Chomsky on the war situation.......
swillsqueal at yahoo.com.au
Fri Dec 6 15:39:41 MST 2002
A Modest Proposal
The NY Times Internationally Syndicated Version
By Noam Chomsky
The dedicated efforts of the Bush administration to
-- by war, military coup or some other means -- have
analyses of the guiding motives.
Offering one interpretation, Anatol Lieven, senior
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in
observes that the Bush efforts conform to "the classic
of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to
discontent into nationalism" through fear of external
The administration's goal, Lieven says, is "unilateral
through absolute military superiority," which is why
much of the
is so frightened.
The administration has overlooked a simple alternative
however. Let Iran do it. Before elaborating on this
it's worthwhile to examine the antecedents of
Ever since the Sept. 11 attacks, Republicans have used
threat as a pretext to push a right-wing political
congressional elections, the strategy has diverted
economy to war. When the presidential campaign begins,
surely do not want people to be asking questions about
jobs, health care and other matters.
Rather, they should be praising their heroic leader
from imminent destruction by a foe of colossal power,
marching on to
confront the next powerful force bent on our
The Sept. 11 atrocities provided an opportunity and
long-standing plans to take control of Iraq's immense
central component of the Persian Gulf resources that
Department, in 1945, described as a "stupendous source
power, and one of the greatest material prizes in
Control of energy sources fuels U.S. economic and
"strategic power" translates to a lever of world
A different interpretation is that the administration
what it says: Iraq has suddenly become a threat to our
and to its neighbors.
So we must ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass
for producing them are destroyed, and Saddam Hussein,
himself, eliminated. And quickly. The war must be
Next winter will be too late. By then the mushroom
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice predicts may have
Let us assume that this interpretation is correct. If
Middle East fear Washington more than Saddam, as they
that just reveals their limited grasp of reality.
It is only an accident that by next winter the U.S.
campaign will be under way. How then can we achieve
One simple plan seems to have been ignored, perhaps
regarded as insane, and rightly so. But it is
instructive to ask
The modest proposal is for the United States to
Iraq, providing the Iranians with the necessary
support, from a safe distance (missiles, bombs, bases,
As a proxy, one pole of "the axis of evil" would take
The proposal has many advantages over the
First, Saddam will be overthrown -- in fact, torn to
anyone close to him. His weapons of mass destruction
destroyed, along with the means to produce them.
Second, there will be no American casualties. True,
Iranians will die. But that can hardly be a concern.
many of them recycled Reaganites -- strongly supported
attacked Iran in 1980, quite oblivious to the enormous
either then or under the subsequent sanctions regime.
Saddam is likely to use chemical weapons. But the
firmly backed the "Beast of Baghdad" when he used
against Iran in the Reagan years, and when he used gas
people": Kurds, who were his own people in the sense
Andrew Jackson's people.
The current Washington planners continued to support
had committed by far his worst crimes, even providing
develop weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and
right up to
the invasion of Kuwait.
Bush No. 1 and Cheney also effectively authorized
Shi'ites in March 1991, in the interests of
"stability," as was
explained at the time. They withdrew their support for
attack on the
Kurds only under great international and domestic
Third, the U.N. will be no problem. It will be
the world that the U.N. is relevant when it follows
Fourth, Iran surely has far better credentials for
running a post-Saddam Iraq, than Washington. Unlike
administration, Iran has no record of support for the
and his program of weapons of mass destruction.
One might object, correctly, that we cannot trust the
leadership, but surely that is even more true of those
aid Saddam well after his worst crimes.
Furthermore, we will be spared the embarrassment of
faith in our leaders in the manner that we justly
Fifth, the liberation will be greeted with enthusiasm
by much of
population, far more so than if Americans invade.
the streets of Basra and Karbala, and we can join
hailing the nobility and just cause of the liberators.
Sixth, Iran can move toward instituting "democracy."
majority CK of
the population is Shi'ite, and Iran would have fewer
U.S. in granting them some say in a successor
There will be no problem in gaining access to Iraqi
oil, just as
companies could easily exploit Iranian energy
Washington would permit it.
Granted, the modest proposal that Iran liberate Iraq
merit is that it is far more reasonable than the plans
implemented -- or it would be, if the administration's
had any relation to the real ones.
The above has already appeared internationally via the
Syndicate. An early response follows...
Chomsky's "A Modest Proposal" Causes Head-scratching
Alternative Press (AP) - 12/02/02
Planning for the war in Iraq was thrown topsy-turvy
feverishly studied a new plan put forward by former
critic, Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky, the latest convert to the doctrine of Pax
bombshell into the laps of war planners today, in a
strategic planning entitled "A Modest Proposal." The
the U.S. to "encourage Iran to invade Iraq," with the
logistic support and weapons.
William Kristol, of the American Enterprise Institute,
paper. "I think that Chomsky now realizes that
others as you would have done unto you,' laudable as
in a biblical economy, are hopelessly outdated in our
economy." Asked to elaborate, Kristol pointed to
American Enterprise Institute that show that the "do
is fiscally irresponsible. E.g., Vice President Dick
20 million dollar golden parachute along with 6
options for his five years of work in the oil
calculations show that it would be unfeasible to share
the Mideast to improve living standards there. There
enough stock options to go around," Kristol noted.
Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and
Studies, commented on the military implications of "A
"A welcome side-effect of Chomsky's proposal,"
it will help us to avoid an unpopular draft in this
don't risk life and limb of young red-blooded
added that it would also spur U.S. arms sales to Iran,
languished ever since the missiles-for-hostages
Christopher Hitchens, formerly of the Nation, noted:
has the added advantage of not only canceling our
moral debt to
but also our moral debt to Iran for overthrowing their
installing the murderous regime of the Shah" .
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times cautiously
hard-headed proposal. "The plan to partition Iran
intriguing," said Friedman, "but without knowing more
role in the administration of post-partition Iran,
Most enthusiastic about the Chomsky plan was Israel's
Ariel Sharon, who had proposed attacking Iran
attacking Iraq in an interview for the London Times
also pledged to liberate South Africa next from the
Nelson Mandela and to resurrect apartheid and restart
atomic bomb technology to white supremacists there
Asked if the President had seen Chomsky's proposal,
Bush's press secretary, said that although the
President had not
actually read the paper, he did release the following
feeling is that Chomsky's plan probably suffers from
idealism of similar humanitarian plans in the past,
such as the
ill-conceived effort in 1729 to aid the children of
Ireland, now in the dustbin of history .
 On canceling "the moral debt" to Iraq by removing
Chistopher Hitchens, "So Long, Fellow Travelers,"
 On Sharon's proposal to attack Iran, see Stephen
Thomson and Danielle Haas, "Attack Iran the day Iraq
Israel," London Times Online, Nov. 5, 2002,
 On Israel's support of apartheid in South Africa
see A. and L. Cockburn, Dangerous Liaison,
 On the proposal to aid "the children of poor
Jonathan Swift, "A Modest Proposal for preventing the
people in Ireland from being a burden on their parents
for making them beneficial to the publick," 1729,
Lyle Jenkins, correspondent to the Alternative Press
<mailto:ljenkins2 at attbi.com>ljenkins2 at attbi.com
"Man first begins to philosophize when the necessitites of life are supplied." Aristotle
"determinatio est negatio" Spinoza
"There are no ordinary cats." Colette
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism