I appreciate your attention to detail, backed by several sources. I am curious to know what proportion of Americans believe the "core patriotic notion that America doesn’t commit atrocities" as expressed in your piece. Personally speaking, most of my inner circle consider themselves patriots but view the federal government and three-letter agencies as "committing atrocities."
In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively.
Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” – of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny.
I think that a really textbook example is "liberals" who say that something like the Iraq War was merely a mistake; the idea is that America can make mistakes and commit blunders...but the idea that X/Y/Z American actions are atrocities is taboo in certain circles. That's my understanding, anyway.
Fox News used to be this way too. Back in the Iraq War days. Not sure what Fox News says nowadays about whether the US commits atrocities, though.
I love every sentence you wrote man. I totally agree, we need and deserve a more nuanced discourse surrounding almost every conversation in politics especially foreign policy. I love how you reference Chomsky because you sound exactly like him just in terms of your respect for the reader and the moral intelligence you apply. Never stop man
Quoting Chomsky on awareness when he's citing Pol Pot is frankly laughable given Chomsky's own genocide denialism of the Khmer Rouge and Srebrenica. He shouldn't exactly be considered the guiding light on these matters.
On the matter of sanctions on Iraq, the US enforced four United Nations Security Council Resolutions due to the invasion of Kuwait. The majority of the sanctions on key foodstuffs were lifted in 1991. Sanctions which continued were responsive and changed depending on needs. The child mortality figures re Iraq sanctions cited in the Al Jazeera article and the Albright interview were falsified by Saddam. https://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000311
Would you perhaps care to cite instances of his denial? Because from what I’ve read he always maintained that the Khmer Rogue were brutal (At War with Asia, Manufacturing Consent). I think in the context he was discussing the Rogue in had more to do with how western media covers atrocities differently. I certainly don’t think he was being an apologist/denialist. I am open to being completely wrong.
One other aspect of these attacks is that they waste copious amounts of time. So people spend hours looking into whether Chomsky said this or that instead of doing more important things. Not sure if that's the intention, but it's an unfortunate effect.
There are lots of ways to criticize Chomsky's work, but all the "genocide denial" accusations fall apart when you look into them; at least all of the ones that I've looked into have. I think that the purpose of this stuff is to shut down a conversation; you call Chomsky a "genocide denier" and that's intended to erase all information and arguments coming from Chomsky.
I’m saying that you take Chomsky’s word as gospel in most of your pieces and that’s misguided given how much of his analysis lacks depth, accuracy, and is incredibly one-sided to further a political position. His analysis has been shown time and time again to be incredibly faulty and seeking to advance a political agenda, which is fundamentally “US bad” which biases any analysis he makes on Ukraine. Chomsky is a brilliant linguist but a shockingly bad geopolitical analyst.
It's normal to criticize people; there's nothing wrong with criticism of Chomsky or anyone else. The part I find disturbing is the whole slander machine. I'll repeat. I think that the purpose of this stuff is to shut down a conversation; you call Chomsky a "genocide denier" and that's intended to erase all information and arguments coming from Chomsky.
People who actually read his commentaries on Cambodia and so on will see immediately that he's not a "genocide denier"; these slanders are just meant to discredit him and shut things down. If you take a topic like Cambodia or Serbia, there is plenty of room for normal criticism based on what he ACTUALLY argues...I'd like to see real engagement with what he's written on these matters.
Chomsky insisted that testimony from Cambodian Refugees can’t be taken at face value and fundamentally made a whataboutist line of argument toward the Khmer Rouge before reluctantly admitting that Pol Pot did kill millions, but couldn’t even do that without going “but the US”. It’s the same arguments made by people like Aaron Maté, the Grayzone, and Glenn Greenwald re. Assad’s atrocities in Syria.
Fundamentally Chomsky is a linguist, not a geopolitical analyst, and should’ve stuck to linguistics given in most situations his analysis lacks nuance, depth, and is incredibly one-sides. He’s a whataboutist the greatest extent and his analysis can be characterised as “US bad”. His most recent commentary on how Jeremy Corbyn actually won a massive victory in the 2017 General Election is the most recent example of how he continues to proselytise in an authoritative fashion on matters he clearly knows nothing about.
