THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

Breaking: Bush the Younger reported to be visiting troops in Iraq. Broadcast media mention only at this point, sure to be on The Web shortly.

Bush was to spend only two hours on the ground, limiting his visit to a dinner at the airport with U.S. forces.

Washington, D.C.: I'm asking you this question sincerely: Why don't you direct your hatred of George Bush toward someone more worthy of such venom, such as Osama bin Laden?

Noam Chomsky: I don't recall having expressed any hatred for George Bush, though I have quoted people who expressed real fury at what he has done, and even compared him to the Japanese fascists who bombed Pearl Harbor: historian Arthur Schlesinger in this case. If what you mean is that I have criticized Bush's policies more than Osama's, that's because I take for granted, like everyone else, that Osama bin Laden is a murderous thug, who the current incumbents in Washington should never have supported through the 1980s, and who should be apprehended and tried for his crimes right now -- as I've written -- and don't see any point reiterating what 100% of us believe about him. But I am a citizen of the US, and therefore share responsibility for US government policies, and assume that one of the duties of citizenship is to live up to that responsibility -- by criticizing policies one thinks are wrong, for example.

Jamaica, N.Y.: Sir, it is an honor to speak with you today, what is your view on the statement that since we are the sole super-power, the U.S. has an obligation,not only to itself for protection, but to the international community to act, even when our allies are unwilling or unable, case in point Iraq, though the U.S. was never in direct danger, our allies in the Middle East were. Thank you sir.

Noam Chomsky: The assumption behind your question is that the US is entitled to act in the name of the international community, to defend their interests. One could debate this question, but it doesn't seem relevant. Take your example. The US went to war against the objection of an overwhelming majority of the international community. In the international Gallup polls of last December, there was hardly a country where support for the US-UK unilateral attack reached 10%. In fact, opposition was entirely without historical precedent. And remains so. How, in that case, can we even raise the question of the obligation of the US to act in the interests of the international community? Are we to assume that WE know the interests of others, but they don't? I'm sure you don't mean that.

Kabul, Afghanistan: I'm an American working in Kabul so I'd like your comments that might be specific to US attempts at nation-building here, of which I am a small part. Thanks.

Noam Chomsky: Reminds me of a question that was once posed to Mahatma Gandhi: "What do you think of Western civilization?" He's supposed to have answered: "I think it would be a good idea."

Same here. US attempts at nation-building would be a good idea. As you know better than I, they have been extremely meager. It should also be borne in mind that the US (like the Russians, and some others, back to Britain) has an obligation to provide Afghanistan not only with aid, but with reparations. Those who are familiar with the recent history of the current incumbents in Washington, mostly recycled from the Reagan-Bush I administrations, will understand why.

Arlington, Va.: If I may play devil's advocate for a moment, why do you believe the current U.S. striving for hegemony (if I'm not misrepresenting your view) is a bad thing?

Noam Chomsky: I don't believe it: the current administration declares it, openly and brazenly, and proceeds with actions to make it clear to the world that it means what it says. So I join virtually every commentator in believing that they do mean what they say. Is it a good thing? It's not for you and me to decide. We both know that in the case I presume you have in mind -- the invasion of Iraq -- there was overwhelming popular opposition worldwide, with few if any historical precedents. So the world apparently thought it was a "bad thing," overwhelmingly. If you check international Gallup polls at the time when the Bush administration was initiating its bombing of Aghanistan, you'll find that there was also overwhelming opposition to that, most dramatically in Latin America, which has some experience with Washington's insistence on hegemony by use of force. We can, if we like, decide that the world is just wrong, and we know best. That's not without precedent either, but I don't like the company, and I doubt that you do. But to go back to the beginning: it is not for you and me to decide whether we should unilaterally resort to violence at will.

Gothenburg, Sweden: You have said that the institutions in the US needs to be changed. Which institutions do you have in mind and how do they need to be changed?
Do you think something will happen soon on this front? I am asking because a recent survey suggested that a majority of the American people are in favour of changes in the political system, so it seems to have mainstream appeal.

