Rating: 
Summary: Chomsky exposes American Foreign Policy
Review: This book like many of Noam Chomsky's books, expose the hypocrisy behind American foreign policy. This book is timely and is an update to his 9-11 and Power and Terror books. This book deals with the current situation as far as the US occupation of Iraq and the underlying implications of where the government wants to go with regards to creating an American Empire at the expense of the so called "rogue states."
Rating:
Summary: Best Book on US Foreign Policy
Review: If you want a good understanding of world events, then I would tell you to buy not just one copy, but two copies of this book. One copy for yourself, and one copy to lend to anyone who is a fan of FOX news and other sources of right wing media. This book has ample documentation to back it up, contrary to those who say the Chomsky is some radical who just sat somewhere and made it up. I find his discussion of the Reagan administration quite interesting, all of it is backed up and documented under the ICJ ruling of Nicaragua vs United States. If you are a Republican, I suggest you stick to O'Reilly and associates, this book will only make you loose more hair if you are not already bald.
Rating:
Summary: Delicious
Review: The best book of 2003. If you enjoy rational thought, you will enjoy this book. If you enjoy mindless jingoism, just keep waving that flag.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Title, Useless Book
Review: "Hegemony or Survival" is very poorly written and argued. Facts are distorted or not put in context, the U.S and her Allies are constantly demonized, and the flow of 'logic' is poor. Look elsewhere for a serious critique of U.S foreign policy. The book contains overwrought rhetoric that has no basis in fact: On p.4, Chomksy states that the U.S has a "contempt for democracy for which no parallel comes to mind". No parallel for contempt for democracy? According to Chomsky, it isn't Saddamn's Iraq, Iran, Cuba or North Korea that are so contemptuous of democracy, but the U.S. On p13, he quotes, without dismissing the charge, somebody as saying that the invasion of Iraq was the sort of crime for which people were persecuted in the Nuremberg trials. The book misrepresents facts : On p14, Chomsky discusses the United States' "National Security Strategy" (He calls it "The Grand Imperial Strategy") and states that it recommends that the U.S undertake "preventative" war. (Chomsky highlights the word "preventative"). The document can be found in the White House's Website, and the word "preventative war" does not exist in it. Chomsky claims that this "Grand Imperial Strategy" demonstrates America's nefarious military and political goals; In reality, it stresses human rights, free trade, democracy, strategic alliances as well as the dangers associated with rogue states. If you are still inclined to take this book seriously, please do read the "National Security Strategy" document for yourself (Again, in the Whitehouse's Website) and compare it to Chomsky's description of the document. The book (p18) claims that the primary justification for the 1991 Gulf War was to keep Iraq from Saudi Arabia; This is not true. The main justification was Iraq's annexation of Kuwait. Chomsky claims (p66) that the primary Cold War threat was the economic transformation of Communist countries so that they will threaten Western economic interests. In reality, the primary Cold War threat was the fact that Communism spread from WWII until the 1980s, threatened the West (Khrushchev: "We will bury you"), killed some 100 million people (See the book "The Black Book of Communism"), and enslaved millions more. On p38, discussing the lack of protests in the US during the early years of the Vietnam war, Chomsky claims that the U.S government had plans to "Drive millions of people (In Vietnam) into what amounted to concentration camps". Based on what is this claim based? In fact, the closest thing to "concentration camps" in Vietnam and Southeast Asia were the various labor and "reeducation" camps that the Communists created. Chomsky, of course, is very critical of the U.S for removing a dictator such as Saddamn. At the same time, he is critical of the U.S (p48) of "instituting and sustaining stray regimes". At other times, he is critical of the U.S for ignoring the human rights abuses of rogue regimes (Such as Saudi Arabia). He also does not support sanctions against regimes such as Iraq. Thus, in Chomky's mind, the U.S cannot win whether it supports, sanctions, removes, or ignores these regimes. There are numerous other such examples of flawed logic, dubious facts, and lack of context. For a counterpart to Chomsky's one-sided depiction of U.S intervention in places like Central America and Vietnam, please read "The Black Book of Communism". I also recommend Mona Charen's book "Useful Idiots".
