مداخلات : نعوم تشومسكي

by Noam Chomsky, نعوم تشومسكي

"Chomsky is a global phenomenon . . . perhaps the most widely read voice on foreign policy on the planet."-The New York Times Book Review

Interventions is Noam Chomsky at his best.

Not since his all-time best-selling title, 9/11, published in the Open Media series in 2001, have readers had a timely, short, easy-to-read, affordable Chomsky. Unlike 9/11, Interventions is a writerly work-a series of more than thirty tightly argued essays aimed at various aspects of US power and politics in the post-9/11 world. While critical of US military interventions around the globe, each piece in the book is in itself an intellectual intervention aimed at raising public ire about the consequences of US use of power at home and abroad.

Interventions' subjects span from 9/11 and the Iraq war to Social Security and Intelligent Design, South America and Asia, the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the election of Hamas, Hurricane Katrina, and the US concept of "just war."

According to BusinessWeek, "With relentless logic, Chomsky bids us to listen closely to what our leaders tell us-and to discern what they are leaving out. . . . Agree with him or not, we lose out by not listening." Chomsky's Interventions delivers what readers want: an accessible set of skeleton keys for opening up a wide range of global issues dominating today's political landscape.

Noam Chomsky is the critically acclaimed author of many books, including Hegemony or Survival, Imperial Ambitions, Failed States, Manufacturing Consent, and Media Control.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, War, Essays, Philosophy, International Relations

231 pages

First published January 1, 2007

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Mario Kfoury · Rating 1 out of 5]

Interventions a Noam Chomsky book published by Open Media City Lights in 2007 in 232 pages Paperback, ISBN-13: 978-0872864832

Chomsky, a far-left activist who has taught linguistics and philosophy at MIT for more than fifty years is a critically-acclaimed author of numerous books, including Hegemony or Survival, Imperial Ambitions, Manufacturing Consent, Media Control, and Failed States.

The book is a collection of 44 essays written post 9/11 between 2002 and 2007 berating the United States for its interventions in Iraq, South America, Asia, as well as issues ranging from Hurricane Katerina to social security. He argues that American interventionism is nothing less than global domination.

The book which seems biased to the point of obsession, lacks counter-arguments and appears to be cherry-picking facts to fit the author’s theory leaving the neutral reader unconvinced. The repetitive themes in most of the author’s publications as well makes believe that all is the same under different titles. While constructive criticism is often well perceived and taken into consideration, in this case there are no offered alternatives.

Ignoring a dangerous fact serves no good cause. We live in a dangerous world driven by impulses of power, pleasure and meanings, where every culture and every civilization is lurking in the shadows, waiting for its turn to impose its will on the planet. When in the early nineties, globalization was associated with Americanism, denunciations and condemnations were not scarce, but we don't hear a word today that it has become its China-zation. If the United States, which saved the world twice for its Interventions in two World Wars while protecting Mr. Chomsky coreligionists from a Holocaust (which he denies), as well as shielded us from the scourge of communism, did not act as such the world would not have been a better place.

People tend to forget, by ill-information or ill-intent, that communism is not socialism, that the Left is not the same and has different meanings, means and purposes ranging from anarchism to state terrorism across various cultures, that capitalism and the plastic bag at the supermarket are not the culprits for wrecking the environment, but demography as foreseen by Thomas Robert Malthus in his 1798 book An Essay on the Principle of Population. If one person can inflict a degree of damage to the planet and its ecology then two, three, four or five people will increase this damage exponentially - That the best socialist system is a well-structured efficient tax system like the one existing in the West today - That wherever the United States & the West went they left behind school missions, hospitals and universities, where others left oppression, desolation and extreme prejudice.

It is strange and utter hypocrisy that the same people who berate the United States and Western values today risk their lives to go West to play the activists living in a theory bubble that lack hands-on experience, while enjoying the life of Gauche caviar*. Some suffer from either amnesia or anachronism. "He without sin cast the first stone". Criticism is never one way, but always two ways. Unfortunately nowadays it is one - the other way being labeled hard-line, racism and by other adjectives.

Detractors of the United States often infuse their concealed true aversion for Western civilization in twisted misinterpretation akin Cold War propaganda, where a whole generation of young Westerners looking for meanings and existentials have been influenced and indoctrinated by these crafty anarchists to believe they are guilty for something they have not done, and not even their parents or grandparents. But a conspiracy playing on their good faith and political correctness is in the works to disrupt and bankrupt the West from within and from with-out to take a hold of it applying two principles: doing everything possible to diminish its value for bargaining purposes - sowing confusion because its existing freedom of thought and expression challenges and threatens their established culture, government system, ideas and ideologies.

