ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
ZCommentaries
ZAudios
ZVideos
Blog Posts
Books
Samantha Power, Bush & Terrorism
By Noam Chomsky at Jul 31, 2007 |
|
The following exchange took place in the ZNet Sustainer system, where Noam hosts a forum...
ZNet Sustainer: Noam, Would you be willing to comment on Samantha Power's review essay in the 29 July NYT Book Review? The Times presents her as the very model of the liberal academic -- a columnist for Time, adviser to Democratic presidential candidates, etc. The article is a good deal more than a book review.
Noam Chomsky: It was an interesting article, and her work, and its popularity, gives some insight into the reigning intellectual culture.
There are many interesting aspects to the article. One is that "terrorism" is implicitly defined as what THEY do to US, excluding what WE do to THEM. But that's so deeply engrained in the state religion that it's hardly worth mentioning.
A little more interesting is Power's tacit endorsement of the Bush doctrine that states that harbor terrorists are no different from terrorist states, and should be treated accordingly: bombed and invaded, and subjected to regime change. There is, of course, not the slightest doubt that the US harbors terrorists, even under the narrowest interpretation of that term: e.g., by the judgment of the Justice Department and the FBI, which accused Cuban terrorist Orlando Bosch of dozens of terrorist acts and urged that he be deported as a threat to US security. He was pardoned by Bush I, and lives happily in Florida, where he has now been joined by his associate Luis Posada, thanks to Bush II's lack of concern about harboring terrorists. There are plenty of others, even putting aside those who have offices in Washington. Like John Negroponte, surely one of the leading terrorists of the late 20th century, not very controversially, so naturally appointed to the position of counter-terrorism Czar by Bush II, with no particular notice.
Even keeping to the completely uncontroversial cases, like Bosch, it follows that Power and the NY Times are calling for the bombing of Washington. But -- oddly -- the Justice Department is not about to indict them, though people are rotting in Guantanamo on far lesser charges. What is interesting and enlightening is that no matter how many times trivialities like this are pointed out -- and it's been many times -- it is entirely incomprehensible within the intellectual culture. That reveals a very impressive level of subordination to authority and indoctrination, well beyond what one would expect in totalitarian states.
A little more subtle, perhaps, is her observation that "if you continue to believe (as I do) that there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective, you will indeed find "On Suicide Bombing" disturbing, if not always in the way he intends." Let's accept her judgment and proceed.
Evidently, a crucial case is omitted, which is far more depraved than massacring civilians intentionally. Namely, knowing that you are massacring them but not doing so intentionally because you don't regard them as worthy of concern. That is, you don't even care enough about them to intend to kill them. Thus when I walk down the street, if I stop to think about it I know I'll probably kill lots of ants, but I don't intend to kill them, because in my mind they do not even rise to the level where it matters. There are many such examples. To take one of the very minor ones, when Clinton bombed the al-Shifa pharmaceutical facility in Sudan, he and the other perpetrators surely knew that the bombing would kill civilians (tens of thousands, apparently). But Clinton and associates did not intend to kill them, because by the standards of Western liberal humanitarian racism, they are no more significant than ants. Same in the case of tens of millions of others.
I've written about this repeatedly, for example, in 9/11. And I've been intrigued to see how reviewers and commentators (Sam Harris, to pick one egregious example) simply cannot even see the comments, let alone comprehend them. Since it's all pretty obvious, it reveals, again, the remarkable successes of indoctrination under freedom, and the moral depravity and corruption of the dominant intellectual culture.
It should be unnecessary to comment on how Western humanists would react if Iranian-backed terrorists destroyed half the pharmaceutical supplies in Israel, or the US, or any other place inhabited by human beings. And it is only fair to add that Sudanese too sometimes do rise to the level of human beings. For example in Darfur, where their murder can be attributed to Arabs, the official enemy (apart, that is, from "good Arabs," like the tyrants who rule Saudi Arabia, "moderates" as Rice and others explain).
