To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » The "Salvadoran Option"

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

9

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books
Zvideo_icon ZStores

The "Salvadoran Option"

By Noam Chomsky at Feb 04, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
The "Salvadoran option" means not just assassination squads, as announced, but mass murder -- facts about US operations in El Salvador that are kept in the dark, as is the truth about the 1984 Salvadoran election that is now touted as the grand model for Iraq. The dedication to suppression is so severe that the media literally will not publish short factual letters from leading US Central America scholars correcting the falsifications about the election. And the massive state terror that the US implemented in El Salvador had been dispatched deep into the memory hole -- and in fact was, even as it was happening. I presume that the US will seek to impose a Salvadoran-style client state that can efficiently carry out terror on its own, and will be sufficiently obedient so that Washington will not have to abandon its war aims. But that looks less likely than one could have reasonably expected at first. What has happened so far is quite remarkable, and in fact is a real triumph of non-violent resistance -- a fact worthy of serious attention. Take the elections. They are being presented as a US initiative, implementing what the liberal press calls Bush's "messianic vision" to bring democracy to the Middle East, and the world. In reality, as the more honest correspondents are reporting, the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the demands of the non-violent resistance, led by Ayatollah Sistani. I discussed some of the early stages in the "afterword" to the 04 edition of my book "Hegemony or Survival." There's a good review in the front-page article by Dan Murphy, "Iraq's critical Sistani factor," in the Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 20. That includes not only elections, but backtracking on many of the other steps imposed by pro-consul Paul Bremer. And how far it will go, it's hard to say. Right now the main problem will probably be to compel the elected government to accept "vague promises" of eventual withdrawal, and to back off from its "promise" to the voters to demand withdrawal, as the Wall St Journal Iraq correspondent reported on Jan. 25. Blair, Rice and others have been explicit in rejecting any timetable for withdrawal -- that is, putting it off to the indefinite future -- until the occupying armies complete their "mission," namely, to bring democracy by compelling the elected government to abandon its program. Bush's routine pieties in his press conference a few days ago tell us virtually nothing.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (14)

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By H., O. at Feb 06, 2005 14:47 PM
r2d2 or whatever - 4) The "insurgents' stop their campaign and the Americans justify the continued occupation on _______. Exactly what?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Feb 06, 2005 06:14 AM
The elections are showing the true intention of the media. Before we even know the turnout, they are claiming an "historical" election, "big" success. If you search you can find the truth, some areas had less than 1% turnout. I don't know what kind of election that is, unless you live in ohio, but it is not a big success.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 06, 2005 03:45 AM
r4d20: your posts are so moronic that no one is even reading them. Bwong: I'm not sure why the elections are even perceived as one by anyone with an ounce of knowledge of US foreign policy or history. These so-called elections have one purpose only - to attempt to legitimize the illegal occupation. The only people who even remotely believe in the legitimacy of these elections is the US public. Everyone else knows that the whole enterprise was a war crime as well as everything stemming from it, including these "elections". The more the US public can be distracted away form the real issue - the criminal invasion and occupation, the better it is - whether in the form of elections, Zarqawi's antics, Al-Queda, whatever.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Feb 06, 2005 00:09 AM
"One could theorize that the "insurgents" ostensibly led by boogeyman Zarqawi may be US proxies. Their activities certainly aid US objectives, e.g., keeping our troops in country ad infinitum." Damn, Thats incredibly logical. I have a few theories that are quite similar 1) that women instigate being beaten by men because it helps the feminist agenda. 2) leftwingers like Right-wing censorship because it helps their arguments. 3) Black Activists made the KKK lynch them because it helped advance the Civil Rights agenda. Oh, wait, I'm full of shit. And so were you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Gammon101, Bwong at Feb 05, 2005 20:29 PM
It is sickening how the media is turning the Iraqi election into a Bush victory. Here in Canada the so called liberal pundits who originally oppose the war are now saying perhaps Bush was right all along, seeing the enthusiastic participation. The logic is dubious, to say the least. The Iraqis have been calling for an election AND END OF OCCUPATION for quite a while.It is the U.S that has been playing games. I don't know why these pundits would find the Iraqi's reaction so surprising. None of these so called "liberal" commementator made the point that the U.S has already locked in all important economical decisions in the form of Paul Bremer's decrees so no matter who get elected they would have to play the game unless they have the courage to kick the U.s out.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By K, Mr at Feb 05, 2005 10:00 AM
This occupation is more absurd every week! It reminds me of those French comic books Astrix and oblix or however you spell em. Remember in those comic books the Gauls were 'occupied' also as the Romans searched high and low for 'terrorists'. Now maybe the Iraqi resistance have a secret potion called 'popular support'. With this magic potion you can hit occupiers anywhere anytime because the people of Iraq support the resistance. Elections aside it seems by baiting food with voting the Americans can keep the populous contained yet the resistance grows bolder each month! I feel Canadian peacekeepers may be needed to protect the Iraqi people from hostile forces coalition or otherwise. When are the mighty valued nation states of Europe going to end this obsurdity? Peacekeepers are needed for the defence of mankinds peace of mind. when will the Americans pullout and the Blue helmeted men start reorganizing and rebuilding the shattered lifes of so many victims of this occuption. Jamil's reporting is right on! Iraqi oils for sale but i feel better if it's going to national iraqi interests to rebuild rather than repay occupation forces for liberation. my words are up.

