Chomsky asks three questions:
(1) who is responsible?
(2) what are the reasons?
(3) what is the proper reaction?
(4) what are the longer term consequences?
in response to (1) he accepts the CIA analysis –
‘that the guilty parties were Bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda network’
Chomsky says no one knows more about them than CIA.
Chomsky goes on to mention the attack on the World Trade Centre and that the ‘FBI director Robert Mueller testifying to Congress could only say that U.S. intelligence now ‘believes’ the plot was hatched in Afghanistan though planned and implemented elsewhere’
he goes on -
‘And long after the source of the anthrax attack was localized to U.S. government laboratories, it has still not been identified’
his conclusion is that ‘despite the thin evidence the initial conclusion about 9-11 is presumably correct’
thin evidence?
Chomsky notes the evidence has been ‘hard to find’
none of the perpetrators or material witnesses survived the attacks and no useful forensic evidence survived
so my question is – what evidence?
the CIA argument is speculation
it is a case of finding a criminal to fit the crime – in the absence of any direct evidence
the argument seems to be –
Al- Qaeda ‘attempted to blow up the World Trade Centre and many other targets in a highly ambitious campaign in 1993’
therefore
Al-Qaeda is responsible for the atrocities of 9-11
this is not a valid argument and as Chomsky notes the FBI cannot endorse the first premise
the conclusion may well be true but as far as I know to date there is no direct evidence for it
the U.S. government set up Guantánamo Bay prison – with the intention of obtaining ‘intelligence’ and ‘evidence’ in relation to 9-11 and the activities of Al-Qaeda – from all reports it is a torture chamber – and any information obtained would have no value in an independent court of law
if you accept the Chomsky-CIA argument as indeed most everyone has - then you can go on to (2) – why?
what were the reasons for the attack by Al-Qaeda?
Chomsky says –
‘Turning to (2), scholarship is virtually unanimous in taking the terrorists seriously at their word, which matches their deeds for the past twenty years: their goal, in their terms, is to drive the infidels from Muslim lands, to overthrow the corrupt governments they impose and sustain, and to institute an extremist version of Islam’
this is an argument based on the authority of scholarship
he also notes that Eisenhower and his staff discussed ‘the campaign of hatred against us’ in the Arab world ‘not by the governments but by the people’
the National Security Council advised that the basic reason is that the U.S supports corrupt and brutal governments that block democracy and development in order ‘to protect its interests in Near East oil’
this may well be a correct answer to George Bush’s question “Why do the hate us?’
and if you accept the argument of (1) then it could well be a reason for the atrocity of 9/11
but the question really needs to be asked – from this so called Arab point of view - how did the attacks of 9-11 advance their cause against the U.S.?
it was a hit – and in that sense a successful attack on America – but what were the consequences in terms of the above reasons?
as a result Bin Laden it would seem is no closer to expelling the infidels in Saudi Arabia and assuming power in that region
if anything the effect of 9-11 on the Muslim world has been catastrophic
the U.S. response was to wage a war of terror on Afghanistan and Iraq – which resulted in the mass murder of Muslims and the destruction of their societies and cultures
my point is if you accept the Chomsky-CIA argument that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9-11 and further that it acted for the reasons given by Eishenhower’s National Security Council –
then at the very least you would have to conclude Al-Qaeda failed
this of course assumes that the attack on the US was designed to weaken the US position in Muslim lands
and it also assumes that the 9-11 attack was in some sense rational – that at the very least it was motivated by some goal beyond just mass murder and destruction
political leaders are adept at using religious groups for their own political purposes –
it has been claimed i.e. that George Bush used the Christian right to gain power
has anyone considered the possibility that Bin Laden has done the same kind of job on the Muslims – that is used them for his own purposes?
and as to what they might be – let me just say be careful not to automatically assume that his reasons are or were rational
and I hasten to add the same warning applies to any assessment of the actions of Bush and his gangsters
now to (3)
from an epistemological point of view the question is – in the absence of any hard evidence and in the absence of an independent judicial process what is the proper response to the atrocity of 9-11
first up it needs to be made clear that it has never seriously been put that on 9-11 the U.S. was attacked by a nation state
from the outset – the money was on Al-Qaeda
it is my recollection that in response to the claim by the Bush administration that Bin Laden and his gang were in Afghanistan – the Taliban government said they would hand him over but only to an international court
the U.S. rejected this proposal
not long after they attacked
the successful overthrow of the Taliban and the failure to capture Bin Laden was followed by another attack on a nation state – Iraq
we need not go into all the lies and slide shows that precipitated this war
the point is that as with Afghanistan – if you accept the Chomsky-CIA argument it was the wrong target
it was not only the wrong target – it was the wrong type of target
9-11 – on the Chomsky-CIA argument was not an attack by a nation state on a nation state
it was rather an attack by a terrorist group on the U.S.
