Chomsky: Reply to Casey

[Luke Weiger]

> Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >What puzzles me about this whole discussion--not just with Leo, but
> >also with Hitch--is the narrow focus on a single analogy. Chomsky's
> >general point, that US foreign policy regularly involves actions
> >that cause more deaths than and have as little justification as the
> >attacks of 9/11, is surely hard to dispute, and I can't imagine
> >either Hitch, even the new Hitch, or Leo disputing this.
>
> Leo repeatedly refuses to address this point - here, there, and
> everywhere he's been propagandizing at tireless (and tiresome) length.
>
> Doug

It's not so very difficult to understand: this is the parallel that Chomsky
himself drew, and I believe he did so to insinuate that even a limited
employment of force by the US to weaken bin Laden would (as in Sudan) cause
more damage in the future than it could possibly prevent.

Frankly, I'm a bit more puzzled by the inability of others to recognize that
not all interventions are equally horrible.  Special forces operations to
destroy bin Laden's networks may be ultimately counterproductive (although
that's far from certain), but they're unlikely to inflict many civilian
casualties.  Even an effort to oust the Taliban needn't be a war against the
people of Afghanistan, for they and not the US are the party that has
incurred the most suffering at the hands of that wretched regime.  On the
other hand, we ought to worry about the prospect of a war against multiple
states akin to the one Wolfowitz and others have called for.

A query for those who advocate bringing bin Laden and co to trial (as I
would if I thought it possible): who's going to bring him into the UN's
custody?  Do you think that he'll willingly turn himself in?

-- Luke