Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy | Noam Chomsky

Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy | Noam Chomsky | Who tells the truth?

books:

Failed States: The...

	Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy Noam Chomsky Holt Paperbacks, 2007 - 320 pages average customer review:based on 98 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

?It?s hard to imagine any American reading this book and not seeing his country in a new, and deeply troubling, light.??The New York Times Book Review
The United States has repeatedly asserted its right to intervene militarily against ?failed states? around the globe. In this much-anticipated follow-up to his international bestseller Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky turns the tables, showing how the United States itself shares features with other failed states?suffering from a severe ?democratic deficit,? eschewing domestic and international law, and adopting policies that increasingly endanger its own citizens and the world. Exploring the latest developments in U.S. foreign and domestic policy, Chomsky reveals Washington?s plans to further militarize the planet, greatly increasing the risks of nuclear war. He also assesses the dangerous consequences of the occupation of Iraq; documents Washington?s self-exemption from international norms, including the Geneva conventions and the Kyoto Protocol; and examines how the U.S. electoral system is designed to eliminate genuine political alternatives, impeding any meaningful democracy.
Forceful, lucid, and meticulously documented, Failed States offers a comprehensive analysis of a global superpower that has long claimed the right to reshape other nations while its own democratic institutions are in severe crisis. Systematically dismantling the United States? pretense of being the world?s arbiter of democracy, Failed States is Chomsky?s most focused?and urgent?critique to date.

for more information click here

The virus of popular democracy was once again destroyed.

Noam Chomsky writes about the first 9/11 which took place on Tuesday September 11th 1973 in Chile when the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by the military forces of Augusto Pinochet. The coup had full backing of he US government and an estimated 3200 people where killed(although figures are believed to be twice as high) and over 30000 people tortured. The government of Pinochet started collaborating with other right wing dictatorships in the South american region creating an international state terrorist program called "Operation Condor". This program "killed and tortured mercilessly in the region and branched out to terrorist operations in Europe and the United States".

Pinochet was greatly honored by both Ronald Reagan and Thatcher. But worse terror was to come in both Argentina and the central American region by "the current incumbents in Washington and their immediate mentors". It was really the American fear of the independent nationalism of Chile that sparked this coup. The fear was based on the fact that Chile might become a "conttagious example", as Henry Kissinger called it, for other nations to follow. Therefore Americas obssession with Cubas successfull "defiance of the master" or even with Irans defiance with their overthrowing of the Shah in 1979. This was the real reason for the US intervention in Vietnam as well, because the country could become a "virus infecting others" (notably resource rich Indonesia). This could eventually destabalize the entire region putting the resource interests of US corporations and the British at risk . In other words, it was necessary to "justify destruction of parliamentary regimes and imposition of murderous dictatorships throughout much of the world in order to guarantee stability and control of vital resources". The virus had to be destroyed.

Public fear would have it that the domino theory would be put into effect. Ho Chi Min would conquer South East Asia, and the successfull rebellion in Nicaragua would create many similar states in central America spreading the communist scourge all over the world. Therefore it was important to sell the idea that you where fighting the Soviets, when in fact it was democracies pursuing national interests that where being crushed to ensure the safeguarding of access to resources. The Soviets have now been replaced by narco trafficers, Al-qaeda or just terrorists in general. These have all become legitimate excuses for interventions and "democracy promotion", the latest example of course being Iraq. As the pipe dream of weapons of mass destruction became apparent, the high flying ideal of democracy promotion was put forward by the Bush II administration. This would surley lead to a democratization of the whole region. The truth is that it has had quite the contraty effect, actually it has promoted the spread of terrorism in the region. This was now turned into an "idealistic war" based on Americas "messianic mission" to bring democracy to the middle east.

Britain created modern day Iraq to ensure control over its oil resources after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after world war 1. The Iraqi wealth remained in the hands of a few wealthy landowners, sheiks and of course the British. Their colonial rule and its brutally repressive society lasted up until 1958 when Abdul Karim Kasim overthrew the British colonial rulers. Both the British and the Americans reacted immediatley fearing the Qasims actions would spread like a virus among other Arab states in the region. It had to be stopped and president Eisenhower went as far as to say that Qasim was trying to "get control of the middle east oil to get the income and the power to destroy the western world". Of course this virus had to be stopped and in 1963 the CIA under the Kennedy administration organized a regime change in Iraq, in collaboration with a young Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. The CIA provided the Baath party with lists of suspected Communists and leftists and the slaughter began. National security council staffer Roger Morris writes about this time saying "The Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraqs educated elite" including "hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures."

Americas actions during the Reagan administration in El Salvador during the 1980s became a model for Iraq. Here the administration saw to it that "technically credible elections" where held but that the Christian democratic candidate won. The administration "could not concieve of an El Salvador in which the military was not the dominant actor, the economic elite no longer held the national economy in its hand" ..."the US government had no real conception of democracy in El Salvador." As the "democracy promotion" commenced in El Salvador the state sponsored terror expanded within the country, all the while supported by Washington. The opposition was slaughtered in the 10s of thousands, the independent press was completley destroyed, and torture, rape and other atrocities where rampantly commited by government sanctioned death squads. In the words of the (surviving) jesuit priests of the country "alternatives that differ from those of the powerfull" didnt stand a chance.