There's a lot more like this. It's of some interest that Power is regarded -- and apparently regards herself -- as a harsh critic of US foreign policy. The reason is that she excoriates Washington for not paying enough attention to the crimes of others. It's informative to look through her best-seller Problem from Hell to see what is said about US crimes. There are a few scant mentions: e.g., that the US looked away from the genocidal Indonesian aggression in East Timor. In fact, as has long been indisputable, the US looked right there and acted decisively to expedite the slaughters, and continued to do so for 25 years, even after the Indonesian army had virtually destroyed what remained of the country, when Clinton, under great international and domestic pressure, finally told the Indonesian generals that the game was over and they instantly withdrew -- revealing, as if we needed the evidence, that the immense slaughter could have been easily terminated at any point, if anyone cared. The implications cannot be perceived.
But in general US participation in horrendous crimes is simply ignored in Problem from Hell. Few seem to able to perceive that a similar book, excoriating Stalin for not paying enough attention to US crimes, would very likely have been very highly praised in the old Soviet Union. What better service could one provide to the cause of massacre, torture, and destruction -- by the Holy State and its clients, of course, whose only fault is that they do not attend sufficiently to the crimes of others.
I don't think, incidentally, that it would be fair to criticize Power for her extraordinary services to state violence and terror. I am sure she is a decent and honorable person, and sincerely believes that she really is condemning the US leadership and political culture. From a desk at the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School at Harvard, that's doubtless how it looks. Insufficient attention has been paid to Orwell's observations on how in free England, unpopular ideas can be suppressed without the use of force. One factor, he proposed, is a good education. When you have been through the best schools, finally Oxford and Cambridge, you simply have instilled into you the understanding that there are certain things "it wouldn't do to say" -- and we may add, even to think.
His insight is quite real, and important. These cases are a good illustration, hardly unique.
NC
Re: Samantha Power, Bush & Terrorism
By Burnett, A. at Apr 28, 2008 00:33 AM
Samantha Power is a monster, just like Hillary Clinton.
Reply this comment
The USA Takes A (Near-Collective) Dump on Iran
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 25, 2007 10:21 AM
Friends:
Can't possibly guess how many or what percentage of the major U.S. news media this is true about -- though it's a safe bet that it is overwhelmingly true of them.
But Tuesday's Chicago Tribune posted to its website, in their entirety, Monday's prepared insults by Columbia University President Lee Bollinger against the President of Iran -- and in its print edition (sect. 1, p. 19), the Trib published essentially the same body of insults, with some minor edits at their outset for reasons of space.
The front-page of Tuesday's Trib published this photograph by the New York Times's Damon Winter:
And not only did the Trib's editorial voice lead with "Ahmadinejad gets an earful" (sect. 1, p. 18 -- see below), but its editorial page also reproduced this cartoon by the Orlando Sentinel's Dana Summers:
I keep waiting for someone who lives and works and breathes these U.S. media and academic institutions to wake up and recognize how closely they resemble their own worst nightmares which they reflexively project onto other societies and regimes. But it never seems to happen.
Lee Bollinger's remarks -- and the uncritical embrace of them we've witnessed these past 24 hours -- are a case in point. At times, Bollinger sounded as if he thought he was addressing the emissary of an inferior race in need of some delousing. And this exact same point of view has been replicated unrelentingly.
The United States of America is a very creepy place.
(Letters to the Chicago Tribune: ctc-tribletter@tribune.com . Not that it'll matter one bit.)
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
"Vietnam Lessons Lost In Iraq War"
By Kissenger, Clark at Sep 23, 2007 16:53 PM
FYI: The Controversy section of Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times's published what by mainstream standards, and certainly by the standards of the Sun-Times, was a rarity: A call by one of the newspaper's regular columnists for "more people in the streets, more students sitting in."
I, however, want to use this commentary to make a a different point than the author's: How tragically little Americans -- in particular, those who move among the well-educated, well-remunerated professional and intellectual classes -- understand about an event as large and important to the history of the second-half of the 20th Century as the so-called Vietnam War (i.e., the serial U.S. aggressions against the populations of Southeast Asia, ca. 1955 - 1975, followed by another 20 years of harsh embargoes.
