In the following essay, Jon Yom-Tov writes that those who supported Saddam Hussein's forceful ouster ought not discount the words of noted anti-war ideologue Noam Chomsky.
-- Tim Machesney
DON'T WRITE OFF CHOMSKY JUST YET
by Jon Yom-Tov
EVEN THOUGH OPEN HOSTILITIES IN IRAQ ARE OVER, it would be most unwise for those who supported Saddam Hussein's forceful removal to discount the words of Noam Chomsky, the pre-eminent ideologue of the anti-war movement. The temptation is for one to write off his words as yet another diatribe from an academic who has let his status fuel his ego. But Chomsky's voice is heard in virtually every important anti-war forum, and many anti-war activists widely read and quote his work.
It is work that often displays a monumental arrogance.
The other day, I came across one of Chomsky's interviews, which had been published in The Guardian. About halfway through this article, Chomsky said that "... the closer you get to the region [of Iraq], the higher the position appears to be. ... Now there's no objective reason why the US should be more frightened of Saddam than say the Kuwaitis, but there is a reason -namely that since September there's been a drumbeat of propaganda." I had to read this passage twice just to make sure it said what I thought it did.
For what Chomsky said here is that there is an absolute truth, which most people recognize. However, he claimed, the closer one gets to the United States, the more likely it is that this unadulterated truth will be diluted; corrupted by America's lies issuing from its propaganda machine. This is amazing. The idea that people on your side of the political map have somehow discovered the absolute truth -- while the poor, hopeless multitudes on the other have been brainwashed -- simply reeks of a colossal hubris. Chomsky gave no credit at all to the ideas of those who support Saddam Hussein's forceful removal, but instead relegated them to one of two roles: brainwashed sheep or evil producers of war-mongering propaganda. He completely discounted the perfectly legitimate fears of many Americans, who saw in Hussein a ruthless, megalomaniac dictator possessing the means and motivation to arm terrorists who would harm American citizens.
Yet this simplistic message, so disparaging of those who disagree with his views, influences many people.
In the bookstore near my house in Tokyo, his books are prominently displayed in two places. The first is a corner devoted purely to his books. Above them is a small note saying that he is a leading academic and activist in the anti-war movement, and Thom Yorke's (lead singer of the English rock group Radiohead) idol. The second place is the area where recommended books are displayed. His works occupy a place of honor between books about yoga, the Dalai Lama and the Y Generation (the successor to Generation X). That those books and that note are displayed with Chomsky's work is very telling -- because, in a nutshell, they describe the ideals and ideas of the followers of the anti-war movement.
A year or so ago, after President Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and American-backed forces' crushing of the Taliban, opposition to the war in the West was more or less restricted to Muslim communities. Though Bush clearly stated his aim to disarm Iraq or, failing that, to remove its dictator by force, such was the shock of the September 11th attacks that no real opposition to the war materialized. However, disagreement within the Bush Administration, specifically Colin Powell's opposition to armed intervention, as well as the unpreparedness of America's troops in the Gulf and international pressure, led President Bush to postpone the war and seek UN approval for an invasion of Iraq.
That was a grave mistake. For while 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds, opposition to America, always present and ever growing after the Soviet Union's collapse, was dulled. But as time passed, the feeling of solidarity with the United States weakened.
That, however, was not what brought opposition to the war to its present vocal and powerful state, it just made it possible. What made the movement popular was a process both simple and ubiquitous in the West: it became fashionable. The opposition to the war became a part of pop-culture. Chomsky may give the anti-war movement its veneer of respectability, but those within the entertainment industry give it its strength.
Sheryl Crow appeared at the MTV Music Awards wearing a sequined shirt which proclaimed that "War Is Not The Answer"; Martin Sheen, who plays the American president in the popular TV show "The West Wing", stood at the forefront of the opposition to the war. And recently, a computer animator brought out an online "game" which simulates the outcome of a war in Iraq. Although games usually contain an interactive component, the creator of this one supplied only one ending: total disaster. The reason? "There is only one deliberate outcome. It didn't make sense to give people the idea that they could avoid the worst." One need only take a look at the hundreds of anti-war cartoons and flash movies posted on the Internet to become convinced of the strong element of pop-culture in the anti-war movement.
