Writing about some Soviet apparatchik that he ’ d butted heads with, Serge says, “ I followed his argument with the blank uneasiness which one might feel in the presence of a logical lunatic. ” Noam Chomsky fills me with blank uneasiness.
At some point in the ast decade, Chomsky ossified into the Jimmy Buffet of the far left: a productive yet predictable figure, still packing them in without ever bothering to change his set list.
Sameness sells.Before I try to xplain why Chomsky is such a dangerous simpleton ( ideologically-speaking) let me admit that I didn ’ t dislike Failed States as much as I expected.
No matter what your political orientation is, if you don ’ t learn something from Chomsky, you ’ re just not paying attention.
I doubt even Chomsky believes this nonsense, but he presents it with a straight face ( as he does everything else: humour is not his strong point, unless you enjoy crude sarcasm.) He comes up with his own flagrantly self-serving definition of a failed state but somehow overlooks the most salient feature: i.e. a failed state is one that has simply ceased to function.
Like any good lefty, Chomsky is dismissive of the Bush administration ’ s assertio that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling WMDs. Fair enough.
You ’ re saying Colin Powell was right all along?
See, it turns out that Iraq ’ s WMD facilities were systematically looted following the invasion: Most of the looting was from production sites for solid- and liquid-propellant missiles, where about 85% of the equipment had been removed, along with biotoxins and other materials usable for chemical and biological weapons, and high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear and chemical weapons and missiles.
First he tells us there were no WMDs. Then, without stopping to notice the contradiction, he tells us that the whole place was lousy with the guy.
But conveniently for his argument, the US is still guilty, since they provided the weapons, or the “ aid ” to buy them, back in the 80s—and doubly guilty because they trie to secure all this military surplus after the invasion.So, as always with Chomsky, the US can ’ t win for losing.