Notice that the author is taking a stand against the U.S. war over Iraq today. And she's recalling her memories of a previous American war of four decades ago.
Twice, the author calls Vietnam a "mistake" -- once even a "terrible mistake."
Once she refers to the U.S. military's use of napalm "to scorch the skin of the North Vietnamese." -- Friends, as with Dow Chemical's "Agent Orange," the U.S. military used napalm almost exclusively against the population of so-called South Vietnam, not the North, as it was the South that was the primary target and bore the brunt of the U.S. war, not the North.
Then the author turns to Iraq: "an ill-conceived, poorly planned disaster…." -- That is to say, yet another terrible mistake. It sure is comforting to know that Americans are capable of making mistakes -- but not committing crimes.
She quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who, when asked by the New York Times's David Brooks "whether invading Iraq was a good idea, knowing what we know now," responded: "I don't know." -- But what Brooks betrayed in phrasing his question like this -- "knowing what we know now" -- i.e., "what just about everyone believes is an ill-conceived, poorly planned disaster of an Iraq war" -- was the simple principle that if the crime doesn't pay, then perhaps it's best not to commit it, or to commit it differently, or against somebody else. So, are we really supposed to be impressed by the fact that the architects of the crime now have second-thoughts -- because it didn't turn out to be the "cakewalk" that was promised? My-oh-my the morality of this bunch astounds. Memo to all of you parents out there: Remember to teach your kids that, as long as the crime pays, it's okay. Next time, just pick an easier store to knock-off. Such is what passes as statecraft in this country. The author surely agrees.
Next, she repeats former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's "jaw-dropping declaration" on page 463 of his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (Penguin Press, 2007): "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." --
But she misses the fact that Greenspan himself -- clearly under pressure -- instantly rejected this very sentence, and now dismisses its true significance every chance he's given. ("Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security," Bob Woodward, Washington Post, September 17, 2007.) Think about it: Alan Greenspan is now on record repeatedly and resoundingly rejecting the single insight that his book provides. Sheer genius, among the circles where he moves. How very American.
Last, she closes:
Letters to the Editor of the Chicago Sun-Times: letters@suntimes.com .
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
One minor mistake...
By S., Jens at Sep 17, 2007 09:46 AM
There is one minor mistake in this clear and incisive article of Chomsky's. He writes:
But in general US participation in horrendous crimes is simply ignored in Problem from Hell. Few seem to able to perceive that a similar book, excoriating Stalin for not paying enough attention to US crimes, would very likely have been very highly praised in the old Soviet Union.
Actually, no, probably not. In a totalitarian system, you're supposed to obey the party line without trying to understand it. After all, Stalin did pay too little attention to his own information about Germany's plan of attacking the Soviet Union, much to the detriment of the whole country. He wouldn't have liked to be reminded of that, and after his death no one in their right mind would accuse him of not paying enough attention to the acts and intentions of enemies - after all he had most of his old comrades shot.
This is a variant of the old joke about Soviet Russia being just as democratic as the United States, because you could go freely around with a sign saying "Down with the American President" in Moscow as well as in Washington. In the real world, you couldn't do that in Moscow, unless you were ordered to. You would be arrested by the police (rather brutally), under the suspicion of being a provocateur.
When you live in a free country, it's not easy to imagine what life is like in a totalitarian state. Not that it's necessarily worse on each and every account, just that it's difficult to imagine.
Reply this comment
sobre nuestra republica
By Alzate, Henry at Sep 07, 2007 16:17 PM
Reply this comment
Killing Iraqis
By Peterson, David at Aug 26, 2007 12:32 PM
Friends:
For an important current assessment of the increased levels of terror and destruction unleashed by the American military forces against Iraq over the course of the past six or seven months, see:
In real terms, it appears that the purpose of the fabled "surge" is to "secure" all of the territory surrounding the "Green Zone" -- the very large piece of real estate in Baghdad where the American encampment is headquartered, and the quote-unquote Iraqi Government, well, governs.
