Noam Chomsky on Syria, China, Capitalism, and Ferguson

On Syria: Every American of every political persuasion should watch this. Now.

from Richard Metzger at Dangerous Minds:

 

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who I personally consider an American hero, has such a common sense worldview that at least something he’s saying here is bound to see you nodding your head in agreement, no matter where along the spectrum your own particular political persuasion falls.

And I don’t even know you.

It doesn’t matter. Whether you think going to war is a bad thing or even if you just want to send that Kenyan-born Muslim back to his homeland of… Hawaii, there’s something for you here. No, really.

It’s telling how the fiercely independent Sanders—he belongs to neither party—relates the same story that we’re hearing over and over again from virtually every teabagger pol as well: Their constituents are NOT happy about the prospects of going to war with a third country in the Middle East. The calls and emails they are receiving are overwhelmingly against attacking Syria (I called my Congresswoman and Senators today, I hope you’ll call your reps, too).

And speaking of the teabaggers, one of them seems to think the proposed Syria attack is a conspiracy to cover up Benghazi, the IRS scandal and distract the public from the implementation of Obamacare. Is hating Obama a legitimate reason not to go to war? Who the fuck cares? Take what we can get! However, it’s this bit from the Bernie Sanders interview comes closest to the reasons why I think this is a bad idea: We have our own troubles at home. Why should Syria’s problems take precedence over America’s own citizens?

“Our Republican friends have made it very clear. They’re not going to ask the wealthy or large corporations to pay more in taxes. They already want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What may well be happening is the cost of this war may be paid for by more kids being thrown off Head Start. Senior citizens being thrown off Meals on Wheels programs. Educational programs being cut. The Republicans would go in that way to pay for this war. That’s clear to me.”

I love the irony of seeing Fox News and the GOP’s most obsessed Obama-hating, war-loving hawks put into a bind this way, but if that’s what it takes to slow, if not stop, the march to war, I’m all for that improbable teabagger/progressive alliance. Republican vote counts in Congress are said to be 10 to 1 against authorizing a strike against Syria. House Democrats are said to be 4 to 1 against military action.

Hell, if the orneriest, most racist GOP congress-critters want to vote against “that Obama’s war,” well god bless ‘em, I say.

 

 

Bonus clip: Rep. Alan Grayson (who I hope runs for President in 2016) on Democracy Now earlier today. (Sign Grayson’s anti-war petition here). The segment with Grayson starts at 10 minutes in:

 

Noam Chomsky Weighs In On Syria Strike

from Huffington Post:

WASHINGTON -- A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval.

"As international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed, along with the credibility of government claims, the administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world," Chomsky told HuffPost in an email.

Chomsky recently traveled to the region to learn more about the Syria crisis, and his comments there led some to believe he was open to military intervention if negotiations failed to produce peace. "I believe you should choose the negotiating track first, and should you fail, then moving to the second option" -- backing the rebels -- "becomes more acceptable," he said.

But his comments to HuffPost indicate that he remains opposed to any military action that came without U.N. approval.

"[T]hat aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime, a very serious one, is quite clear, despite tortured efforts to invoke other crimes as precedents," he added.

Liberals more associated with the establishment than Chomsky, who have nevertheless tended to be critical of the president's foreign policy, cheered his decision to involve Congress as a step away from an increasingly imperial presidency and toward more democratic accountability of war making.

Chomsky upended the field of linguistics with a devastating critique of B.F. Skinner in 1959 that changed the way people think about human cognitive development. He has led a parallel career as a leading anarcho-syndicalist author, historian and activist.