Rating: 
Summary: Keeping the World Safe
Review: In theis book, Chomsky lays out his opinion of American power in the world. His basic premise is that the American government will do anything to protect it's economic interests and it's global power, even if it includes supporting acts that could be considered terrorism. For example, all of the worst war crimes that Saddam Hussein committed were during the time when Iraq was a client state of the United States. Chomsky argues that the definition of terror isn't applied equally to all nations.For example, consider the case of Emmanuel Constant. Constant was a leader of a paramilitary force in Haiti which was responsible for the deaths of thousands in the early 90's. Haiti has repeatedly requested for the extradition of Constant, so that he can face trial for his crimes. However, the U.S. refuses to do so. Would it be justifiable for Haiti to bomb New York in an attempt to recover Constant and to punish the government that protects him? Most people would say no, but they would support a similar case--the invasion fo Afghanistan to find Bin Ladin. Why the double standard? ANother point he covers is the atrocities committed by the Israeli government against the Palestinians and by the Turkish government against the Kurds. These campaigns kill thousands and terrify the local populations, but they aren't call terrorism because they are campaigns supported by the American government. If we're going to have a war against terror, shouldn't we be a little more objective? This book was an excellent read. I recommend this book for those who want to think seriously about America's role in the world.
Rating:
Summary: another bull's eye for chomsky
Review: Chomsky is the voice of America's conscience. Somebody's gotta do it.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent book.
Review: I absoultely agree with Noam, that the US is imperialist. I'm actually thankful this is the case despite all its seemingly negative short term consequences. In the long term, I find that this stance is the best one. Consider the alternative, not being imperialist would cause some other entity to rise up to the global level and threaten the american way of life. By that time, things would of goteen out of hand and it would be too late. This simply should not happen. Always remember the purpose of government, the purpose of government is to keep other governments from imposing its order on you.
Rating: 
Summary: IMPORTANT TRUTHS, TOLD IN A DISAPPOINTINGLY ONE-SIDED WAY
Review: This book shows that America is not the wonderfully idealistic, selfless country our politicians and mainstream media claim. Instead it show America as a rather ruthless Machiavellian state; whose policies have encouraged tens of thousands of murders; and whose actions have purposely denied many countries the very democracy and human rights we claim to spread. For those who do not know these seldom-told truths, or who need reminding of them, this book is extremely valuable. For this reason I have given it four stars. Unfortunately, this book is extremely one-sided. It ignores many of the arguable justifications for the behaviors it condemns, and it fails to consider the possible risks of totally abandoning such behaviors. For example, Chomsky fails to point out that many of the killings he blames on America were done to counter a political force, i.e., Communism, whose killings have far exceeded those of Hitler and have many times exceeded those Chomsky blames on America. Unfortunately killing and threatening to kill are extremely powerful tools for gaining and keeping power. If one side in a conflict freely murders those it suspects of being opponents, while a second only punishes people under the due process of law, the first is almost certain to win, unless its cause is extremely unpopular or its numbers very small. Thus, it is not clear America could have stopped the spread of totalitarian Communism without using at least some of the ugly methods that Chomsky criticizes. Chomsky failure to confront such arguments casts doubt on the realism and open-mindedness of his obviously powerful mind. Despite Chomsky's acknowledgement that greater powers have almost always abused smaller ones, he fails to consider the most obvious implication of that acknowledgment, i.e., that, if America wasn't pushing its weight around, somebody else would be. He fails to mention that since no current world institution has the power to forcefully settle disputes between major powers, the world's current state of governance is one of anarchy. Given these facts, Chomsky should at least have considered the argument that, by helping enforcing some order upon a largely chaotic, Machiavellian world, America may actually have decreased, rather than increased, net human suffering. Chomsky provides valuable, seldom-heard discussion of Israel's racist brutality. Since he is Jewish and a darling of the Left, he has a degree of immunity from the charges of anti-Semitism that normally prevent such truths from being heard. But Chomsky largely portrays Israel as a vicious militarist underling that serves America's imperialist interests in the Middle East. He ignores the extent to which pro-Israeli groups control America's foreign policy. As "The Sampson Option" by Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Hersh details, pro-Israeli groups in the U.S. are so powerful that for eight successive US administrations no American President, nor any political figure of any significance, dared speak against Israel's development and deployment of nuclear weapons. This even though such activity was well known by the CIA; was clearly contrary to our nation's stated policies; and very arguably presented a major threat to America's security interests. Before I read this book I was deeply opposed to the Bush administration's Neo-Conservative policies. Although not commonly said, these policies have been largely, but not entirely, developed by a small group of pro-Likud American Jews. In addition to proposing that America fight Iraq and all of Israel's other enemies, the Neo-Cons have proposed that America seek to maintain it global hegemony throughout the 21st century by actively suppressing the power of all the world's other major states, including the newly unified Europe. This is an extremely risky policy. At a time when America's economic and