Remarks on Chomsky and Preventive Warfare
I would like to discuss an idea brought up in the book that I am currently reading, Failed States by Noam Chomsky. For those who are unfamiliar with the man, he is professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and most brilliant in the former discipline. I respect the man in his academic achievements, and not only is he brilliant but he is gifted with English prose. This is where my complimenting of him stops. Chomsky is my least favorite political commentator in the world, and I would like to call him a rambling idiot, but he is too intelligent. The facts about this man include that he is a libertarian socialist, a concept I can barely grasp, and has been accused of being a holocaust denier and sympathizing with terrorism. I am shocked when I say that in regards to the latter it is almost understandable, but this is not the essay to discuss that, and that is not an admission that I sympathize with terrorists. Regarding the former, I am appalled that holocaust deniers are the same species as I am, but Chomsky has never said outright that the Nazi Holocaust never happened; yet he never said it did and keeps some ardent Holocaust deniers in close quarters (I have not hitherto read any Finkelstein but I plan to, yet to say I disagree with him wholeheartedly is an understatement). Chomsky is exceedingly controversial, and many are appalled by some of his actions, but as an intellectual and well informed political commentator he cannot be ignored. Note that this is not going to be the last you will hear from me on Noam Chomsky.
An issue I would like to discuss that was raised in Failed States is the idea of preventive warfare. Note that this is not the only place that it is brought up, not in the least, but it is a discussed well and it gave me a reason to give a brief summary of Chomsky. Before I read too far into the book I would like to address my feeling of preventive warfare. Before beginning, it behooves me to state that I am socially liberal (to a point), economically capitalist, and in the middle politically, but leaning towards conservatism (for now, at least).
The idea of preventive warfare is to attack the enemy before they attack you. The idea seems reasonable, if it is obvious that the enemy is going to strike, it is better to strike them before suffering casualties. However, there are many flaws in this design. First of all, it opens up the possibility for a wave of strikes due to preventive measures and a “slippery slope.” This was the excuse for invading Iraq. Hussein had WMDs, and he was going to use them on us unless we removed him from power and instituted a democracy in Iraq. It appeared like an at least semi-logical idea at the time, to some at least; or at least more than agrees with it now, but it was a preventative measure. Chomsky raises the issue that our main reason for going to war in Iraq is that Sadaam had WMDs and he was ready, willing and eager to use them on the United States. Another reason for the operation was depose the evil dictator Sadaam for human rights violations. Obviously oil was involved at well, but how much I am not at liberty to say. Another contention was to decrease terrorism worldwide.
Since the war, it appears that Sadaam had no WMDs. This is not to say that he might not have planned to produce them at some point in the future, but the point is he did not have them and it was our main point of contention. That appears to make the Bush administration out to be a bunch of bellicose phonies, but I am not that quick to judge. Iraq was still a large problem, and I hope/believe that the US cared about the plight of the Iraqi citizens, few of whom like Sadaam. Regardless, that strain of contention appears to be gone. To address oil, since the war the price of oil has gone up, making the war seem counter productive in that regard. Also, Chomsky claims that Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorists, something it was not before. I am not at liberty to comment. So by this, it appears that the only reason for going into Iraq was to get read of Sadaam Hussein and his oppressive regime, in the process creating a civil war. It appears like our plan backfired, and the whole idea of preventive warfare as a reason for attack looks like a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that our economy took a major hit and is now in shambles. Maybe shambles is an exaggeration, but we lost of over trillion dollar surplus and I do not know what the national debt is now.
Yet in this situation it appears that preventive warfare was counterproductive. However, Iraq was probably never any real threat, so it may be a weak example, but at least I got to recapitulate our reasons for going into Iraq. Imagine another scenario. Take North Korea, which I believe will be a major threat to the United States in the not so distant future. It is exceedingly likely that N. Korea has WMDs, and if they don’t Kim Jong-Il sure as hell is working on acquiring them. North Korea has proven to be a belligerent and oppressive nation, and one not willing to compromise with the other nations of the world, especially South Korea or the Untied States. Say Kim Jong-Il produces WMDs, and says that he is going to use them on the US. This would obviously be a massive faux pas, but I wouldn’t put it past Kim Jong-Il. If The US knew that he was going to bomb them, wouldn’t it be logical to bomb him before he bombs us? Not necessarily. However, if he is absolutely incontrovertible in bombing us, we ought to bomb him. But what if he says he might bomb the US unless we do something. I am unsure what it may be, say he forms a coalition with Afghanistan and Iran, and unless we disengage from the Middle East he said he will “use more powerful methods” or something like that. If he gives a sort of warning that he’ll do something, should we attack him before he can attack us? I say no, for right now, but I encourage comments on this point. What if he would nuke us, then it is a good idea. If he is all talk and does nothing, we look bad, but he shouldn’t have talked the talk if he couldn’t walk the walk. However, in a situation somewhat like this, preventive warfare may prove effective.
