Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Policy Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice

Chomsky dares to argue that while much of the charges the U.S. government makes against its foreign enemies regarding human rights violations, involvement in terrorism, etc. are valid, the United States itself is a leading sponsor of human rights violations and terrorism in the world. If the U.S. has the right to bomb Afghanistan for 911 should Venezuela and Cuba be allowed to bomb the United States because Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Cariles are being harbored in the U.S.? Should Sudan bomb the U.S. because Clinton's 1998 bombing destroyed the factory producing the majority of that country's medicine, an action which probably subsequently led to many thousands of deaths? Chomsky argues that the U.S. perhaps could have gotten Bin Laden from the Taliban if it taken seriously the latter's proposals for extradition processes. As before he continues to cite the New York Times articles after 911 reporting the angst of aid agencies about the drastic reduction of food aid deliveries during the U.S. bombing and the fact that the U.S. forced Musharaff to close his border with Afghanistan through which at least five million Afghanis depended to receive food and medicine. He seems reluctant to delve much deeper into the Afghanistan issue. I wish he would, like Michael Mandel in his recent book, quote from London Guardian and New York Times correspondents who cited such figures as 3000 and 20000 for deaths as a result of the cutoff of food aid in particular small areas of Afghanistan each surveyed. Chomsky quotes former Reagan State Department official Thomas Carothers as explaining that the U.S. pushes for third world democratic governments when it is sure that a country's rich minority will retain real control. Hugo Chavez is the antithesis of this preference. The government of Turkey which is a military dictatorship with a democratic façade was threatened with sanctions by Colin Powell after its parliament complied with the wishes of 85 percent of Turkey's population and refused to participate in the U.S. war on Iraq. The Turkish military should have stepped in to overrule the parliament Paul Wolfowitz declared and ought to be thinking in the future how it could step up and be a team player for the Americans. Suddenly, Chomsky observes, articles started appearing in the U.S. press outlining Turkey's horrendous human rights violations against its Kurdish population in the 90's though never mentioning that Clinton provided the military aid for Turkey to do so. Achcar is particularly interesting on the internal situation in key Arab countries, including on the meaningless cosmetic reforms that the U.S. backed dictatorships of Egypt and Saudi Arabia engaged in under U.S. pressure. He discusses how Paul Bremer tried to avoid elections throughout 2003, trying instead to impose a weak system of caucuses whose members he would appoint. But the protests led by Sistani forced him to give way to a significant extent.The U.S. gave massive aid to the former

This fascinating book records Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar's talks in January 2006. They are astoundingly well-informed and full of good ideas for reducing the dangers of war. They discuss terrorism, fundamentalism (especially in Saudi Arabia), the sources of US Middle Eastern policy (particularly oil), the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Achcar points out that the Bush-Blair claim that they must now stay in Iraq because, having invaded, `we have the responsibility', is like the vile rule in some societies that a man who rapes an unmarried woman must marry her. They cite the US military commander in Iraq who admits that the presence of US troops `fuels the insurgency'. They note that most people in Baghdad believe that the USA's chief aim is to `rob Iraq's oil' and they note that most Americans think that the USA should get out of Iraq. Chomsky and Achcar point out that the EU gives the Israeli state economic privileges and they suggest that the EU should desist until Israel stops building new illegal settlements and the illegal Separation Wall. They agree that an academic boycott of Israel is a bad idea, but worse, it is a divisive diversion from academic unions' main job, to defend their members' wages and conditions. Chomsky observes that in October 2003, Iran suspended its nuclear enrichment programme in order to reach a general agreement. The EU said that it would provide `firm commitments on security issues', but it reneged when the USA refused to join the talks. In January 2006, Iran offered to suspend its nuclear programme again; the EU rejected this offer too. Achcar observes, "There's a general trend at the level of the mainstream media to praise those ruling politicians who rule without consulting the polls; that is deemed a great virtue. But behind it is the very elitist idea, also embedded in the very concept of `representative democracy', that, once elected, a representative is free to do whatever he or she wants, even against the unanimous will of his or her constituency." So the Labour government opposes the will of the British people over the attack on Iraq, the EU, the Private Finance Initiative, immigration, breaking up Britain, etc., etc. But are we really surprised that capitalist states do not represent the people?

