From: Randy.Moon-AT-kctcs.edu
Subject: RE: briefly, re: Chomsky vs. Hitchens
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:58:45 -0500


I must admit I've been disappointed in Chomsky of late.  He seems stuck in a
mode of rhetoric that resorts to verbosity to compensate for a lack of
substance.  He's very good at showing American complicity in atrocities
committed around the globe by non-Americans.  But he seems unable to offer
any kind of critical insight about how non-American institutions or
societies are complicit in the same kinds of things.  I find Hitchens much
more relevant in the present situation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Palathingal [mailto:palata01-AT-yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 8:03 PM
To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: briefly, re: Chomsky vs. Hitchens


To quote Hitchens, "The thing is, in the end, Chomsky
doesn't think the US is a good idea." 
That, i think, is his way of calling someone
unpatriotic without sounding simplistic.  

--- Wolf Factory <wolf_factory-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> My recollection of the article is that it was only
> amis who accused Chomsky of being anti-American not
> Hitchens. The latter is upset with Chomsky for not
> denouncing Bin Laden and Milosevic strongly enough.
> W.F.
> 
> --- Anita Palathingal <palata01-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I fully agree -- Hitchens and Amis branding
> Chomsky
> > as
> > anti-American and not thinking that "America is a
> > good
> > idea" is astoundingly reactionary and shallow. No
> > one,
> > including Chomsky, is discounting the horror of
> > Sept.
> > 11. That is not the point that Chomsky is making,
> > but
> > the two of them have missed it. 
> >   Chomsky is not saying that "the US is not a good
> > idea". He is simply re-stating what it takes for
> the
> > U.S. to stay at the front of the pack, namely an
> > interventionist policy based on self-interest --
> > which, post-September 11, has not changed, and
> hence
> > does not become the best policy to "fight
> > terrorism". 
> > 
> > --- Wolf Factory <wolf_factory-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I think there are no winners in the Chomsky vs.
> > > Hitchens debate. The two men are approaching the
> > > same
> > > problem from different sides. Hitchens wants the
> > US
> > > to
> > > support human rights issues and to confront
> > > #bullies#
> > > like Milosevic and Bin Laden. Chomsky, on the
> > other
> > > hand, knows that US interventionist policies can
> > > itself lead to slaughter and a worsening of
> > > conditions
> > > for the very people the US claims to be helping.
> > > Hitchens, is also sensitive to that but he
> > believes
> > > the US can be changed. It can be made to take
> > moral
> > > stands. 
> > > 
> > > The ousting of Milosevic, which Hitchens I am
> sure
> > > celebrated, was not a certain outcome of the
> war.
> > > The
> > > fact it happened should not lead us to believe
> > that
> > > all future American interventions will have a
> > > similar
> > > #happy# outcome. I think Afghanistan will now
> > serve
> > > as
> > > a test case. What will become of this country?
> > Will
> > > it
> > > lapse into a pre-Talaban state of tribal warfare
> > and
> > > lawlessness or will it finally, against all
> odds,
> > > flourish? 
> > > 
> > > The same question can be extended to Iraq. All
> the
> > > analysis being offered by #experts# at the
> moment
> > > regarding what constitutes a good outcome from a
> > > future Gulf War III, has taken no account of the
> > > Iraqi
> > > people, their history and their needs. 
> > > 
> > > This is ultimately the sticking point in
> > supporting
> > > American interventionism. It is always driven by
> > the
> > > narrow interests of the US. James Rubin, the
> > former
> > > US
> > > assistant secretary of state, wrote a lengthy
> > > article
> > > in the weekend edition of FT (March 9/10)
> > outlining
> > > the kind of advice, president Bush might be
> > > receiving
> > > at the moment regarding Iraq. He writes #Defense
> > > believes a military option can achieve a regime
> > > change
> > > with acceptable costs and risks #. The costs and
> > > risks
> > > he is referring to are those to be incurred by
> the
> > > US
> > > and its allies who will wage the war campaign.
> The
> > > costs and risks to the Iraqi people and the
> damage
> > > to
> > > the infrastructure of the country (which is
> still
> > > devastated from the previous war) are not even
> on
> > > his
> > > radar screen. Furthermore, he is very clear
> about
> > > what
> > > a victory in Iraq will achieve: #in conjunction
> > with
> > > Turkey and Israel, [Iraq will] create a triangle
> > of
> > > stability in the Arab world#. In other words,
> let
> > > the
> > > human rights violators unite! This triangular
> > > bulwark
> > > is clearly intended for the benefit of Iran.
> Will
> > > Iraqis be willing to be manipulated in this way?
> 
> > > 
> > > This is why, although I understand and to a
> > certain
> > > extent sympathize with the Hitchens/ Rushdie
> > stance,
> > > I
> > > fail to see how a superpower like the US can
> ever
> > be
> > > persuaded to take into account the interests of
> > the
> > > people whose fate it decides through its all too
> > > often
> > > self-centered foreign policies. Furthermore,
> > > violence
> > > against the Muslim world does not strike me as
> the
> > > best way of getting rid of what Hitchens
> describes
> > > as
> > > #Islamic fascism#. Rather, a real encouragement
> of
> > > democracy and the support for secular opposition
> > > groups (which incidentally the US helped to
> > > obliterate
> > > in Iraq during the cold war on account of their
> > > leftist or communist leanings) might be a more
> > > fruitful course of action. The change in the
> > Islamic
> > > world can only come from within. 
> > > 
> > > Final note: Amis comes off as an idiot in the
> > > article.
> > > He doesnt have the subtlety, intellect or depth
> of
> > > feeling of Rushdie or Hitchens. His claim that
> > > Chomsky
> > > suffers from anti-Americanism can only be
> > described
> > > as ignorant at best or deeply malicious at
> worst. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > --- Salil Tripathi <salil61-AT-hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > From this week's The New Statesman (London):
> > > > 
> > > > Cover story - George W Bush's unlikely
> > bedfellows
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Cover story
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > John Lloyd
> > > > Monday 11th March 2002
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Who would have expected Hitchens, Amis and
> > Rushdie
> > > > to support a Republican 
> > > > president in a war? But John Lloyd finds sense
> > and
> > > > logic in their stand
> > > > 
> 
=== message truncated ==

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards
http://movies.yahoo.com/


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---