I would rather live in the United States or any Western country than in Russia, China, North Korea or a Middle-Eastern theocracy or autocracy. And would like to remind the author that he is living and enjoying his fully fledged rights in the United States and the Western Hemisphere, while a lot of his colleagues in the East, Middle-East and the Far-East are six feet under or rotting in a 5 by 5 cell yearning for a ray of sunshine or a sip of water. I suggest Mr. Chomsky go live in Russia, China, Iran and North Korea first before writing his next book to discover we are not in a perfect world and the society in which he is actually enjoying a free ride with fully fledged rights is a rare commodity.

A lot of personal pessimism affecting our views on the world stems from family and parental authority issues we transfer, to substitute the blame, to a public authority. The author has to dig deep and undergo a personal introspection to understand the reason that drives his obsession.


*Gauche caviar ("Caviar left") is a pejorative French term to describe someone who claims to be a socialist while living in a way that contradicts socialist values. The expression is a political neologism dating from the 1980s and implies a degree of hypocrisy.

[Michael Soskil · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of essays by Chomsky gives evidence that the motives of the Bush administration in regard to foreign policy matters were less then scrupulous and motivated by a desire for United States military domination of the world. While the views given are not at all objective (Chomsky's views couldn't be any more to the left), he does make good points about the failings of our current political system, the ease with which the President can gain popular support for international policy by labling opposing points of view as "unpatriotic" and "a threat to national security", and the rise of the power the Executive Branch of our government holds in comparison to the other branches. His warnings regarding the way in which the United States is viewed by those outside our borders should not be taken lightly.

[Simon Wood · Rating 5 out of 5]

FUN SIZE CHOMSKY

"Interventions" is an accessible and readable collection of op-ed articles Chomsky wrote between November 2002 and February 2008. Focussed, as ever, on the foreign policy of the United States they cover a wide range of countries and issues, from Nuclear Proliferation, Iran, Somalia, Palestine. Unsurprisingly the main focus of the articles is Iraq.

The articles are 1000 words roughly and were available for publication though apparently the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe demurred - surprisingly enough! Chomsky copes well with the short op-ed format, though there are added footnotes for further understanding and/or to bring the reader up to date. Books such as this are a valuable counterweight to the blandly partisan and nearly always a-historical reporting in the main stream press.

Well worth reading and well recommended additon to Chomskys prolific output.

[sean · Rating 5 out of 5]

HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chomsky. King.

[Kyle Minton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Noam Chomsky remains cogent as ever in his old age. He's still giving interviews, appearing on Democracy Now, writing, etc. Still, because there are so few voices countering hegemonic US foreign policy the prospect of losing Chomsky is truly depressing. Or it was before reading his book of op-eds Interventions and realizing that time is indeed a flat circle and anything Chomsky has said will apply to all of the exact same things for the rest of time.

For example, tell me if this sounds at all familiar:
"Washington's thorniest problem in the region is Venezuela, which provides nearly 15 percent of US oil imports. President Hugo Chavez, elected in 1998, displays the kind of independence that the United States translates as defiance...in 2002, Washington embraced President Bush's vision of democracy by supporting a military coup that very briefly overturned the Chavez Government. The Bush administration had to back down, however, because of opposition to the coup throughout Latin America and the quick reversal of the coup by a popular uprising".

Interventions is a collection of op-eds by Chomsky during (and in the leadup to) the Iraq War. While each one is short, they work to build a countervailing narrative that we all know now to be true. The takeaway here is not just that Chomsky is right, but rather how easy it is to be right.

US foreign policy is extremely formulaic. Since World War II the US will work discretely to cause unrest in a region in order to apply their disaster capitalist tactics toward privatization, they'll accuse any challenging nation (no matter how small) of being an existential threat, and they'll make up any number of reasons to execute an occupation if necessary.

In reading Interventions, one understands that Chomsky's entire body of work documents this strategy time and time again. It serves as a reminder that we can look to Chomsky and those like him any time state conflict approaches. In the year 2019, as our nation creeps closer to an extended military conflict with Iran, we only have to glance at Chomky's writings on the failure to find Bin-Laden, the source of the post-9/11 anthrax terror, or the Iraqi WMDs:
"for the second 9/11 anniversary and beyond, we basically have two choices. We can march forward with confidence that the global enforcer will drive evil from the world, much as the president's speechwriters declare, plagiarizing ancient epics and children's tales. Or we can subject the doctrine of the proclaimed grand new era to scrutiny, drawing rational conclusions, perhaps gaining some sense of the emerging reality".

As concerned citizens, we owe this level of scrutiny to Chomsky. I wouldn't start out with Interventions as your introductory text, but it definitely makes a great piece to a larger collection.