This is a frustrating comment to read because the entire point of the piece (the one above this comment section) is that the foundations of a good foreign-policy discourse would preclude comments like this one. That's the whole piece; that's all that the piece is about from start to finish. So I'm not sure if you read and understood the piece.
The Cambodia thing (and all the other genocide-denial things) aren't true. Just read what he's written on these topics. It's really that easy; it's even quoted in the piece (the one above this comment section), which again makes me wonder if you read and understood the piece.
I have read and understood the piece. I just disagree with your assumption that the Cambodia comments et al. are a nothing burger. If you look at his comments in a vacuum you could dismiss them as “healthy skepticism” but if you look at them in a broader context of Chomsky’s commentary and general inaccuracies in a plethora of subjects, they form a pretty clear pattern.
My point is that to claim that all US mass media is a form of propaganda and then pointing to Chomsky and Herman as an example of a road to an objective truth lacks the self-awareness that you, yourself, are claiming others are in dire need of.
"claim that all US mass media is a form of propaganda"
This was sloppily phrased because it makes it sound like (1) you don't understand what Herman and Chomsky argue about the media and (2) you didn't read (or didn't carefully read) what I quoted in the piece above this comment section.
Are you talking about things that he's written? If so, can you cite what you find offensive?
Informal comments are a different category; there's a lot of leeway with informal comments. With informal comments I think that Chomsky is sloppy all the time and that this opens the door to misinterpretation and also gives softballs to those who want to engage in deliberate misinterpretation. But then you get into the whole issue of whether Chomsky is sloppier than others regarding informal comments; is he actually especially sloppy...or are informal comments just always sloppy but we're only putting Chomsky's informal comments under a microscope?
Thanks for the interesting comment and the interesting information! A couple quick thoughts.
1: I'm not sure how to characterize the extent of the MIC's power. I think that someone like Chomsky would definitely just point to general US state power as the driving force behind US foreign policy. The question arises regarding the Ukraine war whether the Biden admin has acted with the MIC in mind or whether Biden-admin actions have only incidentally benefitted the MIC. US state power does have goals regarding the desire to weaken Russia; the MIC benefits a great deal but it's questionable whether Biden-admin people have actually acted with the MIC in mind. I asked a scholar who studies the MIC about this question and the answer was pretty vague; he said that the MIC's interests coalesce nicely with the Biden admin's, but that doesn't answer the question. I guess that maybe his answer was that the Biden admin never has thought about the MIC in making Ukraine-war decisions.
2: I have no idea what the general public is like on foreign policy; I see that you have some data here. Obviously the issue is that the general public is far from the centers of power...elites are close to the centers of power and elites have very different views from the general public. I'm not sure if the general public would really accept the foundations that I lay out in my piece, though; I'm not sure whether your poll about "patriotism" actually demonstrates support for these foundations.
How can the general public have a serious opinion, when all the "illegal disclosures" show the Government lies to the public, supported by a subservient media? Is this how a democracy works?
Thanks for the comment! Which "'illegal disclosures'" do you have in mind, though? Not sure what you're referring to. Do you just mean the various leaks from Snowden and Ellsberg and whoever else? I would definitely agree that the government lies; the media is supposed to be a check on that, but unfortunately...well, see my piece above on the media's role.
I'll need to check out what he leaked for us; obviously in the case of Ellsberg (for example) the leak was highly justified. I would have to know what was leaked in this case before I can judge whether I find it to be justified. If you leak information on how to build a nuke then that's obviously very different from if you leak information about lies and war crimes.
Regarding US state power, the idea is that the US has these geostrategic interests that are quite consistent over time. So you can look at Cuba policy, for example. And then (regarding the Ukraine war) you can look at the US interest in weakening Russia. These interests sometimes even override corporate ones. It's about hegemony, control, domination; the geostrategic thinking as opposed to thinking about (e.g.) the short-term profit of corporations.
In terms of the "hand in hand" thing, it would be interesting to ask an MIC expert about how the two go together. For example, there are geopolitical and diplomatic implications if everyone wants to buy US weapons because these weapons have been so successful in the Ukraine war.
I appreciate your attention to detail, backed by several sources. I am curious to know what proportion of Americans believe the "core patriotic notion that America doesn’t commit atrocities" as expressed in your piece. Personally speaking, most of my inner circle consider themselves patriots but view the federal government and three-letter agencies as "committing atrocities."