Chomsky does not say that the US should "accept" terrorist attacks as another reviewer suggests. Rather, Chomsky says the US should stop engaging in terrorism. The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing weapons of mass destruction, and training all sorts of killers through our military camps and bases all over the world, places like the "School of the Americas" which has turned out some of Latin America's worst tyrants. We have proxy wars, special forces, and private mercenaries operating all over the world in the interests of corporatism. As General Smedley Butler said, war is a racket, and he was a "high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers." Ann Coulter, Victor Davis Hansen, Hugh Hewitt and so many others very obediently avoid the fact of US violence against other people. They only speak in terms of the threats (blowback) our military superpower faces, never the actual harm it causes around the world. That's the "thought-crime" that Chomsky commits in book after book, he dares to suggest that the people of the US look themselves in the mirror. For some more interviews with Chomsky, I'd recommend the website of Z Magazine.

Invade Iraq, control the oil for "critical leverage" over other industrial societies with geopolitical control in the middle east. But you also have the Asian Energy Security Grid forming China, Russia with India in the wings followed by South Korea and maybe even Japan. They would love to get Iran. India has a pipeline to Iran which the U.S.doesn't like. Iraq's Shiite majority has links to Iran's Shiite majority. There is a substantial Shiite population in Saudi Arabia, right across the border where most of the oil is. Will that region come under control of The Grid instead of the U.S.? You have The Shanghi Cooperation Organization running parallel to The Grid turning into a NATO style organization aimed at central asia to confront the U.S. The militalized Israeli economy sells advanced weapons to China. The increasing military cooperation between China & Russia since the eary 1990's. So a military presence of the U.S. is extremely significant in Afghanistan. These and many more topics are discussed by both Chomsky and Archer. Sometimes disagreeing, as in the question of 9/11 being an inside job; sometimes agreeing, as in Israel telling the Lebanese what it keeps telling the Palastinians: Destroy each other or we shall destroy you all! Very entertaining in their agruements and dis/agreements. One comes away from the read better informed and amazed at the great puzzle the middle east has become. The book's theme is that one can easily understand why Gandhi, when asked what he thought of western civilization, is alleged to have said that he thought it might be a good idea.

"Periolous Power: The Middle East and U.S. Foreign Power" records a discussion and dialogue between Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar about current events in the Middle East and the U.S. role in the region. Stephen R. Shalom explains in the Preface that the book is the product of several days of live, interactive discussions moderated by Mr. Shalom followed by review and editing of the transcripts by each participant. Consequently, the finished product has both a dynamic feel to it as Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Achcar interact with each other in interesting and sometimes unpredictable ways; and a scholarly dimension as the authors were provided the opportunity to clarify or expand on their comments after the taped sessions had ended. The end result is an exceptionally interesting, informative and timely analysis of U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East. Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Achcar agree that U.S. interest in the Middle East primarily pertains to oil and control of the world economy; to that end, Israel is a close ally who allows the U.S. to project its power in the region. Mr. Chomsky insists that the threat of terror does not outweigh the imperative of controlling Middle Eastern oil; therefore, he charges that U.S. policy makers are taking an unnecessary calculated risk when choosing to deploy its military assets to the region. Rather, Mr. Chomsky believes that the threat of terror could be greatly reduced simply by withdrawing U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia, for example. Following a similar line of reasoning, the authors conclude elsewhere in the book that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is a necessary prerequisite to ending the Sunni insurgency and creating a lasting peace. The book offers many insights. For example, we learn that Middle Eastern democracy was undermined historically by the U.S. in order to prevent politically Left-leaning states from falling under the influence of the USSR. Today, Islamic fundamentalism fills a void as what little Arab nationalism had once existed has waned. However, the authors recognize that the rise of religious fundamentalism is a worldwide phenomenon that is connected with the ascendancy of neoliberal economics, meaning that U.S. and Israeli politics are negatively influenced by fundamentalists, too. Indeed, the increasingly dysfunctional democracies of the U.S. and Great Britain are cause for concern and cast little doubt that the purported mission of bringing democracy to the Middle East has been little more than a ruse. In perhaps the strongest part of the book, the Israel-Palestine conflict is dealt with at length. Mr. Achcar argues for inclusive peace talks where the Palestinian diaspora is allowed an opportunity to be represented in the discussion and suggests that Jordan should be part of that state as well; for his part, Mr. Chomsky believes that a single state solution is indicated. The authors go on to talk about many complex and contentious issues, including Israeli settlements in Palestine, the separa