Earlier today, Noam Chomsky came to UMass Lowell to talk about "War and Democracy." I took some notes and this is my attempt to report on his lecture.#

The structure was as follows: Noam talked for about 30 minutes and then the floor was opened to the audience to ask questions, and it turned into a conversation between Noam and the group.#

The primary topic discussed by Noam during his initial introduction was the War in Iraq, the War on Terror, and how they relate to the suppression of democracy in America and their place in the great strategy of the rich and powerful.#

Quoting the Wall Street Journal, Chomsky said that the Presidential campaign of 2004 started on May 1st, 2003 on the deck of U.S.S. Lincoln with Bush's "victory" speech. It set the stage for the poltergeist of "National Security" to be the prime discussion point of the campaign. Noam points out that "National Security" is in fact just propaganda and doesn't have much to do with real security.#

One element of the "National Security" Issue will be the "Battle" of Iraq, as opposed to the War in Iraq. Chomsky defines this "Battle" as the battle surrounding "rousing" the troops, both foreign and domestic, and the issues that Iraq has brought up. And Noam notes that this battle will be never ending, and that is its purpose (a weapon of mass DISTRACTION.)

Chomsky segues for a bit to talk about how many of the "evidence" and reason for going to Iraq is in fact unfounded. There was no connection to Al Qaeda, this is admitted by advisors and in reports by leaders in the intelligence community. And the conquering of Iraq does not decrease terror, but it has predictably (predicted by the intelligence community and analysts) increased the risk of terror to Americans, both at home and on foreign soil. Similarly, the war has increased the risk of nuclear proliferation by scattering military officers and supporting the need of nuclear capability in other "rogue states."

"National Security", Chomsky says, effects security, just not in the way that is supposedly desired. It in fact, decreases authentic security. (We will return to this later.)

Chomsky asks, "How do they get away with it?" (They referring to those in power.) He points out that they have a great deal of experience, around 12 years of it, because many of those in power were in similar positions in the Reagan and Bush I regimes. They are now carrying out the same script but with, perhaps, more ambition and drive.

Why do they want "National Security" to be such a large "issue" in this campaign? As Karl Rove said publicly in the midterm election, if the Republicans can get attention away from where they are weak (issues regarding Socio-Economic status and conditions) then they may be able to "squeak through" the election. A similar plan is in effect at the presidential level.

Chomsky started to talk about how the rest of world didn't support Saddam and didn't like him, BUT they did not see him as a threat. Only the United States and it's "compelled" populace thought this. On the "compelling" note, Chomsky says that the statistics for supporters of the war correlates to those who believed the false proposition that there was an Iraq/9-11 link, using this observation to say that the American public was misled on purpose. (Note: In this section Chomsky lets some humour show and refers to Israel as an "off-site US military base", heh.)

Returning to the idea of Republicans "squeaking through" the election. Chomsky notes that from exit polls, that ask for ranking of issues, people who voted for Republicans did not change their values (other than "National Security" and "Defense", their priorities lists were unchanged) but instead changed their priorities of a few items that were forced down their throats. Interesting. (ed--Do we trust polls? Chomsky is always referring to polls and that we are a heavily polled society.)

Returning to the Iraq victory speech, Chomsky notes that the Wall Street Journal called the speech "Reagan-esque." And he wonders what the author thought that meant? Did it mean when Reagan said the US was "standing tall" after crushing the menace of the "nutmeg capital of the world" (How Chomsky refers to Grenada)? Chomsky says that this may not be what was intended but the Iraq victory speech is "Reagan-esque" for this reason. The War on Iraq is a step in the ever continuing campaign to construct a perfect fear campaign. Chomsky supports this with the above "Iraq as a Threat" points and compares it the series of fears generated by Reagan and Bush I: Nicaraguan hitmen, Hispanic drug dealers, Black rapists, etc.

So now Chomsky has referred to what is going on, talked about how "they" are doing it, and he begins to talk about the why. What is is the goal of this strategy of fear and coercion?#

The current administration and those supporting it, Chomsky says, are not stupid - they have far reaching goals. Chomsky says that the foreign aspect of those goals are obvious for recent behaviour.