So, while the supporters of the anti-war movement bask in their self-righteous anger at America and the Bush Administration, they can be pleasantly entertained by anti-war concerts and anti-war e-mail attachments. All the while, they ignore the very serious aspects of the present crisis.
For Chomsky and his entertainment-industry allies make a very clear cut definition between "us", the good people supported by showbiz and sympathetic intellectuals; and "them", the shadowy military-industrial complex, oil companies and President Bush. Thus, proponents of the war are automatically labeled "war mongers" and Saddam's numerous crimes are relegated secondary status to Bush's perceived inadequacies.
Furthermore, since the entertainment industry, rarely, if ever, gives birth to very profound or complicated ideas this reduction of discourse to sloganeering is hardly unexpected. Nor is Chomsky's use of relatively uncomplicated ideas surprising either -- he simply knows his audience. He knows he won't get very far with a deeper discussion of the situation, so he simply caters to his audience by supplying them with simple groupings of good vs. evil.
Mmm... thanks and welcome to last week. Oh okay, [/sarcasm off]. Seriously, I do think that the backlash against antiwar celebrities startedsome time ago, and got a big boost when the Dixie Chicks started their shizzle. I do think that some people worry about the supposed "adulation" Americans have for celebrities a little too much. From what I have observed, most people are quite aware that actors and singers and not to be taken seriously when they open their mouths about stuff outside their sphere of expertise, such as politics and war. While Americans are very indulgent of the shenanigans of the stars, it's mostly because of the entertainment value of speculating about who J.Lo's next boyfriend will be, and so on. But when someone like J. Lo opens her mouth about her opinions on things Americans take seriously -- like not being killed by terrorists -- the "isn't that cute" reaction is apt to be replaced by "why doesn't she shut up?" reaction. That is what I am seeing.
So it's real nice that Thom Yorke is a big fan of the Choam. It's easy to impress an Oxford boy with the big degrees. But few people (beyond, I suppose, their core fan base, and even then not all of those) are going to choose their political philosophies and causes simply because someone like Cheryl Crow hot-glues some sequins to a t-shirt.
Remember: what's fashionable today will be on the "not not" list tomorrow.
(There are notable exceptions to this, of course -- one person who comes to mind is Bono; I personally know many people who changed their political views on something because of a stance he took or a cause he expoused. But I also notice that he's been kind of quiet on the anti-war front. He's been concentrating on "friendlier" issues like getting third-world debt forgiven, and feeding starving kids. And he's been getting death threats because of it.)
Uhhh... sorry for the grammar. That should be "that actors are singers and not to be taken seriously when they open their mouths..." And I used "open their mouths" about three times or something, didn't I?
This Jon Yom-Tov person doesn't give the anti-war side of the spectrum any credit. Just because some celebrities decide to cash in on anti-war propoganda, doesn't make us people who have opinions of our own any less credible. I couldn't care less if the Dixie Chicks or Sheryl Crowe pretend to be "anti-war". In fact, I think it's stupid for a celebrity, who is basically just a good-looking politician, to take any stand on such a 50/50 issue such as this. Just shut up and rob pre-teens or their easy-earned money.
So Chomsky doesn't give pro-war people any credit, and Yom-Tov doesn't give anti-war people any credit. I see little difference.
There's nothing to refute a simple idea like an even simpler idea. Noam Chomsky doesn't just sit around his office and make up things to say about war-mongers and so forth. He actually takes the time to study wars and the United States posture toward / involvement in them, comparing foreign press coverage with domestic press coverage, and looking at media trends in the United States, to come to conclusions about how particular views are promoted and others demoted in the media, often according more to political and cultural bias than fact. You can disagree with Noam Chomsky, you can dislike his world-view, you can call him a liberal, even -- but all Mr. Yom-Tov does is say, in far too many words, "Yeah, right." If he can refute any of Chomsky's findings, he's free to do so; but over years of watching Chomsky debate various persons, it seems that the only tools against him are derision and indignance.
That makes good TV, but it doesn't make debate. Villification of people who are perceived to be villifiers is, um . . . okay I need to go puke now.
