War On Iraq:
Deep Concerns
By Noam Chomsky
At this grim moment, we can
do nothing to stop the ongoing invasion. But that does not mean that
the task is over for people who have some concern for justice, freedom,
and human rights. Far from it. The tasks will be more urgent than before,
whatever the outcome of the attack. And about that, no one has any idea:
not the Pentagon, the CIA, or anyone else. Possibilities range from
the horrifying humanitarian catastrophes of which aid and relief agencies
that work in Iraq have been warning, to
relatively benign outcomes - though even if not a hair is harmed on
anyone's head that will in no way mitigate the criminality of those
willing to subject helpless people to such terrible risks, for their
own shameful purposes.
As for the outcomes, it will
be a long time before preliminary judgments can be made. One immediate
task is to lend what weight we can to more benign outcomes. That means,
primarily, caring for the needs of the victims, not just of this war
but of Washington's vicious and destructive sanctions regime of the
past ten years, which has devastated the civilian society, strengthened
the ruling tyrant, and compelled the population to rely on him for survival.
As has been pointed out for years, the sanctions therefore undermined
the hope that Saddam Hussein would go the way of other murderous tyrants
no less vicious than he. That includes a terrible rogues gallery of
criminals who were also supported by those now at the helm in Washington,
in many cases to the last days of their bloody rule: Ceausescu, to mention
only one obvious and highly pertinent case.
Elementary decency would
call for massive reparations from the US; lacking that, at least a flow
of aid to Iraqis, so that they can rebuild what has been destroyed in
their own way, not as dictated by people in Washington and Crawford
whose higher faith is that power comes from the barrel of a gun.
But the issues are much more
fundamental, and long range. Opposition to the invasion of Iraq has
been entirely without historical precedent. That is why Bush had to
meet his two cronies at a US military base on an island, where they
would be safely removed from any mere people. The opposition may be
focused on the invasion of Iraq, but its concerns go far beyond that.
There is growing fear of US power, which is considered to be the greatest
threat to peace in much of the world, probably by a large majority.
And with the technology of destruction now at hand, rapidly becoming
more lethal and ominous, threat to peace means threat to survival.
Fear of the US government
is not based solely on this invasion, but on the background from which
it arises: An openly-declared determination to rule the world by force,
the one dimension in which US power is supreme, and to make sure that
there will never be any challenge to that domination. Preventive wars
are to be fought at will: Preventive, not Pre-emptive. Whatever the
justifications for pre-emptive war might sometimes be, they do not hold
for the very different category of preventive war: the use of military
force to eliminate an imagined or invented threat. The openly-announced
goal is to prevent an challenge to the "power, position, and prestige
of the United States." Such challenge, now or in the future, and
any sign that it may emerge, will be met without overwhelming force
by the rulers of the country that now apparently outspends the rest
of the world combined on means of
violence, and is forging new and very dangerous paths over near-unanimous
world opposition: development of lethal weaponry in space, for example.
It is worth bearing in mind
that the words I quoted are not those of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld
or other radical statist extremists now in charge. Rather, they are
the words of the respected elder statesman Dean Acheson, 40 years ago,
when he was a senior advisor to the Kennedy Administration. He was justifying
US actions against Cuba - knowing that the international terrorist campaign
aimed at "regime change" had just brought the world close
to terminal nuclear war. Nevertheless, he instructed the American Society
of International Law, no "legal issue" arises in the case
of a US response to a challenge to its "power, position, and prestige,"
specifically terrorist attacks and economic warfare against Cuba.
I bring this up as a reminder
that the issues are deep-seated. The current administration is at the
extremist end of the policy-planning spectrum, and its adventurism and
penchant for violence are unusually dangerous. But the spectrum is not
that broad, and unless these deeper issues are addressed, we can be
confident that other ultrareactionary extremists will gain control of
incredible means of devastation and repression.
The "imperial ambition"
of the current power holders, as it is frankly called, has aroused shudders
throughout the world, including the mainstream of the establishment
at home. Elsewhere, of course, the reactions are far more fearful, particularly
among the traditional victims. They know too much history, the hard
way, to be comforted byexalted rhetoric. They have heard enough of that
over the centuries as they were being beaten by the club called "civilization."
Just a few days ago, the head of the non-aligned movement, which includes
the governments of most of the world's population, described the Bush
administration as more aggressive than Hitler. He happens to be very
pro-American, and right in the middle of Washington's international
economic projects. And there is little doubt that he speaks for many
of the traditional victims, and by now even for many of their traditional
oppressors.
It is easy to go on, and
important to think these matters through, with care and honesty.
Even before the Bush administration
sharply escalated these fears in recent months, intelligence and international
affairs specialists were informing anyone who wanted to listen that
the policies Washington is pursuing are likely to lead to an increase
in terror and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, for revenge
or simply deterrence. There are two ways for Washington to respond to
the threats engendered by its actions and startling proclamations. One
way is to try to alleviate the
threats by paying some attention to legitimate grievances, and by agreeing
to become a civilized member of a world community, with some respect
for world order and its institutions. The other way is to construct
even more awesome engines of destruction and domination, so that any
perceived challenge, however remote, can be crushed - provoking new
and greater challenges. That way poses serious dangers to the people
of the US and the world, and may, very possibly, lead to extinction
of
the species - not an idle speculation.
Terminal nuclear war has
been avoided by near miracle in the past; a few months before Acheson's
speech, to mention one case that should be fresh in our minds today.
Threats are severe and mounting. The world has good reason to watch
what is happening in Washington with fear and trepidation. The people
who are best placed to relieve those fears, and to lead the way to a
more hopeful and constructive future, are the citizens of the United
States, who can shape the future.
Those are among the deep
concerns that must, I think, be kept clearly in mind while watching
events unfold in their unpredictable way as the most awesome military
force in human history is unleashed against a defenseless enemy by a
political leadership that has compiled a frightening record of destruction
and barbarism since it took the reins of power over 20 years ago.