The US will dominate the globe by force and will ensure that there will be no military challenger ever. This creates fear of US abuse in the world and is made possible by instilling fear of competitions in Americans. The international community recognizes this and thinks of Iraq as a demonstration of this motive. This is the prime reason that the unilateral action against Iraq was opposed, because it opens the flood gates of US troops. Chomsky notes that as far back as the 1940s oil was recognized as an essential "lever" (euphemism for "weapon") in the world and the action in the Middle East is one way of getting it. (Later Noam will say that it's unlikely the US will directly use the oil reserves, but instead use them a coercive force.)

On the other hand, the domestic goals of this group is to reverse the progressive actions of the last century - the New Deal, the Great Society actions, food stamps, Medicare, etc. This is to protect the free market. Sadly, for the politicians and businessman behind it, you can't run on this. So this must be achieved by "starving the beast", ensuring that there is no money for them by increasing budgets and lowering taxes.

The floor was then opened for questions. I will paraphrase the questions by eliminating introductions and trying to extract the essence of the question.#

'Was the risk of genocide in Iraq a valid reason to go, even if that was not the stated reason of the administration?'#

Chomsky is quick to point out that we shouldn't talk about a "risk" because the genocide actually happened, and those in power now supported it when it was going on under past regimes. So that's definitely not a reason why the administration did go.

Furthermore, Chomsky points out that as Thomas Freidman said, 'The best rule for Iraq is an iron-fisted military junta that ruled exactly like Saddam but had a different name.' The only reason the administration wanted Saddam out was because he didn't follow US orders and that was dangerous. Chomsky also points out that when Saddam does fall in line, he's the second-best choice for Iraq with regards to stability and control, all the US cares about.

Noam also points out that perhaps the biggest executer of genocide in Iraq is the US itself, with its repressive sanctions and infrastructure destroying attacks. Why the Iraqis put up with Saddam, and didn't start their own uprisings, was because they needed him to efficiently distribute the food. Chomsky points out the old motto of the European powers that 'Iraqis can't control Iraq' and that obviously the polls will show that Iraqis are happy because Saddam is gone, but more so because the sanctions are gone. That is what they really want, but Chomsky says this is not mentioned in the "free press."

'Does the UN submit the US?' and 'Does the extent of US freedom decrease the application of that freedom and activism?'#

On the UN issue, Chomsky points out that in the beginning of the UN it had to support the US unquestioningly because it was so dependent on its good will. As the forces of economics evened the scales a bit, the prime vetoer shifted from Russia to the United States (with the UK close behind) because the rest of the world was able to assert influence and the UN was no longer the US' lapdog. Because of this veto power the UN can't go AGAINST the US, but it can disagree. Chomsky says the motto is, "The Guys with the guns tell everyone what to do, if they can get away with it" and that this situation cannot be changed from the outside of the US, only by internal dissent and activism.

On US freedom, Chomsky says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights say very little about freedom and that freedoms, the most prominent being Freedom of Speech, are won through courts. He says that the must be held on to or we will lose them because they were not given as a gift - but won in a struggle. He says that the current group is dangerous for freedom, look at the PATRIOT act and Guantanamo Bay, for example.

The father of a marine asks, 'Does the amount of military dissent affect the War in Iraq?'#

The morale of the armed forces is certainly a major factor in war waging abilities and the current situations make many soldiers not reenlist. However, the poor economy makes the military an attractive employer. He also notes that this was a major issue in the Vietnam War and there's no reason to think that it won't be a major issue soon, once it grows into something more powerful.

'What does Noam Chomsky think of the 87 billion dollar request by Bush for Iraq?'#

Chomsky thinks that if we were honest we would get that money, and more, and pay it to Iraq as reparations for all the horrible things committed by the United States and encourage other powers to do so as well. However, we are not honest and Noam doesn't think using the money to turn Iraq into a colony is a very good idea.

'Should the UN send troops to Iraq? Does the colour of helmets matter?'#

Noam says that most UN countries don't want this except for "real" US colonies like Ecuador, whose foreign ambassador said that sometimes you just have to stand up and say 'Yes, Sir!' Noam's opinion on handing over control of Iraq corresponds with the rest of the world and the United States, that it should. However, Chomsky is a bit different in the details, he thinks the General Assembly should control it as opposed to the Security Council, something that is in its power but is rarely used.

