Q: : Why do you think these attacks happened?
Chomsky: To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators of the
crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is the Middle
East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the Osama Bin Laden
network, a widespread and complex organization, doubtless inspired by Bin Laden
but not necessarily acting under his control. Let us assume that this is true.
Then to answer your question a sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's
views, and the sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout
the region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin Laden
has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable Middle East
specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the region, Robert Fisk
(London "Independent"), who has intimate knowledge of the entire region and
direct experience over decades. A Saudi Arabian millionaire, Bin Laden became
a militant Islamic leader in the war to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan.
He was one of the many religious fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed,
and financed by the CIA and their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause
maximal harm to the Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many
analysts suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct contact
with the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not surprisingly, the
CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they could mobilize. The end
result was to "destroy a moderate regime and create a fanatical one, from groups
recklessly financed by the Americans" ("London Times" correspondent Simon Jenkins,
also a specialist on the region).
These "Afghanis" as they are called (many, like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan)
carried out terror operations across the border in Russia, but they terminated
these after Russia withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they despise,
but against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes against Muslims. The
"Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined Bosnian
Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just as it tolerated
Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need not pursue here,
apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the Bosnians was not prominent
among them. The "Afghanis" are also fighting the Russians in Chechnya, and,
quite possibly, are involved in carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow and
elsewhere in Russian territory.
Bin Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they established
permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a counterpart to
the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more significant because of Saudi
Arabia's special status as the guardian of the holiest shrines. Bin Laden is
also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes of the region, which
he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi Arabian regime, the most extreme
Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world, apart from the Taliban, and a close
US ally since its origins. Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these
regimes. Like others in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US
support for Israel's brutal military occupation, now in ist 35th year: Washington's
decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of the killings,
the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily humiliation to which
Palestinians are subjected, the expanding settlements designed to break the
occupied territories into Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources,
the gross violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are recognized
as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US, which has prime responsibility
for them. And like others, he contrasts Washington's dedicated support for these
crimes with the Decade-long US-British assault against the civilian population
of Iraq, which has devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of
deaths while strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally
of the US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing
of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if Westerners
prefer to forget the facts.
These sentiments are very widely shared. The "Wall Street Journal" (Sept. 14)
published a survey of opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf
region (bankers, professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They
expressed much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting
Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic settlement
for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society, supporting harsh and
repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the region, and imposing barriers
against economic development by "propping up oppressive regimes." Among the
great majority of people suffering deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments
are far more bitter, and are the source of the fury and despair that has led
to suicide bombings, as commonly understood by those who are interested in the
facts. The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To quote
the lead analysis in the "New York Times" (Sept. 16), the perpetrators acted
out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity,
religious pluralism and universal suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and
therefore need not even be mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient
picture, and the general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in
fact, it is close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with
everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and uncritical
support for power. It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like
him are praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause "fanatics
to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too is familiar. The
escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by the harshest and most
brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident enough from the recent history
of the Balkans, to cite only one of many cases. Q: What consequences will they
have on US inner policy and to the American self reception? Chomsky: US policy
has already been officially announced. The world is being offered a "stark choice":
join us, or "face the certain prospect of death and destruction." Congress has
authorized the use of force against any individuals or countries the President
determines to be involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards
as ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same people
would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after the U.S. had
rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its "unlawful use of force"
against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all
states to observe international law. And that terrorist attack was far more
severe and destructive even than this atrocity. As for how these matters are
perceived here, that is far more complex. One should bear in mind that the media
and the intellectual elites generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore,
the answer to this question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision:
as in many other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate
fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed. We all
know that very well.
Q: Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their
policy to the rest of the world?
Chomsky: The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies that
led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of support for the
terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the agenda of the most hard
line elements of the leadership: increased militarization, domestic regimentation,
attack on social programs. That is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks,
and the escalating cycle of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce
the authority and prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society.
But there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course.
Q: After the first shock, came fear of what
the U.S. answer is going to be. Are you afraid, too?
Chomsky: Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction -- the one
that has already been announced, the one that probably answers Bin Laden's prayers.
It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of violence, in the familiar way,
but in this case on a far greater scale. The U.S. has already demanded that
Pakistan terminate the food and other supplies that are keeping at least some
of the starving and suffering people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is
implemented, unknown numbers of people who have not the remotest connection
to terrorism will die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded
that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of
the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far lower
moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the fact that
this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably will hardly be noticed.
We can learn a great deal about the moral level of the reigning intellectual
culture of the West by observing the reaction to this demand. I think we can
be reasonably confident that if the American population had the slightest idea
of what is being done in their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would
be instructive to seek historical precedents. If Pakistan does not agree to
this and other U.S. demands, it may come under direct attack as well -- with
unknown consequences. If Pakistan does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible
that the government will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who
in this case will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout
the region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are considering
the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human society. Even without
pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an attack on Afghans will
have pretty much the effect that most analysts expect: it will enlist great
numbers of others to support of Bin Laden, as he hopes. Even if he is killed,
it will make little difference. His voice will be heard on cassettes that are
distributed throughout the Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as
a martyr, inspiring others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing
-- a truck driven into a U.S. military base -- drove the world's major military
force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks are endless.
And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent.
Q: "The world will never be the same after 11.09.01".
Do you think so?
Chomsky: The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new
in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target. For the
US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory
has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies have been attacked, but not
the national territory itself. During these years the US virtually exterminated
the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in
the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds
of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended
ist resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal.
For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way. The same is true,
even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction,
but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme
brutality. It has not been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions
(the IRA in England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should
rally to the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have
an enormous impact on the intellectual and moral culture. It is correct to say
that this is a novel event in world history, not because of the scale of the
atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of the target. How the West chooses to
react is a matter of supreme importance. If the rich and powerful choose to
keep to their traditions of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence,
they will contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a familiar
dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome. Of course, that
is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within the more free and democratic
societies can direct policies towards a much more humane and honorable course.
War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. --Thomas Jefferson