The New War Against Terror
AN EVENING WITH NOAM CHOMSKY
October 18, 2001 - Transcribed from audio
recorded at The Technology & Culture Forum at MIT
The Talk (audio)
Everyone knows it's the TV people who run the world [crowd laugher]. I
just got orders that I'm supposed to be here, not there. Well the last
talk I gave at this forum was on a light pleasant topic. It was about how
humans are an endangered species and given the nature of their institutions
they are likely to destroy themselves in a fairly short time. So this time
there is a little relief and we have a pleasant topic instead, the new
war on terror. Unfortunately, the world keeps coming up with things that
make it more and more horrible as we proceed.
Assume 2 Conditions for this Talk
I'm going to assume 2 conditions for this talk.
The first one is just what I assume to be recognition of fact. That
is that the events of September 11 were a horrendous atrocity probably
the most devastating instant human toll of any crime in history, outside
of war.
The second assumption has to do with the goals. I'm assuming that our
goal is that we are interested in reducing the likelihood of such crimes
whether they are against us or against someone else.
If you don't accept those two assumptions, then what I say will not
be addressed to you. If we do accept them, then a number of questions arise,
closely related ones, which merit a good deal of thought.
The 5 Questions
One question, and by far the most important one is what is considered so
absurd that it was barely even mentioned. So the Wall Street Journal, for
example, one of the more serious papers had a small story on page 12, I
think, in which they pointed out that there was not much evidence and then
they quoted some high US official as saying that it didn't matter whether
there was any evidence because they were going to do it anyway. So why
bother with the evidence? The more ideological press, like the New York
Times and others, they had big front-page headlines. But the Wall Street
Journal reaction was reasonable and if you look at the so-called evidence
you can see why. But let's assume that it's true. It is astonishing to
me how weak the evidence was. I sort of thought you could do better than
that without any intelligence service [audience laughter]. In fact, remember
this was after weeks of the most intensive investigation in history of
all the intelligence services of the western world working overtime trying
to put something together. And it was a prima facie, it was a very strong
case even before you had anything. And it ended up about where it started,
with a prima facie case. So let's assume that it is true. So let's assume
that, it looked obvious the first day, still does, that the actual perpetrators
come from the radical Islamic, here called, fundamentalist networks of
which the bin Laden network is undoubtedly a significant part. Whether
they were involved or not nobody knows. It doesn't really matter much.
Where did they come from?
That's the background, those networks. Well, where do they come from? We
know all about that. Nobody knows about that better than the CIA because
it helped organize them and it nurtured them for a long time. They were
brought together in the 1980's actually by the CIA and its associates elsewhere:
Pakistan, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China was involved, they
may have been involved a little bit earlier, maybe by 1978. The idea was
to try to harass the Russians, the common enemy. According to President
Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US got involved
in mid 1979. Do you remember, just to put the dates right, that Russia
invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Ok. According to Brzezinski, the
US support for the mojahedin fighting against the government began 6 months
earlier. He is very proud of that. He says we drew the Russians into, in
his words, an Afghan trap, by supporting the mojahedin, getting them to
invade, getting them into the trap. Now then we could develop this terrific
mercenary army. Not a small one, maybe 100,000 men or so bringing together
the best killers they could find, who were radical Islamist fanatics from
around North Africa, Saudi Arabia..anywhere they could find them. They
were often called the Afghanis but many of them, like bin Laden, were not
Afghans. They were brought by the CIA and its friends from elsewhere. Whether
Brzezinski is telling the truth or not, I don't know. He may have been
bragging, he is apparently very proud of it, knowing the consequences incidentally.
But maybe it's true. We'll know someday if the documents are ever released.
Anyway, that's his perception. By January 1980 it is not even in doubt
that the US was organizing the Afghanis and this massive military force
to try to cause the Russians maximal trouble. It was a legitimate thing
for the Afghans to fight the Russian invasion. But the US intervention
was not helping the Afghans. In fact, it helped destroy the country and
much more. The Afghanis, so called, had their own...it did force the Russians
to withdrew, finally. Although many analysts believe that it probably delayed
their withdrawal because they were trying to get out of it. Anyway, whatever,
they did withdraw.
Meanwhile, the terrorist forces that the CIA was organizing, arming,
and training were pursuing their own agenda, right away. It was no secret.