Noam Chomsky: Not just the US, but everywhere. There is no place in the world that does not have structures of authority and domination that are (in my view) illegitimate, and that should be dismantled in the interests of creating a more free and just society. Furthermore, I expect that to be true forever; it's part of the "human condition".

Beyond that, we have to turn to specifics. Take the most powerful institutions in the world: great powers and corporations. I think they are fundamentally illegitimate, and should be placed under democratic control. And I'm including the states here -- democratic control is substantially form, not substance, when there are vast internal inequities of wealth and power. The leading American social philosopher of the last century, John Dewey, "as American as apple pie," was not wrong when he described politics as the shadow cast over society by big business, and when he discussed the reasons for that. And we should, I think, go far beyond what he said. But now we are moving into a domain that requires serious thought and discussion.

As for the population, it's a complicated matter. An overwhelming majority feel that the political system does not respond to their interests, and that elections are some kind of game among the powerful in which they scarcely participate, except maybe formally. And opposition to corporate power is also far-reaching. Whether this will translate into substantial popular movements to bring about change -- as in past history of the US and others, and elsewhere in the world today -- there isn't much point speculating. For people concerned about the matters, the question is one of action, not speculation about what we cannot know.

Jamaica, N.Y.: If not the United States, who should pick up the gauntlet and lead the world? There will always be a country that is above the rest. Should it not be the United States, we do encurage democracy and the freedom to earn an equal wage, it is not like Ancient Rome, or Germany, we DO promote freedom.

Noam Chomsky: No one should do so, in my opinion. The world is far better off with power diffused. I think that's true internal to societies as well. I wish it were true that US power was used to "encourage democracy and the freedom to earn an equal wage" and to "promote freedom." I'm afraid that belief will not stand up to investigation. I've explained why in detail in print, including current books, as have innumerable others, but can't try to elaborate here. But even if it were true, I would reject the premise, just as I would reject the internal analogue. If some power system within the US claimed the right to "lead the country," we'd all oppose it, and rightly, no matter what they professed.

Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: Dr. Chomsky, regarding the recent furor over the FCC's new relaxed media ownership regulations, what do you believe caused the massive public backlash against these changes? Certainly it is abnormal for an issue of this sort to capture such a magnitude of public attention.

Noam Chomsky: I presume -- at least hope -- that the public backlash was a recognition that the relaxed media ownership rules constitute a serious attack against effective free expression. And I stress "effective." A country can have very high standards of protection for free expression (as the US has had, at least since the 1960s, probably uniquely in the world) and still have very limited EFFECTIVE free expression, because of concentration of power over what can reach the public. The new proposals would reduce effective free expression, certainly the foundation of any society that pretends to be democratic.

Washington, D.C.: How can you seriously promote the dismantling of "great powers and corporations"? Power abhors a vacuum, and unless you want us to turn into a society of small, independent communes, current great powers or corporations would merely be replaced by other conceptions of power and corporation. The lessons learned from the failed Soviet experiment should be evidence enough for the fallacy of this belief.

Noam Chomsky: The Soviet experiment was one of highly concentrated power, from the start, when Lenin and Trotsky moved quickly to destroy the democratic, socialist, and participatory elements of the pre-takeover period. It remained so. So I don't see the relevance. Could unaccountable private tyrannies be dismantled and placed under popular control in the US? I've never seen an argument to the contrary. There many very specific proposals as to how a more democratic economy could run: to mention just one example, the proposals of Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel (together and separately) about "participatory economics," which you can find in many books. And there are plenty of others. Just how far freedom and democracy can go, we don't know, but I know of no reason to suppose that we've hit some limit.

Harrisburg, Pa.: You are very critical of our current politices. If you could change United States foreign and military policy, what would you make as our primary objectives? Should we have a role in providing economic assistance that may have mutual benefits and should we engage in military operations that prevent genocide?

