American Power and the New Mandarins

Chomsky's first political book, _American Power_ is a devastating critique for the U.S. foray into Southeast Asia, which Chomsky considers to be little more than modified imperialism. The book starts somewhat slowly, first with an extended essay focusing largely on the Spanish Civil War, which though interesting, seems like a strange place to begin the discussion. The second essay focuses on the decision of drop nuclear weapons during World War II, and the absence of "war guilt" in the U.S. over that action. The second essay, like the first, is interesting, though not seemingly directly related to Chomsky's Vietnam critique. The remainder of work focuses quite squarely on Vietnam, and offers the sort of moral outrage that Chomsky contends was conspicuously lacking from the liberal academics of the time. The entire underpinning of Chomsky's premise has to do with the morality of U.S. action, rather than the pragmatism that he chides others for basing their positions on. The book is quite powerful in many of its conclusions. A few criticisms: there is extensive use of irony throughout the work, occasionally to the point of excess; while Chomsky eviscerates a half dozen of the "liberal intelligensia", it's difficult for me, as someone who was not alive to witness the war, to know if these voices typify the liberal objections to the war, or if Chomsky has cherry-picked these individuals (obviously Schlesinger was a major voice, but I'm not familiar with the others); if you don't have some conception of the forces behind the Spanish Civil War, the first essay will be somewhat confusing. It was for me, anyway. Altogether though, particularly in light the U.S. invasion of Iraq, many of Chomsky's ideas have taken on a new urgency. The comparision between Vietnam and Iraq will come very naturally as you read _American Power_. It is well worth our time to make this comparison. Chomsky's thesis is as valid now as it was in 1969.

I recently reread Chomsky's classic. It's very enlightening to see the parallels as well as the differences between the role America's "intelligencia" played during the Vietnam War and the role they are playing now with just another war "won".

During the Vietnam war the United States used its enormous military power to try to install in South Vietnam a minority government of U.S. choice, with its military operations based on the knowledge that the people there were the enemy. This country killed millions and left Vietnam (and the rest of Indochina) devastated. A Wall Street Journal report in 1997 estimated that perhaps 500,000 children in Vietnam suffer from serious birth defects resulting from the U.S. use of chemical weapons there. Seems fairly reasonable to protest against this, surely?... This was and is a groundbreaking book, and ....

This is a collection of essays from 1966 through 1968, Noam Chomsky's first political book, published in 1969 when he was fourty years old, after he had established himself as the Einstein of linguistics. Of course, it's a little bit dated but it's remarkable how little Chomsky's critique has changed, how cogent it was from its very beginning. Many of the thoughts in this book, certainly on resistance to the state, have great pertinancy today.His target was the liberal intelligensia, the "best and the brightest." These brethren (Douglas Pike, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Samuel Huntington, Walt Rostow, Dean Rusk, New York Times correspondent Neal Sheehan et. al), Chomsky shows quite compellingly, helped engineer and/or provided intellectual rationalization for one of the most barbaric wars in human history. These rationalizations were quite openly expressed in the newspapers, journals of opinion, congressional testimony, U.S. AID reports, and so on. They went something like this: We are fighting against the National Liberation Front, the so-called Viet Cong which enjoys great support amongst the South Vietnamese population and has received little aid from the North. The fact that it is to a large extent supported by the population is irrelevant. The NLF threaten our security. No indiginous force in South Vietnam, with the exception of the Buddhists, has any remotely comparable level of support. Therefore, since we can't compete in the political field, in 1954 we violated the Geneva agreements and set up a terror and torture regime in South Vietnam, with large numbers of American "advisors" helping, that used extreme violence to help compensate for its lack of political support. We made sure that the seventeenth parallel, intended in the Geneva accords as only a temporary demarcation line, was made permanent and sabotoged efforts to hold the elections in 1956 for national reunification called for in the accords. We're weak politically but we are unrivaled militarily and in the other resources of violence at our disposal. In the late 50's our response began to elicit a violent reaction from the NLF, the main target of our repression. Our allies are almost always the most feudal, reactionary and brutal elements of South Vietnam, who can never elicit any support amongst the general population. So we have to destroy the NLF, which means to "dislodge it from its constituency" which means we have to destroy its supporters and all of their homes, villages, natural environment, and so on, which means we have to take actions that will perhaps exterminate those supporters, the rural population of South Vietnam. We, who believe in behaviorist psychology, don't see anything wrong with what we are doing and believe it is fundamentally just and in the best interests of the people of South Vietnam who are perhaps somewhat unfit for self-government. We held "free and fair" elections that excluded any "neutralist," communist, socialist, NLF sympathizers and other such