When reading the AP report, some very important corrective measures need to be adopted.
First, the report itself stresses that its "figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting," adding that the "actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count."
Indeed. A fair and eminently reasonable hunch is that the actual numbers for all of these categories are running dramatically higher than this kind methodological underreporting and undercounting can remotely tabulate. ("Mortality After the March 2003 U.S. Military Invasion of Iraq," ZNet, October 11, 2006. Though I warn you that even the estimates recounted here are a good 12-13 months old.)But perhaps the most important corrective measure that we need to adopt is terminological: How our choice of basic terms channels the information that our expressions purport to convey.
For example, there is no real-world reason for labeling someone an "insurgent" or a "militant" because he doesn't do what the Washington regime demands of him. Roughly 98-99 percent of establishment discourse commits this crime against the truth. There is no good reason for us to repeat it here.
What is more, as long as terms like 'insurgent' and 'militant' are to be used for strictly descriptive purposes to convey truths about how people engage in armed conflicts in the contemporary world, we must remember that by far the largest, most well-organized, and best-funded insurgents and militants are the Americans -- and NOT the guys shooting back at them. To view the world any differently is to commit the fallacy that the Americans are the measure of all things. So what if they think they are?
Nevertheless. One can't stress often or loudly enough that producing results of the kind imperfectly estimated by this AP report is what the Washington regime's fabled "surge" and "counterinsurgency" campaign under the American General David Petraeus is really all about: Securing the territory around the Green Zone for the permanent American military - political seizure of Iraq.
And that what the "surge" and "counterinsurgency" most assuredly are NOT are the kind of crap that Sarah Sewall and others like Samantha Power have been pretending from their perches up in Cambridge, MA.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
Michael Ignatieff Does American Power
By Kissenger, Clark at Aug 05, 2007 14:25 PM
Friends:
The degree of access that the top lieutenants in the Humanitarian Brigades of the 1990s continue to enjoy on the pages of the New York Times really turns my stomach. Last Sunday, it was Harvard's Samantha Power in the Book Review ("Our War on Terror," July 29). This Sunday, it's former Harvard professor and more recently a member of the Canadian Parliament from a district (a "riding") in Toronto, Michael Ignatieff in the Magazine.
The title of Ignatieff's commentary is "Getting Iraq Wrong," (August 5). He presents it as his official mea culpa. "The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president," Ignatieff begins. "But it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion." No fewer than 16 different times Ignatieff uses the phrase 'good judgment' to name a trait that he believes good political leaders and intellectuals possess: In Iraq, bad judgment prevailed. Also, Ignatieff drops the names of at least nine famous politicians and writers: Samuel Beckett, Isaiah Berlin, Otto von Bismarck, Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, the Biblical prophet Isaiah, Immanuel Kant, and Franklin Roosevelt. If more than one of these names (i.e., Berlin's, para. 3) was mentioned to make a substantive point -- as opposed to feign gravitas and show how well-read the author is -- I sure couldn't tell. -- Were I Beckett or Burke or Kant, I'd be spinning in my grave.
Roughly three-quarters of the way into this laughable production, Ignatieff delivers his punch-line. Finally, he tells us something. "Measuring good judgment in politics is not easy," Ignatieff writes. He continues (para. 23 -24):
These 225-words deserve to be read with great care; as for the rest, don't waste your time. -- The U.S. - U.K. invasion of Iraq is a "catastrophe" not because it is a war of aggression, not because it is a criminal war -- a supreme international crime, in point of fact -- but because the invaders have failed to completely pacify the territory they seized by force. What is striking is that Ignatieff cannot recognize pre-war opposition on the grounds that the looming war would be criminal or immoral. Instead, Ignatieff can recognize only those who "believed the president was only after the oil" or those who "believed America is always and in every situation wrong." This Ignatieff dismisses as "indulging in ideology."
