💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › noam-chomsky-gulf-war-pullout.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:57:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Gulf War Pullout Author: Noam Chomsky Date: February 1991 Language: en Topics: Gulf War 1991, US foreign interventions Source: Retrieved on 8th June 2021 from https://chomsky.info/199102__/ Notes: From Z Magazine, February, 1991
To effectively combat war in the Gulf we have to understand its motives.
Bush is seeking to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Possibly he is seeking to
reduce Iraq to rubble. But that is not the whole story.
Hundreds of U.S. bombers are not “storming” Iraq to maintain cheap oil.
(1) The cost of more expensive oil would be much less than the cost of
the military operation. (2) Oil prices have a marked-regulated cap
anyhow. If oil producers raise prices too high for too long, users drift
away which is self-defeating for oil rich countries. (3) Insofar as high
oil prices cause problems to industrialized economies, Europe and Japan
are more vulnerable than the U.S., so relative to these countries higher
oil prices often help our economy at a time of its threatened
dissolution.
Fleets of U.S. helicopters are not “storming” Iraq to honor Kuwait’s
national sovereignty. U.S. history is a near continuous chronicle of
violating other countries’ national sovereignty for even less compelling
reasons than those Saddam Hussein offers to rationalize his militarism.
For example, Kuwait’s oil policies were certainly more damaging to
Iraq’s economy than Panama’s policies were to the U.S. economy. No U.S.
elected official or mainstream media commentator has even hinted that
our invasion of Panama was just as much a violation of national
sovereignty as Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Respect for national
sovereignty is an after-the-fact rationalization of Desert Storm, not a
motive.
U.S. troops are not “storming” Iraq because we fear Hitlerite
expansionism. Iraq is only a local power, not pre-World War II Germany.
Iraq just spent the 1980s failing to conquer Iran despite U.S. support.
The real reason for U.S. opposition to Iraqi occupation of Kuwait is not
to keep oil prices low, but to keep Washington, Wall Street, and their
allies in charge of setting oil prices. We are fighting to maintain and
even enlarge one of our few continuing claims to international economic
clout: control of oil prices. The Bush administration and the New York
Times alike view the Mideast as an extension of Texas. It is “our oil,”
not theirs. The U.S. oil posture is not a sober defense of countries
dependent on oil. It is a greedy offensive that pursues U.S. oil
advantage. Most countries, particularly Third World countries, suffer
horribly for these policies.
But fulfilling our imperial need to control the “oil card” requires only
that Hussein be pushed out of Kuwait. A second question therefore
arises. Why not let diplomacy and sanctions push Hussein out? Why
escalate the war?
The answer is at the heart of understanding the U.S. role in the
so-called “new world order.” George Bush wants Hussein out of Kuwait,
yes. But he does not want UN activism, international sanctions, and
multilateral diplomacy credited with causing withdrawal. From Bush’s
perspective a diplomatic solution would be as bad as Hussein’s
interference in the first place. Diplomatic success would undercut the
efficacy of U.S. military interventionism, now, and well into the
future. And it would add powerful fuel to calls for a “peace dividend”
and conversion here in the U.S.
On the other hand, the early dispatch of hundreds of thousands of U.S.
troops and immense firepower allowed Bush to enter what he undoubtedly
saw as a “win/win” game. If Hussein had withdrawn Bush would have
claimed he did so due to our military threat, thus establishing the
logic of continued military spending to maintain peace. Now, the U.S.
will forcibly annihilate Hussein, again evidencing the necessity for
military might. The goal of our drive to war is to maintain the region’s
effective colonization while re-legitimating militarism. Now Secretary
of Defense Cheney will argue not only for increased conventional
military expenditures, but also for nuclear and star wars expenditures
to forestall future Third World conflicts and/or smash future dictators
who stray from doing our bidding. Desert Storm is, therefore, also a war
against the redistribution of domestic wealth and power than conversion
away from militarism implies. It is a war against Iraq, but also a war
against the poor in our own country.
For years the U.S. has been the biggest economic power and has shared
contested military dominance with the Soviet Union. Now we are alone at
the top of the military heap with the biggest, best, and most numerous
weapons of every conceivable type. Moreover, our economy is losing its
ability to coerce international obedience. The U.S. is climbing down the
ladder of economic influence as U.S. military stature rises without
limit. Big guns and fewer dollars suggest a warfare state hiring out as
the world’s enforcer. Now we fight Exxon’s wars and anyone else’s, as
long as they pay the proper fees, either because they want to or, if
necessary, because we force them to. Have gun will travel. Destination:
a warrior state domestically and internationally.
The first battle over this scenario is unfolding now in the Mideast, as
well as here at home. Will militarism be re- legitimated or will
conversion gain momentum as a policy alternative? To reverse Bush’s war
scenario social movements must explain the underlying forces compelling
Bush’s violence and galvanize the deep-rooted and sustained opposition
needed to stop it.