See here:
https://truthout.org/articles/the-obama-doctrine/
In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively.
Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” – of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny.
Thank you for your feedback.
I think that a really textbook example is "liberals" who say that something like the Iraq War was merely a mistake; the idea is that America can make mistakes and commit blunders...but the idea that X/Y/Z American actions are atrocities is taboo in certain circles. That's my understanding, anyway.
Fox News used to be this way too. Back in the Iraq War days. Not sure what Fox News says nowadays about whether the US commits atrocities, though.
I love every sentence you wrote man. I totally agree, we need and deserve a more nuanced discourse surrounding almost every conversation in politics especially foreign policy. I love how you reference Chomsky because you sound exactly like him just in terms of your respect for the reader and the moral intelligence you apply. Never stop man
Thanks! I appreciate the kind words! :)
Great piece Andrew, keep it up!
Thanks! I hope to do another interview with you soon! :)
Quoting Chomsky on awareness when he's citing Pol Pot is frankly laughable given Chomsky's own genocide denialism of the Khmer Rouge and Srebrenica. He shouldn't exactly be considered the guiding light on these matters.
On the matter of sanctions on Iraq, the US enforced four United Nations Security Council Resolutions due to the invasion of Kuwait. The majority of the sanctions on key foodstuffs were lifted in 1991. Sanctions which continued were responsive and changed depending on needs. The child mortality figures re Iraq sanctions cited in the Al Jazeera article and the Albright interview were falsified by Saddam. https://gh.bmj.com/content/2/2/e000311
Would you perhaps care to cite instances of his denial? Because from what I’ve read he always maintained that the Khmer Rogue were brutal (At War with Asia, Manufacturing Consent). I think in the context he was discussing the Rogue in had more to do with how western media covers atrocities differently. I certainly don’t think he was being an apologist/denialist. I am open to being completely wrong.
One other aspect of these attacks is that they waste copious amounts of time. So people spend hours looking into whether Chomsky said this or that instead of doing more important things. Not sure if that's the intention, but it's an unfortunate effect.
There are lots of ways to criticize Chomsky's work, but all the "genocide denial" accusations fall apart when you look into them; at least all of the ones that I've looked into have. I think that the purpose of this stuff is to shut down a conversation; you call Chomsky a "genocide denier" and that's intended to erase all information and arguments coming from Chomsky.
I’m saying that you take Chomsky’s word as gospel in most of your pieces and that’s misguided given how much of his analysis lacks depth, accuracy, and is incredibly one-sided to further a political position. His analysis has been shown time and time again to be incredibly faulty and seeking to advance a political agenda, which is fundamentally “US bad” which biases any analysis he makes on Ukraine. Chomsky is a brilliant linguist but a shockingly bad geopolitical analyst.
It's normal to criticize people; there's nothing wrong with criticism of Chomsky or anyone else. The part I find disturbing is the whole slander machine. I'll repeat. I think that the purpose of this stuff is to shut down a conversation; you call Chomsky a "genocide denier" and that's intended to erase all information and arguments coming from Chomsky.
People who actually read his commentaries on Cambodia and so on will see immediately that he's not a "genocide denier"; these slanders are just meant to discredit him and shut things down. If you take a topic like Cambodia or Serbia, there is plenty of room for normal criticism based on what he ACTUALLY argues...I'd like to see real engagement with what he's written on these matters.
Chomsky insisted that testimony from Cambodian Refugees can’t be taken at face value and fundamentally made a whataboutist line of argument toward the Khmer Rouge before reluctantly admitting that Pol Pot did kill millions, but couldn’t even do that without going “but the US”. It’s the same arguments made by people like Aaron Maté, the Grayzone, and Glenn Greenwald re. Assad’s atrocities in Syria.
Fundamentally Chomsky is a linguist, not a geopolitical analyst, and should’ve stuck to linguistics given in most situations his analysis lacks nuance, depth, and is incredibly one-sides. He’s a whataboutist the greatest extent and his analysis can be characterised as “US bad”. His most recent commentary on how Jeremy Corbyn actually won a massive victory in the 2017 General Election is the most recent example of how he continues to proselytise in an authoritative fashion on matters he clearly knows nothing about.