In his own judgment -- remember today's date: August 5, 2007, almost four-and-one-half years into this American war -- the only people who "correctly anticipated catastrophe" were those who predicted that Bush's plans called for far too few troops to pacify Iraqi territory and turn Iraq into a free and democratic state. Yet -- and here's the kicker -- who never doubted the good intentions that lay behind this American war. Just as they lay behind the American wars in Bosnia and Kosovo back in the 1990s, Ignatieff proclaims.
Not once in his mock mea culpa does Ignatieff state -- because he clearly does not believe it -- that the "catastrophe" or "debacle" is a catastrophe and a debacle in a sense for which its perpetrators are criminally responsible. Instead, Ignatieff regards Iraq as some kind of metaphysically insoluble riddle that even the best of intentions have failed to master. Hence the reference to Samuel Beckett's "Fail again. Fail better" (para. 13): "[A]ll courses of action thus far have failed."
Throughout, "brute stubbornness" is the harshest criticism that he can summon for the American political leadership that launched the war. But, alas, we all make mistakes. And Michael Ignatieff is courageous enough to take to the pages of the New York Times to admit his.
Just for laughs -- derision, ultimately, is what Ignatieff's work deserves -- we might try suggesting some alternative titles that would better capture the message conveyed by Ignatieff's "Getting Iraq Wrong." For example:
The Purity of American Intentions.
When Bad Things Happen to Good People.
The Unintended Consequences of Noble Pursuits.
Or something to this effect. -- Of course, the deeper and more genuinely revealing title would be:
An Apologia for American Power.
After all, in what real-world sense was the American invasion of Iraq "wrong," a "mistake," and a "failure"? Because Iraqis on the ground did not roll over like dogs but resisted it?
From hereon, Michael Ignatieff ought to show better judgment, shut-up and go away.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
"Banality" vs. "Thoughtlessness"
By Kissenger, Clark at Aug 03, 2007 18:12 PM
SK:
"Except for an extraordinary diligence in looking out for his personal advancement, [Eichmann] had no motives at all."
To repeat the Arendt at length:
Also see: "Bush - Brown Summit," Media Lens, August 2, 2007
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Reply this comment
Another Example
By Kissenger, Clark at Aug 03, 2007 12:54 PM
Friends:
For one by another lieutenant in the Humanitarian Brigades -- though maybe corporal is more his rank --
Anybody who wants to understand the alleged "conversion" referred to by the American David Rieff's commentary about "droit d'ingerence" and its role in great-power politics and the career of France's new Foreign Minister, needs to remember two points.
First, in the real world, the so-called right or duty or responsibility to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign states works in one direction, and one only: From the great military powers against the lesser. More honest terms for describing this process already exist in the international lexicon: Imperialism, colonialism, and aggression come to mind. The world doesn't need yet another sexed-up pretext behind which the more enlightened powers of the North can hide.
Second, whatever "conversion" Bernard Kouchner may or may not have undergone on the road to becoming the Foreign Minister in the right-wing government of France's Nicolas Sarkozy, it was nothing when compared to the conversion of the American David Rieff, who devoted the decade of the Nineties arguing the "moral bankruptcy of the peacekeeping idea,"[*] and advocating for aggressive war in the context of Yugoslavia's dismemberment.
As with Samantha Power and all of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy - types (and a cast of thousands beyond them), any commentary appearing under David Rieff's byline ought to be accompanied by a disclaimer, comparable to the Surgeon General's warning printed on every pack of cigarettes manufactured in the United States.
Reading them poses serious risks to your intellectual and moral health.
Reply this comment
Prof. Chomsky, you write
By Kissenger, Clark at Aug 02, 2007 17:03 PM
Prof. Chomsky, you write that "knowing that you are massacring [civilians] but not doing so intentionally because you don't regard them as worthy of concern" is "far more depraved than massacring civilians intentionally." Fair enough. The practitioners of suicide-murder, like Hamas and (more notoriously and proudly) Islamic Jihad (IJ), or the Tamil Tigers in earlier years, certainly don't regard their "targets" as human. They don't care; for Hamas, and especially IJ, Israeli Jews are vermin to be scraped off into the sea.