One of the first acts was in 1981 when they assassinated the President
of Egypt, who was one of the most enthusiastic of their creators. In 1983,
one suicide bomber, who may or may not have been connected, it's pretty
shadowy, nobody knows. But one suicide bomber drove the US army-military
out of Lebanon. And it continued. They have their own agenda. The US was
happy to mobilize them to fight its cause but meanwhile they are doing
their own thing. They were clear very about it. After 1989, when the Russians
had withdrawn, they simply turned elsewhere. Since then they have been
fighting in Chechnya, Western China, Bosnia, Kashmir, South East Asia,
North Africa, all over the place.
The Are Telling Us What They Think
They are telling us just what they think. The United States wants to silence
the one free television channel in the Arab world because it's broadcasting
a whole range of things from Powell over to Osama bin Laden. So the US
is now joining the repressive regimes of the Arab world that try to shut
it up. But if you listen to it, if you listen to what bin Laden says, it's
worth it. There is plenty of interviews. And there are plenty of interviews
by leading Western reporters, if you don't want to listen to his own voice,
Robert Fisk and others. And what he has been saying is pretty consistent
for a long time. He's not the only one but maybe he is the most eloquent.
It's not only consistent over a long time, it is consistent with their
actions. So there is every reason to take it seriously. Their prime enemy
is what they call the corrupt and oppressive authoritarian brutal regimes
of the Arab world and when the say that they get quite a resonance in the
region. They also want to defend and they want to replace them by properly
Islamist governments. That's where they lose the people of the region.
But up till then, they are with them. From their point of view, even Saudi
Arabia, the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, I suppose,
short of the Taliban, which is an offshoot, even that's not Islamist enough
for them. Ok, at that point, they get very little support, but up until
that point they get plenty of support. Also they want to defend Muslims
elsewhere. They hate the Russians like poison, but as soon as the Russians
pulled out of Afghanistan, they stopped carrying out terrorist acts in
Russia as they had been doing with CIA backing before that within Russia,
not just in Afghanistan. They did move over to Chechnya. But there they
are defending Muslims against a Russian invasion. Same with all the other
places I mentioned. From their point of view, they are defending the Muslims
against the infidels. And they are very clear about it and that is what
they have been doing.
Why did they turn against the United States?
Now why did they turn against the United States? Well that had to do with
what they call the US invasion of Saudi Arabia. In 1990, the US established
permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia which from their point of view
is comparable to a Russian invasion of Afghanistan except that Saudi Arabia
is way more important. That's the home of the holiest sites of Islam. And
that is when their activities turned against the Unites States. If you
recall, in 1993 they tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Got part
of the way, but not the whole way and that was only part of it. The plans
were to blow up the UN building, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the FBI
building. I think there were others on the list. Well, they sort of got
part way, but not all the way. One person who is jailed for that, finally,
among the people who were jailed, was a Egyptian cleric who had been brought
into the United States over the objections of the Immigration Service,
thanks to the intervention of the CIA which wanted to help out their friend.
A couple years later he was blowing up the World Trade Center. And this
has been going on all over. I'm not going to run through the list but it's,
if you want to understand it, it's consistent. It's a consistent picture.
It's described in words. It's revealed in practice for 20 years. There
is no reason not to take it seriously. That's the first category, the likely
perpetrators.
Category 2: What about the reservoir of support?
What about the reservoir of support? Well, it's not hard to find out what
that is. One of the good things that has happened since September 11 is
that some of the press and some of the discussion has begun to open up
to some of these things. The best one to my knowledge is the Wall Street
Journal which right away began to run, within a couple of days, serious
reports, searching serious reports, on the reasons why the people of the
region, even though they hate bin Laden and despise everything he is doing,
nevertheless support him in many ways and even regard him as the conscience
of Islam, as one said. Now the Wall Street Journal and others, they are
not surveying public opinion. They are surveying the opinion of their friends:
bankers, professionals, international lawyers, businessmen tied to the
United States, people who they interview in MacDonalds restaurant, which
is an elegant restaurant there, wearing fancy American clothes. That's
the people they are interviewing because they want to find out what their
attitudes are. And their attitudes are very explicit and very clear and
in many ways consonant with the message of bin Laden and others. They are
very angry at the United States because of its support of authoritarian
and brutal regimes; its intervention to block any move towards democracy;
its intervention to stop economic development; its policies of devastating
the civilian societies of Iraq while strengthening Saddam Hussein; and
they remember, even if we prefer not to, that the United States and Britain
supported Saddam Hussein right through his worst atrocities, including
the gassing of the Kurds, bin Laden brings that up constantly, and they
know it even if we don't want to. And of course their support for the Israeli
military occupation which is harsh and brutal. It is now in its 35th year.
