Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 12:22:29 +0200
More of the same
US intellectual and commentator Noam Chomsky explains the likely
consequences of US plans to attack Iraq to Nermeen Al-Mufti
Saturday,20 September, 2014
Q: The enemy of my enemy is my friend: was this US President Barack Obama's
view of the armed Islamist groups in Syria until he lost control of them?
Chomsky: Obama didn't arm the groups directly. He indirectly facilitated
arming from the Gulf states, though the US contribution was apparently not a
major one. And the US never controlled them. The most careful and
knowledgeable analyst of what is happening is [journalist] Patrick Cockburn,
who has pointed out that the US policy is contradictory in supporting the
Iraqi government against the Islamic State (IS) and seeking to undermine the
most potent opposition to it, Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad. The
contradictions run through the whole "war on terror" and help to account for
its catastrophic failures. The US has refused to confront its two allies,
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan was supporting the Taliban, and Saudi
money was financing the jihadi movements while Saudi missionary zeal in
spreading its extremist Wahabi/Salafist doctrines was inspiring them.
Q: The situation in Iraq caused by the Americans has been a moral and
political failure. Why did Obama put aside the Iraq-US Security Agreement at
the beginning of the IS operations? His opposition to former Iraqi prime
minister Nuri Al-Maliki did not give him an excuse. Obama may be trying to
avoid action in Iraq to show the American public the mistakes committed by
the former Bush administration in the country. Could his strategy be to push
American voters towards the Democratic Party?
Chomsky: What "real action" could be carried out that would not make the
situation worse? It is true that public opinion strongly opposes dispatching
ground forces, but the same is true of the foreign policy elites and
regional specialists, with rare exceptions.
Q: The power-sharing policy drawn up by the US for Iraq generated the
ongoing conflicts among the leading political blocs in the country, and has
led to the ongoing corruption and violence. How can the situation be
resolved? US Vice-President Joe Biden, who once said that "Iraq will be one
of the greatest achievements of this administration", has now become the
person working to divide the country. How do you think Iraq can be divided
as long as the Kurds are being supported internationally?
Chomsky: From the beginning of the military occupation, US policy has
encouraged sectarianism. And it goes beyond that. One of the leading
mainstream specialists, former CIA officer Graham Fuller, writes that "I
think the United States is one of the key creators of [ISIS]. The United
States did not plan the formation of ISIS, but its destructive interventions
in the Middle East and the war in Iraq were the basic causes of the birth of
ISIS. You will remember that the starting point of this organisation was to
protest the US invasion of Iraq. In those days it was supported by many
non-Islamist Sunnis as well because of their opposition to Iraq's
occupation." Hitting a fragile system with a sledgehammer is likely to have
unanticipated and very harmful effects. The outcome is even worse than could
have been reasonably predicted.
Q: Do you think the US will agree to let Al-Assad enter the coalition
against the extremists along with Iran?
Chomsky: Unlikely. So far, the US has insisted that Iran be formally
excluded from the anti-IS coalition, though they would surely be a major
contributor. There presumably are informal contacts.
Q: Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah Al-Sisi has stated that solving the
Palestinian-Israeli problem would stop the extremists and the terror. Do you
think he is right?
Chomsky: I haven't seen that statement. But it is not correct. At best,
solving the issue might weaken some of the factors that are inflaming the
jihadi movements.
Q: Will Turkey under the ruling AKP and Recep Tayyip Erdogan join a
coalition against the extremists? Many think that Turkey has become a route
for extremists going to Syria and Iraq.
Chomsky: Until now, Turkey has kept its borders open, a great boon to IS and
other similar factions. It may be that Turkey is now sufficiently concerned
with their extraordinary success to change course.
Q: The Arab Spring has now become the "extremists' spring" as a result of
the violence in the Arab Spring countries. Where are these countries and the
region headed?
Chomsky: Tunisia, which opened the Arab Spring, is doing moderately well.
Egypt has deteriorated to some of its darkest days. Libya is a total wreck,
though it might have had a chance if the imperial triumvirate had not
instantly violated the resolution it had rammed through the UN Security
Council and had adopted the plans put forth by the African Union, which were
simply dismissed. Syria we need not discuss. The Gulf states managed to
repress limited efforts to join the Arab Spring. And of course by now IS has
become a virtual state in large parts of Syria and Iraq, with threats
extending beyond them.
Q: To what extent has Qatar been involved in the extremist operations in
Syria and Iraq?
Chomsky: In Syria, Qatar was funding some of the jihadi groups, as was Saudi
Arabia (though their choices are often opposed). But now they have spread
into Iraq. Saudi influence goes well beyond funding. As I mentioned earlier,
Saudi Arabia has used its vast wealth to promulgate its radical
fundamentalist version of Islam to the entire region. That has played a
considerable role in inflaming extremist doctrines and stimulating efforts
to impose them.
Q: Is there any light at the end of the tunnel created by the American "war
on terror"?
Chomsky: The American "war on terror" was declared by former US president
Ronald Reagan in 1981. Its impact was so catastrophic that it has now been
wiped out of acceptable history. The war that former president George W.
Bush re-declared in 2001, carried forward by Barack Obama, has succeeded in
vastly expanding the jihadi-style terror that was targeted. More of the same
is likely to produce more of the same.
Q: Is there any way aside from war to solve the problem of extremism?
Chomsky: We should bear in mind that the most extreme of the extremists are
the traditional imperial powers. The US-UK invasion of Iraq, apart from its
devastating impact on Iraq, elicited sectarian conflicts that are now
tearing the region to shreds. The imperial sledgehammer has been highly
destructive over the centuries. Dealing with the extremist forces that have
been unleashed in the region, which of course have domestic roots as well,
will be an arduous task and will have to be led within the region itself if
it is to have any chance of success. The populations have legitimate
demands: for peace, freedom, democracy, economic development in the general
interest, basic human rights, and so on. Moves to satisfy these demands are
the only way I know to try to solve the issue.
Q: Could dialogue between the religions be a solution?
Chomsky: It might help, if it was conducted seriously.
More of the same Noam Chomsky
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)