Do you think there would be a moral difference between Hamas-IJ terror and ours if the former groups had our caliber of weaponry and bombs, and similar "strategic interests"? Likely not, as you suggest. But there has got to be a real moral difference between the al-Shifa bombing (your example), and detonating a suicide vest in a pizza parlor, among too many incidents, no?
Reply this comment
"we don't target civilians"
By Kissenger, Clark at Aug 02, 2007 08:46 AM
I wonder when the U.S.A. started claiming they only kill "civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective."
Was if after they finished slaughtering the Native Americans or after bombing Dresden? Or after delibrately targetting Vietnamese dams or arming the Contras (to attack the Nicarugeans by proxy)?
The propganda idea that the U.S.A. attacks civilians "unintentionally" is on par with the idea that the Department of War is really a Department of Defence.
Reply this comment
The Peril of Moralism
By Ajsc21755, Ajohnstone at Aug 01, 2007 03:50 AM
As in other underdeveloped countries, the majority of the population in the Philippines has access only to polluted water. As formula has to be mixed with water, its widespread use instead of breastfeeding kills thousands of children every year. Nevertheless, the corporations promote it in the most ruthless fashion. For instance, they encourage their saleswomen to dress as nurses to gain the confidence of young mothers. The Philippines government has tried to restrict the promotion of baby formula, but the Pharmaceutical & Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP), representing the manufacturers and backed by the US government and Chamber of Commerce, has led a campaign to thwart the attempt, using lobbying, diplomatic pressure, legal action and (apparently) targeted assassinations.
Often enough, indignation expresses itself as national hatred, typically as anti-Americanism. America Puts Profit Above Babies' Lives – runs the headline over the print version of the article. Of course, the American government and American business do put profit above babies' lives (and above everything else). But the same is true of other countries. Ordinary Americans tend to feel that accusations against “America” are aimed at them too and respond in like manner: “You British are just as bad!”
Nothing could be more irrelevant to the issue than nationality. The first target of activists opposing the promotion of baby formula in underdeveloped countries was Nestlé – a Swiss company. The members that PHAP represents include European, Australian, and Japanese as well as American companies. They are equally ruthless.
But blaming “America” – or the Jews or the Japanese, perhaps, or some other nation or ethnic group -- is a form of the broader phenomenon called moralism. Alternatively, we might call it “the bad guy approach.” Track down the “baby killers,” the evil people responsible for the evil deeds and do something about them.
Really evil people are few and far between. They are not the crux of the matter. Most of the people involved in making and selling harmful products are not truly or intrinsically evil. The saleswoman dressed as a nurse to sell more baby formula and earn her commission, the Chinese tobacco farmer, the Afghan poppy grower, the armaments worker making landmines that will maim and kill children as they play – they are all doing evil things. Their deeds are evil, but they themselves are not, for they have to make a living somehow. They have to feed and clothe their own children.
Even the corporation executives who organize the evil deeds are not doing evil as a free and deliberate choice. They are required by law to do whatever is necessary to maximize profits for their shareholders. They could, of course, give up their positions and join the working class, but you can understand why so few of them would want to do that! The shareholders, in turn, do not feel obliged to concern themselves with the morality of the businesses that provide their dividends. Everywhere we look we find moral ambiguity. Evil is certainly being done, but no one is clearly to blame – only the social arrangement that we refer to as a system.
The appropriate target of our indignation is the system that places people in such excruciating dilemmas, penalises altruistic impulses, rewards ruthless egoism, and inexorably turns “good guys” (or potential “good guys”) into “bad guys.” It is only by understanding the system that we can devise a way of freeing people to heed the voice of their conscience and freely contribute their talents to society, without thereby jeopardising their families' survival and wellbeing.
August Socialist Standard http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/standardonline/index.html
Reply this comment
Re: Unintentional crimes
By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 31, 2007 22:58 PM
Rereading the excerpt from Hannah Arendt also strikes one differently (the "thoughtlessness") in light of same quotes.