The US has been providing the overwhelming economic, military, and diplomatic
support for it, and still does. And they know that and they don't like
it. Especially when that is paired with US policy towards Iraq, towards
the Iraqi civilian society which is getting destroyed. Ok, those are the
reasons roughly. And when bin Laden gives those reasons, people recognize
it and support it.
Now that's not the way people here like to think about it, at least
educated liberal opinion. They like the following line which has been all
over the press, mostly from left liberals, incidentally. I have not done
a real study but I think right wing opinion has generally been more honest.
But if you look at say at the New York Times at the first op-ed they ran
by Ronald Steel, serious left liberal intellectual. He asks Why do they
hate us? This is the same day, I think, that the Wall Street Journal was
running the survey on why they hate us. So he says "They hate us because
we champion a new world order of capitalism, individualism, secularism,
and democracy that should be the norm everywhere." That's why they hate
us. The same day the Wall Street Journal is surveying the opinions of bankers,
professionals, international lawyers and saying `look, we hate you because
you are blocking democracy, you are preventing economic development, you
are supporting brutal regimes, terrorist regimes and you are doing these
horrible things in the region.' A couple days later, Anthony Lewis, way
out on the left, explained that the terrorist seek only "apocalyptic nihilism,"
nothing more and nothing we do matters. The only consequence of our actions,
he says, that could be harmful is that it makes it harder for Arabs to
join in the coalition's anti-terrorism effort. But beyond that, everything
we do is irrelevant.
Well, you know, that's got the advantage of being sort of comforting.
It makes you feel good about yourself, and how wonderful you are. It enables
us to evade the consequences of our actions. It has a couple of defects.
One is it is at total variance with everything we know. And another defect
is that it is a perfect way to ensure that you escalate the cycle of violence.
If you want to live with your head buried in the sand and pretend they
hate us because they're opposed to globalization, that's why they killed
Sadat 20 years ago, and fought the Russians, tried to blow up the World
Trade Center in 1993. And these are all people who are in the midst of
. corporate globalization but if you want to believe that, yeh.comforting.
And it is a great way to make sure that violence escalates. That's tribal
violence. You did something to me, I'll do something worse to you. I don't
care what the reasons are. We just keep going that way. And that's a way
to do it. Pretty much straight, left-liberal opinion.
5. What are the Policy Options?
What are the policy options? Well, there are a number. A narrow policy
option from the beginning was to follow the advice of really far out radicals
like the Pope [audience laughter]. The Vatican immediately said look it's
a horrible terrorist crime. In the case of crime, you try to find the perpetrators,
you bring them to justice, you try them. You don't kill innocent civilians.
Like if somebody robs my house and I think the guy who did it is probably
in the neighborhood across the street, I don't go out with an assault rifle
and kill everyone in that neighborhood. That's not the way you deal with
crime, whether it's a small crime like this one or really massive one like
the US terrorist war against Nicaragua, even worse ones and others in between.
And there are plenty of precedents for that. In fact, I mentioned a precedent,
Nicaragua, a lawful, a law abiding state, that's why presumably we had
to destroy it, which followed the right principles. Now of course, it didn't
get anywhere because it was running up against a power that wouldn't allow
lawful procedures to be followed. But if the United States tried to pursue
them, nobody would stop them. In fact, everyone would applaud. And there
are plenty of other precedents.
IRA Bombs in London
When the IRA set off bombs in London, which is pretty serious business,
Britain could have, apart from the fact that it was unfeasible, let's put
that aside, one possible response would have been to destroy Boston which
is the source of most of the financing. And of course to wipe out West
Belfast. Well, you know, quite apart from the feasibility, it would have
been criminal idiocy. The way to deal with it was pretty much what they
did. You know, find the perpetrators; bring them to trial; and look for
the reasons. Because these things don't come out of nowhere. They come
from something. Whether it is a crime in the streets or a monstrous terrorist
crime or anything else. There's reasons. And usually if you look at the
reasons, some of them are legitimate and ought to be addressed, independently
of the crime, they ought to be addressed because they are legitimate. And
that's the way to deal with it. There are many such examples.
But there are problems with that. One problem is that the United States
does not recognize the jurisdiction of international institutions. So it
can't go to them. It has rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court.
It has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court. It is powerful
enough to set up a new court if it wants so that wouldn't stop anything.
But there is a problem with any kind of a court, mainly you need evidence.
You go to any kind of court, you need some kind of evidence. Not Tony Blair
talking about it on television. And that's very hard. It may be impossible
to find.
