Fellow Chomsky-list subscribers,

This is my first post to this list.  My name is Dave Witbrodt.  I work as
a math/chemistry tutor at Delta College, a small community college in
Michigan (USA).

I saw that the NewsHour forum was going to take place this week.  I
thought I'd send in a question or two, just in case PBS got bombarded with
irrelevant questions.  (Although, Noam always has a way of turning stupid
questions into relevant ones.  He gets a lot of practice!)

I sent the following comment/questions to the forum (paraphrasing):

  - When foreign policy issues are discussed in the mainstream media, it
    seems to me that they rarely focus much on the historical background
    of what the U.S. has been doing in the region or country previously.
    I mentioned Iraq and Haiti as examples.  I also pointed out that when
    I read Noam's work, he begins with the relevant background before
    attempting to discuss the current situation.
  - With this quality of media coverage, is it really possible for U.S.
    citizens to develop meaningful opinions about foreign policy issues
    such as intervention?
  - Is it even desirable that ordinary people be involved in the process
    of forming U.S. foreign policy, or should policy be left in the hands
    of the "experts"?

My goal was to select a question or two that would highlight the profound
differences in assumptions between Chomsky's approach and the approach of
a capitalist-party-hack like Woolsey.  As Noam pointed out in
"Intellectuals and the State" (an essay appearing in _Towards a New Cold
War_ [Pantheon, 1982]), even the "liberals" under contemporary state
capitalism have a de facto Leninist ideological approach.

They only used my first question (not the comment or second question), but
Noam was on top of the situation anyway, and worked responses to my
question and comment into his responses to questions from others.

Woolsey's responses were sort of comical.  He thinks people can get enough
information to form rational opinions from mainstream sources such as:
PBS's NewsHour, 60 Minutes, Nightline, National Public Radio, The
Economist, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard.  While I concede
that useful information sometimes appears on 60 Minutes or NPR, I don't
believe for a minute that it adds up to be enough to know your ass from a
hole in the wall.  Also, as Noam frequently points out, the business press
is often the most honest--it's just that you have to learn how to
translate it into English (or whatever your native tongue happens to be).
Woolsey refers to the NewsHour as "a national treasure"; I stopped
watching the MacNeil-Lehrer program many years ago because of how utterly
devoid of meaningful content it was--the pablum of mainstream concensus
masquerading as in-depth analysis.  The NewsHour is like a leading media
organ for the U.S.-Leninism I referred to earlier.

According to Woolsey, "we Americans really don't have any special claim as
a matter of right" to intervene in other countries, but "for those to whom
much is given, much should be demanded."  As Noam points out, Woolsey
doesn't mean to include the demand that the U.S. should observe
international law, or even our obligation to observe the principles of the
UN charter (a "solemn treaty" giving it the status of "supreme law of the
land" according to the U.S. constitution) which prohibits all unilateral
intervention except under extreme circumstances that the U.S. hasn't faced
since WWII (maybe since the War of 1812).  Therefore, Woolsey argues that
"in some circumstances, I believe we do have an obligation to act, to
intervene in international affairs, even if our direct interests are not
immediately threatened."  So much for the rule of law.

I see that the people running the NewsHour website were looking for
circumstances under which Noam would support U.S. intervention--and
apparently they think they've found such circumstances.  They have
highlighted the following quote from Noam:

    It was our responsibility, indeed obligation, to compel Washington to
    end its support for Saddam's worst crimes when they occurred, perhaps
    even to intervene to terminate them had that been necessary.

Here he is referring to the U.S. public, and the need for them to
"intervene" in the domestic political system to end U.S. support for
Saddam (before August 2, 1990).  Instead of calling for foreign
intervention, Noam is advocating the sort of "crisis of democracy" that
would cause the capitalist-party-hacks at the NewsHour to foam at the
mouth.  I'm glad they chose to highlight that quote!

In short, Woolsey repeated the patriotic pieties we all learned in
elementary school about the U.S.:  the U.S. supports freedom, democracy,
human rights, and international law everywhere on the planet; we hate them
damn dictators (when they disobey us, that is); and we have an obligation
to intervene whenever it becomes necessary (in the opinion of our
benevolent masters).  To quote Woolsey:

  Sometimes someone has to do the job of dealing with the killers. It's a
  question whether you believe that this country's wealth and many
  blessings give it such an obligation to take action on occasion in order
  to preserve peace in the world and, what often amounts to the same
  thing, to stop dictators from going on rampages -- even if we have to do
  it alone.  There's no better characterization of the difficulties of
  working through this kind of duty than the agonies, decisions, and
  actions of the sheriff played by Gary Cooper in High Noon.  Some would
  say that this means I'm saying we should act like a nation of cowboys.
  Like him, yes.  Exactly.

Personally, if we're choosing fictional characters from popular culture to
model U.S. foreign policy, I would prefer the example of Andy Griffith:
it's the Barney Fife's of the world--like James Woolsey--that have a
tendency to reach for their guns at the first sign of what appears to them
to be trouble, but ol' Andy was always there to help Barney to put that
Smith & Wesson back in the holster, and solve the "problem" non-violently.
(Naturally, other characteristics of Andy's character are more
problematic, but that's another story.)

The problem that Woolsey's argument doesn't address is what to do when the
"killers" are the U.S. itself, or when the "dictators ... going on
rampages" are backed by the U.S.  Should Gary Cooper shoot himself?  His
deputies?  Or should he "do no harm" as Noam argues, or reign in his
deputies, as the case may be?

To me, the Gary Cooper analogy seems radically false.  U.S. foreign policy
often seems to be modeled after an Arnold Schwarzenegger character:  shoot
first--or support some other shooter--and let the coroner, human rights
organizations, and historians ask questions later (although they won't if
they know what's good for them).

I would personally, and publicly, like to thank Noam Chomsky for his
efforts over the years.  I owe him a great deal for having found out that
"we live in tangled webs of endless deceit," and hope to contribute to the
efforts of people who I think are trying to make the world a better place.
Once again, in a side-by-side comparison, the "expert" offered by the
establishment is found to be more than wanting--both intellectually and
morally.


In solidarity,
Dave Witbrodt

"... for if leisure and security were enjoyed by all, the great mass of
human beings ... would learn to think for themselves; and when once they
had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged
minority had no function, and they would sweep it away." - Emmanuel Goldstein