What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Military Humanism: Lessons From Kosovo
'To guide us all through the three-star disasters of the Bush years I can think of no better pilot.' Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch
157 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
About the author
Noam Chomsky
976 books14.9k followersAvram Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of behavior and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has affected the philosophy of language and mind. He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his media criticism and political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments.
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth-most cited scholar in any time period.
Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of linguistics made in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of behavior and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has affected the philosophy of language and mind. He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power. Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known for his media criticism and political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments.
According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth-most cited scholar in any time period.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
September 23, 2017
في زمن أصبحت فيه "الإنسانية" ماركة / علامة تتزين بها الإعلانات التجارية* ... وتتغطى بها المشاريع التجارية* أيضًا
فليس غريبًا أن تحمل الحملات العسكرية أيضًا شعار "الإنسانية" بكل وقاحة !
الكتاب يتحدث بالأساس عن حرب كوسوفو (سنوات 1998-1999) وتحديدًا عن تدخل الولايات المتحدة بالحرب التي صعدت من مجريات الحرب وزادت من اثار العنف والجريمة (بغطاء إنساني أخلاقي عفيف).. الكتاب لا يدافع عن يوغوسلافيا واضطهادها للألبان ولا يبرر له، ولكنه يركز على عدم التبرير "للدول المتنورة" للدخول في الحروب بواجهة إنسانية تخفي نواياها السلطوية والاقتصادية ... ففي حين كانت تهاجم الدول التي لا تخدم مصالحها كانت تسكت عن جرائم الدول التي تخدمها (يتكرر مثال إسرائيل وتركيا ضد الأكراد في سنوات ال90 حيث كانت صديقة حميمة لامريكا والناتو التي تهيمن عليه الولايات المتحدة) وجرائمها هي نفسها في مناطق مختلفة من العالم .. والإعلام طبعًا يخدم ذلك ... مما لا نزال نراه حتى اليوم !
مما يجدر ذكره أن الكتاب يأخذ بعين الاعتبار أن للقارئ خلفية عن الحروب التي حدثت في سنوات التسعينات وبالأخص حرب كوسوفو .. بالتالي تصعبت شخصيا في فهم بعض الأمور وكنت الجأ لجوجل للبحث عن تفاصيل أكثر لفهم ما يحلله ويشير الكاتب إليه ببراعة وحرفية (لذلك أنصح بالإطلاع مسبقًا عليها)
ومن أعظم الإكتشافات (المخزية نوعا ما بالنسبة إلي) أن هناك حروب دموية قبيحة جدًا حدثت في هذه السنوات (ال90) وانا لا ادرك عنها شيئَا !! أمثلة : ،السلفادور والرهبان اليسوعيين ،تيمور الشرقية (عدد القتلي زاد عن عدد ربع السكان)، كولومبيا، لاوس، كمبوديا، الصومال وهاييتي، غواتيمالا ...
كذلك من الأمور الهامة التي تطرق لها الكاتب برأي (وقد اعتمد بالأساس على مراجع صحفية وخطابات) :
بيع الأسلحة والتغني بالأخلاق (بريطانيا أنموذجًا)
إرهاب الدول المتنورة الذي يتمثل في الحروب التي تُشن باسم القيم وبغطاء الأخلاق (أساس الكتاب)
تشبيه الدول المتنورة ونظامها بالمافيا ! واعتبار المجموعات الغير مرغوب بها إرهابية (كجيش كوسوفو مثلا) وشيطنتها لتبرير الهجوم عليها
* أقصد بالتجارية التي تهدف للربح المادي (مهما تغطت بقيم سامية ودعمتها الربح المادي على أشكاله يشكل أساسها)
فليس غريبًا أن تحمل الحملات العسكرية أيضًا شعار "الإنسانية" بكل وقاحة !
الكتاب يتحدث بالأساس عن حرب كوسوفو (سنوات 1998-1999) وتحديدًا عن تدخل الولايات المتحدة بالحرب التي صعدت من مجريات الحرب وزادت من اثار العنف والجريمة (بغطاء إنساني أخلاقي عفيف).. الكتاب لا يدافع عن يوغوسلافيا واضطهادها للألبان ولا يبرر له، ولكنه يركز على عدم التبرير "للدول المتنورة" للدخول في الحروب بواجهة إنسانية تخفي نواياها السلطوية والاقتصادية ... ففي حين كانت تهاجم الدول التي لا تخدم مصالحها كانت تسكت عن جرائم الدول التي تخدمها (يتكرر مثال إسرائيل وتركيا ضد الأكراد في سنوات ال90 حيث كانت صديقة حميمة لامريكا والناتو التي تهيمن عليه الولايات المتحدة) وجرائمها هي نفسها في مناطق مختلفة من العالم .. والإعلام طبعًا يخدم ذلك ... مما لا نزال نراه حتى اليوم !
