Customer Reviews

9-11

5 star:		(69)
4 star:		(41)
3 star:		(16)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(27)

 

 

Americans have a right to be mad-as-hell, but no right to bomb-the-hell out of anyone else. Nor do our politicians have the right to declare open-ended war against any country of their choosing. It's hard to keep perspective following an atrocity like the twin towers, but keep perspective we must if we are not to repeat the same slaughter of innocents as the perpetrators of the attack. Applying standards of procedural justice is crucial to a fair and effective reckoning. The atrocity should be treated as a crime against humanity, not as an opportunity to launch aggression against entries on an administration hit-list. As an international crime, the machinery of world justice should be brought to bear on the perpetrators wherever they may be hiding. They should be tried and punished in a world court of law, not in the dog cages of Guantanamo. What's good enough for victims in Kosovo should be good enough for victims in New York. The alternative, to wage war against suspect coutries without clear standards or honest diplomatic effort, will only prolong the suffering, create more enemies, and militarize our society. Is the unhobbled supremacy of Corporate America worth that price.

Chomsky makes the case in clear and consistent terms, refusing at the same time to undergo an historical lobotomy as prescribed by the president. Nor is the irony of an architect of global terrorism declaring war on itself lost on the author. Probably no word in our lifetime is now so exploited as that tortured term. Despite media filtration, there is an alternative, as Chomsky shows, to the present destructive course and its fog of misdirected jingoism. Though a quickie and somewhat disjointed booklet, 9-11 presents the kind of perspective unavailable in the mainstream, and for that reason should be read. The urgency becomes even greater as Bush and Company plot more conquests, more adventures, and more weapons of destruction, leading to who knows where. Though the president and his bullies would force a choosing of sides, there remains a more civilized path. The global community must insist upon it.

This is another one of those Chomsky books that comes from a number of interviews done with Chomsky. It only has interviews conducted in September and early October so there's not much in it in regards to the "war on terrorism." It has a lot of the usual information that Chomsky gives out about America's role in different areas of the world and how that could easily be seen as "blowback" in what happened on 9-11.

He discusses a lot of the legal ways we could go after terrorists, but as we all know, that hasn't been done. He points out all the things Nicaragua tried in attempts to alleviate American terrorism on their soil (Nicaragua went to the World Court, which ruled in their favor, ordering the US to desist and pay substantial reparations, but of course the US dismissed the court judgement and responded with an immediate escalation of the attack. Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The US alone vetoed it. Then they went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution passed with the US and Israel opposed two years in a row).

He brings up one issue that I hadn't heard about and that's how humanitarian aid was being affected very early on. In quoting the NY Times he stated,"Washington has also demanded (from Pakistan) a cutoff of fuel supplies...and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." He brings up numerous reports from NGOs that called the "humanitarian airdrops" things like "a propaganda ploy rather than a way to get aid to Afghans who really need help" and that air strikes "had halted the only means of getting large volumes of food to Afghans--overland truck convoys" of the WFP.

One other interesting point he brings up is America's attempts to censor the Arab-speaking world's only uncensored news source--Al-Jazeera.

It's not a book full of new information (although some of it may well be for some--it is full of stuff that isn't often discussed in our mainstream press, but stuff that you'll have probably read if you've read much of Chomsky), but basically presents the case for a peaceful way to fight terrorism and what America's done to receive this "blowback."

In other words, this is not the stuff of NBC News. I begin with a quote from the book:
"Nothing can justify the crimes such as those of September 11th, but we can think of the United States as an 'innocent victim' only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of it's actions and those of it's allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret(p 35)."
This short book is a transcript of email conversations with Chomsky. Many who are not familiar with Chomsky's work may be too quick to call him callous due to his style. He is not one to overzealously repeat obligatory statements so as to appease and pacify possible critics who would question his patriotism. Instead, Chomsky wishes to illustrate the "B-side" of the current crisis which is often bankrupt in most media.
Crucial premises among his talks include the idea that the U.S. did not take the legal route towards our response to 9-11 becuase it would lead to questions about the recent history of U.S terrorism (he gives a sampling) as defined by U.S. Codes and organizations such as the World Court. He discusses the comparability of 9-11 with other U.S. created disasters such as the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan (with it's resulting death count reaching into the tens of thousands). Interestingly, he discusses U.S. intelligence failures that may have led to the prevention of 9-11, such as Clinton's refusal (due, according to the CIA, to his "irrational hatred" of the country) to accept Sudan's critical information regarding many members of the Al-Qaida network.
Chomsky also questions the current Realpolitik phenomenon of American anti-Islamic Fundamentalism while we currently support Islamic Fundamentalist regimes, such as in Saudi Arabia, which are just as despotic, especially to U.S. "noble ends."
It seems that there is more of a pause among Americans in response to the bombings of 9-11. This is in sharp contrast to the American reaction to the Gulf War incident over a decade ago. Books such as "9-11" by Chomsky perhaps gives us a bit of insight as to why there is more of a "pause."

