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 | The day(s) the music died in America

books:

Failed States: The...

	Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy Noam Chomsky Metropolitan Books, 2006 - 314 pages average customer review:based on 93 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

The world’s foremost critic of U.S. foreign policy exposes the hollow promises of democracy in American actions abroad—and at home

The United States has repeatedly asserted its right to intervene against “failed states” around the globe. In this much anticipated sequel to his international bestseller Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky turns the tables, charging the United States with being a “failed state,” and thus a danger to its own people and the world.

“Failed states” Chomsky writes, are those “that do not protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction, that regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and that suffer from a ‘democratic deficit,’ having democratic forms but with limited substance.” Exploring recent U.S. foreign and domestic policies, Chomsky assesses Washington’s escalation of the nuclear risk; the dangerous consequences of the occupation of Iraq; and America’s self-exemption from international law. He also examines an American electoral system that frustrates genuine political alternatives, thus 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, and its policies and practices have recklessly placed the world on the brink of disaster. Systematically dismantling America’s claim to being the world’s arbiter of democracy, Failed States is Chomsky’s most focused—and urgent—critique to date.

for more information click here

outstanding

so, i'm writing a review of a book by noam chomsky? presumptuous of me ... well, failed states summarizes chomsky's beliefs regarding failures of our democracy, mostly international but a few domestic failings as well. one gets the distinct feeling that he writes not just with facts at his fingertips, but with great passion about the topic. while he presents a strongly cynical perspective of our political system, it seems that chomsky holds great respect for the original principles of democracy espoused in the constitution. i did not find one grammatical or typographical error. i found one logical error in which he incorrectly made a conclusion based on incorrect statistical methodology. overall, this is another brilliant work by one of the true geniuses in this area. i hope that more people read this work and are driven to assume democratic action. we'll see ... at any rate, this book is worth twice the "new" price, at least. excellent resource and excellent motivational book.

for more information click here

The day(s) the music died in America

By any modern definition of a "failed state" we are it. That's the take-away message from Chomsky's clear-eyed look at turn-of-the-21st Century America. If you don't read Chomsky the chances are good that you don't understand politics in this country or the world. It isn't necessary to agree with him to come away profoundly stirred by his incisive analysis. And if he's right, we're in very deep trouble.

I read this book when it was first released, almost two years ago, and I have seen nothing on the national or international level to make me think that Chomsky is even a little bit wrong.

We're in very deep trouble. But at least, through thinkers like this author, we can gain some insight about why the dream failed.

for more information click here

Very good analysis of the catastrophic U.S. foreign policy

This is my first Chomsky book. It is quite clear he is an academic and able to say the same thing in different ways (at least through out the first half of the book) but the context is nevertheless good and important- as a nation, we are "bullies" and it is ok for us to break laws but not for everyone else. He gives specific examples like treaties that have been violated and UN resolutions that we vetoed and violated too in order to protect and pursue our national security interests. And given the new generation of politicians- neoliberals and neoconservatives- it is nothing new when it comes to the Iraq War- It's all in the name of national security. We really don't care about democracy in the Middle East only that our thirst for oil is met.

The second part of the the book he clarifies the context and the meaning of the failed states. He delineates several examples after World War II in which we meddled into foreign country affairs and created "failed states"- from countries in Central America, South America, and the Middle East. Now because of our corrupt, immoral, and greedy influence, we are now more than ever looking like a failed state.

I thought he made several very good points but it was nothing new to me given that I have already read various books relating to U.S. foreign policy already. The only criticism I had was that it seemed redundant at times. Overall though, very good and recommended.

for more information click here

Very good book

As a young girl and friend of mine who read all Chomsky's works said about Failed States: "I listened to Rush in my childhood and the song "Manhattan Project" tells us all you need to know about the topic in a much more funny, talented and concise way". She doesn't like reading, but she loves Chomsky's works, even though she's the most critical admirer of him that I know of. She doesn't belong in the anti-chomsky league, so I decided to take her argument seriously.

I guess she's right in one aspect: Rush's song addresses the gist of the book which is basically the threat to our species and the world we live in. But she's wrong, fundamentally wrong in all others: Chomsky doesn't claim to be breaking any new ground. In fact, he starts off by quoting Einstein and Russell's joint statement about the very same issue. Furthermore, he points out which are the threats to the world and our species in the context of the current international picture, hardly a pretty one.

His main concerns are:

* The effort by the present U.S administration to escalate their nuclear program in violation of the NPT and in a clear attempt to blur the distinction between "conventional" and "non-conventional" weaponry.

* The failure by the U.S government to comply with international law. His argument is more nuanced here: it's dangerous for the U.S not to comply with international law because it is a tremendously powerful state whose violations thereof might yield dreadful consequences.

* The dreadful consequences of U.S foreign policy for a whole range of countries - from Nicaragua and El-Salvador in Latin America to Iraq.

* The huge harm done to Iraq all through the sanctions period is enough to disqualify the Western Powers of doing any kind of intervention in the region. I guess his argument is unassaiable here: when the very people appointed to carry out the program resign in face of its disastrous impact on the Iraq society, I think the West, and not only the U.S, have a lot of soul-searching to do.