مما يجدر ذكره أن الكتاب يأخذ بعين الاعتبار أن للقارئ خلفية عن الحروب التي حدثت في سنوات التسعينات وبالأخص حرب كوسوفو .. بالتالي تصعبت شخصيا في فهم بعض الأمور وكنت الجأ لجوجل للبحث عن تفاصيل أكثر لفهم ما يحلله ويشير الكاتب إليه ببراعة وحرفية (لذلك أنصح بالإطلاع مسبقًا عليها)
ومن أعظم الإكتشافات (المخزية نوعا ما بالنسبة إلي) أن هناك حروب دموية قبيحة جدًا حدثت في هذه السنوات (ال90) وانا لا ادرك عنها شيئَا !! أمثلة : ،السلفادور والرهبان اليسوعيين ،تيمور الشرقية (عدد القتلي زاد عن عدد ربع السكان)، كولومبيا، لاوس، كمبوديا، الصومال وهاييتي، غواتيمالا ...
كذلك من الأمور الهامة التي تطرق لها الكاتب برأي (وقد اعتمد بالأساس على مراجع صحفية وخطابات) :
بيع الأسلحة والتغني بالأخلاق (بريطانيا أنموذجًا)
إرهاب الدول المتنورة الذي يتمثل في الحروب التي تُشن باسم القيم وبغطاء الأخلاق (أساس الكتاب)
تشبيه الدول المتنورة ونظامها بالمافيا ! واعتبار المجموعات الغير مرغوب بها إرهابية (كجيش كوسوفو مثلا) وشيطنتها لتبرير الهجوم عليها
* أقصد بالتجارية التي تهدف للربح المادي (مهما تغطت بقيم سامية ودعمتها الربح المادي على أشكاله يشكل أساسها)
April 13, 2016
كتاب قيم لأكثر كاتب قرات له
فقد قرأت لتشومسكي كتب كثيرة ولكن اعتبر هذا الكتاب من اهمها
كنت اريد ان اكتب ريفيو لهذا الكتاب يعطيه حقه ولكن مهما كتبت لن اقدر ان ألخص اهميه الكتاب
فهو يتحدث عن اسباب ضرب امريكا او الناتو لكوسوفو وانه ليس كما ادعو للانسانية او بسبب التطهير العرقي
فأمريكا سمحت بل وساعدت فى اكثر من مكان فى العالم بأشياء مثل وافظع مما حدث فى كوسوفو ولكن لأن ذلك فى مصلحتها
كتاب قيم انصح به
Read
February 13, 2020وصلت للصفحة 160، وهذا نفس جيد للمرابطة على كتابٍ مهم لم أستهوِ لغته، مما يضطرني لقراءة أصله. كما قال إدرورد سعيد فيه، "إنه كتاب لا غنى عنه"؛موجع ومؤلم ويمزع القلب مزعًا. وأوصي به لمن يقوى على نتع الحقيقة.
المراجعة خاضعة للتغيير بعد قراءة الأصل.
المراجعة خاضعة للتغيير بعد قراءة الأصل.
January 31, 2014
MILITARY HUMANISM SHREDDED
Unusually for Chomsky "Lessons from Kosovo" is tightly focussed on one particular conflict: the much lauded NATO intervention in Kosovo in spring 1999 that was carried out under the banner of being an almost historically unique "Humanitarian Intervention". In this short book Chomsky destroys the NATO case on every major point, and tears apart the rhetoric and rationale of Clinton, Blair, et al and their many media cheerleaders into shreds.
Rather than being an intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing it inaugurated it, as a simple look at the chronology would reveal as well as paying attention to what military figures such as US-NATO commanding General Wesley Clark said, and the pre-war diplomacy which culminated in the Rambouillet Agreement was almost certainly set up to be refused by the Serbs, indeed it was more than NATO achieved after three months of bombing as well as flouting the agreements that brought the bombing to an end.
Chomsky takes the reader on a brief tour through the rhetoric used during conflicts through the ages and finds that practically every resort to arms is carried out under the banner of lofty words about "principles and values" and proclamations regarding it's "humanitarian" nature. With regard to other conflicts occurring during the 1990's that were minimally as serious as that in Kosovo, Chomsky makes the point that a NATO member, Turkey, was carrying out far worse massacres, with generous access to US weaponry, with hardly peep from NATO, Clinton, Blair and their media fanclub. Likewise Colombia, not to mention the murderous sanctions being inflicted on Iraq primarily by the US & the UK that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
In short this is a book that is still well worth reading, a tightly focussed and devastating critique of the NATO intervention and its immediate aftermath. The reader who is interested in the conflicts that tore Yugoslavia apart during the 1990's would be well advised to look at Susan Woodward's "Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution After the Cold War" which is exhaustive on the causes of the conflict as well as its early years. With regard to some of the aforementioned media cheerleaders Verso's fine Counterblast series includes looks at Michael Ignatieff, Thomas Friedman and Bernard Henri Levy.