Reply this comment

Person

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 04:55 AM
The "insurgency", as you call it, or armed resistance, as it is called in most of the world is more than an "embarassement" (to the US). It is possible that the Iraqis will at the very least prevent the invaders from fulfilling their vile agenda. According to norms of international law the resistance is a legitimate way to expel an invading force from teheir soil. Now turning to how long the Bush regime wants to ocupy Iraq - it is clear, from the 15 "permament" military bases that it wants to stay there indefinitely. Whether there are active-duty US troops in the country or a proxy "Iraqi" collaborator force doing the job for them, Iraq can be considered occupied for the forseeable future, unless the resistance fighters can increase their strength and expel the Americans from Iraq (and destroy their bases, and force out their corporations as well). If this happens, however unlikely, Iraq can be considered an independent entity.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 04:48 AM
It was Iraq invading Iran in September of 1980, not the other way around.(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/cron.html) There is ample evidence that this was a US proxy war on behalf of the US, which was doing everything possible to strangle the new regime. Also I don't think that being aware of the possibility of a US-initiated proxy war against Iran is naive at all. Look at the situation: when in a similar situation (ie unable to attack a regime that it wants) a proxy was used (such as in Nicaragua), and there is no reason why it could not so again. And I mentioned that Israel is unlikely to attack because of the potential of an Arab or Muslim regime collapsing from instability.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Chuck, Lstrzmnyn at Feb 05, 2005 03:40 AM
There are facts about the Iraq occupation that are being ignored by the above responders. The most critical is the accepted idea that it is the desire the Bush administration to actually occupy the country indefinately. This is not so. The insurgecy is a serious embarassment to Bush and the US, not only on account of it's effectiveness but also because it was unexpected. This instability cannot be realistically ignored from a military or a political perspective. Likewise, the idea that spontaneous invasions will begin blooming all over the Middle East(Iran-Iraq, Pakistan-Iran, Iran-Israel) is a bit naive. It was the Ayatollah who invaded Iraq, not Saddam who invaded Iran. Likewise, the obvious deterent presented by US power will keep many nations in check as a the Pax Americana should. Without a clear objection and the military strength to attain it, modern war will inevitably be the jabs, and not the upper-cuts, that we've seen thus far. Recall that this current adventure is the most serious military confrontation the US has tackled since Vietnam.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 05, 2005 01:54 AM
If such a horrendous course of action does take place, assuming that Israel can somehow escape attack, exremists in the US government would like nothing more than allow for a horrible war (even with nuclear weapons) to take place, and take over near the end by "saving" Iran.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 04, 2005 23:48 PM
I don't think, propaganda notwithstanding, that the US will attack Iran at this point in time, because Iran is too strong and can defend itself - and deter a US attack - by inflicting horrendous casualties upon the US forces in Iraq and by even attacking Israel. No one, including the extremists in Washington and Tel-Aviv wants this. This is why a proxy attack via "new" Iraq or Pakistan worries me. It may be that the resistance attacks on US occupation troops are all that's keeping Iran from being attacked, and throwing the whole area into chaos. Iran has a large army, weapons of mass destruction (all the countries in the area do, as do most countries in the world - it's really not that much of a shock), and a large air force and late-model missiles, purchased from Russia and China. I have not found an instance of the US unilaterally attacking any state that posesses a credible air force, for example. It only attacks much weaker opponents - and this is true especially now, with US lies about its pretexts about Iraq exposed.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 04, 2005 23:43 PM
There is no chance that any regime in Iraq will be an independent one, because then it will kick out the occupiers - negating the whole US strategy. There will be a sort of a Shia "facade", but call it what you will - its purpose will be to legitimize and continue US's agenda. There is also a possibility that a new Iraq army will attack Iran in a rerun of the Iran-Iraq war, in order to destroy Iran's regime, or possibly a Pakistani attack on Iran, even possibly using nuclear weapons. This a truly a nightmare scenario.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By H., O. at Feb 04, 2005 23:17 PM
One could theorize that the "insurgents" ostensibly led by boogeyman Zarqawi may be US proxies. Their activities certainly aid US objectives, e.g., keeping our troops in country ad infinitum.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: The "Salvadoran Option"

By Apartmentbuilding, Robinhood at Feb 04, 2005 23:15 PM
The new regime in Iraq looked more and more like a Saddam-less old Sadal regime, which is the reason that the US didn't remmove him back in 1991. The likely Shia victory in Iraq in my opinion will not be tolerated (by a "civil war", for example) unless it conforms to US's plans for Iraq and the region, as were its plans from the beginning. The US has zero interest in developing a liberal successful democracy in Iraq because this sill impede its plans for regional domination. I think that what will emerge in Iraq, assuming that the resistance (part of it fueled by the US itself, to prevent increased Shia power - in the form of the phantom Zarqawi and other "Al-Queda" elements in Iraq, which have nothing to do with the authentic resistance in Iraq -) is put down, what will emerge will be a terror state that will be effectively controlled by the US and its clients. No feasable scenario looks good for the Iraqi people, in my opinion short of a mass guerilla campaign that will expel the invaders - and even then the damage will set back Iraq back so far that it ma never recover.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (14)

Loading_border