Attempting to refute a so-called "simple idea" (peddle to so-called simple-minded anti-war folk?) with an even simpler idea (i.e., "Is not!") doesn't really do much for me. I don't think Yom-Tov is in a position to say whether Chomsky should be written off or not, and neither are most of the people who have already written him off, precisely because they've already written them off.
Chomsky doesn't just sit around at MIT and make this stuff up. For better or worse, it's research and analysis -- yet after years of watching Chomsky debate various persons, it seems the only ammunition they have against him is derision and indignance. That makes good television, but it isn't compelling argument.
I continue to believe that whatever our actual foreign policy goals in Iraq, we aren't being told about them and we aren't going to be told about them. I continue to believe that this war is further destabilizing an already unstable region; and I continue to believe that the tragic death of our soldiers is not worth whatever dubious gains there are to be made in the Middle East.
The war clearly has support (or at the very least indifference) at home, and pragmatically, that's really all that matters. Attempting to talk foreign policy and morality in the same breath, given our government's track record and current behavior, holds little water in my book.
Noam Chomsky doesn't just sit around his office and make up things to say about war-mongers and so forth.
Actually, John, that's exactly what he does. And he's a vicious man.
"Vilification" is a good word, because that's what he does for a living. Only he doesn't vilify one person, he vilifies an entire nation, and everyone who disagrees with him.
By the way: given our government's track record on foreign policy, I'm astonished that more people don't respect just what a good and moral country we really are. From Vietnam to Chile, from Nicaragua to Panama to Iraq to Bosnia, we are one of the most kind, decent, and moral countries on the planet. Bigots like Chomsky, on the other hand, work from an axiomatic, a priori assumption: if America's done it, it's evil. You see to have bought into this pernicious nonsense. My question is: why?
Chomsky gets alot of simple stuff wrong, like lets say the starving masses in Afghanistan, that we were planning a genocide in Afghanistan etc. He seems to having nothing to say regarding the Killing fields, eventhough that regime was one that he held up as an examplar. The masses rising up and throwing off the masters bonds and all that jazz. The US has not been perfect, but compared to the French or the Russians, or the Germans or China etc we are freaking angels. Chomsky, Sontag, Asner and the rest of the not in my name crowd are irrelevant. Thier stance on the war was a joke. When the kids were let out of prison or when the mass graves of kids with their dolls were unearthed, a thinking man would say, well I opposed the war but wow this was worse than war so I am glad we went in and Took out the trash. That they can't says all you need to know about them
Oh no, Kevin. Chomsky had lots to say about the Killing Fields of Cambodia.
First, he spent years and years denying that it had ever happened and saying that only right-wing extremist lunatics thought so. Then, when the evidence could no longer be denied, he blamed the U.S. government for them.
The man is a vile hateful jerk, who researches very little and always comes from the same axiomatic, a priori assumption: Most bad things in the world are caused by American action, including most bad things that happen to America.
Kevin,
Noam Chomsky has indeed had lots to say about killing fields...the most famous killing fields...he'd just prefer that you didn't know what. Australian historian Kieth Windschuttle has stirred up something of a 'storm with his "J'accuse" article, chronicling Chomsky's adoration of murderous leftist regimes over the years.
I have read subsequent smears of Windschuttle, but no pieces that rebut any of the factual basis of his account.
Chomsky's intellectual prowess has never been at issue. It's the causes that he has chosen to celebrate that make him such an unsuitable moral guide.
I'm an html novice...Windschuttle's "j'accuse" article in the May 2003 New Criterion.
Mr. Kusch: I suppose it's just a simple coincidence that every one of Chomsky's careful, detailed, analyses all indicate that the United States is an amoral monster?
Funny how that works out.
It's also difficult to debate the nutbars who claim that FDR "knew about Pearl", that there really are pickled aliens in Area 51, and that we never went to the moon.
Dean – You are dead on about Chomsky, who stated prior to the Afghan War that the Pentagon’s plans were a DELIBERATE plan to starve four million people to death. Not that that would happen just as a result of war, which is asinine anyway, but that it was the DELIBERATE purpose for the war.