I really wonder if the Library Journal reviewer bothered to read the whole book, or just stopped when he found that Chomsky was departing from the post-9/11 unquestioning acceptance of the 'US vs. the evildoers' party line.
"Chomsky condemns the attacks specifically and then suggests that the deaths are entirely the responsibility of capitalist globalization" - That is a complete misrepresentation; Chomsky repeats several times that Bin Laden and his ilk don't care about globalization. What has created anti-American sentiment around the world, in Chomsky's view, is a US foreign policy dictated by the interests of energy companies, and which supports brutal, anti-human rights dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries because it guarantees access to cheap oil. This book was written before the recent US takeover of Iraq, but Chomsky's arguments are quite prescient...

If you haven't read Chomsky before, this is a decent introduction to one of the most controversial public commentators of our time. You'll want to read more of his work when you're finished with this.

The book is a collection of interviews with Mr. Chomsky conducted between September 11 and October 15. It will be a long time, if ever, before we are able to make sense out these attacks given the images the media floats before us. We instinctively look for answers that are both safe and comforting. However, too many people died on 9-11 and since for us to accept the easy answers. We must have the courage to look fearlessly at ourselves and the rest of the world.

Despite, or because of the focus on 9-11, Chomsky delves into the past fifty years of world history, particularly regarding U.S foreign policy. As always, he allows the facts to speak for themselves. In this sense he is much like I.F. Stone. When the Kennedy administration was testing nuclear devices and claiming that a test ban was unenforceable because such tests were not detectable, Stone simply read the newspaper. The government argued that we would have no way of knowing whether the Soviet Union violated a test ban. Stone pointed out that in the same newspaper (I believe it was the New York Times) which carried the Kennedy administration's position on page one, the back pages carried short and unheralded reports from as far away as Australia that geologists reported their seismographs had clearly recorded the test. Chomsky works out of the same tradition. While other commentators attempt to put a spin of one sort or another on a story, Chomsky relentlessly places the facts before his readers and asks: what do these facts tell you?

He also insists on applying the standards the U.S applies to other nations to the U.S. If another nation claimed that the deaths of tens of thousands of children are an acceptable byproduct of its foreign policy, we would, of course, deplore it. Madeline Albright defended U.S. policy toward Iraq in those words. When our friends in Indonesia, Angola and Central America use tactics we label terrorist when used by bin Laden, our presidents call them "freedom fighters".

Chomsky does not blame the U.S. for the 9-11 attacks. Terrorists are responsible for their own acts. He does, however, demonstrate that the U.S. conducts itself in a manner that helps create a world in which terrorism is not only acceptable but flourishes.

His insistence on focusing on the facts and applying standards universally maddens his critics. Nothing is left for them to do but call him names.

This small book is a big boost for democracy.

Chomsky is disturbing to many people becasue he asks the difficult questions. When most of the U.S. media is focused on retaliation, bombs, attacking Afganistan,then looking for the next area in the world to bomb, Chomsky asks, Who is served by this response. The British govenment did not bomb Belfast in retaliation for the IRA attacks, or Boston, which was the source of most of the IRA funding. More to the point, however, is the history of Nicaragua where the U.S. was obviously the aggressor against a fellow republic and was condemmmed by the World Court for unlawful use of force, i.e., state terrorism. Then the U.S. and Israel vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on the U.S. to desist. It is why the U.S. for the first time in history was not included among states which respect human rights in the last U.N. report. The brutal attack on the helpless population of Afganistan is not an action which shows the U.S. as a nation which respects international law or the integrity of others nations or its peoples. Nor has its purpose, the apprehension of Bin Laden, been accomplished.
Those who find Chomsky disturbing tend to be folks who do not read news or opinions outside the U.S. Dialogue on controversial international subjects tends to be circumscribed by the media in the U.S. and the limits clearly set out. Few students of history have read The Irish Soldiers of Mexico by Michael Hogan or the Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galleano which are required reading for most international students. Both books show a history of U.S. forceful interventions which would certainly make reflective readers see more dimensions and more appropriate responses to terrorism than retaliation which results in the collateral damage of tens of thousands of innocent lives.

