Jump to content
Firoz Ali

Noam Chomsky: 'Controlling the Oil in Iraq Puts

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Noam Chomsky: 'Controlling the Oil in Iraq Puts America in a Strong Position to Exert Influence on the World'

By David McNeill

The Independent U.K.

Monday 24 January 2005

The Monday Interview: Professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Given the impossibly high praise lavished upon him - "One of the finest minds of the twentieth century" (The New Yorker); "Arguably the most important intellectual alive" (The New York Times) - it is hard to know what to expect when Noam Chomsky enters the room, a beam of pure white light perhaps, or at least the regal swish of academic royalty. Or the whiff of sulphur. He has also been called a man with a "deep contempt for the truth" (The Anti-Chomsky Reader) and an appeaser of Islamic fascism (Christopher Hitchens), among some of the milder criticism.

So it is a surprise when a smiling, slightly stooped man with a diffident air strolls into his office in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston, pours himself a coffee and apologizes for keeping me waiting.

As has often been remarked, Professor Chomsky is modesty personified, quietly spoken and generous with his time, diligently answering the thousands of e-mails sent to him every week, a laborious task that eats up seven hours a day; usually signing off simply with "Noam". "He recognizes no hierarchies," says Chomsky's long-time assistant, Bev Stohl. "He is what people who love him say he is, a man who cares deeply for others."

Of all that has been said about him, Bono's quip "rebel without a pause" fits as well as anything. At 76, and despite a recent struggle with cancer, Chomsky seems to have increased his prodigious output. Bookshelves across the world groan with his political writings, his voice can be heard in radio interviews every week and apart from e-mailing and extensive blogging he gives hundreds of speeches in dozens of cities every year.

"This is how it has been since 9/11," he says. "That had a complex effect on the U.S. which I don't think is appreciated abroad. The picture is that it turned everyone into flag-waving maniacs, and that is just nonsense. It opened people's minds and made a lot of people think, 'I'd better figure out what our role is and why these things are happening'."

Chomsky's views on America's role in the world are well-known, thanks to four decades of relentless political activity marked by his forensically detailed demolition of the U.S. official line. From the Vietnam War, which he argued was fought to halt the spread of independent nationalism, not communism, to the twin tower attacks, which he said were rooted in the "fury and despair" caused by U.S. policies, and his famous charge that every post-war American president would have been hanged under the Nuremberg Laws, Chomsky has been the acid in the belly of the U.S. beast, using what Arundhati Roy calls his "anarchist's instinctive mistrust of power" to eat at its swaggering self-assurance.

Still, he says, he is amazed at how the invasion of Iraq has turned out in what he believes "should have been one of the easier military occupations in history". He says: "I thought the war itself would be over in two days and that the occupation would immediately succeed. It was known to be the weakest country in the region. The U.S. never would have invaded otherwise. The sanctions had killed hundreds of thousands and compelled the people to rely on Saddam for survival, otherwise they probably would have overthrown him.

"The country is obviously going to fall apart as soon as you push it. And any resistance is going to have no outside support, a trickle but nothing significant. But, in fact, it is proving harder than the German occupation of Europe in the Second World War. The Nazis didn't have this much trouble in Europe. But somehow the U.S. has managed to turn it into an unbelievable catastrophe. And it is partly because of the way they are treating people. They have been treating people in such a way that engenders resistance and hatred and fear."

The long-awaited Iraqi elections are to be held next Sunday but Chomsky calls talk about a sovereign, independent, democratic Iraq a "poor joke". He says: "I don't see any possibility of Britain and the U.S. allowing a sovereign independent Iraq; that's almost inconceivable. It will have a Shia majority. Probably as a first step it will try to reconstitute relations with Iran. It-s not that they are pro- Khamenei [iran's Supreme Leader], they'll want to be independent. But it's a natural relationship and even under Saddam they were beginning to restore relations with Iran.

"It might instigate some degree of autonomy in the largely Shia regions of Saudi Arabia which happens to be where most of the oil is. You can project not too far in the future a possible Shia-dominated region including Iran, Iraq, oil-producing regions of Saudi Arabia which really would monopolize the main sources of the world's oil. Is the U.S. going to permit that? It is out of the question. Furthermore, an independent Iraq would try to restore its position as a great, perhaps leading power in the Arab world. Which means it will try to rearm and confront the regional enemy, which is Israel. It may well develop WMD to counter Israel's. It is inconceivable that the U.S. and the UK will permit this."

Chomsky believes comparisons of Iraq and Vietnam are mistaken, primarily because Vietnam was not ultimately a defeat for American strategic aims. "Vietnamese resources were not of that much significance. Iraq is different. It is the last corner of the world in which there are massive petroleum resources, maybe the largest in the world or close to it. The profits from that must flow primarily to the right pockets, that is, U.S. and secondarily UK energy corporations. And controlling that resource puts the U.S. in a very powerful position to exert influence over the world."

One of the more surprising post-9/11 developments has been Chomsky's falling out with erstwhile left colleagues, notably the writer Christopher Hitchens, who accuses Chomsky of "making excuses for theocratic fascism" and exercising "moral equivalency" in his discussions of 9/11 and U.S. imperialism. "In some awful way, Chomsky's regard for the underdog has mutated into support for mad dogs," Hitchens said.

Chomsky says: "I don't care what sort of ranting and tantrums people have. What does that mean, to equate 9/11 with U.S. crimes? You can't even equate 9/11 with what they call the other 9/11 south of the border. In 9/11 1973, in Chile, the president was killed, the oldest democracy in Latin America was destroyed, the official number killed was 3,000 people. The actual number is probably double that. In per capita relating to the U.S. that's 100,000 people. It set up a brutal, vicious dictatorship, a virus that spread through much of the rest of Latin America and helped induce a tremendous wave of terror.

"How does that compare with 11 September, 2001? If you want to count numbers and social consequences it is much worse. But it doesn't make sense to compare them. They are atrocities on their own. And the ones we are concerned with primarily are the ones we can stop.

"When Britain and the U.S. invaded Iraq, it was with the reasonable expectation that it was going to increase the threat of terror, as it has. This means they are again contributing to terror of the 9/11 variety which is likely to hit the US, which could be awesome. Sooner of later, jihadist-style terror and WMD are going to come together and the consequences could be horrendous. So if we care about jihadist-style terror we don't want to be contributing to it."

Dealing with terror, Chomsky believes, requires a "dual program" along the lines of "what the British did in Northern Ireland". He says: "The terrorist acts are criminal acts so you apprehend the guilty, use force if necessary and bring them to a fair trial. They want to appeal to the reservoir of understanding for what they're doing, even from people who hate and fear them. If they can mobilize that reservoir they win. We can help them mobilize that reservoir by violence or we can reduce it by dealing with legitimate grievances.

"Every resort to violence has been a gift to the jihadists. Respond with violence which hits civilians and you're giving a gift to Osama bin Laden; you're giving him the propaganda weapon he wants so he can say, 'We have to defend Islam against the Western infidels trying to destroy it. We're fighting a war of defense'.

"If you want to mobilize that constituency that is the way to intervene. But there is another way and that is to pay attention to the legitimate grievance. That's intervention too."

The CV

Born: 7 December, 1928 in Philadelphia, son of William Chomsky, a Hebrew scholar.

1949: Marries linguist Carol Schatz. Three children.

1955: Doctorate in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania.

1957: His book Syntactic Structures revolutionizes the field of linguistics. Begins teaching at MIT.

1964: Active against the Vietnam War, including organizing tax strikes.

1969: Publishes the classic American Power and the New Mandarins.

1980-92: Cited as a source more than any other living scholar, Arts and Humanities Citation Index shows.

2001: Likens the 9/11 attacks to U.S. bombing of al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Says in book after the attack: "Wanton killing of innocent civilians is terrorism, not a war against terrorism."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012505F.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This man is more than 80 years old. I don't know how he is going to die. His words makes US government to attack Iraq more and more. US soldiers go to Iraq and like before, they torture and harrass our brothers and sisters in prisons like Abugharib. May Allah eradicate all Zalemin from earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 11:29 PM, 000 said:

How is that so?

before every great America great plan he talks to news ,for example before a week before claiming independent claim of Kurdiastan by help of Isreal after ISIS defeat by Iran & Iraq he talked with foreign policy news media & gave clues about it but some Arab groups even Shias respect him & give some information to him that leads to better planning of 

america against Shias specially Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

before every great America great plan he talks to news ,for example before a week before claiming independent claim of Kurdiastan by help of Isreal after ISIS defeat by Iran & Iraq he talked with foreign policy news media & gave clues about it but some Arab groups even Shias respect him & give some information to him that leads to better planning of 

america against Shias specially Iran.

interesting, any links regarding this theory? it partly answers why he got high position in the establishment and always getting the microphone... it would be better if you could supply us the chronology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 000 said:

interesting, any links regarding this theory? it partly answers why he got high position in the establishment and always getting the microphone... it would be better if you could supply us the chronology.