Noam Chomsky: We should surely provide economic assistance that has benefits (I don't know why "mutual" enters). And there is no shortage of examples. To take just one, at least 3000 children die every day in Africa from easily preventable diseases, and with funding so slight that we wouldn't even notice it, we could easily end that catastrophe. As for preventing genocide, yes, I think it would be legitimate to use force to do so, and I even know of a few cases. In the post-World War II period there are two real examples that might qualify: India's invasion of East Pakistan and Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia. In both cases, the US strenuously opposed the actions to terminate huge atrocities, and punished India (and particularly Vietnam) for doing so. I don't know of any cases remotely comparable. If you have Kosovo in mind, I'd urge that you look at the massive Western documentation on the topic, which is quite decisive. You can find some reviews in books of mine, including the most recent one ("Hegemony or Survival"), but you should not take it on faith, but check the original sources, which is not hard.

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: As a Canadian I sometimes feel as though my nation is crawling into bed with a known rapist, at the cost of our sovereignty, our identity and our dignity. Is there any way for Canada to extract itself from its already deep relationship or to resist becoming further under the fold of our incredibly powerful neighbor to the south? Would stronger ties with Europe or anyone else be more beneficial in the long run?

Noam Chomsky: I hesitate to give advice to others, but Canada surely has options, including those you mention. It's not Haiti. As in other cases discussed here, the issue is will, not opportunity.

Why They Hate Bush Overseas

Posted by John Averyt
Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Press reports of George Bush's unpopularity abroad have proved overblown. The media hype far outweighed any real protest in England. There was, reportedly, internal debate among the protestors if throwing Molotov cocktails was an act of violence. None of that happened.

There was, during the cold war, a fear from the Euro-left, that Americans were going to get them (the Euros) blown up. No matter if the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia, packed the East German highways with SS-20 missiles or backed terrorists, any tension was America's fault. In his time, Ronald Reagan bore this opprobrium. Now it is George Bush's turn.

The Soviet Empire collapsed. World elites began to enmesh America in a skein of international agreements. They sought to enslave the remaining superpower.

The Clinton administration was an ''Internationalist's'' dream. Selling missile secrets to the Chinese, rolling over on trade deals, Clinton was practically a Brussels' bureaucrat. This guy would sign anything. Then came George Bush.

All of a sudden, the sovereignty surrender was finished. No more roll over. No more take my missile secrets please. Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, International Criminal Court, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, one by one these sacred icons fell at the hands of George Bush.

Surprise, America was not going to commit economic suicide. Bush would not allow foreign bureaucrats to try American soldiers in kangaroo courts. The United States would build the appropriate missile systems to defend itself. The big Euro-plans began going up in smoke. It was the fault of that dimwit Texan.

Eyebrows began to go up in Europe. This was not the way the game was played. The United States was supposed to keep on being the punching bag for the ''Euro world brotherhood.'' How dare the United States want to keep its sovereignty?

Then came 9/11. From the Euro point of view, George Bush went wild. With barely a nod in their direction, American forces invaded Afghanistan. No sooner was that war ended than talk of invading Iraq began to circulate. As far as the world elites were concerned, America had finally gone off the rails. Ironically, the long delay Bush endured trying to appease the U.N., gave the left the time it needed. By the time Iraq was invaded, a worldwide hate Bush organization was prepared.

Reading the British screeds prior to Mr. Bush's trip to England, one expected nothing less than Armageddon. There were a few muted protests. A statue of Bush was pulled down (Ala Saddam Hussein's statue in Baghdad, in case one missed the symbolism). Not much else happened.

America is the world's major producer of both good and services. Although far from perfect, our military is dominant. Our economy is the driving force behind world economic expansion. Any constriction of this engine, such as Kyoto, might very well cause a disastrous worldwide depression. Even as the hatred of President Bush consumes tons of ink overseas, the elites know they cannot survive without us.

Their own nations, such as France and Germany, are committing economic and social suicide. Their populations cannot sustain themselves. They are being overwhelmed by unrestricted immigration. Cradle to grave welfare states stagger under an ever-expanding burden of beneficiaries. Businesses flee. Not a pretty picture.

This is not the way things are supposed to be. The world elites consider themselves superior to Americans, especially plain spoken Texans like George Bush. The Euro-crats cannot live in a world dominated by their inferiors. Therefore, they have invented a world where they hate George Bush. This provides cover for Euro-elite incompetence, but not for long. The United States has proved, so far, unstoppable.

With every new bomb Al Qeada explodes, it becomes apparent that the terrorists, not George Bush, are the real enemy. The media will strive mightily to give the opposite impression, but things are pretty much ship-shape over here.

Let the Euros and others keep their hate. It is a reality substitute and doesn't matter at all. Everyday we remain in Iraq killing terrorists is a victory. The American electorate will determine the fate of George Bush. He is our representative. Therefore, it is really the American electorate these world fabulists hate.

When the Al Qeada wolf comes to the door, as it has in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, we'll see how much hate they have left. No doubt they too will be calling Colin Powell... and George Bush.

John Averyt is a freelance writer who resides in New York City.

Copyright © 2003 ChronWatch. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Here are President Bush's remarks Thursday to U.S. troops in Baghdad, as provided by the White House:

Thank you. I was just looking for a warm meal somewhere. Thank you for inviting me to dinner. General Sanchez, thank you, sir, for your kind invitation and your strong leadership. Ambassador Bremer, thank you for your steadfast belief in freedom and peace. I want to thank the members of the Governing Council who are here, pleased you are joining us on our nation's great holiday, it's a chance to give thanks to the Almighty for the many blessings we receive.

I'm particularly proud to be with the 1st Armored Division, the 2nd ACR, the 82nd Airborne.

I can't think of a finer group of folks to have Thanksgiving dinner with than you all.

We're proud of you. Today, Americans are gathering with their loved ones to give thanks for the many blessings in our lives. And this year we are especially thankful for the courage and the sacrifice of those who defend us, the men and women of the United States military.

I bring a message on behalf of America: We thank you for your service, we're proud of you, and America stands solidly behind you.

Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country. You're honoring that oath.

The United States military is doing a fantastic job. You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country.

You're defeating Saddam's henchmen, so that the people of Iraq can live in peace and freedom.

By helping the Iraqi people become free, you're helping change a troubled and violent part of the world.

By helping to build a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East,

you are defending the American people from danger and we are grateful.

You're engaged in a difficult mission. Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will.

They hope we will run. We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins.

We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just.

We will win because we will stay on the offensive.

And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled.

And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom.

Every day you see firsthand the commitment to sacrifice that the Iraqi people are making to secure their own freedom.

I have a message for the Iraqi people: You have an opportunity to seize the moment and rebuild your great country, based on human dignity and freedom. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone forever.

The United States and our coalition will help you, help you build a peaceful country so that your children can have a bright future. We'll help you find and bring to justice the people who terrorized you for years and are still killing innocent Iraqis. We will stay until the job is done. I'm confident we will succeed, because you, the Iraqi people, will show the world that you're not only courageous, but that you can govern yourself wisely and justly.

On this Thanksgiving, our nation remembers the men and women of our military, your friends and comrades who paid the ultimate price for our security and freedom.

We ask for God's blessings on their families, their loved ones and their friends, and we pray for your safety and your strength, as you continue to defend America and to spread freedom.

Each one of you has answered a great call, participating in an historic moment in world history.

You live by a code of honor, of service to your nation, with the safety and the security of your fellow citizens.

Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth.

I'm proud to be your commander in chief.

I bring greetings from America.

May God bless you all.

John Pike, director of the GlobalSecurity.org think tank. "Basically what they are trying to do is come up with some conceptual construct that accounts for the persistent American presence in Iraq and in [Central Asia]."