Chomsky Comment On Iraq
Bombing
Wish I could try to give a reasoned response to
your (very reasonable) inquiry, but I'm utterly swamped, in no small measure on
this matter. Can only make a brief comment.
I think the major reasons are the usual ones.
The US and its increasingly pathetic British lieutenant want the world to
understand -- and in particular want the people of the Middle East region to
understand -- that "What We Say Goes," as Bush defined his New World
Order while the missiles were raining on Baghdad in February 1991. The message,
clear and simple, is that we are violent and lawless states, and if you don't
like it, get out of our way. It's a message of no small significance. Simply
have a look at the projections of geologists concerning the expanding role of
Middle East oil in global energy production in the coming decades.
I suspect that the message is understood in the
places to which it is addressed.
A very conservative assessment is that the US/UK
attacks are "aggression," to borrow the apt term of the Vatican and
others. They are as clear an example of a war crime as one could construct. In
the past, acts of aggression, international terrorism, and violence have
sometimes been cloaked in at least a pretense of legalism -- increasingly
ludicrous over the years, to be sure. In this case there was not even a
pretense. Rather, the US and its client simply informed the world that they are
criminal states, and that the structure of binding international law and
conventions that has been laboriously constructed over many years is now
terminated. It is still available, of course, as a weapon against designated
enemies, but apart from that it is without significance or value. True, that has
been always been operative reality, but it has rarely been declared with such
clarity and dramatic force.
As for the moral level, if the word can even be
used, it is hard to improve on the pronouncements of Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright. Two years ago, when asked on national TV about her reaction
to reports that the sanctions she administers have killed half a million Iraqi
children in 5 years, she responded that it is "a very hard choice,"
but "we think the price is worth it." We know well enough on what page
of history those sentiments belong. Today, suggesting a reversal of Washington's
policy since 1991 of seeking a military dictatorship to replace Saddam Hussein's
in name at least, she explains that "we have come to the determination that
the Iraqi people would benefit if they had a government that really represented
them." We need not tarry on the plausibility of this sudden conversion. The
fact that the words can be articulated tells us more than enough.
It costs the US/UK nothing to keep a
stranglehold on Iraq and to torture its people -- while strengthening Saddam's
rule, as all concede There is a temporary oil glut, and from the point of view
of the oil majors (mainly US/UK and clients), it's just as well to keep Iraqi
oil off the market for the moment; the low price is harmful to profits. That
aside, competitors (France and Russia) are likely to have the inside track when
Iraq, which has the world's second largest known energy reserves, is brought
back into the international system, as it will be when its resources are needed.
So it might not be a bad idea to bomb the refineries too, while dismantling
further what remains of Iraqi society.
The region is highly volatile and turbulent.
Alliances can quickly shift. Though the fact is carefully suppressed, we would
do well to bear in mind that the US/UK were highly protective of their admired
friend and trading partner Saddam Hussein right through the period of his worst
crimes (gassing of Kurds, etc.), and returned to support for him right after the
Gulf War, in March 1991, as he turned to crushing a Shi'ite rebellion in the
South that might have overthrown his regime. Alliances are likely to shift
again. But fundamental interests remain stable, and the two warrior states are
making it as clear as they can that they are dangerous, and others should
beware.
It might also be recalled that a recent
high-level planning study, released early this year but scarcely reported,
resurrected Nixon's "madman theory," advising that the US should
present itself as "irrational and vindictive," flourishing its nuclear
arsenal and portraying itself as "out of control." That should
frighten the world properly, and ensure submissiveness, it is hoped.
The most ominous aspect of all of this is,
perhaps, that the openly declared contempt for the law of nations and professed
norms of civilized behavior proceeds without eliciting even a twitter of
principled comment among the educated classes. Their position, with impressive
uniformity, is that the criminal stance of the US and its client are so
obviously valid as to be beyond discussion, even beyond thought. If such matters
as international law or the opinions and wishes of the population of the region
intrude at all, which is very rare, they are dismissed as a
"technicality," with no bearing on the decisions of the global ruler.
Not only are the warrior states officially declaring (not for the first time, to
be sure) that the foundations of international order are an absurd irrelevance,
but they are doing so with the virtually unanimous endorsement of the educated
classes. The world should take notice, and it surely does, outside of narrow
sectors of privilege and power.
The manner and timing of the attack were also
surely intended to be a gesture of supreme contempt for the United Nations, and
a declaration of the irrelevance of international law or other obligations; that
too has been understood. The bombing was initiated as the Security Council met
in emergency session to deal with the crisis in Iraq, and even its permanent
members were not notified. The timing is interesting in other ways. The bombing
began at 5PM Eastern Standard Time, when the three major TV channels open their
news programs. The script is familiar. The first war crime orchestrated for
prime time TV was the bombing of Libya in 1986, scheduled precisely for 7PM EST
-- which is when the major TV news programs aired then.
Personally, I doubt that all of this has much to
do with the impeachment farce. From Clinton's point of view, the coincidence
mainly serves to undermine his credibility further, though Democrats are plainly
hoping to construct an issue for later campaigns, establishing the basis for
much passionate rhetoric about how these evil Republicans attacked our
Commander-in-Chief while our brave sons and daughters were putting their lives
on the line fighting for their country, and so on. The posture is familiar not
only here, but also in the long and ugly record of warrior states generally.
Noam Chomsky
|
