Chomsky:--'Dominance And Its Dilemmas'

[Aidoneus]

Dominance And Its Dilemmas
By Noam Chomsky
Znet
13 October, 2003

The past year has been a momentous one in world affairs. In the normal rhythm, the pattern was set in September, a month marked by several important and closely related events. The most powerful state in history announced a new National Security Strategy asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently: any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme. At the same time, the war drums began to beat to mobilize the population for an invasion of Iraq, which would be "the first test , not the last," the New York Times observed after the invasion, "the petri dish in which this experiment in pre-emptive policy grew." And the campaign opened for the mid-term congressional elections, which would determine whether the administration would be able to carry forward its radical international and domestic agenda.

The new "imperial grand strategy," as it was aptly termed at once by John Ikenberry, presents the US as "a revisionist state seeking to parlay its momentary advantages into a world order in which it runs the show," a "unipolar world" in which "no state or coalition could ever challenge" it as "global leader, protector, and enforcer. These policies are fraught with danger even for the US itself, he warned, joining many others in the foreign policy elite.

What is to be "protected" is US power and the interests it represents, not the world, which vigorously opposed the conception. Within a few months, polls revealed that fear of the United States had reached remarkable heights, along with distrust of the political leadership, or worse. As for the test case, an international Gallup poll in December, barely noted in the US, found virtually no support for Washington's announced plans for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies": in effect, the US-UK "coalition."

--snip--

Perhaps the most spectacular propaganda achievement was the lauding of the president's "vision" to bring democracy to the Middle East in the midst of a display of hatred and contempt for democracy for which no precedent comes to mind. One illustration was the distinction between Old and New Europe, the former reviled, the latter hailed for its courage. The criterion was sharp: Old Europe consists of governments that took the same position as the vast majority of their populations; the heroes of New Europe followed orders from Crawford Texas, disregarding an even larger majority, in most cases. Political commentators ranted about disobedient Old Europe and its psychic maladies, while Congress descended to low comedy.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT
--snip--

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky-131003.htm

[ewagner]

1. Great post!

What bothers me is that Bush and Company have not abandoned this reckless policy.

In the posts yesterday about Wilson's new disclosures, there was an ominous passage from the PR firm hired to manage information leading up to and during Gulf II. The passage was a "post action" review of the success of the Information War and it outlined mistakes and factors which have to be avoided for the next time.

Make no mistake, there will be a next time.

[Eloriel]

5. What bothers ME is that so many in Congress have approved

Some, like Biden, even seem to relish this pre-emptive strike shit. Others just sit idly by as if it didn't mean anything important. Nothing to worry their pretty little heads over.

Eloriel

[Capt_Nemo]

2. I like Chomsky very much, but he is here again making the error

of overestimating US power.

The fact is that the current situation reveals that the military
is now stretched to thin and the economy struggles to cope with
the cost of the occupation.

He ignores that a large the finatial resources the US desperately
needs for its adventure are in the hands of "Old Europe".
"New Europe" is cash-strapped, period.

He still takes seriously the PNAC
plan when reality has shown it would bankrupt the US and
end its domminance.


And I don't know where he got this one:
"Even under far less propitious circumstances, military occupations have commonly been successful."
The history of colonialism shows this to be wrong. Throughout
History occupiers consistently find, sooner or later, that they
are not willing to afford the occupation price.
Chomsky must have been drinking when he wrote this one...

[ewagner]

3. PNAC vs Reality

Although I try desperately not to go paranoid, I am convinced that PNAC devotees are forever detached from reality.

the only problem with your position is that it is far too logical and well thought out...... :)

[Capt_Nemo]

4. LOL!

but seriously, the PNACers' beliefs are almost religious in nature.
They act according to the dogma and expect things to turn out like
their vision. If shit happens, they rather blame reality than
question the dogma.

[ewagner]

7. An earlier thread

questioned if Bush and Co were getting ready for the next war because of the reported deployment of a military unit. Some argued against the notion because of the thin troop reserves.

The fact that our troops are spread thin is a reality...one which the PNACers have no use for. As you stated above, they prefer dogma over reality, hence, I can almost believe there is going to be another invasion, and I believe, it will be relatively soon and without much notice.

The PNAC beat goes on.

[bemildred]

6. Yeah.

Not one of his better pieces. The bit about military
occupations gave me cognitive whiplash. I suppose it all
depends on what the word "successful" means.