1. Does the U.S. oppose aggression? No.
opposed to U.S. interests. The U.S. invaded Panama and imposed a puppet
regime still under U.S. control. The world objected so we vetoed two UN
Security Council resolutions.
people, tried to destroy relics of Greek civilization, drove out 200,000
people. That was fine. Turkey is our ally.
capital, and still occupies southern Lebanon. The U.S. vetoed a series
of UN Security Council resolutions to terminate that aggression. Israel
holds on to the occupied territories. It has annexed some of them. Fine.
The U.S. supports Israel.
fine.
slaughter relative to the population since the Holocaust. The U.S. gives
them aid.
the north of Iraq. Fine. After all, the Turks are having problems with
the Kurds too and the Turks are our ally.
troops. Bomb Baghdad.
without ridicule because we have a disciplined intellectual class who
look the other way and/or lie as a matter of course. In the Third World,
however, the claim is seen as ludicrous. People there consider the U.S.
the major violator of the principle that aggression is wrong.
2. Does the U.S. oppose proliferation of super-weapons? No.
offered to destroy his chemical and biological weapons if Israel agreed
to destroy its non-conventional weapons— including its nuclear weapons.
The State Department welcomed Hussein’s offer to destroy his own
arsenal, but rejected the link “to other issues or weapons systems.”
the question why all U.S. aid to Israel is not illegal under 1970s
congressional legislation that bars aid to any country engaged in
clandestine nuclear weapons development.
of State Baker, then Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze
proposed a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East if Iraq withdraws form
Kuwait. Baker gave “qualified support,” the press observed, but
“carefully avoided using the words nuclear-free zone” — for the reason
just noted.
weapons if Israel was also prepared to do so,” Reuters reported. The
offer seems to have passed in silence here. Weapons proliferation for
our allies — including Iraq before August 2 — is fine.
destruction in the region” as part of a negotiated settlement of its
withdrawal from Kuwait evoked no Western support.
3. So what is Bush concerned about? Domination.
energy reserves of the Middle East have to be firmly in the hands of
U.S. energy corporations and trusted U.S. clients like Saudi Arabia’s
elites.
resource, but “so what,” says Bush. The West benefits because Saudi
Arabia, the Emirates, and Qatar are basically sectors of London and New
York. The U.S. government doesn’t care if the Saudi elite administers
oil prices because that’s like having it done on Wall Street.
the resources for domestic purposes. The U.S. opposes that kind of
behavior anywhere in the world. That is why we “destroy cities to save
them.”
strategic power” and “one of the greatest prizes in world history.” So
what if it’s in the Mideast?
we threaten a murderous tyrant’s regime, although Hussein was just as
much a murderous tyrant before August 2, when we supported him because
doing so furthered U.S. interests.
4. Why does Bush oppose negotiations? They might work.
as the way to rule the world, the U.S. wins because it’s way ahead in
force. If diplomacy succeeds, it delegitimates militarism, reduces the
relevance of military might and increases the relevance of diplomacy.
the West Bank. The U.S. supports linkage when it benefits us. But in
this case we’re against linkage, and the reason is not just because
Israel is our ally, but because linkage is a step toward diplomatically
resolving the Gulf and Arab-Israeli crises. The U.S. opposes a
diplomatic settlement of either crisis and therefore certainly opposes a
joint diplomatic settlement of both of them.
just as effective in preventing further Iraqi aggression, he did it to
scuttle negotiations and leave only military might as the arbiter. His
worst nightmare is a negotiated solution that would legitimate the rule
of international law rather than U.S. power.
5. What is the New World Order all about? Same as the old, with an
ominous new wrinkle.
commentator describes the Gulf crisis as a “watershed event in U.S.
international relations,” which will be seen in history as having
“turned the U.S. military into an internationally financed public good.”
In the 1990s, he continues, “there is no realistic alternative [to] the
U.S. military assuming a more explicitly mercenary role than it has
played in the past.”
less delicately: we must exploit our “virtual monopoly in the security
marked…as a lever to gain funds and economic concessions” from Germany
and Japan. The U.S. has “cornered the West’s security marked” and will
therefore be “the world’s rent-a-cops.”
demeaning phrase for a proud, well-trained, well-financed and
well-respected military” and whatever anyone may say, “we should be able
to pound our fists on a few desks” in Japan and Europe, and “extract a
fair price for our considerable services,” demanding that our rivals
“buy our bonds at cheap rates, or keep the dollar propped up, or better
yet, pay cash directly into our Treasury.” “We could change this role”
of enforcer, he concludes, “but with it would go much of our control
over the world economic system.”
6. Why is Bush so eager to wage war? Momentum and preference!
resolution would be military, Bush left himself few options. Either
Hussein would withdraw, with or without concessions, or we would bomb
him out. Bush could not maintain so high a level of force indefinitely
nor withdraw without a resolution of the crisis.
to start a conflagration that could endanger oil supplies, our place in
the Mideast, and international alliances — all things he certainly holds
dear?
that Bush finds desirable. In the “rubble” he wants to “bounce” in
Baghdad, Bush sees a prize worth struggling for.
dividend,” and the elevation of the U.S. to the status of World
Mercenary Police, thus ensuring years more of U.S. international
domination even as our economy flounders. That’s his preferred scenario.
figures fear a serious collapse of the U.S. economy. To push up the
price of oil dramatically and ensure that the super revenues are then
invested in U.S. banks is, they think, one way to avert this collapse.
They do not care if this approach will also mean blood, gore, pain,
retribution, and hate for years to come.
7. What will be the results of war? Rivers of blood.
hundreds of thousands or even a million Arab lives will be lost.
international economic turmoil.
with unknown repercussions. Increased nightmares for Palestinians.
Possible disaster for Israel. Possible ecological devastation.
be reenlarged.
affairs to U.S. mercenary might will proceed.
tolerating outrageous defense appropriations.
policy-makers will continue to oversee vast wealth and unfettered power
— the real motive for U.S. intervention in the first place.
8. Why does the U.S. oppose linkage? Fear of isolation.
settlement of this conflict. The U.S. and Israel have opposed it and
have been isolated in this rejectionism, as numerous lopsided General
Assembly votes (most recently 151–3) indicate.
but remains silent about the terms of the famed Baker plan, whose basic
principles ban an “additional Palestinian state”; bar any “change in the
status of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza other than in accordance with the
basic guidelines of the [Israeli] Government,” preclude any meaningful
Palestinian self-determination; reject negotiations with the PLO, thus
denying Palestinians the right to choose their own political
representation; and call for “free elections” under Israeli military
rule.
George Bush and his predecessors. For this reason, since long before
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait the U.S. has consistently opposed an
international conference on the Middle East.
settlement that the U.S. rejects, since by force they can maintain an
unjust situation. For the same reasons the U.S. has vetoed Security
Council resolutions calling for a political settlement and blocked other
diplomatic initiatives for the past 20 years.
9. Why oppose war in the Gulf? It’s wrong.
expensive. Usually they mean lost stability, lost resources, or
heightened recession. Sometimes they mean lost U.S. lives. Rarely do
they mean lost Arab lives. While these costs are real, the best grounds
on which to oppose the Gulf War is that it is not just.
is not pro-international legality. It is not pro-“a new and more
peaceful world order.”
nationalism.
paid, whether they like it or not, by whoever we pass them on to.
controlling oil prices. No right administering the future of the Middle
East. And no right becoming the world’s Hessian state, sacrificing much
of the U.S. population to a Third World existence in the process.
to international conflict.
10. What is the logic of our antiwar activism? Raise the social cost.
isn’t seeing the costs will not change his mind.
American lives, or anyone’s lives. The same holds, by and large, for
U.S. media which has yet to discuss the potential loss of Arab lives as
a central cost of war.
history. They care about advancing the geopolitical interests of the
U.S. as they are understood by the White House and Wall Street. That’s
all.
costs that warmakers don’t want to pay.
not want war to cause a new generation to turn to activism. They dread
the escalation of dissent from events that oppose war, to actions that
oppose militarism, to projects that oppose capitalism.
same, and more, in the Gulf.
11. What should be the focus of our activism? Peace and justice.
and purposes of U.S. war policies including understanding underlying
institutions. And it also needs to send a powerful message of dissent.
military bases or the Pentagon, and that demand an end to war are
excellent.
to war and and end to militarism and a reallocation of military
resources to social ends, are still more powerful.
militance, but militance extending to gender, race, and class policies
and institutions that war-makers hold even more dear. Multi-issue events
send an even more powerful and threatening message than single issue
efforts, and can have that much more impact.
the Gulf crisis to attack the causes as well as the symptoms of
oppressive institutions. Build a movement not just for peace, but for
peace and justice too.
12. What tactics should we use? Demonstrate, demand, disobey.
threatens leaders of a country who want people as ignorant as possible.
A march with many constituencies threatens the leadership of a country
who want people as passive and divided as possible. A march that include
civil disobedience and says that some people are willing to break laws
and, moreover, next time many more will do so, is still more powerful.
can become a center of organizing energy and a place for learning and
support.
need to create lasting coalitions and institutional centers of Peace and
Justice in occupied buildings on campuses or in community centers,
and/or churches.
peace work: creating leaflets and banners and writing letters to GIs.
They could be places from which people could do systematic coordinated
canvassing and provide each other with support and help.
people consider how their universities or communities might become
centers of peace and conversion rather than militarism. Create a
long-term movement.