'How can teachers make new nationalists understand the Middle East?'#

Chomsky says this is an eternal question but it really just takes education and constant effort. He says it takes a Vietnam War to do it, he notes that for the first 5 or 6 years of that war there was little protesting and then an explosion. Now however, there is a lot of protesting for where we are in the cycle. Noam says we just need to keep talking about it to new people and rouse interest and to help free them from the propaganda of the government. This propaganda creates contradictions in the minds of the citizenship as a weapon. (He gives an example regarding Israel.)

'After 9/11 did Bush overdo security concerns and if so, can we go back?'#

Noam points out that what was done did not actually authentic security, instead just "National Security." So he thinks that more security is needed, and says that it takes amazing talent to fail at recognizing something like 9/11, that was attempted earlier that decade.

Noam talked about how security SHOULD be addressed, and he calls on the advice of many retired intelligence officers. Look at who supports terrorists, and they often have real grievances. Responding with violence is a recipe for unending war. We need to respect peoples' real problems and think about how to make more people happy.

Noam rails a bit on the way that the world "Terror" is used in a very ideological way. It is always the terror that "they" give "us", never the terror that "we" give "them." As examples he points to the Nazis, they were protecting the Aryans from the terrorist actions of the Jews and other groups. And he also points out that the world court condemned the United States for international terrorism with regards to Nicaragua and other countries.

The best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it.

'Under what conditions with the US leave Iraq?'#

The bottom line here is that the US wants control of Iraq, they would prefer a puppet regime like were previously in place by European powers or could settle for a colony like in Central America, and could make due if needed with military occupation.

'Can the master plan be stopped? Is there hope?'#

Noam says that if you are hopeless now then you should've seen the 1930s and 1950s. As with then, it is inevitable that something will help soften the triumphalism of the high class and improve the world again. Noam notes that we are far better off now than then and it can only get better, but we need to force issues and vote. There is a big problem with voting: people don't think it matters, and when they do there are problems with issue awareness. Politicians purposely attempt to play down and ignore issues so they don't create a stir. Chomsky notes that 1/6 of the economy revolves around marketing, aka controlling people. This is a indicator of the greater struggle against control and the fight for true democracy.

'Does American Demand War? How is support roused?'#

Fear. The answer to this and much else is simply fear. On war and other issue there needs to be some sort of fear artificially created to get people to think they "need" something whether it be a war in Iraq, a drug war, a crime war, or a new pair of shoes. Look back at Reagan and the perfected strategy of this group, the question is always, 'How much fear can we wrangle?'

'Why do people vote on policies that hurt them?'#

This is essentially the same answer as the last question, and Chomsky adds a bit that was alluded to in the second to last question. "Business parties, whoops, political parties" attempt to ignore all important issues, instead focusing on issue that irrelevant to profit: gun control, religiousity, etc. This is to distract from being put on the spot of whether certain policies will hurt "constituents."

'Who is to blame for US ignorance of the world's opinion?'#

Referring to the fact that many Americans don't know where France is, Chomsky says that many Americans are just ignorant and that the failings of mass media and education contribute to this problem. He also hypothesizes that the intense work constraints of populace give them little time to worry about politics and the world between raising a family and keeping a job. He refers to Alan Greenspan's gold nugget of America's "flexible labor market" aka not knowing if you'll have a job tomorrow.

Last question, 'What will be the effect of Israel assassinating Arafat?'#

Israel will always be constrained by what the US ('The Bossman we call Partner' - an Israeli administrator) will allow them to do. And in this regard they really don't care about Arafat. He was useful at one time as a police man, to be corrupt and make sure there was order. He was much like the black leaders of the South African "Homelands", where the oppressive police forces were black as well.

Chomsky considers the fence as a way of measuring if Israel really cares about security. If they cared about security they would put in partly into Israel so they could patrol both sides of it and make sure that no Palestinians got into Israel, but they are not doing this. By not doing this they are instigating terrorism and purposely putting a burden on the Palestinians rather than the Israelis.

This report is not perfect and if I find another I will try to point it out but hopefully this will be a useful starting point for learning more about current issues and perhaps about the point of view Noam Chomsky represents.#