Rating: 
Summary: Typical Chomsky
Review: Chomsky's problem has always been the white heat of his polemic words. His red-meat rhetoric completely overshadows the more intelligent of his critques of America. The result has always been a small but noisy following, adored by extremists but ultimately having zero impact on policy or society. He needs a good editor. Cutting back on the hate speech would get him read by a wider audience. .
Rating:
Summary: GRIPPING COMPILATION. CONTROVERSIAL? SURE, AS IS REALITY.
Review: Let's face it. Each one of us has been in a conversation some time or the other about the fallibility or otherwise of US being embroiled with weaker nations in recent times (Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc.) I have often wondered if the recent Saddam hunt, or the 1991 Gulf war, etc. are isolated events for new-found initiatives like "Hunt for terror" or "WMD". A measure as drastic as a war always couches a non-trivial history, a string of events on either side that made such confrontation inevitable. How do you put together all the OTHER peccadilloes of OTHER American administrations in OTHER countries to form a comprehensive perspective of US' motives? This is what sets Chomsky's work apart from so many others who write social and political theory today. The real meat of his work lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of American history's key moments, and weaving it back into context. This helps us formulate a grippingly consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing. For instance, was the US really concerned with democracy when it supported a viscous proxy war in Nicaragua, even though their government had been democratically elected? Is the US truly interested in peace in the Middle East when it denies the "Saudi Plan" set forth in early 2002, which would offer "full recognition and integration [of Israel] into the region in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders? Why the compulsion for war with Iraq when no imminent threat of WMD's could be found, no connection to Al Qaida could be proven, and multiple studies were produced by leading agencies suggesting that invading Iraq would only decrease domestic security? The answers for Chomsky are surprisingly consistent with what he feels are a foreign policy guided by imperial global expansion and military dominance. Countries must be "aligned" with US interest in order to ensure capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. If a country does not choose to align, then it will wind up a target of US backed aggression, or branded a "terrorist state." In 1965, Indonesia expressed its intention to be independent. A US backed coup ensued, killing close to 1,000,000 people, and installed the brutal dictator General Suharto. On the other hand, if a country does choose to align, as is the case with countries like Israel, Turkey or Pakistan, they become "client states" and are protected under the aegis of the American military, and given monetary and military aid. Although Turkey is run by an iron fisted dictator with an abysmal human rights record, and Pakistan has installed a joke of a government with clear cut involvements with Libya, North Korea etc, the US government makes concessions for their actions, as they are conducive to America's "strategic interests." You get the idea. It's a boon that Chomsky's extensive research has been compiled and bound into one neat volume to lend perspective to a dizzying volume of contemporary history. Is this book controversial? Sure. It sets an incisive lens on reality, which is no less controversial (how else would you term the whole recent ordeal of Iraq?) I highly recommend this pithy volume. If you are interested in this theme in general -- as I assume you are, given that you are reading this review -- then you ought to get this book pronto.
Rating: 
Summary: CAPITALISM: Freedom?
