|Drain the swamp
... and there will be no more mosquitoes
By Noam Chomsky
September 9, 2002
Source: New York Times Syndicate
September 11 shocked many Americans into an awareness that they had better pay much
closer attention to what the US government does in the world and how it is perceived.
Many issues have been opened for discussion that were not on the agenda before. That's
all to the good.
It is also the merest sanity, if we hope to reduce the likelihood of future atrocities.
It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies "hate our freedoms," as
President Bush stated, but it is hardly wise to ignore the real world, which conveys
The president is not the first to ask: "Why do they hate us?" In a staff
discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred
against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people". His
National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and
oppressive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress"
because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.
Post-September 11 surveys in the Arab world reveal that the same reasons hold today,
compounded with resentment over specific policies. Strikingly, that is even true
of privileged, western-oriented sectors in the region.
To cite just one recent example: in the August 1 issue of Far Eastern Economic Review,
the internationally recognised regional specialist Ahmed Rashid writes that in Pakistan
"there is growing anger that US support is allowing [Musharraf's] military regime
to delay the promise of democracy".
Today we do ourselves few favours by choosing to believe that "they hate us"
and "hate our freedoms". On the contrary, these are attitudes of people
who like Americans and admire much about the US, including its freedoms. What they
hate is official policies that deny them the freedoms to which they too aspire.
For such reasons, the post-September 11 rantings of Osama bin Laden - for example,
about US support for corrupt and brutal regimes, or about the US "invasion"
of Saudi Arabia - have a certain resonance, even among those who despise and fear
him. From resentment, anger and frustration, terrorist bands hope to draw support
We should also be aware that much of the world regards Washington as a terrorist
regime. In recent years, the US has taken or backed actions in Colombia, Nicaragua,
Panama, Sudan and Turkey, to name a few, that meet official US definitions of "terrorism"
- that is, when Americans apply the term to enemies.
In the most sober establishment journal, Foreign Affairs, Samuel Huntington wrote
in 1999: "While the US regularly denounces various countries as 'rogue states,'
in the eyes of many countries it is becoming the rogue superpower ... the single
greatest external threat to their societies."
Such perceptions are not changed by the fact that, on September 11, for the first
time, a western country was subjected on home soil to a horrendous terrorist attack
of a kind all too familiar to victims of western power. The attack goes far beyond
what's sometimes called the "retail terror" of the IRA, FLN or Red Brigades.
The September 11 terrorism elicited harsh condemnation throughout the world and an
outpouring of sympathy for the innocent victims. But with qualifications.
An international Gallup poll in late September found
little support for "a military attack" by the US in Afghanistan. In Latin
America, the region with the most experience of US intervention, support ranged from
2% in Mexico to 16% in Panama.
The current "campaign of hatred" in the Arab world is, of course, also
fuelled by US policies toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. The US has provided the
crucial support for Israel's harsh military occupation, now in its 35th year.
One way for the US to lessen Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be to stop refusing
to join the long-standing international consensus that calls for recognition of the
right of all states in the region to live in peace and security, including a Palestinian
state in the currently occupied territories (perhaps with minor and mutual border
In Iraq, a decade of harsh sanctions under US pressure has strengthened Saddam Hussein
while leading to the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - perhaps more people
"than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout
history", military analysts John and Karl Mueller wrote in Foreign Affairs in
Washington's present justifications to attack Iraq
have far less credibility than when President Bush Sr was welcoming Saddam as an
ally and a trading partner after he had committed his worst brutalities - as in Halabja,
where Iraq attacked Kurds with poison gas in 1988. At the time, the murderer Saddam
was more dangerous than he is today.
As for a US attack against Iraq, no one, including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically
guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists surely hope
that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much of the country, providing
recruits for terrorist actions.
They presumably also welcome the "Bush doctrine" that proclaims the right
of attack against potential threats, which are virtually limitless. The president
has announced: "There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom
in the homeland." That's true.
Threats are everywhere, even at home. The prescription for endless war poses a far
greater danger to Americans than perceived enemies do, for reasons the terrorist
organisations understand very well.
Twenty years ago, the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Yehoshaphat Harkabi,
also a leading Arabist, made a point that still holds true. "To offer an honourable
solution to the Palestinians respecting their right to self-determination: that is
the solution of the problem of terrorism," he said. "When the swamp disappears,
there will be no more mosquitoes."
At the time, Israel enjoyed the virtual immunity from retaliation within the occupied
territories that lasted until very recently. But Harkabi's warning was apt, and the
lesson applies more generally.
Well before September 11 it was understood that with
modern technology, the rich and powerful will lose their near monopoly of the means
of violence and can expect to suffer atrocities on home soil.
If we insist on creating more swamps, there will be more mosquitoes, with awesome
capacity for destruction.
If we devote our resources to draining the swamps, addressing the roots of the "campaigns
of hatred", we can not only reduce the threats we face but also live up to ideals
that we profess and that are not beyond reach if we choose to take them seriously.
Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and author of the US bestseller 9-11. This article was first published by the New
York Times Syndicate and The Guardian in London (September 9, 2002).