 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Featured PublicationsReturn
to Featured Publications Menu
What Americans have
learnt - and not learnt - since 9/11
September 7, 2002
Endless war poses a far greater
danger to the United States than perceived enemies do, writes
Noam Chomsky.
September 11 shocked many Americans
into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention
to what the United States Government does in the world and how
it is perceived.
Many issues have been opened
for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That is all
to the good.
It is also the merest sanity,
if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It
may be comforting for Americans to pretend that their enemies
"hate our freedoms", as President Bush stated, but
it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different
lessons.
The President is not the first
to ask: "Why do they hate us?"
In a staff discussion 44 years
ago, president Dwight Eisenhower described "the campaign
of hatred against us (in the Arab world), not by the governments
but by the people". His National Security Council outlined
the basic argument: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments
and is "opposing political or economic progress" because
of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.
Post-September 11 surveys in
the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded
with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even
true of privileged, Western-oriented sectors in the region.
To cite just one recent example,
in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, internationally
recognised regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that, in Pakistan,
"there is growing anger that US support is allowing (Musharraf's)
military regime to delay the promise of democracy".
Today, Americans do themselves
few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us"
and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are
people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including
its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them
the freedoms to which they, too, aspire.
For such reasons, the post-September
11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support
for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion"
of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those
who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration,
terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits.
We should also be aware that
much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In
recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia,
Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet
official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when
Americans apply the term to enemies.
In the most sober establishment
journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While
the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states',
in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower
. . . the single greatest external threat to their societies."
Such perceptions are not changed
by the fact that on September 11, for the first time, a Western
country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist
attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of Western power.
The attack goes far beyond what is sometimes called the "retail
terror" of the IRA or Red Brigade.
The September 11 terrorism elicited
harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of
sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.
An international Gallup Poll
in late September found little support for "a military attack"
by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the
most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2 per
cent in Mexico to 16 per cent in Panama.
The present "campaign of
hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fuelled by
US policies towards Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided
the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now
in its 35th year.
One way for the US to lessen
Israeli-Palestinian tension would be to stop refusing to join
the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition
of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and
security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied
territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments).
In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions
under US pressure has strengthened Saddam while leading to the
death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people
"than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction
throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller
wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999.
Washington's present justifications
to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President
Bush No. 1 was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner
after the Iraqi leader had committed his worst brutalities -
as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988.
At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is
today.
As for a US attack against Iraq,
no one, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically
guess the possible costs and consequences.
Radical Islamist extremists surely
hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy
much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions.
They presumably also welcome
the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack
against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The
President has announced that: "There's no telling how many
wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland". That's
true.
Threats are everywhere, even
at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater
danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the
terrorist organisations understand very well.
Twenty years ago, the former
head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also
a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To
offer an honourable solution to the Palestinians, respecting
their right to self-determination - that is the solution of the
problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears,
there will be no more mosquitoes."
At the time, Israel enjoyed the
virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories
that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt,
and the lesson applies more generally.
Well before September 11, it
was understood that, with modern technology, the rich and powerful
would lose their near-monopoly of the means of violence and could
expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.
If America insists on creating
more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity
for destruction.
If America devotes its resources
to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns
of hatred", it can not only reduce the threats it faces
but also live up to ideals that it professes and that are not
beyond reach if Americans choose to take them seriously.
American academic Noam Chomsky
is the author, most recently, of the bestseller September 11.
Home
Page | Building the Global Village
| Events
Latest
News | Featured Publications
| Join Today | Fundraising
|
Featured Publications What Americans have learnt - and not learnt - since 9/11 September 7, 2002 Endless war poses a far greater danger to the United States than perceived enemies do, writes Noam Chomsky. September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much closer attention to what the United States Government does in the world and how it is perceived. Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That is all to the good. It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities. It may be comforting for Americans to pretend that their enemies "hate our freedoms", as President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys different lessons. The President is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff discussion 44 years ago, president Dwight Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us (in the Arab world), not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic argument: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region. Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today, compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true of privileged, Western-oriented sectors in the region. To cite just one recent example, in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review, internationally recognised regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that, in Pakistan, "there is growing anger that US support is allowing (Musharraf's) military regime to delay the promise of democracy". Today, Americans do themselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us" and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are people who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they, too, aspire. For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example, about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion" of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support and recruits. We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua, Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism" - that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies. In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states', in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower . . . the single greatest external threat to their societies." Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that on September 11, for the first time, a Western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack of a kind all too familiar to victims of Western power. The attack goes far beyond what is sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA or Red Brigade. The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications. An international Gallup Poll in late September found little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from 2 per cent in Mexico to 16 per cent in Panama. The present "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also fuelled by US policies towards Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year. One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tension would be to stop refusing to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border adjustments). In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people "than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1999. Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq have far less credibility than when President Bush No. 1 was welcoming Saddam as an ally and a trading partner after the Iraqi leader had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja, where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam was more dangerous than he is today. As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions. They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The President has announced that: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland". That's true. Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist organisations understand very well. Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi, also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honourable solution to the Palestinians, respecting their right to self-determination - that is the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes." At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the lesson applies more generally. Well before September 11, it was understood that, with modern technology, the rich and powerful would lose their near-monopoly of the means of violence and could expect to suffer atrocities on home soil. If America insists on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome capacity for destruction. If America devotes its resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns of hatred", it can not only reduce the threats it faces but also live up to ideals that it professes and that are not beyond reach if Americans choose to take them seriously. American academic Noam Chomsky is the author, most recently, of the bestseller September 11. Home Page | Building the Global Village | Events Latest News | Featured Publications | Join Today | Fundraising |