Noam Chomsky on Afghanistan – An Immoral and Unjust War.

Of course since my point of view is politically opposite of Mr. Chomski, I chose to collect negative information on him. Scholars on my side of the aisle abhor the man.

Then it would be wise to study what Chomsky has to say and study his arguments and find their flaws as it would greatly strengthen your position. Finding out what other people say and why they say it is what debate is all about. Simply gathering ‘negative information’ about any particular source does nothing but reinforce one’s own worldview. Without critically challenging one’s own assumptions or being open to changing one’s point of view intellectual growth stagnates and dogmatic certitude sets in.

The claim that Chomsky is anti-American is laughably specious. Why he engenders so much criticism is that he dares to apply the same standards we use on the rest of the world to us.

For example, the US sponsored a bloody proxy war in Nicaragua for years, the US actions were deemed to be state terrorism by the International Court of Justice. If Nicaragua could follow the same rules as the US, then they would have the right to attack the US, or even preemptively attack the US for possible state terrorism in the future. Why is it okay for the US to do ‘x’ and not other countries to do the exact same?

The halo most people see surrounding our culture of being just and promoting liberty and democracy worldwide is challenges the acceptable image of north american culture and the mainstream academia and media do their utmost to perpetuate this myth. For this universalist stance Chomskey takes undeservedly gained the reputation of him being anti-American.

This is a good debate between Dershowitz and Chomsky. Take heed of both speakers as both make important points.

LikeLike

The context of the quoted material takes on a different light when you get the entire body of what Chomsky actually said. Keep in mind, this statement was in 2001, and not 2003.

Even before Sept. 11, the UN estimated that millions were being sustained,
barely, by international food aid. On Sept. 16, the national press reported that
Washington had “demanded [from Pakistan] the elimination of truck convoys
that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan’s civilian
population.” There was no detectable reaction in the U.S. or Europe to this de-
mand to impose massive starvation; the plain meaning of the words. In subse-
quent weeks, the world’s leading newspaper reported that “The threat of mili-
tary strikes forced the removal of international aid workers, crippling assistance
programs”; refugees reaching Pakistan “after arduous journeys from Afghani-
stan are describing scenes of desperation and fear at home as the threat of
American-led military attacks turns their long-running misery into a potential
catastrophe.” “The country was on a lifeline,” one evacuated aid worker re-
ported, “and we just cut the line.” “It’s as if a mass grave has been dug behind
millions of people,” an evacuated emergency officer for Christian Aid informed
the press: “We can drag them back from it or push them in. We could be look-
ing at millions of deaths.”1

The UN World Food Program and others were able to resume some food ship-
ments in early October, but were forced to suspend deliveries and distribution
when the bombing began on October 7, resuming them later at a much lower
pace. A spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees warned that
“We are facing a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in Afghanistan with 7.5
million short of food and at risk of starvation,” while aid agencies leveled
“scathing” condemnations of U.S. air drops that are barely concealed “propa-
ganda tools” and may cause more harm than benefit, they warned.2 […]

So looking at the article, the claim of millions dead was made by a spokesperson from the UN High Commission for Refugees. It seems to me these are on the ground estimates given the current situation at the time.

Let’s also find the genocide quote, because Chomsky’s critics seem to uncharitably attack him on that particular point as well.

[…]The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to
Food pleaded with the U.S. to end the bombing that was putting “the lives of millions of civilians at risk,” renewing the appeal of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who warned of a Rwanda-style catastrophe. Both appeals were rejected, as were those of the major aid and relief agencies. And virtually unreported.4

Let us return briefly to the point of logic: ethical judgments and rational
evaluation of what may lie ahead are grounded in the presuppositions of planning and commentary. An entirely separate matter, with no bearing on such judgments, is the accuracy of the projections on which planning and commentary were based.

The footnotes for this section:

5. “UN food agency warns of mass starvation in Afghanistan,” AFP, Sept. 28; Edith Lederer,
“U.S. bombing disrupting planting which provides 80% of annual grain harvest,” AP, Oct. 18,
2001. Andrew Revkin, “Afghan Drought Inflicts Its Own Misery,” NYT, Dec. 16, 2001, citing U.S.
Department of Agriculture, with no mention of bombing. return

6. “Global hunger a ‘silent genocide’ – UN rights expert” (Jean Ziegler), AFP, Oct. 15, 2001.

Okay, here are Horowitz’s claims:

“Of course, as Horowitz and Radosh write, “in reality no such thing transpired. Not 10 percent of Chomsky’s 3 to 4 million starved; not 1 percent; no one hundredth of 1 percent. His statements can only be described as calculated lies.”

It looks like to me that Chomsky is going by the best information available at the time provided by the experts who were on the ground in Afghanistan providing aid. How Horowitz and Radosh get to “calculated lies”, is a rather large leap of logic but an easy rhetorical one as they have the advantage of hindsight when they addressed this topic.

From the Horowitz and Radosh criticism:

“that millions of Afghans were “‘on the verge of starvation’” and that the American military was pressuring Pakistan to eliminate the convoys delivering aid,” actions he called “‘some sort of silent genocide.’” In other words, the American government intentionally was engineering the deaths of several million Afghans.”

I’m curious as to how Jean Zeigler’s comment on silent genocide in the world suddenly became Chomsky’s own words on US actions in Afghanistan. Read the actual paper not just the quote mined stuff with the pre-made conclusion tacked on at the end.

In other words, the American government intentionally was engineering the deaths of several million Afghans.”

Nowhere did Chomsky say this particular phrase. This conclusion was arrived on by the authors of the paper criticizing Chomsky. If we look at the next paragraph we can see that Chomsky is saying that rationally including disrupting of aid into war plans is not an ethical action.

Let us return briefly to the point of logic: ethical judgments and rational
evaluation of what may lie ahead are grounded in the presuppositions of planning and commentary.

So really, in fact, Chomsky is talking about the level of ethos involved in the planning the *possible* starvation of millions of people. Chomsky, in the video clip that is part of this post, also refers to and refutes this particular criticism as it is a baseless and rather uncharitable attack on a strawman that was not his position.

I suggest checking the veracity of your sources before making claims on erroneous information they provide. Just because you happen to agree with them does not necessarily mean they are right.

LikeLike