9 ms·

Noam Chomsky: American Power Under Challenge

119 points by chishaku 10y ago

x5n1 10y ago
Good unilateralism is a stupid idea. May they all succeed and distribute power far and wide.
- littletimmy 10y ago
  There is strong evidence to suggest that without the hegemony of the United States, there will be more war in the world. There will certainly be more war in the Middle East (Iran vs Saudi Arabia, Israel vs Arab World), more war in Eastern Europe (Putin expanding into Crimea), more war in the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan is unstable), and so on. Is that the sort of world you want?
  - x5n1 10y ago
    Strong evidence where written by whom? Do I want more war, no I don't. But I also don't support hegemony. Most of Islamic fundamentalism would not be possible with the Saudis and the Saudis would not be possible without the US. Israel would have to make better peace with its neighbors without the backing of the superpower. Pakistan would probably be less fundamentalist had it not been for the 70s CIA plots to fund Jihadism in Afgahnistan. America is the only big player on the board, it can make all sorts of justifications for its political moves. And there is no way of knowing what the world would look like without them. Only rhetoric and theory. What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet and quit being America's puppet. The same goes for pretty much everyone in the world. It is not good to rely on anyone else to represent your people and your economic interests in the world. Trusting other people's leadership is not a smart move, it keeps you incompetent. edit: replying to the comment below. So your point is that there is only enough room in the world for one ultra-national anti-internationalist country and the US is it. The end state of the game is when there is no such country in the world. That includes the US.
    - emblem21 10y ago
      > "Strong evidence where written by whom?" > "What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet" Advocating ultra-nationalist, anti-internationalist policies is, precisely, what leads to the mass conflict the grandparent was talking about.
      - tremon 10y ago
        Europe is not a nation. Arguing for Europe to stand up is very much internationalist.
        emblem21 10y ago
        Stand up against whom?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        krapp 10y ago
        The United States, obviously. The US is still occupying Europe with hundreds of military bases, it supports and funds terrorist groups and drug cartels, it undermines democratic governments and threatens the security of Europe's people through NSA and CIA sabotage. There's no reason for the US to maintain the overwhelming global military presence that it does, particularly in Europe. World War 2 is over, and the US will never actually go to war with an enemy like Iran, Russia or China, or any country that might actually pose a legitimate threat to global security, so why keep up the pretense of being the "world's policeman?"
        emblem21 10y ago
        So you're saying Europe should self-identify as an organization of humans capable of their own autocracy and then use that self-determination to establish their own military assets, which would destabilize global security as yet another non-hegemonic nuclear player enters the space? I stand by my original comment.
  - berntb 10y ago
    And then we have the example worse than even Russia -- China taking over the natural resources close to them. (Well, hopefully just in countries close to them.) If Yellowstone had a giant outbreak tomorrow and made USA busy with internal affairs for a few generations, this would almost certainly be much more common, quickly. Chomsky might argue that there is not a big difference between democracies and dictatorships (at least -- he seems to criticize democracies a few orders of magnitude more than the dictators?) -- but the democratic peace theory don't agree.
JonathanMoirth 10y ago
From the number of comments commited so far, I realise that Americans don't want to touch the subject because it hurts. Noam's book should be read along with all the articles written by Paul Graig Roberts. In the end, the average American will realize that she/he complicit to the warmongering attitude of the United States and how it treats the entire world with 1000+ military bases around the world "spreading freedom". If you ask where the word complicit fits in, then look no further to the average American not voting or voting for politicians who have committed crimes against humanity (Clintons, Bush, Kerry etc) or the ones who will eventually commit (Trump) Good night America.
- mkaziz 10y ago
  It's easy to forget sometimes that our leaders are still humans. Bill Clinton was as human as Saddam Hussein - the only difference is that the US has strong institutions to check the powers of its human leaders, so Bill never became a Saddam. People like Donald Trump rise when when those institutions are rattled either internally (the GOP sold itself to hurt Obama) or externally (9/11 rattled the national apparatus and consciousness so much that the Iraq war was greenlighted, despite the tenuous link there). The key is to focus on the institutions. As long as the institutions remain strong, we may be able to weather the occasional rogue leader.
  - jbattle 10y ago
    I'm often struck how long the roman empire was able to continue operating even with terrible emperors at the helm for years or even decades. You almost get the sense that a Augustus or Trajan or Justinian was able to refill some deep well of energy / tradition / momentum in the bureaucracy that was then able to sustain itself through long decades of indifference or mismanagement. The time scales are mind-boggling compared to our typical 4/8 year perspective.
    - manopeace 10y ago
      Things change more rapidly now a days.
    - 10y ago
mineshaftgap 10y ago
You have to kind of feel bad for Chumsky, he wishes so bad for America's demise that he has to fluff up China and Russia, while completely ignoring the fact that the West is far better off with the US in charge. Utter chaos and death would be the reward for listening to his hate.
polshaw 10y ago
.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  It's a combination of flagging and flame war detection. While I'm participating here, politics really aren't a good fit for this forum. The discussions tend to get too heated to be productive and brings out the worst in people.
stcredzero 10y ago
Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. Expanding into the vastness of central Asia is a raw deal, historically. It's much too hard to secure borders, so security becomes a huge drain on resources. China would probably do better to increase trade with its neighbors, and lose some of its identity to a regional economic association. If China's trade routes become the mutual interest of her neighbors, being ringed by powerful neighbors goes from a detriment to an advantage. The U.S. is suffering under the burden of maintaining overwhelming military superiority. The British Empire mortgaged world domination for help in WWI, then defaulted to the US for WWII and gave up many of her global network of naval bases to the US. The 1st half of the 20th century bankrupted the British Empire. Now the latter half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st will be seen as the same process happening to the U.S.