Now, of course, Afghans were fleeing by the tens of thousands prior to September, 2001, and now they began returning by the tens of thousands last year, and has Chomsky even begun to hint that, “Gee, maybe I got that one wrong?” Wadda you think?
People can talk all they want about how Wise Noam gathers information from everywhere, and draws and elegant conclusion, and it changes not one iota the fact that if there is a dictator on the planet that opposes the West / US, Chomsky will stand up for him no matter what crimes said dictator has committed. The man is lying scum.
That being said, disagree with Yom-Tov’s premise that going to the UN was a mistake, and would state that our UN adventure and Chomsky’s popularity overseas serve an interesting, if lesser noted, purpose.
Namely, they have clearly shown Americans “the score”. This is the deal America. Truly “no good deed goes unpunished”, including saving the world from monstrous tyrants past and present, tyrants whom millions now are apparently willing to march in the streets to support against us.
So wise up, Billy Yank. Many all over earth have said “the US treats us like children”. Well, time to treat, Europe, South Korea, the UN, like adults. As in “you need cops, firemen, insurance, security? Here’s the bill. Wanna do it on your own? Hey, maybe we finally DID get through to your thick skulls that it’s time for you to step up to the plate. Get to work.”
And those devouring Chomsky and his ilk and taking to the streets will learn the same lesson of many a nitwit Hollywood celebrity. Namely, they have every right in the world to do so. They have NO right whatsoever to do so and expect their actions are in a vacuum, and that there are no downsides whatsoever. After all, “they mean well”, so why should they suffer any pain for it?
Tough world out there, kids…. Oops, I mean, mature, thinking, capable young adults. You're in it now and possibly on your sanctimonious own. Atlas is tired. Good Luck.
I recall how George Romney was ridiculed when he said he had been brainwashed into supporting the Vietnam war. After publication of the Pentagon Papers it became obvious how we had been fooled by the CIA into the longest war in U.S. history. We have once again been propagandized into a war for the wrong reasons which has yet to produce the evidence to back it up. Not only did we conquer Iraq for the wrong reason (defense of human rights would have been the right reason)we haven't sent enough troops to truly clean up the place.
Chomsky lost all credibility when he defended the murderous Viet Cong and then the Khmer Rouge. He also has a tendency to mislead, misrepresent, and distort what the sources he cites actually say. Windschuttle's article nails him on pretty much every count. For anyone who wants more reading recommendations on Chomsky's lies (e.g., his getting caught out fabricating source material) feel free to contact me.
BeezleBozo,
http://beezlebozo.blogspot.com/
Tom Ward - To quote the great Orrin Judd of Brothers Judd Blog.... "The problem isn't that the Left was wrong about the Iraq War... The problem is that they were wrong about the VietNam War."
You say that we were "propogandized" into fighting the Vietnam War. Much as the British were "propogandized" into fighting the Nazis. They were, as was every player in WWII. The question is, is fighting Nazi, or Communist, or Baathist.. murdering tyrants, the right thing to do or not? "Defense of Human Rights would have been the right reason??" Hello. What planet are you living on that makes you think that the UN would not have shut down that rationale in ten seconds? Um, Libya currently heads the "human rights" commission there. Need I say more?
THe WMD argument (a valid one, ask 8,000 dead Kurds, 50,000 dead Iranians, or Khadir Hamzah, aka 'Saddam's Bombmaker') about whether or not our Baghdad friend was inclined to seek, hold, and use WMD. Where are the WMD now? Good question. I'd like to know too. Was Saddam a monstrous threat any way you look? You bet. Not a hint of an argument to that by any sane person.
Point is, Bush specifically cited MULTIPLE reasons Saddam was a threat and had to go, and he did that in front of the United Nations General Assembly itself. (Read his speech, 9/12/02)
The fact is the UN will NEVER agree to what you yourself just said, that "defense of human rights would have been the right reason" to invade a tyrant. If so, UN forces would be gathering on the North Korean border as we speak. Right.
WMD was the ONLY reason that would get the UN off it's fat Manhattan ass to actually confront tyranny on this planet, which incidentally, is the entire purpose for it's being formed in the first place. (1945... "Never again") Even then, it wasn't enough in the end.
