Noam Chomsky and the Compatible Left (Mar. 5, 2019)

Posted by Sidney on March 5, 2019, 9:22 pm Noam Chomsky recently took to the pages of The Intercept to give his blessing to the US military’s occupation of Syria, solidifying his support for the Pentagon after years of having done so in slightly more anguished terms. As far as the occupation, the only concession to what might once have been considered “Leftist” values is the MIT professor’s acknowledgement that the US is motivated by “power considerations” rather than “humanitarian objectives.” Today, the brief nod to realpolitik is what’s supposed to pass for a progressive anti-war stance. The Intercept is really a natural fit for Chomsky to deliver this message. The nonagenarian professor has limited years left on earth, and when he passes, Glenn Greenwald and Pierre Omidyar’s website will probably become the new face of the permissible Left. That Chomsky lends his radical imprimatur to a US military occupation in its pages is a testament to what kind of a “Left” Chomsky has helped to create and is bequeathing to Greenwald and Omidyar. Continue reading Part I here. For Part II, click here.

So Chomsky, Scahill, and Greenwald are rightist sleeper agents. Got it. Posted by Morrissey on March 6, 2019, 7:50 am, in reply to "Noam Chomsky and the Compatible Left" Scahill's words are woefully taken out of context. He's a principled and trenchant critic of the U.S. government----nothing like the cynical Bob Woodward type he appears to be in this article.

Lefter than thou = holier than thou. Posted by Sennacherib on March 6, 2019, 11:00 am, in reply to "Noam Chomsky and the Compatible Left" nm

Re: Lefter than thou = holier than thou. Posted by turtleman on March 6, 2019, 2:12 pm, in reply to "Lefter than thou = holier than thou." Sloganeering is a cheap drug. Allow me to sober you up: It is possible to call out a gross error or action without being lefter than thou (or even left at all!), and without being holier than thou or even holy at all!). turtleman

Going to the source re Chomsky and Syria ... Posted by Tomski on March 6, 2019, 12:34 pm, in reply to "Noam Chomsky and the Compatible Left" It's a long winded 2 part article. Meanwhile, let's see what was really said in this referenced interview with Scahill/Chomsky: https://theintercept.com/2018/09/26/trump-united-nations-noam-chomsky/ An extract JS: You raise this issue of Russia in Syria. Of course, the United States, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the list of countries involved actively in the just generically, let’s call it the Syrian War, right now. You do have a debate on the left in the United States about what a just position looks like toward the conflict in Syria. And, of course, you have isolationists, or Libertarians, or anti-imperialists who take the position of, “There should be total hands-off Syria that this is a civil war.” I think the honest among us would say that of course, Bashar al-Assad is a war criminal. He is a mass murderer, but he is in a conflict with a lot of mass murderers and a lot of war criminals. What Noam Chomsky do you believe is a just position to take on the war in Syria? Is it that people should defend Bashar al-Assad with the idea that it’s the least bad option, or that this is a matter that should be handled by the Syrians, or is there any international involvement that you think makes any sense, or could be justified under both moral principles and legal principles? NC: Well, the first point to bear in mind, which you already mentioned is that Assad is a horrible war criminal. The bulk of the atrocities, which are enormous, are his responsibility. There’s no justifying Assad. On the other hand, the fact of the matter is that he is essentially pretty much in control of Syria now, thanks largely to Russian partially Iranian support. The Russians actually entered Syria extensively after the CIA had provided the rebel forces, which are mostly run by jihadi elements, provided them with advanced antitank missiles which were stymieing the Syrian Army at which point the Russians came in with air power and overwhelmed the opposition. The current situation is that Assad has pretty much won the war. Like it or not. There was in the early stages a Democratic secular, quite respectable opposition, but they were very quickly overwhelmed by the jihadi elements, supported from the outside — Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States, and others. There’s a pending humanitarian catastrophe in Idlib, the province where the jihadis have been — the place to which they’ve been expelled or fled. If there’s a Syrian Russian attack on that it could be a total humanitarian catastrophe. There is some indication that the Russians and the Turks may have been provided a safe area to which maybe some civilians can flee but that looks like a monstrosity developing. If there’s a way of countering that attack, it should be pursued by diplomatic means. The other crucial question is the status of the Kurdish areas — Rojava. In my opinion, it makes sense for the United States to maintain a presence which would deter an attack on the Kurdish areas. They have the one part of Syria which is succeeded in sustaining a functioning society with many decent elements. And the idea that they should be subjected to an attack by their bitter enemies the Turks, or by the murderous Assad regime I think is anything should be done to try to prevent that. JS: Let me ask you about that point because you are one of the leading people in the world that is consistently reminding the world that the United States has always adopted a posture of certain Kurds are good Kurds certain Kurds are bad Kurds and the United States has poured money and weapons into the coffers of for instance the Turkish military explicitly to be used for an ongoing attempt at genocide against the Kurds. So, I’m curious how you reconcile that with a position that the United States would, in essence, be the protector of the Kurds in the context of the Syrian War. NC: The United States, like other great powers, does not pursue humanitarian objectives. It pursues objectives determined by power considerations, and they lead to different positions with regard to the Kurds or others at different times. So, for example, in the 1970s there was a time when the United States supported Kurds against Saddam Hussein. Shortly after a deal was made in which they sacrificed the Kurds to Saddam Hussein. That led to Henry Kissinger’s famous comment that we shouldn’t confuse foreign policy with missionary activity. It’s entirely true that especially in the 1990s Clinton was pouring arms into Turkey for the purpose of carrying out massive, murderous, destructive attacks against the Kurdish population of Turkey in the Southeast — enormously destructive. That does not change the fact that now the United States could, with a relatively small presence, deter attacks against the Kurds in Syria, which could destroy the one part of Syria that is actually functioning at a decent fashion. We don’t expect consistency in humanitarian terms from a great power because those are not the guiding principles. The first point to note is that Chomsky and Scahill agree that Assad is evil. No references. Fait accompli. Excuse me?! The second point is that NC thinks that the US military should stay in the vicinity of Rojava to defend the Kurds. To my mind this is hopelessly misguided as the subsequent events have proved (and since the article was written in Sept 2018). It's easy to see that whatever the original article claims may be neither here nor there. I respect NC for his enormous body of excellent work over decades but I feel this must be called out. Cheers http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1551820923.html