technological power relative to the rest of the world is rapidly declining, it appears unwise to risk earning the world's hatred in return for a probably unsuccessful attempt to selfishly suppress the other nations of the earth. Instead we should be using what considerable power we have left to create alliances and world institutions that share our values and interests. Otherwise, in several decades when countries like China, India, and the EU each have GDPs and technological sectors roughly as large as our own, we will have lost not only our world dominance, but also our most valuable friends. Surprisingly, reading Chomsky's book has actually made me less certain in my above criticism of the Neo-Cons. That's because this book, unlike most criticisms of the Neo-Cons, does not portray their position as major change of American policy, but rather as a continuation of, or perhaps slight expansion of, imperialist policies that have been supported by every U.S. administration, and by most US foreign policy experts, since the end of World War II. It is one thing to dismiss the current administration's foreign policy as crazy. It is another to dismiss the foreign policy of every US administration since Truman's as crazy. Nevertheless I still think I disagree with the Neo-Cons. I agree with Chomsky that we are rapidly losing the overwhelming relative economic power we had after World War II. In addition, our major allies no longer need our protection from the Soviet War Machine. Thus, the type of imperialist leadership that worked for America after WW II is unlikely to continue working much longer. I also agree with Chomsky that winning the War On Terrorism should include, where possible, seeking to decrease behaviors that justifiably cause others to hate us, such as our support for Israel's racist oppression in the Middle East. If I had to choose between the Neo-Cons' pro-Likud, short-sighted, but more realpolitik views or Chomsky's shockingly idealistic naivety, I would probably hold my nose and side with the Neo-Cons. But hopefully American can find a policy in between - a policy that honestly deals with the ugly realities and necessities of the world stage while at the same time realistically seeking a more enlightened, democratic, and peaceful world.
Rating: 
Summary: Little more on "Survival"
Review: Chomsky amply demonstrates how the U.S. Government, over the last few decades and especially since the Soviet Union fell, has gradually increased its dominance through bribing dictators, arming maniacs, and complicating already complicated situations in foreign countries to produce bloody stalemates. I do understand how this might affect the survival of our species as a whole, but I can't help wishing Chomsky had more thoroughly documented it. He does mention the environmental destruction through U.S. Government policies, but he really could have devoted a whole chapter to it. He could also have documented more thoroughly how the U.S. arming whatever enemy of our enemy of the moment puts us all in danger. I appreciate the further investigation into what we knew (or didn't know) about Bin Laden's guilt or innocence as we demanded the Taliban hand him over; and I also appreciate his analysis of the Iraq situation in light of current events and revelations of old secrets. However, this book was published before Hussein's capture, so it cannot include any analysis of this event. Stay tuned for that, because Chomsky isn't the sort of guy to let that go by uncommented on.
Rating:
Summary: Masterly work by America's foremost dissident
Review: "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky is a masterly work by America's foremost dissident. If we are fortunate enough to survive the future that Chomsky depicts, history will no doubt be indebted to the truths that are revealed in this important book. The U.S. has of course played a major role in the world since the end of WWII. Chomsky shows how U.S. foreign policy and military power has been tied to elite economic interests over this period of time. He argues that deteriorating living conditions for most of the world's people are of little concern to those in power, as evidenced by the long record of U.S. support for numerous brutal dictators who repressed their citizens but protected U.S. business investments. As technology becomes more lethal, Chomsky believes we are entering a very dangerous era. If and when the poor and excluded masses choose to exact retribution against us, the results could be devastating. The terrorist attacks are but one example of such a "blowback" to U.S. foreign policy. However, Chomsky contends that the risks associated with maintaining stockpiles of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction trumps concerns about the public's safety because these weapons are critical to maintaining U.S. power. Chomsky's response to the post-9/11 question of "Why do they hate us?" is much more satisfactory than the sound bite offered up by President Bush. The author makes clear that tensions in the Middle East are directly attributable to the U.S.' desire to control the world's oil supply. He suggests that the lifting of sanctions in the 1990s might have strengthened Iraq's democracy and could have led to Saddam's ousting from power, thereby alleviating the need for war. Chomsky is also highly critical of Israel, including its relationship with the U.S. and the Palestinian homeland issue. Interestingly, Chomsky turns the U.S.' official definition of 'terrorism' around to make the charge that the U.S. routinely engages in terrorism itself (for example, the contra wars in Central America in the 1980s). On the other hand, Chomsky cites sources who testify that the Iraq war has increased Al Qaeda recruitment. But the author believes that terrorism can only be subdued by addressing core social, economic and political inequities in the Middle East and elsewhere. In the final chapter, Chomsky details how the militarization of space comprises the logical next step on America's path to global dominance, providing the U.S. with first-strike capability against virtually any target in the world. Chomsky is hopeful that the "global justice movements" can be mobilized to prevent this provocation and restore peace and sanity to the world. I highly recommend this intelligently written and thoroughly researched work to humane people everywhere.