This book is a series of softball questions seemingly designed for Chomsky to belt out of the political ballpark where well constructed "answers" are a means of pushing his political agenda which paints the government as nefarious evil doers while casually shrugging off critics as "idiotic" or "laughable".

This is Noam Chomsky.

So why do I rate this book 4 stars? I do so because I have to be honest with anyone who is going to read this review. I will always contend that delivery is a large part of any book. Because of the delivery, this is a 4 star book and not a 5 star book. But it doesn't take away from the underlying message which Chomsky tries to send.

What is that message? Anyone familiar with Chomsky will know that his ultimate message is this. Motives and actions of the US government are frequently underhanded and inhumanitarian. He contends that our government routinely practices terrorism (government defined) and that major media outlets ignore the reality of how our government operates in various theaters of the world.

Chomsky's message, despite his delivery, is one that is often hard to counter and lined with truth. The hard part about reading this book is that Chomsky demands you believe him 100% and dismisses any disagree with him as uneducated, uncaring, or evil.

I think it's easy to see Chomsky as an anti-rhetoric rhetoric machine. In an effort to counter the rhetoric of the US government, he does that which he criticizes. The government says "war" and Chomsky says "slaughter". He practices what he claims to despise.

A second Chomsky flaw is hand waving off counter arguments. Instead of attempting to debate an argument, he points to other texts and claims that the proof is there. Instead of attempting to take on issues head-to-head, he bobs and weaves with vague references which are not readily available to the reader.

My third complaint with Chomsky is his insistence that he knows the unknowable. In one instance he says the government has a "program of silent" genocide. Additionally, through the book he states (as fact) what Bin Laden wants to come of the 9-11 attacks, while later claiming there is no proof Bin Laden was involved. Alluding to these facts instead of calling them what they are, namely opinions and speculation, is what he builds many of his points on; points which rest on a suspect foundation.

My basic problem with him is that despite it all, this is still a very good book. Chomsky is a good thinker. He is well read, well informed, and sometimes well spoken. He doesn't need to resort to these tactics, yet he does. Chomsky is like a teenager in his maturity level at times, belittling those who don't agree with him and hand waving his way through topics by saying things are so obvious it's foolish to bother explaining.

What is good about this book again?

Now to some of those points I refer to when I claim he does have a good message beneath the childish rhetoric. Considering the time frame, a mere 7 days after 9-11, Chomsky correctly predicts that Israel would eventually use the Bush anti-terrorist rhetoric to step through a huge hole opened when he declared countries as either with or against the US.

In understanding the element involved here, Chomsky also suggests we should strive to apprehend the wrongdoers and attempt to comprehend the forces at play. When Chomsky says we should try to, "Understand and address the cause," I'm right there with him.

Additionally, he elucidates a great thought which entails the continued oppression by the US and Israel of Iraqi and Palestinian people, respectively. In continuing these oppressive actions, many people look at the US and the Israel with disdain. When Bin Laden speaks out against these acts of oppression, even those who hate Bin Laden identify with him. His latching on to these key points, and the US government's continued actions to support what he says, rally a large part of the Arab world against the US.

These are the points that Chomsky brings to light. Similarly, when people, no matter how hated by society, speak out against the US bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant - the same plant that supplied half the country with its medication - people listen and begin to foster strong hate towards the US.

The book helps in giving you a better understanding and perspective of US actions and their consequences. What would US citizens think if they knew what our government was doing in various arenas of the world? Again, it goes back to trying to understand the impetus for 9-11.

Chomsky reminds you of the question which occasionally plagues you. Why do we support Saudi Arabia, the center for much of this anti-American sentiment? Why did we support Iraq in the 80's? The Mujahadin in the 80's? Chomsky's point is this. Why do we stop asking these questions even though we know what the answers are?

Back to Chomsky. Yes, he is unobjective. He will never present the reader with a balanced picture. Yes, he selectively looks at history through his one-eyed microscope to prove his point, even drawing on history 40 years past to support anti-US opinions of today. And yes, he will beat his selfish "I am right you are stupid" drum incessantly.