The biggest problem with this preventive warfare is that it can be easily abused, which may have happened in Iraq. This is a huge problem. However, in an age where most if not all of the powerful nations have WMDs, it may be necessary to prevent annihilation.
I encourage comments on preventive warfare. I admit I have proposed more questions than answers, but I do not the answers. What I do know, is that preventative warfare is a pressing idea, and I find it troubling. My conclusion is only in extreme circumstances is preventative warfare necessary. These “extreme circumstances” must include an obvious inevitable attack. Regardless, it is unsettling and warfare is not going away by any means; it is mutating into a more dangerous entity.
An issue I would like to discuss that was raised in Failed States is the idea of preventive warfare. Note that this is not the only place that it is brought up, not in the least, but it is a discussed well and it gave me a reason to give a brief summary of Chomsky. Before I read too far into the book I would like to address my feeling of preventive warfare. Before beginning, it behooves me to state that I am socially liberal (to a point), economically capitalist, and in the middle politically, but leaning towards conservatism (for now, at least).
The idea of preventive warfare is to attack the enemy before they attack you. The idea seems reasonable, if it is obvious that the enemy is going to strike, it is better to strike them before suffering casualties. However, there are many flaws in this design. First of all, it opens up the possibility for a wave of strikes due to preventive measures and a “slippery slope.” This was the excuse for invading Iraq. Hussein had WMDs, and he was going to use them on us unless we removed him from power and instituted a democracy in Iraq. It appeared like an at least semi-logical idea at the time, to some at least; or at least more than agrees with it now, but it was a preventative measure. Chomsky raises the issue that our main reason for going to war in Iraq is that Sadaam had WMDs and he was ready, willing and eager to use them on the United States. Another reason for the operation was depose the evil dictator Sadaam for human rights violations. Obviously oil was involved at well, but how much I am not at liberty to say. Another contention was to decrease terrorism worldwide.
Since the war, it appears that Sadaam had no WMDs. This is not to say that he might not have planned to produce them at some point in the future, but the point is he did not have them and it was our main point of contention. That appears to make the Bush administration out to be a bunch of bellicose phonies, but I am not that quick to judge. Iraq was still a large problem, and I hope/believe that the US cared about the plight of the Iraqi citizens, few of whom like Sadaam. Regardless, that strain of contention appears to be gone. To address oil, since the war the price of oil has gone up, making the war seem counter productive in that regard. Also, Chomsky claims that Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorists, something it was not before. I am not at liberty to comment. So by this, it appears that the only reason for going into Iraq was to get read of Sadaam Hussein and his oppressive regime, in the process creating a civil war. It appears like our plan backfired, and the whole idea of preventive warfare as a reason for attack looks like a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that our economy took a major hit and is now in shambles. Maybe shambles is an exaggeration, but we lost of over trillion dollar surplus and I do not know what the national debt is now.
Yet in this situation it appears that preventive warfare was counterproductive. However, Iraq was probably never any real threat, so it may be a weak example, but at least I got to recapitulate our reasons for going into Iraq. Imagine another scenario. Take North Korea, which I believe will be a major threat to the United States in the not so distant future. It is exceedingly likely that N. Korea has WMDs, and if they don’t Kim Jong-Il sure as hell is working on acquiring them. North Korea has proven to be a belligerent and oppressive nation, and one not willing to compromise with the other nations of the world, especially South Korea or the Untied States. Say Kim Jong-Il produces WMDs, and says that he is going to use them on the US. This would obviously be a massive faux pas, but I wouldn’t put it past Kim Jong-Il. If The US knew that he was going to bomb them, wouldn’t it be logical to bomb him before he bombs us? Not necessarily. However, if he is absolutely incontrovertible in bombing us, we ought to bomb him. But what if he says he might bomb the US unless we do something. I am unsure what it may be, say he forms a coalition with Afghanistan and Iran, and unless we disengage from the Middle East he said he will “use more powerful methods” or something like that. If he gives a sort of warning that he’ll do something, should we attack him before he can attack us? I say no, for right now, but I encourage comments on this point. What if he would nuke us, then it is a good idea. If he is all talk and does nothing, we look bad, but he shouldn’t have talked the talk if he couldn’t walk the walk. However, in a situation somewhat like this, preventive warfare may prove effective.
The biggest problem with this preventive warfare is that it can be easily abused, which may have happened in Iraq. This is a huge problem. However, in an age where most if not all of the powerful nations have WMDs, it may be necessary to prevent annihilation.
I encourage comments on preventive warfare. I admit I have proposed more questions than answers, but I do not the answers. What I do know, is that preventative warfare is a pressing idea, and I find it troubling. My conclusion is only in extreme circumstances is preventative warfare necessary. These “extreme circumstances” must include an obvious inevitable attack. Regardless, it is unsettling and warfare is not going away by any means; it is mutating into a more dangerous entity.
posted by Brian Hillman at 10:15 PM
0 comments
