Chomsky joins a hypocritical attack on Obama

 By Lawrence K. Helm

            I was prepared to leave Chomsky alone for awhile, but he intruded himself upon my attention by supporting the full-page "World Can't Wait" ad which appeared on page 17 of the 5-27-10 issue of The New York Review of Books.   Those who don't get the NYROB can see this ad in fine print at http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php/features-mainmenu-220/the-war-of-terror/6280-crimes-are-crimes-no-matter-who-does-them .   The impetus for the ad seems to be disappointment that Obama has turned out to be a normal American President and not a radical anarchist.  I see that William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground and one of Obama's original sponsors also signed the ad.  He is probably part of the "World" that "Can't Wait" for Obama to turn into the anti-American radical that it hoped he would become.

            While I can't tell whether Chomsky was involved in the creation of "World Can't Wait," I do want to consider the ad as something he signed up to.  It is consistent with other things he has advanced. The full title reads "Crimes are Crimes no matter who does them."  This title deserves closer attention in light of Chomsky's anarchistic philosophy.  If we pass over the truistic nature of this cliché, an act is not a "crime" unless it has been established as such in some system of laws sanctioned by some established government supported by a more or less quiescent society.  Chomsky wants to tear down our Liberal-Democratic government and society; so he is at the very least hypocritical if he is using existing American laws to further this end. 

            But are there such laws?  He and the leaders of World Can't Wait fail to distinguish between a normal American citizen and an American president.  The President has the power to declare war -- something Chomsky considers a crime -- while the ordinary citizen does not. 

            And since the World Can't Wait ad centers on some of the events carried out in the course of president-initiated wars, let's look at them: 

            Chomsky and WCA object to the assassination of a terrorist whom the president deems a threat to national security.  Has Chomsky ever objected to any terrorist killing people in any Liberal Democracies.  If so, I missed it.  It typically isn't until the democracies, in this case the American one, respond or attempt to respond to terrorist activity that Chomsky becomes outraged. 

            Chomsky objects to U.S. troops firing on unarmed civilians.   Firing on unarmed civilians is not sanctioned by the US. government or the military, but collateral damage does occur.  This is one of Chomsky's favorite targets.  If Chomsky could show that the U.S targets unarmed civilians he might have a point.  But please note that's what the terrorists do.  So why does Chomsky go after American troops who kill civilians accidentally rather than the terrorists who do it on purpose?   As I have argued elsewhere, the reason Chomsky does this is that he is anti-American even more than he is anti-Liberal-Democracy, and he isn't above abandoning what logic he practices elsewhere to hypocritically attack the Americans who do kill civilians accidentally while giving a free pass to Islamist radicals who do it on purpose.

            The final paragraph in the "Crimes are Crimes" ad reads "Unsurprisingly the Obama administration has refused to prosecute any members of the Bush regime who are responsible for war crimes, including some who admitted to waterboarding and other forms of torture, thereby making their actions acceptable for him or any future president."   What is his definition of "war crimes" I would like to ask Chomsky?    "War Crimes" seems a pejorative swear-term rather than a legitimate classification of crimes.  Which court defined these "Crimes"?  Which Judicial System is responsible for prosecuting them?   Which government is responsible for punishing them?   It isn't a war crime or any other sort of crime for a President of the United States to do what he deems necessary to protect American citizens. 

            There seems to be the assumption that the American president needs to be utterly submissive to the American judiciary.  That is not an accurate understanding to the American governmental system which has three powers (the executive, legislative, and judicial) which were designed to balance one another.   The President (the head of the executive branch of the American government) has extensive powers, and while the legislative and judicial branches of government challenge those powers regularly, they do not have the power to declare them crimes.  I mention that  in passing, for neither the Legislative nor the Judicial branches of the U.S. government have declared Obama's actions crimes -- as Chomsky and "World Can't Wait" have done in their illogical, inconsistent and hypocritical way.

           

"Liberate" and "Resist"

By Lawrence K. Helm

            The OED has for "Liberate" "To set free, set at liberty; to free, release from (something)." 

            The French "resistance" didn't seriously threaten the German forces in France until after D Day.  Frenchmen sitting on the fence, not willing to turn upon the Germans until and unless it became clear that they were losing, began to hop off on the side of the allies.  It was clear that Germany had failed to defeat the Russians and would ultimately lose their war after the defeat at Stalingrad (Feb 1943), but what did that mean for France?  The French weren't certain, but after the successful landing on French soil on June 1944, there seemed little doubt.

            However, were the Allies interested in liberating France or in defeating Germany.  Stalin kept urging the Americans to start a second front.  What occurred in North Africa and in Italy wasn't all that impressive to Stalin, but finally a second front, serious enough to impress Stalin, was established in June of 1944.  When we think of Stalin's demands, the concerns of the Vichy French; who were not demanding a second front or even requesting liberation diminishes in importance. 

            One can always find a representative of just about any position.  The French Resistance wanted "liberation," but not the larger number of French people who got along well with the Germans during the Vichy period.  So how much credit do the allies deserve for liberating Vichy Frenchmen who didn't want to be liberated?  Not much, I suppose, but after D Day, the number of dedicated Vichy dropped dramatically and the number who belonged to the Resistance grew in inverse proportion.  That was rather ignoble of the Vichy French we might think -- better to stand before a firing squad or the guillotine with defiant words on one's lips than slink off to the Resistance and hope that one's new allegiance cancels out, in everyone's mind, one's craven behavior during the time of the Germans.  And, interestingly, Beevor and Cooper in Paris, after the Liberation, 1944-1949, tell us that during  the epuration sauvage many late night assassinations were of collaborators, but others were by collaborators killing off those who could testify against them. 

            "On his return from prison camp, Baron Elie de Rothschild remarked to the old family butler, Felix, that the house must have been very quiet under General Hanesse's occupation.

            "' on the contrary, Monsieur Elie.  There were receptions every evening.'

            "'but . . . who came?'

            'The same people, Monsieur Elie.  The same as before the war.'"  [Beevor & Cooper, pp 133-4]

            One may be inclined to think that Britain and the US were France's "natural allies," but only if one forgets the French period of anarchy and the subsequent Surrealism, Dada, etc.   Britain and the U.S. seemed to much like "the establishment," too much like what the French intellectuals were reacting against.  Sartre believed he could know nothing beyond himself, at least not for sure, but on the assumption that others were like him, it would be a good thing, he thought, for everyone to band together in the Communist Party.  Others, perhaps, had their own reasons, but Communism became very popular in France in the post-war period.  The Russians, at least, had never "occupied" France as the allies had.

            Francis Fukuyama argued that the end of history had occurred, and influenced by the Russian (Communist) but French citizen Kojeve argued that it was Hegel who was right about that end and not Marx.  The "end" was Liberal Democracy (aka Capitalism) and not Communism.  France today seems as Liberal-Democratic as the rest of Europe and the West, but they "resisted" all the way.  And perhaps "resistance" is a logical outgrowth if their earlier "anarchy."  Anarchy after all "resists" organized forms of government, and while France hasn't quite done that, they have give the appearance of resisting still, as though they have made of the term "resist" an intransitive verb.

The Liberators and the Liberated

By Lawrence K. Helm

            [I'll be considering certain words in the following and how these words are influenced by history to the point of making it virtually impossible to define them -- except with a multitude of conditions.]   

            One of the quirks of history that has puzzled many, over the years, has been the fact that though France was liberated by British-American forces, the predominate attitude in France has been one of antagonism against America and Americans (and to a lesser extent the British).  Shouldn't France feel more grateful to America, and if not, why not?

            Many who pursue this issue start with Roosevelt's contempt for De Gaulle.  As soon as it became clear that Germany had defeated France, De Gaulle fled to Britain with little more than what he was wearing.  Yet in a very short period of time he declared himself to be the head of Free France.  Roosevelt wasn't impressed.  The real leader of France, in his opinion was Petain.  Roosevelt would rather do business with the real power in France, as much as existed during the Vichy period, than with the wishful thinking of Charles De Gaulle.  And De Gaulle resented Roosevelt deeply. 

            But it would be better to start at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.  Not to see the seeds of the difference of opinion about liberation, but to understand why France needed to be Liberated.  Late in the 19th century France went through a period where Anarchy was extremely popular.  While the political anarchists were eventually subdued by the French authorities, the artists picked up the threads of anarchy and wove new types of art, music and literature.  They opposed the more orderly forms that existed in the past and sought an individualistic display of willfulness where everything was permitted, especially if it opposed the "powers that be." 

            Thus, at a very critical time in French history, when France desperately needed its young men to be willing to defend France, the young men remembered the rallying cry of the anarchists: "death to France.  The young men who needed to fight for France against Hitler's Germany were disgusted with the "powers that be," with "the state" and with mankind in general.  Across the border in Germany, meanwhile, the young men were singing Deutschland uber alles.

            But so what?  Your aunt Sophie shouldn't have turned to chocolate after Uncle Fred died and ballooned up to 300 pounds either.  She had her heart attack.  No big surprise there.  And though her heart stopped; she was brought back to life by the paramedics.  Let's give your aunt the latest medical care even though she probably wouldn't have suffered the heart attack if she had maintained a decent weight and exercised instead of eating chocolate.   In hearing no more than this about your Aunt, I would expect her to be grateful to the paramedics for having saved her life. 

            Many Frenchmen would have objected right after the liberation  to my analogy.  They would have said that they weren't dying under Philippe Petain and his Vichy government.  They were getting along just fine.  However, the other Frenchmen went on a rampage of slaughter -- killing or degrading the collaborators.  These latter would surely appreciate being liberated.  But no, or if they did, it didn't last long.  They didn't feel like the defeated.  And the liberators had the maddening habit of thinking that 1) they had liberated France and 2) France should be grateful to them.  France!  Imperial France!  France of Louis XIV and Napoleon!  No, it was impossible.  America should consider it an honor, perhaps nothing more than partial repayment for past occurrences when France helped America.  The American attitude was not to be borne.

            The American attitude, meanwhile was not steeped in history.  The young boys wearing the American uniforms knew that they had been called upon to liberate the French.  They had done it and now, the strange French, many of them, resented them.  It was beyond understanding.

            Earlier, in Britain, the British engaged in a bit of resentment as well.  They too were in trouble.  They toyed with pacifism.  It was popular to think that wars were caused by misunderstandings.  Since it was inconceivable that Britain would go to war over a misunderstanding, they need not build a war machine to match the German one -- except for their navy, but that was needed to protect their empire.  The British were initially happy to receive the influx of American soldiers with all their weapons, but before too long their opinions changed.  They complained that the American soldiers were "over paid, over sexed, and over here."   But, were the American soldiers blameworthy for behaving in that manner?  Or did they behave approximately as we would expect any liberating force to behave?

            One might wonder to what extent the French were responsible for their own ancestors who degraded French morale to the point that the Germans were able to defeat them so readily.  Later at the Nuremburg trials, the judges decided it was not a legitimate defense to claim, "I was just following orders."  But isn't that very like what the French were doing -- following "instructions" when they accepted the teachings of their ancestors and turned against "the status quo," "the powers that be," "the supposed need to defend one's country"?   If we sent German's to prison for "following orders," why can't we get the French to take responsibility for "following the instructions of their teachers"?

            Hovering back behind this look at the liberation of the French in 1944 is the subsequent liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban and Iraq from the regime of Saddam Hussein.  Are the Afghan and Iraqi people going to behave any differently than the French?  And have the Americans learned anything from the earlier resentment against them?  It is too soon to tell.