By Noam Chomsky

20 March 2003

With no less than the Pope himself now expresses his own
deep concerns for the 'Fate of Humanity':

At this grim moment, we can do nothing to stop the
ongoing invasion. But that does not mean that the task
is over for people who have some concern for justice,
freedom, and human rights. Far from it. The tasks will
be more urgent than before, whatever the outcome of the
attack. And about that, no one has any idea: not the
Pentagon, the CIA, or anyone else. Possibilities range
from the horrifying humanitarian catastrophes of which
aid and relief agencies that work in Iraq have been
warning, to relatively benign outcomes - though even if
not a hair is harmed on anyone's head that will in no
way mitigate the criminality of those willing to subject
helpless people to such terrible risks, for their own
shameful purposes.

As for the outcomes, it will be a long time before
preliminary judgments can be made. One immediate task is
to lend what weight we can to more benign outcomes. That
means, primarily, caring for the needs of the victims,
not just of this war but of Washington's vicious and
destructive sanctions regime of the past ten years,
which has devastated the civilian society, strengthened
the ruling tyrant, and compelled the population to rely
on him for survival. As has been pointed out for years,
the sanctions therefore undermined the hope that Saddam
Hussein would go the way of other murderous tyrants no
less vicious than he. That includes a terrible rogues
gallery of criminals who were also supported by those
now at the helm in Washington, in many cases to the last
days of their bloody rule: Ceausescu, to mention only
one obvious and highly pertinent case.

Elementary decency would call for massive reparations
from the US; lacking that, at least a flow of aid to
Iraqis, so that they can rebuild what has been destroyed
in their own way, not as dictated by people in
Washington and Crawford whose higher faith is that power
comes from the barrel of a gun.

But the issues are much more fundamental, and long
range. Opposition to the invasion of Iraq has been
entirely without historical precedent. That is why Bush
had to meet his two cronies at a US military base on an
island, where they would be safely removed from any mere
people. The opposition may be focused on the invasion of
Iraq, but its concerns go far beyond that. There is
growing fear of US power, which is considered to be the
greatest threat to peace in much of the world, probably
by a large majority. And with the technology of
destruction now at hand, rapidly becoming more lethal
and ominous, threat to peace means threat to survival.

Fear of the US government is not based solely on this
invasion, but on the background from which it arises: An
openly-declared determination to rule the world by
force, the one dimension in which US power is supreme,
and to make sure that there will never be any challenge
to that domination. Preventive wars are to be fought at
will: Preventive, not Pre-emptive. Whatever the
justifications for pre-emptive war might sometimes be,
they do not hold for the very different category of
preventive war: the use of military force to eliminate
an imagined or invented threat. The openly-announced
goal is to prevent an challenge to the "power, position,
and prestige of the United States." Such challenge, now
or in the future, and any sign that it may emerge, will
be met without overwhelming force by the rulers of the
country that now apparently outspends the rest of the
world combined on means of violence, and is forging new
and very dangerous paths over near-unanimous world
opposition: development of lethal weaponry in space, for
example.

It is worth bearing in mind that the words I quoted are
not those of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or other
radical statist extremists now in charge. Rather, they
are the words of the respected elder statesman Dean
Acheson, 40 years ago, when he was a senior advisor to
the Kennedy Administration. He was justifying US actions
against Cuba - knowing that the international terrorist
campaign aimed at "regime change" had just brought the
world close to terminal nuclear war. Nevertheless, he
instructed the American Society of International Law, no
"legal issue" arises in the case of a US response to a
challenge to its "power, position, and prestige,"
specifically terrorist attacks and economic warfare
against Cuba.

I bring this up as a reminder that the issues are
deep-seated. The current administration is at the
extremist end of the policy-planning spectrum, and its
adventurism and penchant for violence are unusually
dangerous. But the spectrum is not that broad, and
unless these deeper issues are addressed, we can be
confident that other ultrareactionary extremists will
gain control of incredible means of devastation and
repression.

The "imperial ambition" of the current power holders, as
it is frankly called, has aroused shudders throughout
the world, including the mainstream of the establishment
at home. Elsewhere, of course, the reactions are far
more fearful, particularly among the traditional
victims. They know too much history, the hard way, to be
comforted by exalted rhetoric. They have heard enough of
that over the centuries as they were being beaten by the
club called "civilization." Just a few days ago, the
head of the non-aligned movement, which includes the
governments of most of the world's population, described
the Bush administration as more aggressive than Hitler.
He happens to be very pro-American, and right in the
middle of Washington's international economic projects.
And there is little doubt that he speaks for many of the
traditional victims, and by now even for many of their
traditional oppressors.

It is easy to go on, and important to think these
matters through, with care and honesty.

Even before the Bush administration sharply escalated
these fears in recent months, intelligence and
international affairs specialists were informing anyone
who wanted to listen that the policies Washington is
pursuing are likely to lead to an increase in terror and
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, for
revenge or simply deterrence. There are two ways for
Washington to respond to the threats engendered by its
actions and startling proclamations. One way is to try
to alleviate the threats by paying some attention to
legitimate grievances, and by agreeing to become a
civilized member of a world community, with some respect
for world order and its institutions. The other way is
to construct even more awesome engines of destruction
and domination, so that any perceived challenge, however
remote, can be crushed - provoking new and greater
challenges. That way poses serious dangers to the people
of the US and the world, and may, very possibly, lead to
extinction of the species - not an idle speculation.

Terminal nuclear war has been avoided by near miracle in
the past; a few months before Acheson's speech, to
mention one case that should be fresh in our minds
today. Threats are severe and mounting. The world has
good reason to watch what is happening in Washington
with fear and trepidation. The people who are best
placed to relieve those fears, and to lead the way to a
more hopeful and constructive future, are the citizens
of the United States, who can shape the future.

Those are among the deep concerns that must, I think, be
kept clearly in mind while watching events unfold in
their unpredictable way as the most awesome military
force in human history is unleashed against a
defenseless enemy by a political leadership that has
compiled a frightening record of destruction and
barbarism since it took the reins of power over 20 years
ago.