John Negroponte is serving in the current Bush administration in charge of counterterrorism. He worked as ambassador to Honduras during the 1980s. Here he was also in charge of, at the time, the worlds largest CIA station. Negroponte "was essentially managerially in charge of the Contra war in an extraordinary way for a diplomat". Negroponte denied the atrocitiés being commited in Honduras so as to assure that the military aid kept flowing to the international terrorist operations he was running. He was closely associated with General Alvarez who was the chief of the Honduran armed forces, Negroponte praised his "dedication to democracy", the infamous Honduran batallion 3-16 was one of the most brutal and vicious groups of Latin American killers and they where on the CIA payroll.

America has overthrown many democratically elected governments and installed brutal military dictatorships in their place. Some examples include: Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Brazil and a long list of others. All in the name of "democracy promotion". But instead of promoting democracy, democracy has been subverted. Client states have instead been created, designed to serve the privledged elites and creating "favorable interests for her(Americas) private overseas investment". Communism was often used as a cover term for the threat of independant development. So infact the "virus" that has been repeatedly destroyed has been popular democracy.

for more information click here

Who tells the truth?

Noam Chomsky describes two diagramtically opposed faces of his own country; one relating to what its government does and another relating to what his fellow citizens know. In between there is a compliant press that is not good at being impartial. The government of the USA seems to be an oligarchy that leans to the far right and less far right alternately, and the press seems to be its propaganda machine. I am not a communist, not even a socialist. I merely belive in an intrinsic dignity of humanity that needs to be more assertive. While he may not have all the answers, Noam Chomsky helps us ask more questions.

for more information click here

American foreign policy is the pits

Ever since learning about Ron Paul last January, my interest in politics, especially those of the libertarian position, have increased approximately 800%. I considered myself a libertarian a good year before learning about him and his campaign but once I got into his message and delved deeper into the foreign policies of the likes of McCain, Obama, Hillary, and past figures such as Reagan and Bill Clinton, I was revolutionized and cured of any and all political apathy I had. Of course my libertarian views don't just rest on foreign policy, but it is a large part of my concern.

So though I generally do not agree with Noam Chomsky on economics and private property, I understand where he's coming from and I know he means well; I generally agree with the rest of his views, including his foreign policy views which are similar to Ron Paul inasmuch as he views the United States' arrogance with nation-building and intervention as a key problem in the world today. This is actually the first Chomsky book I have read and will not be the last. Presented almost in the manner of an extended thesis paper (quotes and citations are in the thousands in this book), it makes for a stimulated if occasionally dry read as Chomsky begins by dissecting America's interventionist "democracy promoting" policies in Iraq, Vietnam, and elsewhere as well as our supreme hypocrisy with propping up brutal regimes in places such as Indochina and elsewhere. He mentions that as conflicts such as the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia raged, brutal dictators elsewhere were left unscathed, as our economic and resource interests lay abound with the support of many of these brutal regime. Chomsky proves in a very academic sense how few (and possibly none) of our foreign policy intrusions since Woodrow Wilson (and dating back to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson) have been for much more than empire-building, resource claiming, and the removal and/or propping-up of dictators who are against our interests (in the former's case) and who will be an aid to our interests (in the latter).

Though I found Chomsky to be somewhat of a dry writer (like I said, the book assumes you have a vast knowledge of American foreign policy history past and present), he is brilliant. When I say dry I mean that it is very clinical and not written in a way that might grab the average reader, but for readers like myself with an attention span and an interest in the subject it is a blast to read. I found myself marking pages and highlighting a lot so I could go back and do further research upon completion.

In short, this is an excellent read for anyone curious about America's disastrous and insanely hypocritical and arrogant policies towards our fellow nations. Neocon republicans (and some Democrats who worship the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) will be brought to rage by its brutal honesty, but in the end will not be able to intelligently refute any of it. Highly recommended.

for more information click here

Bitter Bias

This is the first time I have felt compelled to write a review. Perhaps I need to read earlier books, but Failed States seems extremely biased, lacking focus, incoherent, and having a weak structure. I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions in it, but I find the presentation of his ideas inadequate toward convincing a non-biased audience.

The book throws facts, figures, and data at you at an impressive rate, but doesn't try to build that information into a convincing whole. The authors obvious familiarity with the topics matters little when an unbiased reader is confused by his casual references and statements of fact with minimal support. Information without structure and context is very suspect. In particular, his claims of what the American people really want seemed to be casually talked about.

Even so I enjoyed reading criticism of American foreign policy. Concerning that criticism, the author doesn't offer a foil by comparing it to those Failed States that the US is being compared to. Nor, despite the authors claims to the contrary, does he really offer much advice upon specific changes. I believe he thinks changes needed are evident by what he chooses to attack. They weren't obvious to me besides "Stop doing the horrible things I am telling you about." That isn't telling anyone what they should be doing instead.

I'm a bit curious if the authors believes he is influencing open-minded people with the book. Obvious bias weakens credability. I am forced to hazard the guess that this is simply written for those who already agree with his stances.

for more information click here