
of the hijackers backed by the best luck imaginable, or extreme
confidence backed by a masterful plan that was rehearsed over and over.
As an inference drawn from several media reports, there is a real
possibility that all of the hijackers were using stolen identification
documents. All of these facts point toward a military operation,
paramilitary operation, or "black ops" operation.
Chomsky states that the attack occurred because America is resented.
For the sake of argument, I grant that America is resented by the
entire Muslim world. Nevertheless, it is a plain fact that the attack
has NOT met with popular approval anywhere in the world, and no
sustained popular approval in the Muslim world. While there were a few
brief celebrations in the wake of the attacks in Palestine and
elsewhere, those celebrations have subsided now that the truly horrific
scope of the atrocity has become well known. From a population that
resents us, it is striking how little approval the attacks have
received.
While many may resent America, the attack came from a relative few who
did not ask for and have not received popular support for their action.
Many Muslims resent America, but none except for a very few of the
Osama Bin Laden ilk have publicly supported the attack. Thus, even
widespread resentment of America by Muslims could not have generated
these attacks. These attacks could only have been generated by a
relatively small group of dedicated people who see resentment, and
hence hatred, as tools to be sharpened, not as necessary preconditions
for a successful attack.
It is a sad commentary on the state of what passes for intellectualism
on the Left today that the best that such a leading commentator can do
is parrot the mass media in searching for a reason "why they hate us,"
restated as why they "resent" us. Popular resentment or hatred is mere
background to this picture.
Perhaps Chomsky would argue that the United States is so highly
resented that an attack of this nature was inevitable. Maybe there is
some cosmic justice in the sometimes menacing (Mossadegh, Allende) and
often blundering superpower (Somalia pharmaceutical plant, Iranian
airliner) finally getting a taste of what it dishes out.
Does Chomsky propose that there is some cosmic justice at work here? He
often mentions the "cycle of violence." Is this a spiritual force that
is wreaking a terrible justice on America? Perhaps this is Chomsky's
belief, but it is unsupported, and I do not share it.
In a response to a later question, Chomsky suggests that the US is
pressuring Pakistan to reduce humanitarian aid to the suffering people
of Afghanistan. Even if true, that point breezes over the hard fact
that the US is itself the provider of a significant proportion of
humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. This flawed statement of
Chomsky's is illustrative of my larger point.
Chomsky's analysis is unsupported. To the extent he begins to answer
the question posed, his reply is riddled with fallacies.
So far, I have argued that Chomsky's analysis is both non-responsive
and fallacious.
Chomsky's response is also contentious. In failing to answer the simple
question of why, and engaging in a reckless crusade of fallacies,
Chomsky effectively blames the United States for the attack that befell
its people. I would ordinarily understand such criticism. The foreign
policy of the US is highly flawed and often immoral. Perhaps if
American foreign policy were better considered, this would not have
happened.
Chomsky has gone so far as to justify the attack, however. The attack
occurred because the Muslims are concerned that the United States has
been, among other things,
" 'propping up oppressive regimes.' Among the great majority of people
suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more
bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to
suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in
the facts." (quoting Chomsky's analysis)
I stand in solidarity with all the oppressed people of the world.
Merely because one is oppressed, however, does not justify any action
in support of liberation. For Chomsky, though, it is apparently all
relative. Whatever seems expedient to throw off the yoke of the
oppressors, including any manner of atrocity, is understandable to
Chomsky.
Chomsky is not disturbed that suicide bombings are known to be
generated by fury and despair. He still understands them. If enough
emotional content is put into an action, is it inherently justified?
No. Instead, we should insist on rationally considering the ethics of
conduct. I stand for rational judgment, not the unwarranted pity
Chomsky holds out as a prop. Liberation tactics must be ethical or they
must be condemned.
It is contentious to justify these attacks as generated by resentment,
when all the evidence points toward a lack of any popular approval.
While I stand with Chomsky in his criticism of oppression supported by
the US government over the years, the September 11th suicide attacks
are beyond the pale of humanity. Whoever is responsible is a criminal
of the first rank, both under the laws of the United States and under
international law. There is no justification for the attacks
whatsoever.
For Chomsky to suggest that this attack was somehow connected with a
liberation movement is entirely irresponsible and invites his
considerable audience into an irrational support of evil. I have argued
that Chomsky's analysis is non-responsive and fallacious. For the above
reasons, Chomsky's analysis is also contentious.
When the Left's leading voice resorts to such knee jerk reactions, it
is a sad day indeed. Chomsky's thinking is appalling, deplorable, and
symptomatic of an American left wing that is long overdue for an
overhaul. As an American member of the political Left, I call for
Chomsky to reconsider his remarks, and apologize to the families of the
victims for the sentiments he has expressed.
Andrew Hagen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