the Americans got it wrong – in terms of their own argument
their response was illogical
Chomsky argues
‘What about the proper reaction, question (3)? The answers are doubtless contentious, but at least the reaction should meet the most elementary moral standards: specifically, if an action is right for us, it is right for others; and if wrong for others, it is wrong for us’
the argument is – what’s right for me is right for you – what’s wrong for me is wrong for you –
if you accept that then the converse is true –
what’s right for you is right for me – what’s wrong for you is wrong for me
OK let us say from the point of the view of the perpetrators it was right to attack the U.S. and cause the destruction of innocent lives
there were people in the Bush administration that believed the U.S. was therefore licensed to attack and cause the destruction of innocent lives
what’s right for them is right for us
presumably the perpetrators were of the opinion that to do nothing was wrong – hence 9/11
was the Bush administration therefore justified in taking the same view?
in terms of the principle Chomsky enunciated above the answer it seems is ‘yes’
Chomsky does not put forward a definition of what is right – what is wrong
and surely this is the most important of issues – it is left open
fill in the blanks –
what you believe is right – is what is right for others – and what you believe is wrong is wrong for others
the perpetrators of 9-11 would most likely fully endorse that view
and the Bush administration would not be troubled by it either
Chomsky’s principle has no moral content -
so what should have been the proper response?
this was the very real dilemma facing President Bush
now you may not agree with or support what turned out to be his response – but I don’t think anyone would doubt he faced an almost impossible moral dilemma
no response was not an option
but what is the correct response?
my reading of Bush immediately after 9-11 was that he faced this issue head on – and was not just concerned with a response – but indeed with the proper response
I really felt for him during that period
however he is not the first person to be in this dilemma –
a wrong has been committed – and there is no clear evidence as to who the criminals are or where they are
ordinary citizens fall back on a system of justice – with the knowledge that even if it functions correctly and due process occurs – there is no guarantee that they will get satisfaction
as a matter of definition they get justice – but in the case of murder for instance – even if there is a just conviction and sentence – the loved one’s of the victim will never have retribution – it is not possible
and as they say if you want revenge – dig two graves
what I am getting at here is that the proper response to crime is a legal response
now in the case of a nation state – how is this possible?
what is clear is that it is only possible if a nation state that has been wronged is prepared to submit to an international court of law
now to cut to the quick – as far as I know there was no international court and international force that would have been able to address the atrocity of 9/11
yes we have war crime tribunals and United Nations courts of arbitration - but really no international justice system to deal with a terrorist attack on a nation state
at the very least it seems to me that the U.S. should have moved to establish a legal framework that was designed to deal with such crimes
there is no doubt in my mind that had this been the response of the Bush administration – they would have received enormous if not unanimous support from the nations of the world
and I am pretty sure there would have been an out pouring of resources – and an international determination to right the wrong and to achieve justice
an international justice framework for dealing with terrorism was lacking then and it still is - and everyone everywhere is less secure because of this fact
now to (5) what are the longer term consequences?
let us be perfectly clear – the 9-11 attacks were attacks on the U.S.
decent people all over the world felt for America and its citizens on that day
and there was no doubt in their minds that the perpetrators of the crimes should be brought to justice
America had more allies on that day than they have ever had
and then George Bush put the proposition “you are either with us or against us”
it was just then that they lost the argument
there was absolutely no need to play the stand over man – to do the strong arm
and furthermore one of the assumptions of his threat was that the attack on the U.S. was an attack on ‘all freedom loving people’
his argument was that 9-11 was not just an attack on the US – but rather an attack on all countries and governments that were not pro-terror
so from the word go Bush misrepresented the fact
the attack was an attack on America – no one else was attacked on 9-11
and either out of fear of the U.S. or the belief that God was on their side countries lined up – to fight the good fight
and this of course meant that those in the ‘coalition of the willing’ had to sell the misrepresentation to their citizens
I am assuming here of course that collaborators like Blair and Howard actually realised that they were being conned – and then passed it on
this may not have been the case – it is possible that they were just stupid
the result though was atrocities being perpetrated on innocents in the name of freedom and democracy
that is the systematic commission of war crimes
the question though is what will be the long term consequences of 9-11?
Chomsky concludes –
‘the basic issues of international society seem to me to remain such as they were, but 9-11 surely has induced changes, in some cases, with significant and not very attractive implications’
what is clear is that the U.S. is weakened – not by the attack of 9-11
but by the lies it told post 9-11
there was no need to lie –
and the fact of the lies being told was a sign of the moral weakness of the U.S. government - the governments that fell in with them – and the governments that remained silent
one result of this is that the moral authority of government has been eroded
when people question the truth of their governments they question the truth of government
© greg. t. charlton. 2009.