Unusually for Chomsky "Lessons from Kosovo" is tightly focussed on one particular conflict: the much lauded NATO intervention in Kosovo in spring 1999 that was carried out under the banner of being an almost historically unique "Humanitarian Intervention". In this short book Chomsky destroys the NATO case on every major point, and tears apart the rhetoric and rationale of Clinton, Blair, et al and their many media cheerleaders into shreds.
Rather than being an intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing it inaugurated it, as a simple look at the chronology would reveal as well as paying attention to what military figures such as US-NATO commanding General Wesley Clark said, and the pre-war diplomacy which culminated in the Rambouillet Agreement was almost certainly set up to be refused by the Serbs, indeed it was more than NATO achieved after three months of bombing as well as flouting the agreements that brought the bombing to an end.
Chomsky takes the reader on a brief tour through the rhetoric used during conflicts through the ages and finds that practically every resort to arms is carried out under the banner of lofty words about "principles and values" and proclamations regarding it's "humanitarian" nature. With regard to other conflicts occurring during the 1990's that were minimally as serious as that in Kosovo, Chomsky makes the point that a NATO member, Turkey, was carrying out far worse massacres, with generous access to US weaponry, with hardly peep from NATO, Clinton, Blair and their media fanclub. Likewise Colombia, not to mention the murderous sanctions being inflicted on Iraq primarily by the US & the UK that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
In short this is a book that is still well worth reading, a tightly focussed and devastating critique of the NATO intervention and its immediate aftermath. The reader who is interested in the conflicts that tore Yugoslavia apart during the 1990's would be well advised to look at Susan Woodward's "Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution After the Cold War" which is exhaustive on the causes of the conflict as well as its early years. With regard to some of the aforementioned media cheerleaders Verso's fine Counterblast series includes looks at Michael Ignatieff, Thomas Friedman and Bernard Henri Levy.
January 30, 2022
Since the end of the Cold War, American and NATO military interventions have been explained in large part as part of humanitarian missions, part of what Chomsky describes here as the New Humanism. Writing shortly after NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo against Slobodan Milosevic, he interrogates this claim. Although Chomsky cites a number of scholars, journalists, and politicos who describe this new form of intervention as being a distinctly post-Cold War development in human relations, historical records contradict them. Counterexamples seem endless, extending from the Roman empire to the American bombing of Indochina.
Chomsky spends quite a bit of time describing actions by NATO states that seem no less sinister than those taken against the Kosovars. He focuses in particular on the Turkey's efforts to rid their country of Kurdish people and their culture and on the British and American support they received to do so.
I think that it would be easy to criticize a lot of this as "whatboutism," but that misses the point a bit. Yes, Chomsky does compare atrocities by Serbian forces to those committed by American allies and clients, but the point is not merely to draw a moral equivalency or claim that since we accept one, we must accept the other. Rather it raises the question of why, if bombing is justified since it will prevent ethnic cleansing, has no action been taken to end the killing of the Kurds given that it such an end could be achieved with only diplomatic pressure? Aside from raising questions about who decides what interventions have moral necessity, this is perhaps Chomsky greatest point in undermining humanitarian justifications for bombing campaigns.
Chomsky also spends quite a bit of time exploring the extent to which the bombing campaign truly was effective at protecting lives, and provides good evidence that the opposite was true. He quotes commanders before the bombing began warning that it would likely escalate killing of civilians. Sadly, hindsight seems to bear this out.
Throughout the book, Chomsky is insightful, clear, and erudite. I read the whole book with one finger in the source notes to flip back and forth between them and the text. Occasionally he is a bit verbose or opaque, but it does little to affect the cogency of the text.
It is a sad thing that this book is still relevant. Interventions in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere have been explained through a similar frame. Even many of the same people are rattling their sabers in the pages of the New York Times despite getting it wrong so many times before (how does Thomas Friedman still have a job there?). As tensions grow surrounding a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine, I can only hope that assessments of possible actions are more sober and honest than they have been in the past.
Chomsky spends quite a bit of time describing actions by NATO states that seem no less sinister than those taken against the Kosovars. He focuses in particular on the Turkey's efforts to rid their country of Kurdish people and their culture and on the British and American support they received to do so.
I think that it would be easy to criticize a lot of this as "whatboutism," but that misses the point a bit. Yes, Chomsky does compare atrocities by Serbian forces to those committed by American allies and clients, but the point is not merely to draw a moral equivalency or claim that since we accept one, we must accept the other. Rather it raises the question of why, if bombing is justified since it will prevent ethnic cleansing, has no action been taken to end the killing of the Kurds given that it such an end could be achieved with only diplomatic pressure? Aside from raising questions about who decides what interventions have moral necessity, this is perhaps Chomsky greatest point in undermining humanitarian justifications for bombing campaigns.