119 points by chishaku 10y ago

x5n1 10y ago

Good unilateralism is a stupid idea. May they all succeed and distribute power far and wide.

littletimmy 10y ago
There is strong evidence to suggest that without the hegemony of the United States, there will be more war in the world. There will certainly be more war in the Middle East (Iran vs Saudi Arabia, Israel vs Arab World), more war in Eastern Europe (Putin expanding into Crimea), more war in the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan is unstable), and so on. Is that the sort of world you want?
- x5n1 10y ago
  Strong evidence where written by whom? Do I want more war, no I don't. But I also don't support hegemony. Most of Islamic fundamentalism would not be possible with the Saudis and the Saudis would not be possible without the US. Israel would have to make better peace with its neighbors without the backing of the superpower. Pakistan would probably be less fundamentalist had it not been for the 70s CIA plots to fund Jihadism in Afgahnistan. America is the only big player on the board, it can make all sorts of justifications for its political moves. And there is no way of knowing what the world would look like without them. Only rhetoric and theory. What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet and quit being America's puppet. The same goes for pretty much everyone in the world. It is not good to rely on anyone else to represent your people and your economic interests in the world. Trusting other people's leadership is not a smart move, it keeps you incompetent. edit: replying to the comment below. So your point is that there is only enough room in the world for one ultra-national anti-internationalist country and the US is it. The end state of the game is when there is no such country in the world. That includes the US.
  - emblem21 10y ago
    > "Strong evidence where written by whom?" > "What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet" Advocating ultra-nationalist, anti-internationalist policies is, precisely, what leads to the mass conflict the grandparent was talking about.
    - tremon 10y ago
      Europe is not a nation. Arguing for Europe to stand up is very much internationalist.
      - emblem21 10y ago
        Stand up against whom?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        krapp 10y ago
        The United States, obviously. The US is still occupying Europe with hundreds of military bases, it supports and funds terrorist groups and drug cartels, it undermines democratic governments and threatens the security of Europe's people through NSA and CIA sabotage. There's no reason for the US to maintain the overwhelming global military presence that it does, particularly in Europe. World War 2 is over, and the US will never actually go to war with an enemy like Iran, Russia or China, or any country that might actually pose a legitimate threat to global security, so why keep up the pretense of being the "world's policeman?"
        emblem21 10y ago
        So you're saying Europe should self-identify as an organization of humans capable of their own autocracy and then use that self-determination to establish their own military assets, which would destabilize global security as yet another non-hegemonic nuclear player enters the space? I stand by my original comment.
- berntb 10y ago
  And then we have the example worse than even Russia -- China taking over the natural resources close to them. (Well, hopefully just in countries close to them.) If Yellowstone had a giant outbreak tomorrow and made USA busy with internal affairs for a few generations, this would almost certainly be much more common, quickly. Chomsky might argue that there is not a big difference between democracies and dictatorships (at least -- he seems to criticize democracies a few orders of magnitude more than the dictators?) -- but the democratic peace theory don't agree.

JonathanMoirth 10y ago

From the number of comments commited so far, I realise that Americans don't want to touch the subject because it hurts. Noam's book should be read along with all the articles written by Paul Graig Roberts. In the end, the average American will realize that she/he complicit to the warmongering attitude of the United States and how it treats the entire world with 1000+ military bases around the world "spreading freedom". If you ask where the word complicit fits in, then look no further to the average American not voting or voting for politicians who have committed crimes against humanity (Clintons, Bush, Kerry etc) or the ones who will eventually commit (Trump) Good night America.

mkaziz 10y ago
It's easy to forget sometimes that our leaders are still humans. Bill Clinton was as human as Saddam Hussein - the only difference is that the US has strong institutions to check the powers of its human leaders, so Bill never became a Saddam. People like Donald Trump rise when when those institutions are rattled either internally (the GOP sold itself to hurt Obama) or externally (9/11 rattled the national apparatus and consciousness so much that the Iraq war was greenlighted, despite the tenuous link there). The key is to focus on the institutions. As long as the institutions remain strong, we may be able to weather the occasional rogue leader.
- jbattle 10y ago
  I'm often struck how long the roman empire was able to continue operating even with terrible emperors at the helm for years or even decades. You almost get the sense that a Augustus or Trajan or Justinian was able to refill some deep well of energy / tradition / momentum in the bureaucracy that was then able to sustain itself through long decades of indifference or mismanagement. The time scales are mind-boggling compared to our typical 4/8 year perspective.
  - manopeace 10y ago
    Things change more rapidly now a days.
  - 10y ago

mineshaftgap 10y ago

You have to kind of feel bad for Chumsky, he wishes so bad for America's demise that he has to fluff up China and Russia, while completely ignoring the fact that the West is far better off with the US in charge. Utter chaos and death would be the reward for listening to his hate.

polshaw 10y ago

Jtsummers 10y ago
It's a combination of flagging and flame war detection. While I'm participating here, politics really aren't a good fit for this forum. The discussions tend to get too heated to be productive and brings out the worst in people.

stcredzero 10y ago

Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. Expanding into the vastness of central Asia is a raw deal, historically. It's much too hard to secure borders, so security becomes a huge drain on resources. China would probably do better to increase trade with its neighbors, and lose some of its identity to a regional economic association. If China's trade routes become the mutual interest of her neighbors, being ringed by powerful neighbors goes from a detriment to an advantage. The U.S. is suffering under the burden of maintaining overwhelming military superiority. The British Empire mortgaged world domination for help in WWI, then defaulted to the US for WWII and gave up many of her global network of naval bases to the US. The 1st half of the 20th century bankrupted the British Empire. Now the latter half of the 20th century and the first part of the 21st will be seen as the same process happening to the U.S.