NB This Sat. 29th September. Noam Chomsky is interviewed by John Campbell 8:25am on Nat. Radio
Terrorist Attacks on America
September 2001
Source: ZNet
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Radio B92, Belgrade
QUESTION: 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 mobilise. 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 its 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 recognised 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
favoured 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 recognised 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.
QUESTION: 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 authorised 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.
QUESTION: 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 militarisation, 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.
QUESTION: 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 twenty years ago. The opportunities for such
attacks are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent.
QUESTION: "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.
It's 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 its 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 honourable course.
NB This Sat. 29th September. Noam Chomsky is interviewed by John Campbell 8:25am on Nat. Radio