Thus, as Wolfowitz said, the US, like a prosecutor, chose, IN THAT PARTICULAR FORUM, to hammer the WMD issue during the winter of 02/03, because it was and is valid and the most effective for that forum at that time. Typical prosecutor thinking. You know the guy in the dock is a murderer, you choose the strongest part of your case and backburner the rest. That does not negate any of the multitude of other reasons Bush spoke of on September 12, ones the UN has always ignored.
But the overall point is, and I'm going to reapeat your own words for the third time...is "defense of human rights would have been the right reason", or not? Because ten million people marching in the streets last February, and, frankly, the International Left for decades now, do NOT agree. They have supported the most disgraceful human rights violators for decades. They supported Stalin and the Soviets, Mao, the Vietnamese communists and Cambodian genocidalists, and now here comes Saddam.... same drill, different day.
Now they condemn Bush for deposing a monster for "the wrong reasons". (which itself is false, as explained above, but that never stopped them before)
Well, they're on dangerous ground. They have every right to bitch that their friend Saddam is gone. And we have every right to dig up every one of half a million skulls in Iraq and jam them down their throats in response. They can believe that attacking Bush for his efforts is NOT de facto supporting a tyrant. They can believe that all they want. It doesn't change the fact they are kidding themselves. It's a crock, and will be remembered as such.
The "Left" on planet earth is collectively (appropriately enough) responsible for over 100 million corpses in the 20th century and beyond. I do not intend to let them forget them and walk away.... AGAIN.
Are you going to start killing "leftists" then? Responsible for 100 million corpses! By God that's worse than Saddam!
>
Wow, right-wing maturity at its best.
If you think Chomsky is vicious and a liar, just say so; because I've seen a lot of opinion, but not much citation or examples. Which is what a comment thread is about, really, but if our complicity in genocides in Indonesia, the way we helped devastate El Salvador and Nicaragua, the catastrophe of Vietnam, et cetera, aren't an indication that US foreign policy is amoral at best, then there's really an un-healable rift here.
I don't trust the government to build nations, because I don't trust them to build this nation. People build nations. Governments remove barriers and otherwise stay out of the way, otherwise risking catastrophe.
How can you trust the United States to end injustice and tyranny in Iraq when you don't even trust our public schools? Seems like argument out of convenience.
Well, there you go, John. We "helped devastate Nicaragua" primarily by bringing democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press back to it after the vicious mass-murdering Sandinista thugs took those away. That's exactly what we were trying to do in Vietnam, too.
So my question for you is: why do you accept these horribly hateful accusations about the U.S., when clearly you're describing the exact opposite of what we tried to do in those countries?
My argument was not that the anti-war arguments are simplistic, they're not. What was significant to me was that the people who led the anti-war movement (e.g Martin Sheen and Noam Chomsky) preferred sloganeering over reasoned arguments. To a large extent this trend was mirrored in the movement itself, which basically reduced itself to another pop-culture phenomenon.
There were some good points made by the anti-war movement but they were rarely heard because of the people who led it.
RE: "Are you going to start killing "leftists" then??"
Kindly cut and paste (It's easy. Just Ctrl C and then Ctrl V. No sweat) the words out of my post above that even begin to hint, imply, or in ANY way convey that I am about to start "killing" anybody. Go ahead, I just showed you how to do it. I'll wait.
Uh, huh, thought so. But it sure nmakes for a nice emotional response though, which is a great paradigm the the actions of so many of Mr. Bush's opponents.
John K. - you mention an "unhealable rift", and I have been wondering along the same lines myself, and it is quite disturbing. I'll make a deal here. I will shoulder the weight of US actions in Indonesia and Vietnam and Central America (as Dean mentions above), if you or the Left, will shoulder the weight of the millions of Vietnamese who fled the glorious victory of the Vietnamese people, thus forming a millions strong diaspora all over the West. If you will shoulder the weight of the two million plus Cambodians slaughtered by the Khmer Rouge. Remember that BOTH nations saw US involvement violently, visciously, and bitterly by the International Left. Then the US got out and the Left turned their backs. They cared not a whit for the aftermath of "their" victory... they had gotten what they wanted. I guess two or three million really is just a drop in the bucket. How b'bout the weight of Mao's 'Great Leap Forward' and 'Cutural Revolutions'. That's about 40 to 50 million right there. Lotta weight. And how many of those glorious anti_Vietnam protesters would be willing to condemn Mao, KNOWING what he did? Condemn Stalin and his post-Stalin communist party, KNOWING what they did? (22 million). Virtually none, I will bet. Virtually none.. to this day.
RE: "Governments remove barriers and otherwise stay out of the way, otherwise risking catastrophe." Glory be! There's some genuine wisdom. SO why on earth do so many march in the streets militantly for the EXACT and TOTAL OPPOSITE?? What barriers is Fidel Castro "removing" after 42 YEARS in power with no end in sight? What barriers was Hussein removing? "The State, it is I". Wasn't there an ancient time when the Left was actually opposed to the obscene disparities of wealth and political power represented by dictators like Hussein, Castro, the thocratic mullahs of Tehran, etc? (Note incidentally that the Left has been utterly SILENT on events in Iran of late. Utter and absolute silence. Very telling.)
I'd like to see the rift begin to heal. But I don't see it as long as millions simply look at such appalling misrule and decide that a) they love it or b) they just don't give a damn or c) they don't like it, but it's much easier to rail on Bush and Republicans, so they will simply let a dictator do whatever he wants.... AGAIN.... and hope his victims have the decency to die quietly. And I might predict that if this one man absolutism were banished from this earth one way or another, we would ALL have a lot more leeway for policies that many a self-proclaimed humanist would support. (i.e. anti-military spending, etc.)
BTW, dowing, what I just wrote above is obviously a call to start killing millions of people. Pretty clearly.
But then again, why not. It's been DONE BEFORE..... again.... and again..... and again..... and again....
Chomsky like the rest of the anti-American crowd is a leftist who is left of the mainstream liberal movement in America. He matches the likes of Ramsay Clark and left coast liberals opposing everything United States does internationally. Freeing an enemy nation of its terrorist ties and its tyrant are verboten. We must admire tyrants for their socialist politics instead. America must be condemned for its “imperialism.”
These clowns are full of hogwash. I cannot imagine what their goal is other than acting as a fifth column to undermine American international integrity. Their poison only encourages old Baathists to murder more American soldiers in Iraq while encouraging Al Qaeda that another Vietnam scenario is playing itself out in 2003.
These clowns are entitled to their own opinions. But so are we.
This thread may be old, but I am compelled to address it regardless. I arrived at Dean's world searching for something, coming across his list of worst Americans, where I spied Chomsky. I searched the site to find out if he justified his accusations somewhere else, and have as of yet, not found anything.
Regarding the article by Windschuttle, it was intriguing, but it's full of spite and unsound arguments. One example is the statement: "Hence Chomsky’s rationalization for the September 11 attacks is every bit as deceitful as his apology for Pol Pot and his misreading of the Cambodian genocide." Clinton's bombing of the plant was not such a rationalization, not even as quoted in the article.
As for Chomsky's hypocrisy, I am persuaded that he may be guilty of over-zealousness and some unapologetic errors of judgment, but I don't see that it discredits the rest of his work. Nor do I see it as a tendency of the left. It doesn't seem fair to me to judge peace-movement or social justice activists with Stalinists.
But my biggest problem with article is the conclusion it draws about Chomsky's (and others')opinions of the masses and the influence of mass media. I haven't read 'Manufacturing Consent' but I am familiar with the idea, and it seems to me that Windschuttle deliberately misrepresents it, or doesn't really understand it (which seems unlikely).
The reason that the majority of journalists and the consumers accept the propaganistic media system is not because they are "easily-led, ideological dupes of the powerful" in the words of the author, but because the system is a subtle and overwhelming element of the culture. The system is deliberately manipulated to some degree, but to a greater degree it is a natural tendency of captialism/capitalist controlled media. Mr. Windschuttle never addresses the examples that Chomsky gives of how the media support the status quo.
I have studied media, and I work in journalism. There are stories that never make mainstream media outlets. Reporters that do make attempts to conver issues that are counter to the interests of corporations are often censored and will either learn to practice self-consorship or be weeded out of the system. It's well documented, although I regret I can't reference examples at the moment.
As for Chomsky believing that "only he and those who share his radical perspective have the ability to rise above the illusions that keep everyone else slaves of the system," the author is merely trying to create an emotional response against him. Chomsky was interested in social justice from the time he first knew how to think critically. To propose that he's merely out for fame and self-glorification is absurd. He came to prominence through lucid thinking, keen observations and hard scholarly work. Would he go on campaigning for if he didn't think he could change people's views?
The reason why most people accept the version of reality dominant in their society is simply because it's easier. Civilizations throughout recorded history have held onto some ridiculous ideas and accepted some horrific institutions. It's the person who delves deeper for the truth that helps spur societal evolution. But it's not easy, and it's not fun. I think most people in our society know that something's wrong, but they don't delve into finding out what that is, because it's not only difficult, but it can be depressing and isn't conducive to leading a happy life. It's much easier to believe that the powers that be are looking out for the best interests of everyone in the long run. People can ignore a lot in order to maintain their delusions (as I'm sure you'll agree). If you accept that you are living in a country perpetuating injustices and it's against your beliefs than you have to start trying to change it or you truly become a hypocrite (in a supposed democracy at least).
There is also a quote from 'Understanding Power' associated with the above that is also misused as Windschuttle makes the ridiculous assertion that Chomsky is playing to an immature constituency to portray himself as a Christ-like figure. Then he transitions into accusations of hypocrisy that are more propagandistic than his initial ones. Noam Chomsky has repeatedly made clear why he focuses on American misdeeds, and only one reason is needed: because he's an American. It's truly the duty of any patriot to be critical of the government and any power structure that influences the lives of the people. It's part of the responsibilities of a citizen in a democracy. Considering there is still freedom of speech, there is potential for change to be brought about through criticism. Furthermore, as America is the most powerful nation of the globe, it is of the highest imperative that its power is not abused, for it has the greatest potential for abuse.
Perhaps Chomsky should acknowledge that some of the movements he has supported in the past were wrong and their leaders criminals, but there are plenty of self-righteous glory seekers in power that are willing to do that (and often more willing to look the other way if it's not in their interests). Besides, from what I've read of Chomsky, his demand "for American political and military leaders to be tried as war criminals" is a way of pointing out the hypocrisy of these people and their crimes, not a serious call for their extradition. And well gosh, he does enumerate quite a few serious crimes in his works, and I have yet to see them refuted or justified.
In the same vein, other comments on this post have declared that the left generally supports all sorts of horrible tyrants, including in that list Saddam Hussein. What ignorant commentary. I have never met anyone in my association with left thinking individuals who was an apologist for Saddam Hussein or was under the delusion that he was a worthwhile leader of Iraq. The opposition to war in Iraq was based on the unjust motives of the United States, it's hypocrisy in pursuing the action, it's right to do so, and the fact that there may have been other ways which would not have taken innocent lives. The profound bigotry and idiocy surrounding this issue is truly an overwhelming subject to further address here.
So to recap, the article was worthwhile in that it pointed out some flaws in Chomsky's character (if true), but it's still a weak attack and it does not refute the conclusions that are drawn from his scholarly work. I hope I didn't miss anything, but I'd be glad to further elaborate if needed.
It is difficult for any American to learn that their country, the same place they were taught to be proud of, has successfully killed millions of poor peaple all over the world. The notion of a great superpower invading an island no bigger than Manhattan with its imperial troops, would have been unimaginable to me before 1980, but I didn't dream it, Grenada did happen. Just one out of hundreds of invasions that took the lives of so many people over the past 100 years.
I've worked for the Red Cross my entire life and I saw so much suffering in my lifetime (created directly or indirectly by the USA) It is easy to ignore the truth, but is even easier to dismiss it. The War waged in Nicaragua during the 80's, which by the way, showed the USA for the first time as the main leading terrorist State in the world, in fact, the USA is the only country to ever been branded as a TERRORIST STATE by the International Criminal Court. The image of the US as a benevolent country is an illusion that only exist within the US. If Americans cared enough to read foreign news, then they'll be disappointed to find out how different they're perceived in the world.