Chomsky must apologize.
Note:Originally posted to pen-l on 21 September 2001. Last edited 28 September 2001.
Noam Chomsky’s position on the attack of September 11 was carried by B92, and reprinted in Counterpunch.
The initial question and its answer are striking. Chomsky is asked, “Why do you think these attacks happened?” In response, he engages in a long, predictable diatribe against US foreign policy. Bin Laden was a creature of the CIA, etc, etc.
Chomsky’s analysis is non-responsive, fallacious, and contentious. I call for Chomsky to apologize to the families of the victims. Below are the reasons.
Chomsky’s analysis is non-responsive. Chomsky never answers the question of why the attacks happened. He only speaks about the injustice that the US has perpetrated upon the world. Not explicitly, but by implication Chomsky sends the message that “we” deserved it.
The meaning of “we” is unclear. It could mean the body politic of the United States. It could mean the people who actually died, many of whom were not political decision makers. For example, did the 300 fire fighters deserve to die because they were too uncritical of US foreign policy?
Chomsky does not answer the question of why the attack happened. He only asserts that Muslims resent the United States. Yet, resentment does not generally lead to such atrocities.
Why is there evil in the world? Let us leave that question to the philosophers and theologians. (Although, since, when properly drawn, philosophy is never inconvenient, it is worthwhile to say that evil is often a conscious choice, as I explicate in the following essay, “Chomsky and his Critics.”) To answer the question that Chomsky leaves open, it happened because someone conceived of unleashing an attack of grand magnitude against the United States, and then put that idea into effect. In failing to address the question as put, Chomsky’s analysis is non-responsive.
It would behoove the Left to develop the reputation that its commentators answer questions in a straightforward manner. Chomsky’s analysis is of no help in this regard.
Chomsky’s analysis is also fallacious. The attacks were well coordinated, meticulously planned, and executed by agents who had to have received extensive training. Four airplanes were successfully hijacked, and no airplanes were targets of unsuccessful hijack attempts. The hijackers carried nothing more than short knives and box cutters (comparable to x-acto knives). (Note: 12 December 2003. Today we know that little if any evidence suggests the hijackers used box cutters.) They made some bomb threats. The audacity of the attacks indicates either total idiocy on the part of the hijackers backed by the best luck imaginable, or extreme confidence backed by a masterful plan that was rehearsed over and over. As an inference drawn from several media reports, there is a real possibility that all of the hijackers were using stolen identification documents. All of these facts point toward a military operation, paramilitary operation, or “black ops” operation.
Chomsky states that the attack occurred because America is resented. For the sake of argument, I grant that America is resented by the entire Muslim world. Nevertheless, it is a plain fact that the attack has NOT met with popular approval anywhere in the world, and no sustained popular approval in the Muslim world. While there were a few brief celebrations in the wake of the attacks in Palestine and elsewhere, those celebrations have subsided now that the truly horrific scope of the atrocity has become well known. From a population that resents us, it is striking how little approval the attacks have received.
While many may resent America, the attack came from a relative few who did not ask for and have not received popular support for their action. Many Muslims resent America, but none except for a very few of the Osama Bin Laden ilk have publicly supported the attack. Thus, even widespread resentment of America by Muslims could not have generated these attacks. These attacks could only have been generated by a relatively small group of dedicated people who see resentment, and hence hatred, as tools to be sharpened, not as necessary preconditions for a successful attack.
It is a sad commentary on the state of what passes for intellectualism on the Left today that the best that such a leading commentator can do is parrot the mass media in searching for a reason “why they hate us,” restated as why they “resent” us. Popular resentment or hatred is mere background to this picture.
Perhaps Chomsky would argue that the United States is so highly resented that an attack of this nature was inevitable. Maybe there is some cosmic justice in the sometimes menacing (Mossadegh, Allende) and often blundering superpower (Somalia pharmaceutical plant, Iranian airliner) finally getting a taste of what it dishes out.
Does Chomsky propose that there is some cosmic justice at work here? He often mentions the “cycle of violence.” Is this a spiritual force that is wreaking a terrible justice on America? Perhaps this is Chomsky’s belief, but it is unsupported, and I do not share it.
In a response to a later question, Chomsky suggests that the US is pressuring Pakistan to reduce humanitarian aid to the suffering people of Afghanistan. Even if true, that point breezes over the hard fact that the US is itself the provider of a significant proportion of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. This flawed statement of Chomsky’s is illustrative of my larger point.
Chomsky’s analysis is unsupported. To the extent he begins to answer the question posed, his reply is riddled with fallacies.
So far, I have argued that Chomsky’s analysis is both non-responsive and fallacious.
Chomsky’s response is also contentious. In failing to answer the simple question of why, and engaging in a reckless crusade of fallacies, Chomsky effectively blames the United States for the attack that befell its people. I would ordinarily understand such criticism. The foreign policy of the US is highly flawed and often immoral. Perhaps if American foreign policy were better considered, this would not have happened.
Chomsky has gone so far as to justify the attack, however. The attack occurred because the Muslims are concerned that the United States has been, among other things,
“propping up oppressive regimes.” Among the great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts.
(quoting Chomsky’s analysis)
I stand in solidarity with all the oppressed people of the world. Merely because one is oppressed, however, does not justify any action in support of liberation. For Chomsky, though, it is apparently all relative. Whatever seems expedient to throw off the yoke of the oppressors, including any manner of atrocity, is understandable to Chomsky.
Chomsky is not disturbed that suicide bombings are known to be generated by fury and despair. He still understands them. If enough emotional content is put into an action, is it inherently justified? No. Instead, we should insist on rationally considering the ethics of conduct. I stand for rational judgment, not the unwarranted pity Chomsky holds out as a prop. Liberation tactics must be ethical or they must be condemned.
It is contentious to justify these attacks as generated by resentment, when all the evidence points toward a lack of any popular approval. While I stand with Chomsky in his criticism of oppression supported by the US government over the years, the September 11th suicide attacks are beyond the pale of humanity. Whoever is responsible is a criminal of the first rank, both under the laws of the United States and under international law. There is no justification for the attacks whatsoever.
For Chomsky to suggest that this attack was somehow connected with a liberation movement is entirely irresponsible and invites his considerable audience into an irrational support of evil. I have argued that Chomsky’s analysis is non-responsive and fallacious. For the above reasons, Chomsky’s analysis is also contentious.
When the Left’s leading voice resorts to such knee jerk reactions, it is a sad day indeed. Chomsky’s thinking is appalling, deplorable, and symptomatic of an American left wing that is long overdue for an overhaul. As an American member of the political Left, I call for Chomsky to reconsider his remarks, and apologize to the families of the victims for the sentiments he has expressed.