* As strange as it may seem to the reader, the war on Iraq is actually not the focus of the book. He just points out to Augustus Richard Norton authorative accounts of the invasion to demonstrate not only that the strategy, but the very goals of the war were flawed and unjustifiable legally or morally: people were lied into supporting a war and I guess that's not controversial anymore.

* I have some reservations about the final chapters on the relations between Iran, China, Cuba and Venezuela. I don't know if that's a hope, as Chomsky appears to present it, or a real threat, especially to Latin American countries: both Cuba and Venezuela are presided over by a very particular kind of leadership which is specific to Latin America in some aspects. It's a kind of leadership which emerged from the military and fought against U.S interests in Latin America in a confrontational, violent way, which was understandable at the time, but it doesn't fit the needs of our region now. These needs are primarily the consolidation of democratic institutions and a more liberal - in the 18th sense - democratic culture as the region already experienced ditactorial regimes in the recent years and many people expect a new kind of approach to politics that in a certain way is already an old approach in history. Chávez' attempt at coup d'etat and the very substance of the Constitutional reforms he proposed throw a shadow over his democratic credentials. "Socialismo moreno", as it is known in Latin America: it's the same old authoritarian kind of rule but whose legitimacy rests on the declaration of sincere, good intentions regarding poor and needy people and is often attended by some limited social programs to give some substance to the official statements. Things tend to go astray because a powerful ruling party and its leader begin to feel confident enough to wield power in such a way as to dispense with what people really want or need: people lose a legitimate and meaningful way of expressing their concerns and needs.

* As to Iran, I'm skeptical. The country is so far away from anything I'd call "democracy" that it's hard to see any benefit emerging from its alliance with other authoritatian governments.

* Chomsky is right that it'd be probably a good thing for the U.S and the world if the U.S began to put some restraints on the extent to which it wants to wield its power. People see the U.S as a threat and, what's worse for the U.S, I guess American citizens themselves are beginning to feel this threat.

* A huge chunk of the book is given over to the Israel-Palestine conflict and there's a helpful map to understand what's going on in the region. Chomsky's basic argument, and my friend says it's been his argument for decades, is that Israel should follow the international consensus and completely withdraw its troops and, if feasible, its settlements from the West Bank; that it should abide by the World Court decision regardless of its jurisdiction over Israel because it just reflects what's already embodied in international law. The wall, of course, should be dismantled. He claims that Palestine was divided basically into three enclaves cut off from each other and from the center of Muslim cultural and social life: Jerusalem.

* There are no critics either of Hamas or Hizbollah. He's only concerned about Israel's policy over the region because it is the occupying power, in his view, and supported by the U.S.

* He quotes Sarah Roy to the effect that Gaza is being torn apart by the Israeli policies and that the withdrawal of the settlements resulted in a siege of the region which is leading its population to the brink of extermination: hunger, disease, violence and the destruction of the region's infra-structure and possibilites of economic development are likelly to inflict much more harm that's already been done to the people in Gaza, he argues.

* Chomsky is worried about the programs to militarize the space, and hence the increasing threat of a major war or a dreadful preemptive attack carried out in a matter of minutes. This military power would also serve as a deterrent apt to allow the U.S to carry on its destructive foreign policy, he argues.

* Chomsky also talks about environmental threats and an eventual interruption of the thermohaline circulation.

It's basically a good book and a very thoughtful introduction to international politics in today's world. My main critiques are over the signs of hope detected by Chomsky and which I regard as threats, major threats, and not sings of hope, for peace and democracy.

for more information click here

Regular Chomsky Polemic

If you are a fan of Noam Chomsky and familiar with his views, ideas and past writings, then there is nothing new to be found in this book. While the title provides a background theme, it's barely connected in a cohesive way to its content. But then again, that's most of Chomsky's books.

Of course if you are not familiar with Chomsky's work of the past, including his views, then this will be a new material, unfortunately lacking in depth. Hence, most new readers are unlikely to be convinced by this latest polemic.

Chomsky dedicates most of the book going through his regular mantra, from Vietnam War, US terrorism against Cuba under Kennedy, Reagan's war on terror in Central America, Bush's and Clinton's subversion of Haiti, Persian Gulf War, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, current Iraq War and the possibility of Iran War. That's of course nothing new given nearly identical sentiments expressed in all of his previous works, including "Hegemony or Survival". What's perhaps slightly original is what he discusses towards the end of the book: America's democracy. He makes a rather brief but convincing case that our democracy is in danger, much as it has been in the past, but with renewed intensity, particularly beginning during the 2000 elections. He discusses the marketing of candidates (which he properly compares to marketing of toothpaste, cars, etc.), public policy vs. public opinion, where there is a major gap, and provides some basic statistics about the falling wages, rising corporate profits and etc.

What's perhaps most unique about this work is the added sense of sharp, sarcastic humor one would expect of a top notch political humorist (Bill Maher, John Stewart come to mind), which provides an amusing side to a book which is supposed to be sad. Sometimes this humor is even hard to follow and detect, but once one accustoms to finding it, it results in an almost outright laughter, not to mention that it arms the reader with a plethora of quotes he/she can use in the future.

Overall, it's a good read to refresh one's memories of America's atrocious foreign policy, which is sad. On the contrary, it's a fun read due to Chomsky's hidden but witty humor. However, don't expect anything new, deep or analytical. This is neither a historical nor a scholarly work.

for more information click here