Rating:
Summary: So you guys are a 'democracy' too, huh?
Review: I've enjoyed this book very much, but feel compelled to comment on something that began to grate on my nerves as early as page 15.
I'd just like to point out that there is no morning meeting held in a public square each day in Washington. The citizens of that city are not responsible for the actions of the temporary few, who jet in and then out of their fair city during several months of the year. It is a common error, perpetrated by journalists, that is then instilled into the rest of the country's population to tar all inhabitants of a nation's capital with this brush - thereby creating an acceptable target for the rest of the country's vilification. I know this from having lived in Canberra, Australia for the past 15 years. It may surprise you to learn that some people who live in national capital cities are not even public servants. Shock, horror. So please, I beg of you, Noam, when you're talking about the actions of the US Federal Government, then say so - 'the White House' is also acceptable - but stop attributing them to Washington!
And what of the rest of the book? It's refreshing to hear an alternative perspective coming out of the USA - although in the current world and local climate, I'm almost surprised it was allowed to be published. I guess the assumption is that the masses will never come close to opening its pages or their eyes, to find out what sins are being committed against our oft glorified but largely theoretical democratic rights.
Rating:
Summary: Chomsky Is Not 'Anti-American'
Review: First off, let me inform any of you reading this that I am not quite finished with Chomsky's latest book, "Hegemony or Survival"; based upon what I have so far read of this book, as well as what I have read before by him, it is my opinion that Chomsky is one of the most patriotic authors that I have read. I say this because he is committed toward our Constitutional rights of dissent and criticism of government. Aside from the most negative reviews of this book, some of which claim that Chomsky is wholly against America, and/or that his major claim in the book is that America is the sole root of all the evil in world and is directly responsible for anything bad: Those claims are completely irrational. In fact, those who have written that or the other (or both) have altogether missed the point. As far as I can tell, Chomsky is saying that since the end of World War II, the US has looked toward expanding its influence in the world, for better or worse. More importantly, he is claiming that the Bush II administration is exploiting the tragedies of 9/11 (by the way, he often refers to the attacks as "atrocities," "tragedies," etc., which must *really* show that he is truly "anti-American," according to the logic, or lack thereof, of the 1-star reviewers) in order to assert American dominance and hegemony on the world, in the name of "fighting terrorism." Chomsky brings to light the ironies and fallacies of the "War on Terror," and exposes to the public the ugly truth that America has, indeed, supported terrorism in the past. Chomsky himself once wrote that the "responsibility of intellectuals" is to reveal the truth and expose lies. He never states that America is an "evil empire," as some reviewers of the book claim. He does state, however, that the Bush II administration has given the world the wrong image of this great country, an image that shows us as trigger-happy, militant lunatics, which, of course, is not who the American people are: our government does not represent us anymore, and is not threatening the world to the brink of destruction. I believe that he is right in his belief that what Bush and his cronies(advisers) are doing in the name of fighting terrorism and making us safer on the home front will, in fact, end up make us less safe and will exponentially increase the probability of more terrorist attacks against us and, thus, more retaliatory attacks in the name of fighting terrorism, and on and on and so forth, until humanity is obliterated. Agree with it or not, that is, I believe, a good approximation of Chomsky's message. He does not want America to be imperial and hegemonic; he just tells it as best he sees it, and he bases it upon careful and scrupulous research. He is one of the true patriots.
Rating: 
Summary: Marxist Pap.
Review: The book is just what one would expect from a tired boring Marxist, i.e., tired, boring Marxist Pap, a great deal of it.
Rating:
Summary: A must read Liberal or conservative.
Review: I guarante you will be suprised
several times during your read of this book.
Refreshingly clear wide in scope at the same time
detailed perspective...beyond praise.
(Free plug: Heard about it, the search and buy here took
less than a minute...the book arrived before
they promised...neatly done!
|