Leaderless Resistance
You know, it could be that the people who did it, killed themselves. Nobody
knows this better than the CIA. These are decentralized, nonhierarchic
networks. They follow a principle that is called Leaderless Resistance.
That's the principle that has been developed by the Christian Right terrorists
in the United States. It's called Leaderless Resistance. You have small
groups that do things. They don't talk to anybody else. There is a kind
of general background of assumptions and then you do it. Actually people
in the anti war movement are very familiar with it. We used to call it
affinity groups. If you assume correctly that whatever group you are in
is being penetrated by the FBI, when something serious is happening, you
don't do it in a meeting. You do it with some people you know and trust,
an affinity group and then it doesn't get penetrated. That's one of the
reasons why the FBI has never been able to figure out what's going on in
any of the popular movements. And other intelligence agencies are the same.
They can't. That's leaderless resistance or affinity groups, and decentralized
networks are extremely hard to penetrate. And it's quite possible that
they just don't know. When Osama bin Laden claims he wasn't involved, that's
entirely possible. In fact, it's pretty hard to imagine how a guy in a
cave in Afghanistan, who doesn't even have a radio or a telephone could
have planned a highly sophisticated operation like that. Chances are it's
part of the background. You know, like other leaderless resistance terrorist
groups. Which means it's going to be extremely difficult to find evidence.
Establishing Credibility
And the US doesn't want to present evidence because it wants to be able
to do it, to act without evidence. That's a crucial part of the reaction.
You will notice that the US did not ask for Security Council authorization
which they probably could have gotten this time, not for pretty reasons,
but because the other permanent members of the Security Council are also
terrorist states. They are happy to join a coalition against what they
call terror, namely in support of their own terror. Like Russia wasn't
going to veto, they love it. So the US probably could have gotten Security
Council authorization but it didn't want it. And it didn't want it because
it follows a long-standing principle which is not George Bush, it was explicit
in the Clinton administration, articulated and goes back much further and
that is that we have the right to act unilaterally. We don't want international
authorization because we act unilaterally and therefore we don't want it.
We don't care about evidence. We don't care about negotiation. We don't
care about treaties. We are the strongest guy around; the toughest thug
on the block. We do what we want. Authorization is a bad thing and therefore
must be avoided. There is even a name for it in the technical literature.
It's called establishing credibility. You have to establish credibility.
That's an important factor in many policies. It was the official reason
given for the war in the Balkans and the most plausible reason.
You want to know what credibility means, ask your favorite Mafia Don.
He'll explain to you what credibility means. And it's the same in international
affairs, except it's talked about in universities using big words, and
that sort of thing. But it's basically the same principle. And it makes
sense. And it usually works. The main historian who has written about this
in the last couple years is Charles Tilly with a book called Coercion,
Capital, and European States. He points out that violence has been the
leading principle of Europe for hundreds of years and the reason is because
it works. You know, it's very reasonable. It almost always works. When
you have an overwhelming predominance of violence and a culture of violence
behind it. So therefore it makes sense to follow it. Well, those are all
problems in pursuing lawful paths. And if you did try to follow them you'd
really open some very dangerous doors. Like the US is demanding that the
Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden. And they are responding in a way which
is regarded as totally absurd and outlandish in the west, namely they are
saying, Ok, but first give us some evidence. In the west, that is considered
ludicrous. It's a sign of their criminality. How can they ask for evidence?
I mean if somebody asked us to hand someone over, we'd do it tomorrow.
We wouldn't ask for any evidence. [crowd laughter].
Haiti
In fact it is easy to prove that. We don't have to make up cases.
So for example, for the last several years, Haiti has been requesting the
United States to extradite Emmanuel Constant. He is a major killer. He
is one of the leading figures in the slaughter of maybe 4000 or 5000 people
in the years in the mid 1990's, under the military junta, which incidentally
was being, not so tacitly, supported by the Bush and the Clinton administrations
contrary to illusions. Anyway he is a leading killer. They have plenty
of evidence. No problem about evidence. He has already been brought to
trial and sentenced in Haiti and they are asking the United States to turn
him over. Well, I mean do your own research. See how much discussion there
has been of that. Actually Haiti renewed the request a couple of weeks
ago. It wasn't even mentioned. Why should we turn over a convicted killer
who was largely responsible for killing 4000 or 5000 people a couple of
years ago. In fact, if we do turn him over, who knows what he would say.
Maybe he'll say that he was being funded and helped by the CIA, which is
probably true. We don't want to open that door. And he is not he only one.