This is a frustrating comment to read because the entire point of the piece (the one above this comment section) is that the foundations of a good foreign-policy discourse would preclude comments like this one. That's the whole piece; that's all that the piece is about from start to finish. So I'm not sure if you read and understood the piece.
The Cambodia thing (and all the other genocide-denial things) aren't true. Just read what he's written on these topics. It's really that easy; it's even quoted in the piece (the one above this comment section), which again makes me wonder if you read and understood the piece.
I have read and understood the piece. I just disagree with your assumption that the Cambodia comments et al. are a nothing burger. If you look at his comments in a vacuum you could dismiss them as “healthy skepticism” but if you look at them in a broader context of Chomsky’s commentary and general inaccuracies in a plethora of subjects, they form a pretty clear pattern.
My point is that to claim that all US mass media is a form of propaganda and then pointing to Chomsky and Herman as an example of a road to an objective truth lacks the self-awareness that you, yourself, are claiming others are in dire need of.
"claim that all US mass media is a form of propaganda"
This was sloppily phrased because it makes it sound like (1) you don't understand what Herman and Chomsky argue about the media and (2) you didn't read (or didn't carefully read) what I quoted in the piece above this comment section.
Are you talking about things that he's written? If so, can you cite what you find offensive?
Informal comments are a different category; there's a lot of leeway with informal comments. With informal comments I think that Chomsky is sloppy all the time and that this opens the door to misinterpretation and also gives softballs to those who want to engage in deliberate misinterpretation. But then you get into the whole issue of whether Chomsky is sloppier than others regarding informal comments; is he actually especially sloppy...or are informal comments just always sloppy but we're only putting Chomsky's informal comments under a microscope?
Thanks for the interesting comment and the interesting information! A couple quick thoughts.
1: I'm not sure how to characterize the extent of the MIC's power. I think that someone like Chomsky would definitely just point to general US state power as the driving force behind US foreign policy. The question arises regarding the Ukraine war whether the Biden admin has acted with the MIC in mind or whether Biden-admin actions have only incidentally benefitted the MIC. US state power does have goals regarding the desire to weaken Russia; the MIC benefits a great deal but it's questionable whether Biden-admin people have actually acted with the MIC in mind. I asked a scholar who studies the MIC about this question and the answer was pretty vague; he said that the MIC's interests coalesce nicely with the Biden admin's, but that doesn't answer the question. I guess that maybe his answer was that the Biden admin never has thought about the MIC in making Ukraine-war decisions.
2: I have no idea what the general public is like on foreign policy; I see that you have some data here. Obviously the issue is that the general public is far from the centers of power...elites are close to the centers of power and elites have very different views from the general public. I'm not sure if the general public would really accept the foundations that I lay out in my piece, though; I'm not sure whether your poll about "patriotism" actually demonstrates support for these foundations.
How can the general public have a serious opinion, when all the "illegal disclosures" show the Government lies to the public, supported by a subservient media? Is this how a democracy works?
Thanks for the comment! Which "'illegal disclosures'" do you have in mind, though? Not sure what you're referring to. Do you just mean the various leaks from Snowden and Ellsberg and whoever else? I would definitely agree that the government lies; the media is supposed to be a check on that, but unfortunately...well, see my piece above on the media's role.
Exactly! Add to them Jack Teixeira.
I'll need to check out what he leaked for us; obviously in the case of Ellsberg (for example) the leak was highly justified. I would have to know what was leaked in this case before I can judge whether I find it to be justified. If you leak information on how to build a nuke then that's obviously very different from if you leak information about lies and war crimes.
Regarding US state power, the idea is that the US has these geostrategic interests that are quite consistent over time. So you can look at Cuba policy, for example. And then (regarding the Ukraine war) you can look at the US interest in weakening Russia. These interests sometimes even override corporate ones. It's about hegemony, control, domination; the geostrategic thinking as opposed to thinking about (e.g.) the short-term profit of corporations.
In terms of the "hand in hand" thing, it would be interesting to ask an MIC expert about how the two go together. For example, there are geopolitical and diplomatic implications if everyone wants to buy US weapons because these weapons have been so successful in the Ukraine war.