Is this Russian ??
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - cosė fan tutte
build what, take down what, dinas?
« on: September 24, 2006, 08:21:00 PM »
The U.S. isn't going to attack North Korea. It was going to attack Iraq as the exemplary action. In part, that's because Iraq's just a lot more important. It's right in the center of the oil-producing region, but in part it's because Iraq was understood to be completely defenseless. If you have any brains, you don't attack anybody who can defend itself. That's stupid. You want to attack somebody that's completely defenseless, and Iraq was known to be completely defenseless. That's why nobody was afraid of it, much as they might have hated it.
North Korea, on the other hand, has a deterrent. The deterrent is not nuclear weapons. It is conventional weapons -- massed artillery on the DMZ, the border with South Korea. Extensive massed artillery aimed at the capital, Seoul, South Korea, and at the U.S. troops in the south. Unless the Pentagon can figure out a way to get rid of that with precision weapons, or something or other, that is a deterrent to a U.S. attack. In fact, U.S. troops have since been withdrawn from the DMZ. And that's caused plenty of concern in both South and North Korea and the region, suggesting a very cynical strategy. You can figure it out. But what the U.S. was telling the world is if you don't want us to attack you and destroy you, you better have some kind of deterrent. And for most of the world, that's going to mean weapons of mass destruction. And terror.
Noam Chomsky's 2003 book, "Hegemony or Survival," presents a view of American foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the preeminent superpower of the world and Chomsky dissects with meticulous research how the United States has chosen to leverage that position to pursue an "imperial grand strategy", which will ensure itself "unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority".
What sets Chomsky's work apart from so many others who write social and political theory today is that he is equally critical of the Democratic party as he is of the Republican party. Chomsky's theory portrays America's foreign policy as being consistent across partisan lines. Democrats and Republicans for that matter appear more as two wings of a capitalist, imperialist party than the two vastly different political ideologies that are presented in the popular media. The real meat of Chomsky's work lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of history. By examining key moments in America's history, Chomsky is able to elicit a more consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing.
Questions immediately begin to rise to the surface while Chomsky exhumes the historical record and aligns it back into context. Was the United States really concerned with democracy when it supported a viscous proxy war in Nicaragua, even though their government had been democratically elected? Is the United States government hypocritical when it condemns state sponsored terrorism when it sponsored terrorism itself against such countries as Cuba and Nicaragua. And, how does the United States rationalize the School of the Americas, which has long been understood as a training ground for Latin American neo-fascist terrorists? Is the United States truly interested in peace in the Middle East when it denies the "Saudi Plan" set forth in early 2002, which would offer "full recognition and integration [of Israel] into the region in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders?" Why did we go to war with Iraq when no imminent threat of WMD's could be found, no connection to Al Qaida could be proven, and multiple studies were produced by leading agencies suggesting that invading Iraq would only decrease domestic security?
The answers for Chomsky are surprisingly consistent with what he feels are a foreign policy guided by imperial global expansion and military dominance. Countries must be aligned with US interest in order to ensure capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. If a country does not choose to align, then it will wind up a target of US backed aggression, or branded a terrorist state. In 1965,Indonesia expressed its intention to elder statesman Ellsworth Bunker that they wished to "'stand on their own two feet in developing their economy, free from foreign, especially Western influence'.
A National Intelligence Estimate in September 1965 warned that if the efforts of the mass-based PKI 'to energize and unite the Indonesian nation ... succeeded, Indonesia would provide a powerful example for the underdeveloped world and hence a credit to communism and a setback for Western prestige." A US backed coup ensued, killing close to 1,000,000 people, and installed the brutal dictator General Suharto. This is the cost, Chomsky highlights, of not aligning with the "master" state.
If a country does choose to align, as is the case with countries like Israel and Turkey, they become client states and are protected under the aegis of the American military, and given monetary and military aid. Although Turkey is run by an iron fisted dictator with an abysmal human rights record, the US government makes concessions for Turkey's actions, as it is a client state and performs a strategic role in the interest of the American government.This notion of the client state is why popular solutions to the Middle East crisis like the "Saudi Plan" are not accepted. Israel's role as Middle East policeman is too strategically important to deny Israel it's own expansionist desires.