Costa Rica
I mean, for the last about 15 years, Costa Rica which is the democratic
prize, has been trying to get the United States to hand over a John Hull,
a US land owner in Costa Rica, who they charge with terrorist crimes. He
was using his land, they claim with good evidence as a base for the US
war against Nicaragua, which is not a controversial conclusion, remember.
There is the World Court and Security Council behind it. So they have been
trying to get the United States to hand him over. Hear about that one?
No.
They did actually confiscate the land of another American landholder,
John Hamilton. Paid compensation, offered compensation. The US refused.
Turned his land over into a national park because his land was also being
used as a base for the US attack against Nicaragua. Costa Rica was punished
for that one. They were punished by withholding aid. We don't accept that
kind of insubordination from allies. And we can go on. If you open the
door to questions about extradition it leads in very unpleasant directions.
So that can't be done.
Reactions in Afghanistan
Well, what about the reactions in Afghanistan. The initial proposal, the
initial rhetoric was for a massive assault which would kill many people
visibly and also an attack on other countries in the region. Well the Bush
administration wisely backed off from that. They were being told by every
foreign leader, NATO, everyone else, every specialist, I suppose, their
own intelligence agencies that that would be the stupidest thing they could
possibly do. It would simply be like opening recruiting offices for bin
Laden all over the region. That's exactly what he wants. And it would be
extremely harmful to their own interests. So they backed off that one.
And they are turning to what I described earlier which is a kind of silent
genocide. It's a.. well, I already said what I think about it. I don't
think anything more has to be said. You can figure it out if you do the
arithmetic.
A sensible proposal which is kind of on the verge of being considered,
but it has been sensible all along, and it is being raised, called for
by expatriate Afghans and allegedly tribal leaders internally, is for a
UN initiative, which would keep the Russians and Americans out of it, totally.
These are the 2 countries that have practically wiped the country out in
the last 20 years. They should be out of it. They should provide massive
reparations. But that's their only role. A UN initiative to bring together
elements within Afghanistan that would try to construct something from
the wreckage. It's conceivable that that could work, with plenty of support
and no interference. If the US insists on running it, we might as well
quit. We have a historical record on that one.
You will notice that the name of this operation..remember that at first
it was going to be a Crusade but they backed off that because PR (public
relations) agents told them that that wouldn't work [audience laughter].
And then it was going to be Infinite Justice, but the PR agents said, wait
a minute, you are sounding like you are divinity. So that wouldn't work.
And then it was changed to enduring freedom. We know what that means. But
nobody has yet pointed out, fortunately, that there is an ambiguity there.
To endure means to suffer. [audience laughter]. And a there are plenty
of people around the world who have endured what we call freedom. Again,
fortunately we have a very well-behaved educated class so nobody has yet
pointed out this ambiguity. But if its done there will be another problem
to deal with. But if we can back off enough so that some more or less independent
agency, maybe the UN, maybe credible NGO's (non governmental organizations)
can take the lead in trying to reconstruct something from the wreckage,
with plenty of assistance and we owe it to them. Them maybe something would
come out. Beyond that, there are other problems.
An Easy Way To Reduce The Level Of Terror
We certainly want to reduce the level of terror, certainly not escalate
it. There is one easy way to do that and therefore it is never discussed.
Namely stop participating in it. That would automatically reduce the level
of terror enormously. But that you can't discuss. Well we ought to make
it possible to discuss it. So that's one easy way to reduce the level of
terror.
Beyond that, we should rethink the kinds of policies, and Afghanistan
is not the only one, in which we organize and train terrorist armies. That
has effects. We're seeing some of these effects now. September 11th is
one. Rethink it.
Rethink the policies that are creating a reservoir of support. Exactly
what the bankers, lawyers and so on are saying in places like Saudi Arabia.
On the streets it's much more bitter, as you can imagine. That's possible.
You know, those policies aren't graven in stone.
And further more there are opportunities. It's hard to find many rays
of light in the last couple of weeks but one of them is that there is an
increased openness. Lots of issues are open for discussion, even in elite
circles, certainly among the general public, that were not a couple of
weeks ago. That's dramatically the case. I mean, if a newspaper like USA
Today can run a very good article, a serious article, on life in the Gaza
Strip.there has been a change. The things I mentioned in the Wall Street
Journal.that's change. And among the general public, I think there is much
more openness and willingness to think about things that were under the
rug and so on. These are opportunities and they should be used, at least
by people who accept the goal of trying to reduce the level of violence
and terror, including potential threats that are extremely severe and could
make even September 11th pale into insignificance. Thanks.