Reply this comment
"Samantha Power, Bush & Terrorism"
By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 31, 2007 12:16 PM
SK et al.:
About the esteemed Anna Lindh Professor of the Practice of Global Leadership at Harvard ("Our War on Terror," July 29): Notice that Samantha Power insisted that "there is a moral difference between setting out to destroy as many civilians as possible and killing civilians unintentionally and reluctantly in pursuit of a military objective…." She also strongly implied that in case "millions -- if not billions -- of people around the world do not see the difference between a suicide bomber's attack on a pizzeria and an American attack on what turns out to be a wedding party," the problem lies with their understanding of reality.
But careful readers could not have missed that in both cases, the "moral difference" alleged by Power results in exoneration for the Americans, and guilt for their enemies.
Perhaps, then, Power needs to be reminded that it was the Americans who invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and are now waging counterinsurgency campaigns against their peoples? (And don't you just love that term, 'counterinsurgency'?)
Never forget that the foreign troops occupy Kabul and Baghdad and their environs. Not Washington, New York, and Cambridge, MA.
For a very fine review of Samantha Power's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, A "Problem from Hell", see:
What is more, I've always wondered when the terms 'liberal' and 'interventionism', i.e., warmaking, first came to be associated in people's minds. The fact that it ever was thinkable does not inspire confidence.Of course, the same goes for so-called humanitarian military intervention, i.e., unlike the "terrorists," when we use state violence to kill and to conquer, we do it for moral reasons, such as saving lives.
At bottom, these are Madison Avenue terms of art.
Nevertheless. A good commentary follows. Keep it in mind, just in case the Democratic Party wins the White House in 2008, and sweeps the Congress too.
David Peterson
Chicago, USA
Postscript. For one about the Jeanne d'Arc of the Humanitarian Brigades from three years ago: "Great White Warrior," ZNet, September 14, 2004.
Reply this comment
Benefits of "a good education"
By Kissenger, Clark at Jul 31, 2007 11:36 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 of 37 people found the following review helpful:
What did she think was going to happen?, August 23, 2003
By "lexo-2x" (Dublin, Ireland)
Samantha Power has written a book about how the US government utterly failed to intervene during numerous occasions of genocide in the last century. Her outline of how the UN definition and legal treatment of genocide came to be formulated is beautifully clear--the hero of this book is Raphael Lemkin, the Jewish refugee lawyer whose dedication to the cause of outlawing genocide made it into an international crime in the first place.
However, Power's perspective on the whole subject is bizarrely naive. I speak as somebody whose formal education ended at the equivalent of high school, but I find it difficult to understand how someone so educated and qualified as Power (she teaches human rights and US foreign policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy school of government) could be so weirdly starry-eyed as to apparently believe that it's a scandal that US foreign policy regarding genocide has generally been guided by other than altruistic motives.
I mean, maybe I'm too cynical, but what does she think governments are for? Her research seems respectable, but her premise (which, by inference, I take to be that the US government generally wants the best for everyone) is at best debatable, and her overall tone of shocked outrage betrays a sensibility more suited to an ignorant but idealistic teenager, rather than an angry but well-informed expert. (I notice, also, that the general thrust of this book is to condemn the US government for conflicts it didn't get involved in at all. When the US actually gave financial and material support to ethnic violence, as in the cases of East Timor and Palestine, Power is either silent--there isn't a single reference in this book to Israeli policy towards the Palestinians--or else cursory; US support for the genocidal policies of Indonesia towards East Timor is referred to once, on pages 146-147 in the British edition, and then forgotten.)
In the end, this book can be useful in that certain facts are grouped together under the one cover. But Power's commentary, her sad-eyed indignation that no more was done, is so utterly jejune that she shoots herself in the foot. Any state that acts out of what it claims to be morality should be mistrusted. The evisceration of the UN, carried out with such efficiency and brutality by the US and its clients, should have been Power's subject. But she is either too naive or too disingenuous to say so. How this book got a Pulitzer is beyond me, unless the Pulitzer standards have dropped lately.
Reply this comment