He has absolutely no position in the establishment in my country. Everyone generally hates what he has to say and he is usually completely locked out of the media because of his unwillingness to toe the line and promote the narrative that the owners of my country desire.

 

I'm reading one of his books right now "Who rules the world?" He is very critical of Israel. Has a lot of sympathy for Iranian people and the actions of Israel/America against them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 8:31 AM, AmirAlmuminin Lover said:

This man is more than 80 years old. I don't know how he is going to die. His words makes US government to attack Iraq more and more. US soldiers go to Iraq and like before, they torture and harrass our brothers and sisters in prisons like Abugharib. May Allah eradicate all Zalemin from earth.

Noam Chomsky is considered to be one of the greatest intellectuals of 21 century, he turned 90 few days back. Have read half a dozen of his books. Listen to hundreds of his speeches & interviews. He has always been critical of American foreign policy. You are probably confusing him for someone else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noam Chomsky. What an interesting thought provoking man. I always admired the way he articulates his points. It seems bizarre for a man like him being critical towards America and other western nations with their foreign policies towards Other Nations alongside Middle East nations. Especially with his upbringing being an American Jewish Family where many people would expect him to be pro-Israel and pro-West with his arguments.

But no, he maintains a sense of realism when he addresses his points and takes no sides whatsoever as far as my readings about him tells me (prove me wrong). A critic that goes out of his way to be as unbiased as humanly possible (again prove me wrong if my readings about him is off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 9:46 PM, GD41586 said:

He has absolutely no position in the establishment in my country.

Even though I do agree with many of his views, I find it odd that he is free to speak anything he want & is a Professor Emeritus at MIT, the leading institution of the establishment.
I can't say the same to Finkelstein as he lost his position at DePaul University & much less freedom to disseminate his views.

Edited by 000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 000 said:

Even though I do agree with many of his views, I find it odd that he is free to speak anything he want & is a Professor Emeritus at MIT, the leading institution of the establishment.
I can't say the same to Finkelstein as he lost his position at DePaul University & much less freedom to disseminate his views.

MIT is most certainly not the leading institution of the establishment, those would be Yale & Harvard. 

Chomsky also is barely ever allowed to address the American public on our news media like CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. You pretty much have to go out of your way to look for his speeches or read his books.

They legally can't stop him from speaking, but the establishment does it's best to keep his ideas from spreading. Trust me on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 1:54 PM, Ali Al Kashmiri said:

Noam Chomsky is considered to be one of the greatest intellectuals of 21 century, he turned 90 few days back. Have read half a dozen of his books. Listen to hundreds of his speeches & interviews. He has always been critical of American foreign policy. You are probably confusing him for someone else. 

Whoever he is, he doesn't have right to stimulate an antagonistic regime to interfere in internal affairs of other countries. Iraq oil is only for Iraqi people, a d ONLY Iraqi people decide what to do with their resorces.

How do you feel if a world famous person tell your enemy to control your financial affairs?

Edited by AmirAlmuminin Lover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 8:31 AM, AmirAlmuminin Lover said:

This man is more than 80 years old. I don't know how he is going to die. His words makes US government to attack Iraq more and more. 

 

Quote
45 minutes ago, AmirAlmuminin Lover said:

Whoever he is, he doesn't have right to stimulate an antagonistic regime to interfere in internal affairs of other countries. 

 

First you said Noam Chomsky’s words made USA attack Iraq & now you are saying that he is interfering in the internal affairs. You seriously have no idea whatsoever about Noam Chomskys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AmirAlmuminin Lover said:

Whoever he is, he doesn't have right to stimulate an antagonistic regime to interfere in internal affairs of other countries. Iraq oil is only for Iraqi people, a d ONLY Iraqi people decide what to do with their resorces.

How do you feel if a world famous person tell your enemy to control your financial affairs?

He's not making that statement for those reasons, he is wholeheartedly against the very concept of the American Empire.

What he is doing, is "calling it like he sees it" and getting in on the ground floor so that once this more than likely does occur, he can say "See? I told you that's what they were going to do!"

Professor Chomsky spends his career arguing against American Imperialism, like I said I'm reading his latest book "Who Rules the World?" currently and it's a pretty scathing indictment of American intervention in the affairs of sovereign nations as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×