Review: I decided to write this review of Chomsky's book because the book itself is too challenging to be ignored combined with how impressed I was by the confusion at the core of the debate between the many pro and con reviews. It is clear that in various degrees some reviewers like and some dislike this remarkable book, what is not clear at all is why and what the book itself actually says. What I mean is that there is nothing in the reviews that actually pinpoints the issue(s) around which the abundance of details turns, an issue which makes it clear who stands where in the question of America's role in the world today. A central thesis in the book seems to be, according to all reviews, that there has been an intention rooted in the United States to obtain global dominance at least since the time of Woodrow Wilson, that this intention accelerated after WWII, and that it has clearly laid its cards on the table in our time. At this point the pro reviews praise the plethora of facts evinced by Chomsky to support this view though without focusing anything further and the con reviews counter that it's all the delusions of a biased radical leftist who simply refuses to acknowledge the hard, dark realities of the world. My problem is that if the case is so clear according to both sides, then why can't there be an issue stated that sweeps away the deep ambiguity that clings to the debate? To say that the issue this book raises is whether America is the great evil threatening the very stability of the world today would be ludicrous and obviously useless. Even Chomsky clearly has positive things to say about certain aspects of 'America' at the same time that he makes his serious accusations. One thing that does become clear here is that it is questionable if the word 'America' even has a definite and functional meaning in this debate. If one says, from a pro or con position, that Chomsky is pointing a finger at 'America' then one must define this term for the statement to have any meaning. But any sufficiently inclusive definition of this term renders that term useless in this debate because it is obvious that Choamsky's accusations would not apply to everything connoted by the term. So what is Chomsky talking about, whom is he pointing the finger at? At least one review here took the position that Chomsky's idea of an multi-generational American conspiracy to dominate the globe doesn't hold up because there has simply been through the years too much variety of political persuasion in the positions of political power to support such an idea. This apparently reasonable statement reveals one of the reasons why there is so much confusion and ambiguity in this debate. Chomsky clearly takes the position that the political arena within the United States is not the real core power that determines the behavior of this nation in relation to other nations even though this arena is inseparable from and ultimately limited by that core power. This core power is in fact the capitalist economic system and that is why Chomsky can present a conspiracy picture. The nature and tendency of capitalism remains basically the same through generations regardless of whether the nation is leaning left or right. The only change in capitalism can be in its reach. Capitalism is by nature expansive and therefore has always been moving ultimately toward global dominance and it must be acknowledged that capitalism in itself is not a democratic system but by definition is hierarchical and assumes the philosophical position that if one has the ability to dominate, then one has the right to dominate. This economic principle has always been more or less acceptable to 'America' as such even though that same principle applied in politics is called fascism which 'America' claims to be the polar opposite of. Chomsky's contention is that it is not democratic 'America', but non-democratic, international capitalism grown out of the United States that has become perhaps the most dangerous force in the world today because it has a cover of political democracy while the other major dangerous forces in the world today are more or less transparent in their corruption. This is the real and clear issue. Let it be clear: Chomsky is anti-capitalist. The question he raises for 'America' with a force beyond anyone else is: what is capitalism, is it compatible with freedom for all people, and should it be a defining aspect of 'America'?
A question I would add here is: are we so ethically and intellectually and imaginatively bankrupt that we dare not examine capitalism because we are afraid if we find it lacking then there will be nothing to replace it with but failed socialist or communist systems? Would we really be incapable of coming up with something new that is compatible with universal human freedom?
I give the book only four stars because Chomsky himself contributed some of the ambiguity that is the focus of my critcism.
