[Mb-civic] Newsweek Int. website: Short but sweet Chomsky interview
ean at sbcglobal.net
ean at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jan 9 21:15:41 PST 2006
MSNBC.com
The Last Word: Noam Chomsky
A Tale of Two Quagmires
Newsweek International
Jan. 9, 2006 issue - Noam Chomsky has been called one of the most
influential intellectuals of the 20th century, but it's an accolade the 77-
year-old MIT professor doesn't take very seriously. "People just want to
hear something outside the rigid dogma they're used to," he says.
"They're not going to hear it in the media." The linguistics prodigy
turned political theorist has been a leading mind in the antiwar
movement since the early '60s; he's also still a prolific author,
producing more than six books in the past five years. He spoke to
NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings about the current geopolitical
climate. Excerpts:
Hastings: Where do you see Iraq heading right now?
Chomsky: Well, it's extremely difficult to talk about this because of a
very rigid doctrine that prevails in the United States and Britain which
prevents us from looking at the situation realistically. The doctrine, to
oversimplify, is that we have to believe the United States would have
so-called liberated Iraq even if its main products were lettuce and
pickles and [the] main energy resource of the world were in central
Africa. Anyone who doesn't accept that is dismissed as a conspiracy
theorist or a lunatic or something. But anyone with a functioning brain
knows that that's not trueas all Iraqis do, for example. The United
States invaded Iraq because its major resource is oil. And it gives the
United States, to quote [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, "critical leverage" over
its competitors, Europe and Japan. That's a policy that goes way back
to the second world war. That's the fundamental reason for invading
Iraq, not anything else.
Once we recognize that, we're able to begin talking about where Iraq is
going. For example, there's a lot of talk about the United States
bringing [about] a sovereign independent Iraq. That can't possibly be
true. All you have to do is ask yourself what the policies would be in a
more-or-less democratic Iraq. We know what they're likely to be. A
democratic Iraq will have a Shiite majority, [with] close links to Iran.
Furthermore, it's right across the border from Saudi Arabia, where
there's a Shiite population which has been brutally repressed by the
U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. If there are any moves toward
sovereignty in Shiite Iraq, or at least some sort of freedom, there are
going to be effects across the border. That happens to be where most
of Saudi Arabia's oil is. So you can see the ultimate nightmare
developing from Washington's point of view.
You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you
think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?
I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a
misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The
misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The
misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United
States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were
afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent
development and that would have a virus effectinfect others who
might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war
aimdestroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically
achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat,
because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims
being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that.
[But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy
Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's
inconceivable.
Was the antiwar movement more successful in the '60s than it is
today?
I think it's the other way around. The United States attacked Vietnam in
1962. It took years before any protest developed. Iraq is the first time
in hundreds of years of European and American history that a war was
massively protested before it was launched. There was huge protest in
February 2003. It had never happened in the history of the West.
Where do you put George W. Bush in the pantheon of American
presidents?
He's more or less a symbol, but I think the people around him are the
most dangerous administration in American history. I think they're
driving the world to destruction. There are two major threats that face
the world, threats of the destruction of the species, and they're not a
joke. One of them is nuclear war, and the other is environmental
catastrophe, and they are driving toward destruction in both domains.
They're compelling competitors to escalate their own offensive military
capacityRussia, China, now Iran. That means putting their offensive
nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.
The Bush administration has succeeded in making the United States
one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. The talent of
these guys is unbelievable. They have even succeeded at alienating
Canada. I mean, that takes genius, literally.
© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10682403/site/newsw/
--
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list,
option D (up to 3 emails/day). To be removed, or to switch options
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D -
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know! If someone forwarded you
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.
"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert Jackson,
former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060109/586cb9fe/attachment.htm
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list