25.03.2013 Views

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

Noam Chomsky - Turning the Tide U.S. intervention in

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The Race to Destruction<br />

Classics <strong>in</strong> Politics: <strong>Turn<strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Tide</strong> <strong>Noam</strong> <strong>Chomsky</strong><br />

297<br />

of security and defense.<br />

To evaluate <strong>the</strong> defensive rhetoric of some state, we must turn to <strong>the</strong><br />

historical record. Let us consider, <strong>the</strong>n, a few significant moments,<br />

keep<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> post-World War II period.<br />

As discussed <strong>in</strong> chapter 2, <strong>the</strong> US emerged from <strong>the</strong> war <strong>in</strong> a position<br />

of world dom<strong>in</strong>ance with few parallels <strong>in</strong> history, and with a firm<br />

determ<strong>in</strong>ation to keep th<strong>in</strong>gs that way. The geopolitical framework<br />

developed by planners, which has earlier precedents as noted, persists<br />

unchanged, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> sanctity of <strong>the</strong> Fifth Freedom and <strong>the</strong><br />

commitment to “ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> disparity” by harsh measures if necessary,<br />

prevent<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> “contagion” of <strong>in</strong>dependent development from “<strong>in</strong>fect<strong>in</strong>g”<br />

o<strong>the</strong>r regions, to <strong>the</strong> extent feasible.<br />

In terms of security from threat, <strong>the</strong> US was also <strong>in</strong> an unparalleled<br />

position. There were no threats <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Western Hemisphere and <strong>the</strong> US<br />

controlled both oceans. No enemy could possibly reach us. There was,<br />

however, one potential threat: <strong>the</strong> development of ICBMs that could<br />

reach <strong>the</strong> US, fitted with highly destructive hydrogen bomb warheads. It<br />

is useful, <strong>the</strong>n, to consider what efforts were undertaken to prevent <strong>the</strong><br />

development of ICBMs or <strong>the</strong> hydrogen bomb. The record shows no<br />

serious effort to avert <strong>the</strong> sole potential threat to <strong>the</strong> security of <strong>the</strong><br />

United States, <strong>in</strong>deed, little concern about <strong>the</strong> matter <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> first postwar<br />

decade when progress might have been made <strong>in</strong> this direction. These<br />

facts do not comport well with <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>sis that security considerations<br />

guided US policy.<br />

In fact, Stal<strong>in</strong>’s “peace offensives” were regarded as a serious threat<br />

that must be resisted, as this conventional term<strong>in</strong>ology <strong>in</strong>dicates. A<br />

Bus<strong>in</strong>ess Week analysis of 1949 noted that so far “Stal<strong>in</strong>’s ‘peace<br />

feelers’ have been brushed aside” by Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, but <strong>the</strong>re is evidence<br />

that this “peace offensive” is serious, a prospect that <strong>the</strong>y regarded with<br />

some concern, for reasons to which we turn <strong>in</strong> section 5. The same

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!