The Shield of Achilles: Noam Chomsky, Iraq, and Panama

Noam Chomsky, an oft-quoted professor at MIT, has written a lot of books on foreign policy and occasionally gives interviews. Thing is, his field of study is actually linguistics. Yet, a look at his bibliography shows that he writes far more about foreign policy, particularly in regard to the United States, with which he is more critical than any other nation (while simultaneously enjoying its benefits, of course).

Anyway, he recently brought up a point to which, for one fleeting moment, I thought I might actually agree with him. He said:

Not very long ago, as you all recall, it was taken for granted that the Iraq war would be the central issue in the 2008 election, as it was in the midterm election two years ago. However, it’s virtually disappeared off the radar screen, which has solicited some puzzlement among the punditry.

Unfortunately, after that valid observation, he goes into conspiratorial waters to claim this same thing has gone on since Vietnam, and the article goes downhill from there (see below).

We do need to hear more about Iraq in this race, but Chomsky misses the fact that the race hasn't really started yet. The major parties haven't chosen their nominees; and within the parties there was little debate because the candidates generally all agreed with one another on the war. Once the real campaign begins, Iraq will be a major issue again (I hope).

The article is also good for illustrating how this man thinks. Here's an example:

Last month, Panama declared a Day of Mourning to commemorate the US invasion—that’s under George Bush no. 1—that killed thousands of poor Panamanians when the US bombed the El Chorillo slums and other poor areas, so Panamanian human rights organizations claim. We don’t actually know, because we never count our crimes. Victors don’t do that; only the defeated.

In his narrow-minded hatred of America, this brilliant scholar doesn't think beyond the consequences of what he just said. He's merely parroting the left-wing meme that started after General Tommy Franks said of Iraq "we don't do body counts".

But suppose the US did do body counts? Suppose the US Department of Defense set up a website and updated enemy military and civilian casualties daily? Do you think that maybe it would look like they were boasting about the numbers? Like maybe they were treating it like a score at a football game?

Don't you think that the anti-war crowd would then protest over such a count? Moreover, there's no requirement in the Geneva Convention or anywhere else that the victor must count his kills.

Chomsky goes on:

It aroused no interest here; there’s barely a mention of the Day of Mourning. And there’s also no interest in the fact that Bush 1’s invasion of Panama was a clear case of aggression, to which the Nuremberg principles apply, and it was apparently more deadly, in fact possibly much more deadly, than Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, happened a few months later

The invasion of Panama killed 23 US servicemembers and 400-600 Panamanians. Chomsky takes advantage of the fact that Kuwait doesn't have official figures on deaths during the Iraqi occupation, but since at least 600 Kuwaiti hostages were taken to Iraq and never returned, that figure alone would trump the Panamanian invasion even if you didn't count the additional number of Kuwaitis and foreign nationals that died during Iraq's invasion and seven-month long occupation. In fact, that is another difference; while the US occupied it for weeks, and gave it back to a democratic process voluntarily, Saddam had to be removed from Kuwait by military force.

Moreover, in calling the invasion of Panama a "clear case of aggression" he either doesn't know or neglects to mention several hostilities that Panama engaged in, including the murder of Marine Lt Robert Paz.

Incidentally, the "day of mourning" is an interesting story by itself:

"This is a recognition of those who fell on December 20 as a result of the cruel and unjust invasion by the most powerful army in the world," said Rep. Cesar Pardo of the governing Democratic Revolutionary Party, which holds a majority in the legislature.

Footnote that CNN doesn't mention: The Democratic Revolutionary Party is the very same party that Manuel Noriega belonged to. And, if the invasion was so unjust, why didn't he call for the release and/or reinstatement of Manuel Noriega as president of Panama? (instead they have sought extradition to serve out his sentence there - Noriega is currently being held in the Metropolitan Correctional Center of Dade County, Florida) Is it because they know the invasion was just but don't want to admit it? CNN has it on the money:

Polls at the time indicated Panamanians overwhelmingly welcomed the invasion that rid them of Noriega, who was later convicted in absentia here and sentenced to 60 years in prison on charges of embezzlement, corruption and murdering opponents.

But there have been increasing feelings that the invasion was a blow to the nation's dignity.

That's the real problem. Pride. People accuse the US of bowing the sin of pride without questioning their own motivations as well. I'm sure the United States military does it. And so does Noam Chomsky.