But the reality is this. When you cut through all of this, his message is clear and hard to refute. It's not a rosy picture out there, just beyond the fingertips of what you can see, hear, and read every day in the media. The citizens of this country are implicitly supporting these atrocities that go on in the world by not questioning them. And in his petulant and annoying manner, Chomsky reminds you what the questions are and why you should be asking them.

I clearly recommend reading this book.

This book couldn't come at a better time. I've read other works by Chomsky, but I appreciated the brevity and cutting edge analysis that is needed to help see through the fog of distortions, propaganda, and lack of historical analysis that is used to gain support for what Chomsky calls a terrorist attack on the innocent people of Afghanistan.

Though Chomsky repeaditaly states that the 9/11 attack is unjustfied, he rightly argues that if we fail to understand the context of such an attack, then we're doom, like the state of Isreal, to live without any hope of peace and justice. Throughout the various interviews reproduced in this book, he maintains that "we should recognize that in much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state, and with good reason. We might bear in mind, for example, that in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for 'unlawful use of force' (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to ahdhere to international law." What the U.S. has done or supported in Vietnam, Granada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, the Sudan, El Salvador, Chile, occupied Palestine, etc. constitute a recent history of political terrorist repression, whereby hundreds of thousands of innocent people, especially women and children, have been killed primarily to protect the political and economic (e.g. oil, coffee) interests of the United States.

Chomsky reminds us that the current war is nothing new or partisan. The attack on Afghanistan is/will be 10 times as devistating as Clinton's attack on the Sudan in which the "death toll from the bombing has continued, quietly, to rise...Thus, tens of thousands of people--many of them children--have suffered and died from malaria, tuberculosis, and other treatable diseases..." And this attack as we must remember was done based on the same current erroneous reasons given for the current attack on the people of Afghanistan and Irag--all three in persuit of a despotic leader.

Not a supporter of the Islamic fundementalist bin Landen, Chomsky does remind readers of the history of the U.S. in Afghanistan whereby in the 1980s, the U.S. trained and funded networks to committ a "holy war against the Russian occupiers....By 1989, they [the Mujahidin, in which bin Landen was a principle leader] succeeded in their Holy War in Afghanistan. As soon as the U.S. established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Landen and the rest announced that from their point of view, that was comparable to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in 1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is a major enemy of the bin Laden network, just as Egypt is. That's what they want to overthrow, what they call the un-Islamic governements of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other states of the Middles East, and North Africa. And it continued."

This type of history and analysis provides us with the context for 9/11--one that we simply will not get from watching or reading the dominant media. While many may argue with Chomsky's analysis, he nevertheless provides the necessary rebuttal to what, in my view, is the perfect war for someone like the unelected president of this country.

Finally, the only problem I have with this book is that Chomsky or the editor should have provided documentation for the many "reports" refered to in this work. Without identifying specific sources, Chomsky weakens many of his arguments, for we simply don't know where he's getting his information.

A short read which is simply a set of interviews conducted with Chomsky after the 9-11 tragedy. Obviously this book wasn't meant to provide any details, there is nothing in this book that isn't covered in MUCH greater detail in Chomsky's other works, this book was really rushed to print to provide curious readers (who'll probably search "9-11" as a keyword) with basics that they won't read or hear from mainstream media. If the reader has little background in US foreign policy or mid east politics, then this book might prove worthless in terms of gaining detail, but this book does give the reader some information that can be used as a guide to further research. For example: One might not have previously been aware of certain policies the US has in southwest Asia, this book makes mention of some of these policies, and the reader's focus now turns to finding more about these policies from other sources. Chomsky meant for this book to act as a keyword <META TAG> to attract a larger audience to important issues. The book is short and lacks detail, but has the veritable punchlines to attract the curiosity of the laity. The book is inexpensive and can be read in one sitting easily. So it's okay for curious readers who just want to get the gist of what is rarely (if ever) heard in the mainstream media.

Much of the material on "9-11" from the talks Chomsky gave shortly after and made it into this book can easily be found on the internet for free. The material in the book is decent and I understand that 7 Stories Press wanted to get out a book on this most important event in a hurry... But for those really interested in reading Chomsky's core political critique and philosophy I'd recommend turning to the new "Understanding Power" or "Profit Over People" which are more representative examples of his work.