The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Resistance is not futile. Chomsky.

It's easy to depress oneself and maybe even become disillusioned as a
result of current events. Here's a recent interview Cynthia Peters had with
Noam Chomsky. The main trend running through it is that, bad though things
are, we can influence events by intensifying the struggle. And that our
goals should be long term. Sections 3 and 4 should be of particular
interest to us in these difficult times:

   3. Assuming that war comes, should the anti-war movement be depressed
about  its ineffectuality?

That's like suggesting that abolitionists, or advocates of rights of
working people or women, or others concerned with freedom and justice,
should have been depressed about their inability to attain their goals, or
even make progress towards them, over very long periods.  The right
reaction is to intensify the struggle.  In this case, we should recognize
that the anti-war movement was unprecedented in scale, so that there is a
better base for proceeding further.  And that the goals should be far more
long-term.  A large part of the opposition to Bush's war is based on
recognition that Iraq is only a special case of the "imperial ambition"
that is widely condemned and rightly feared; that's the source of a good
part of the unprecedented opposition to Bush's war right at the heart of
the establishment here, and elsewhere as well.  Even the mainstream press
now reports the "urgent and disturbing" messages sent to Washington from US
embassies around the world, warning that "many people in the world
increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace" than
Saddam Hussein (Washington Post lead story).  That actually goes back to
the Clinton years, but it has become far more significant today.  With good
reasons.  The threat is real, and the right place to counter it is
here.  Whatever happens in Iraq, the popular movements here should be
invigorated to confront this far larger and continuing threat, which is
sure to take new forms, and is quite literally raising issues of the fate
of the human species.  That aside, the popular movements should be
mobilized to support the best outcomes for the people of Iraq, and not only
there of course.  There's plenty of work to do.

  4. Does the US agenda include democracy in Iraq and beyond?

If it's left to Washington, the best that can realistically be hoped is the
kind of "democracy" that the current political leadership -- mainly,
recycled Reaganites -- and others in power have instituted elsewhere in
their domains: Central America and the Caribbean, to take the region that
provides the richest evidence the last time they controlled the government,
through the 1980s, and in fact over a century.  But under popular
influence, other outcomes are possible.  We don't live in a a military
dictatorship, after all.  We are highly privileged, by comparative
standards.  There are plenty of opportunities to shape "the US agenda."


Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]