Chomsky also spends quite a bit of time exploring the extent to which the bombing campaign truly was effective at protecting lives, and provides good evidence that the opposite was true. He quotes commanders before the bombing began warning that it would likely escalate killing of civilians. Sadly, hindsight seems to bear this out.
Throughout the book, Chomsky is insightful, clear, and erudite. I read the whole book with one finger in the source notes to flip back and forth between them and the text. Occasionally he is a bit verbose or opaque, but it does little to affect the cogency of the text.
It is a sad thing that this book is still relevant. Interventions in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere have been explained through a similar frame. Even many of the same people are rattling their sabers in the pages of the New York Times despite getting it wrong so many times before (how does Thomas Friedman still have a job there?). As tensions grow surrounding a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine, I can only hope that assessments of possible actions are more sober and honest than they have been in the past.
September 6, 2009
A very uncomfortable book to read, and there are unpleasant parallels between the Kosovo intervention and the whole pile of pish that’s going on in Afraqistan and their handlings by the mainstream media.
August 25, 2013
Essential reading to understand the NATO bombing of Kosovo, particularly for how it documents that the bombing exacerbated the violence on the ground, creating the very humanitarian crisis that was then ex post facto used to justify it.
February 23, 2022
Severely lacking historical context. Wouldn’t expect anything more from a linguist and a charlatan disguised as an intellect.
March 17, 2022
Underrated book from Chomsky. Here, NATO is exposed as being nothing more than an extension of American imperial power in Europe. It's remarkable how the supposed "victories" and justifications for NATO are uncritically repeated by the meda and aligned clients in the decades following it's intervention in Kosovo (as well as a reoccurring argument during Russia's early-2022 military operations in Ukraine). It's pretty much still the case that numerous similar crimes have taken place, some of which actually involve members of this supposed "defensive alliance", but are ultimately ignored because they don't involve an "official enemy" to American hegemony. Palestine, Yemen, and Somalia - today's East Timor and autonomous Kurdish regions in Iraq.
4/5.
4/5.
December 24, 2021
Most enlightening... and extremely disturbing. Basically we need to maintain our nuclear weapons or there's a chance the US will bomb the fuck out of us at some point. And forget a move away from capitalism and neoliberalism; it will never be allowed to happen.
I can only give it 3 stars because while it's so revealing and insightful, I'm sure Chomsky could find clearer ways of expressing himself. Some of this is almost incomprehensible.
Finally, why are all books about Yugoslavia that I find written while the conflict isn't even over? Will I ever find one that covers what actually happened in the end?
Here's hoping it's a while before I have to read any more Chomsky.
I can only give it 3 stars because while it's so revealing and insightful, I'm sure Chomsky could find clearer ways of expressing himself. Some of this is almost incomprehensible.
Finally, why are all books about Yugoslavia that I find written while the conflict isn't even over? Will I ever find one that covers what actually happened in the end?
Here's hoping it's a while before I have to read any more Chomsky.
December 1, 2023
NATO'S ULTIMATUM: "NO CHOICE."
"First, do no harm," smirk
marauding superpowers
who "save lives," rain bombs.
Anagram review: US-NATO morf, mov': "Cleanse rot?" Hm, hok'm news! Slay mission. (Oh my! *ik.*)
"First, do no harm," smirk
marauding superpowers
who "save lives," rain bombs.
Anagram review: US-NATO morf, mov': "Cleanse rot?" Hm, hok'm news! Slay mission. (Oh my! *ik.*)
August 2, 2012
A concise example of what Chomsky's politics are, this book seeks to uncover the actual events in Kosovo in order to compare it to the Us/Uk narrative of Nato intervention to stop genocide. Instead we find that rather than being more noble than the U.N. who refused to act in the face of atrocity, Nato infact became the catalyst for a political situation which engulfed thousands and further scared the already troubled balkans.
Anti-American? If misunderstood. Chomsky's anti-imperialist stance is the driving thrust of this work. Recommended but not perfect; to seasoned Chomsky watchers the comparisons with East Timor and Sudan et al are well worn, if worthy paths.
Anti-American? If misunderstood. Chomsky's anti-imperialist stance is the driving thrust of this work. Recommended but not perfect; to seasoned Chomsky watchers the comparisons with East Timor and Sudan et al are well worn, if worthy paths.
March 5, 2016
Una crítica fuerte y aguda, una trágica realidad. La verdad estoy bastante desinformada del tema, y fue un duro abrir de ojos leer esto. Chomsky hace un buen trabajo fundamentando sus críticas.
April 19, 2021
Parenti's work on Yugoslavia is superior, but this is a good complement.
Read
September 4, 2018I fuxxx with this book
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews