September 11th and Noam Chomsky

By Nathaniel Ward | Wednesday, January 12, 2005

9-11
Noam Chomsky
Seven Stories Press, 2001

Know thy enemy.

It is one of warfare's oldest axioms, that understanding one's opponent in battle—his strengths, his weaknesses, his desires—can bring victory far better than can brute force. History attests to this doctrine's success: generals, like Alexander, who understood their enemies prevailed, while those, like Hitler, who underestimated their foes lost more often than not.

This rule certainly applies to the War on Terror as much as any other conflict. If Noam Chomsky, the famed linguist, had his way, though, we'd stop at mere understanding; fighting terrorists would be out of the question. In his view, Americans should simply hear the terrorists' grievances but do nothing active to redress them. Heaven forefend we anger a terrorist!

In 9/11, which is barely over a hundred pages and still manages to be excruciatingly long, Chomsky collects his precious interviews from September 2001. It is a pastiche of a mind unhinged. His positions on terrorism demonstrate a singular detachment from reality. For all his talk of the need to understand terrorists, Chomsky does a very poor job of understanding them in the first place. To him, the terrorists who knocked down the Twin Towers were reacting rationally to American foreign policy and not acting in the name of a brutal faction of radical Islamicism.

Chomsky's primary proposals for combating terrorism are, on the surface, quite normal. Like the Bush administration, he rejects the idea that terrorism is the weapon of the weak, and insists that it must necessarily be perpetrated by states; these, of course, should be held responsible. As such, he supports the removal of terrorist regimes and their replacement with democratic governments. Chomsky explains that, in an age of terrorism, those who seek to "reduce the likelihood of further atrocities, and to advance hopes for freedom, human rights and democracy" should "intensify their efforts."

Don't be fooled, though, by these apparently rational conclusions: they're a fa�ade. Chomsky devotes several pages to explaining how America would be wrong to remove those conditions that allow terrorism to thrive, namely oppression and its consequent poverty. In fact, even though Chomsky repeatedly says terrorism is a state instrument—he claims the United States is the most common offender—he also proposes that we instead treat terrorism as a simple crime committed by individuals. He suggests the perpetrators should just be arrested, as after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Finally, he makes it clear that the "freedom" and "human rights" he espouses are more accurately freedom from liberty and freedom from secular, humanitarian government.

That Islamist terrorists might have an agenda other than "get back at America" seems not to occur to him, even though it's painfully obvious. Iraqi terror ringleader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi recently said he fights to "make God's word supreme" and will kill anyone who gets in his way. It significantly discredits Chomsky's work that he fails to see terrorism's roots in religious fundamentalism.

Chomsky's ideas further break down upon their application to real life. He ardently opposes any military operations in Afghanistan—the book was turned out before American involvement there. Interestingly, he bases his opposition to the Afghan war not on any of his broader theories of terror prevention but on a belief—wrong in hindsight—that America would simply fall into Osama bin Laden's "diabolical trap." He discards his prescription for the overthrow of state sponsors of terror, on the grounds that we'd simply encourage the terrorists; he neglects to explain how America would affect regime change without hurting the existing regime's feelings. Chomsky, calling America "uncivilized" for not just talking with the Taliban per the principles of international law (which the Taliban routinely ignored anyway), claims that any attack on terrorists would itself be terrorism. Explaining that the Nazis used "counter-terrorism" as an excuse for repression at home, he even argues against domestic efforts to suppress the terrorist threat.

Having proscribed any actual action against any actual terrorists, Chomsky seems to advocate only concessions. Indeed, he places much of the blame for the September 11th attacks squarely on the United States, which he says should change its ways to prevent future attacks. Since the Islamist goal is the application of Islamic law across the world and the eradication of the United States, these are certain to be drastic reforms. Chomsky determines that America's only real recourse against terrorism, which it could not combat on its own without itself committing far worse barbarities, would be to act through the United Nations—though he elsewhere accuses that body of almost criminal inaction in other instances.

At the beginning of the book, he notes that American foreign policy has caused the deaths of millions worldwide, adding that it's really about time the United States got a taste of its own medicine. He cites the American annexation of Hawaii, of all things, as a cause for September 11th, and he notes that "for the first time, the guns have been directed the other way." Not that he admits to believing America deserved the attacks; it's rather off-putting how often he goes on the defensive and denies blaming America. As if to dispel any notion that he might have reveled in the deaths of thousands of his countrymen, he rather disingenuously explains that the attacks were "awful" and "horrifying atrocities," carried out in the name of a "horrendous cause."

As if his remarkable misunderstanding of terrorism weren't enough, Chomsky goes a step further, proving he misunderstands the United States as well. Delving into uncharted depths of incoherence and irrelevance, he suggests that a proposed oil pipeline through Afghanistan, the same one that so fascinated filmmaker Michael Moore, is the real reason for the United States' 2001 attacks on al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan. He concludes, astoundingly, that not all Americans are in favor of wanton killing, and he blames television news for somehow making such a view appear unanimous. He further expounds at length about alleged American efforts to censor Al Jazeera, though even he admits the television network uses "anti-American oratory." And to top it off, he claims Osama bin Laden is "courageously fighting oppressors, who are quite real."

The clearest part of his book, and the only advice worth taking from it, is the closing line: "it is important not to be intimidated by hysterical ranting and lies."

September 11th and Noam Chomsky

Article Tools

Related Articles