Rating:
Summary: What a Conservative Thinks of The Book
Review: I apologize for the length of my review but the book is not simple. I read the book slowly cover to cover. This book has changed my mind on the subject. It has had the effect of crystallizing a few of the more nebulous ideas that were floating around in my mind. I generally support the US government. This is my second review of the book. I withdrew the first review. At first I found the book hard to take seriously. But I think it is just an outstanding book after reading it a few times and absorbing what is written. Before opening the book I was skeptical. I was a student at MIT when Chomsky first became famous and in fact had my lab near his office. I received a PhD from MIT but have no delusions about being in his intellectual league. Having said that he is a professor, as was I later at another university. I know how the system works in a university. You want to write about controversial things. And he propelled himself to fame by writing about the evils of the US in almost each and every administration. So I expected the book to be negative. As we might expect, the book as a book is very well written, a well researched book with an impressive command of the facts, theories, implications, knowledge of international law, treaties, history, international conflicts, etc. and he knows how to use the English language as a tool. It is not a quick read. Every page must be carefully read to absorb the myriad of detail. Chomsky's arguments are for the most part 100% correct and accurate. His arguments are based on historical facts as we know them. I differ on some of the US motives and responses but that probably is not really the point of the book. I do not like the title of the book, but that is not the issue. Here is my quick summary of what I think is the real value of the book. I run a small engineering business. When I have a problem with another party that cannot be solved by discussion, I know that I can go to a higher authority - a court of law - and find a resolution. Each party gets a chance to present their side and then it is resolved by a judge who will follow the law. Similarly a court can resolve criminal charges against an individual. The court imposes a remedy be it financial or otherwise. That is called a legal process. The time has long past that we would try and solve the problem on our own by the use of force, i.e: I do not shoot Cruise missiles at my competitor or shoot out his knee caps. I follow the law. As outlined in the book, America and many other countries (maybe all countries?) seem to understand that laws apply internally to individuals but they seem to either not understand or intentionally choose to ignore this idea or concept when dealing with other countries. It seems clear to me that they should exhibit similar behavior, i.e.: follow the law. The US as the biggest boy in the neighborhood does what it wants. It has helped write international laws and treaties, but when push comes to shove, it simply bypasses these for one reason or another. It invades smaller countries such as Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Kosovo, and Iraq and of course Vietnam and Cambodia, or uses surrogates in Nicaragua in central America and in countries in South America. We as individual citizens cannot take such actions against our neighbors. We would be breaking the law and be prosecuted. We cannot act unilaterally. So why is it that a country can? There is no rational reason in the present day and age why a country can act unilaterally. Every country must follow a basic set of international laws. There must be a legal process before there is intervention in another country regardless of the problems. I think that is the point of the book. Countries must formulate and follow legal policies of behavior. They must follow those to the letter exactly - to take care of international problems whether it be at the UN or elsewhere. If things do not go their way in a dispute - for whatever reason - they should not bypass the legal process. In the case of Iraq, some countries exercised their veto power at the Security Council. So the US just acted alone with Britain and did what they wanted - nobody could stop them. The law is the law and to bypass it especially by the leader nations (USA and Britain) means that we have no international laws. Unfortunately we are quite out of control and we do what we want, others be dammed. When big powers have disputes - it will be nuclear brinkmanship - a roll of the dice with humanity hanging in the balance. If we are to progress we must find a framework of laws that nations can all agree to follow - in every instance - regardless of short term self interest. Then other solutions will follow for other challenges to the human species. I think that is what the book is telling us. My humble opinion. Jack in Toronto
Rating:
Summary: what you don't know can't hurt you can it?
Review: I just got through watching this author on C-span and did I ever get a wake up call. We wonder why terrorists would want to attack us. We, the average person, have been completely in ignorance of what our government, in our name, has done to other people and countries. We are lied to all the time. They, the government, tell us that the actions they have taken are for the good of our country and other countries when in fact, it is just the opposite. I will love my country till I die, but that does not mean I approve of all the actions certain officials have taken over the years, in its name. Chompsky has done a wonderful job of enlightening the public on numerous details. He emphasises that many of his facts are easily checked and looked up. It is the media and those behind it that choose what we hear on the news and so, if we want to know the facts, it is up to us to look them up. Don't just believe every word we are told but check the facts. He has provided us with a good start in this magnificent book. What he has written is important to all of us regardless of party designation because what has happened and will happen is going to affect all of us. I highly recommend the book! Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Disallusioning and Necessary
Review: I have been meaning to read a 'full Chomsky' since reading the 9-11 book and hearing him on the radio a couple times. I found this book amazing, well constructed,fact ladden, and difficult. It's difficulty for me was timely, I want to know what we are actually up to. I found it difficult to contemplate the administrations that I thought were 'not so bad' where actually in my opinion pretty awful. I have been struggling with the concept of how is it possible to be proud of my country given the activities of the current administration. I am resigned to first being willing to get over my fairy tale innocence and be willing to know, more than i have been willing to know up to now. in this way this book was helpful.
| 