[Dale · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interventions is a set of editorials written by Noam Chomsky for the New York Times syndication service. The editorials were not actually published in the Times, of course, nor were they published in US newspapers, with rare exceptions. They were, however, picked up by the international press. This is unsurprising: Chomsky talks about a reality that the US corporate media strives very hard to ignore or misrepresent. He has been consistently right about the reasons and results of the war in Iraq, and about the goals and accomplishments of US foreign policy generally.

The editorials in this collection focus primarily on the Middle East, but also include a few commentaries on Latin America, particularly Venezuela. The main themes of the book are: 1) US foreign policy has as its primary aim the expansion and consolidation of US corporate power, especially in the realm of energy resources; 2) in pursuit of that foreign policy agenda the US has been the largest and most effective terrorist organization in the world in the post WWII era; 3) the rest of the world actually perceives the US as the most dangerous and erratic nation on earth; 4) US actions are a major determinant in the policies of other governments and organizations, and if we want to see those governments and organizations adopt different policies, then we need to change our own policies. As is usual with Chomsky's books, he supports these themes with well-documented facts and clear argument and analysis.

One of the two editorial reviews of Interventions on Amazon is by Jonathan Rauch. It is worthwhile to analyze Rauch's review in some detail.

Rauch says, 'the Iraq War... , however, does not fit well into Chomsky's template. "The United States cannot tolerate a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq," Chomsky claims. Just imagine, he says, the policies that such an Iraq would be likely to pursue: "The Shiite population in the south, where most of Iraq's oil is, would have a predominant influence." ... The United States tolerates a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq whose Shiite government is friendly toward Iran. If Bush is pursuing imperialism in Baghdad, it is of a very curious sort.'

A very curious sort, indeed. Chomsky points out in at least 2 of the editorials that the US 'toleration' was forced upon it by the mass protests that led to the elections. The US and Britain had been working tirelessly to prevent elections from occurring, and had to make an abrupt about-face only when it became clear that further delays would provoke even more chaos and violence.

As for sovereignty, it was recently reported (following a Friday-night State Department press conference) that the US is threatening to withhold $50 billion of Iraqi assets if the Iraqi parliament does not accede to the US demand for up to 50 permanent military bases in Iraq. Continued presence of the foreign occupiers in Iraq is consistently opposed by 80% of the Iraqi population, and less than 10% believe that the US forces contribute to stability. So the US 'tolerates' the Iraq puppet government by use of blackmail and by insisting that the elected government ignore the wishes of the people - a position that is also adopted here in the US, where a large majority of the people do not want permanent bases in Iraq.

Of course, the US has not allowed the Iraqi government to be sovereign. A sovereign government would as a matter of course prosecute crimes committed within its borders. But the Iraqi government is not allowed to prosecute even murder, if the murder is committed by the US military or its mercenary forces.

The US continues to exert continuous pressure on the Iraqi parliament to pass the US-written oil resources law - a law that would effectively hand over Iraqi oil wealth to US corporations. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis oppose this bill, naturally, and a majority of the Iraqi parliament opposes it. Presumably the political and financial blackmail being applied to gain permanent military bases has also been applied for the oil bill - a 'prerequisite' for further withdrawal of US forces from the country.

So it is unclear in what way Chomsky's 'template' 'does not fit well' with the Iraq war.

On the subject of Afghanistan, Rauch says 'In Chomsky's universe, the 2001 U.S. attack on Afghanistan's Taliban "was undertaken with the expectation that it might drive several million people over the edge of starvation."'. Rauch characterizes this as '(Chomsky's flight) to a separate reality'. But in the editorial in question, Chomsky cites the pre-war information that was available to the US government that would give rise to that expectation. And in the event, millions of people were driven to near-starvation by the US bombing in Afghanistan. Where is the 'separate reality'?

He says 'For all his celebrity on the academic and activist left, Noam Chomsky, the linguist turned gadfly, goes all but unnoticed inside the Capital Beltway.' This, in a review in the Washington Post, one of the leading mouthpieces for the war in Iraq, before the war, and, along with the Times, the leading proponent of the very US imperialist policies that Chomsky decries. No surprises there.

To gain a better appreciation of Rauch's own views of the Iraq war, to compare those views with Chomsky's during the relevant period of 2002-2006 I visited his website. But although he wrote many articles, the Iraq war did not seem to be a subject of interest to him. This may explain his misunderstandings of the reality in Iraq.

Rauch is not the right person to take on Chomsky. He is far too ill-informed and, apparently, misinformed to do more than make a fool of himself. I would hope that Amazon would pull the review and replace it with one written by somebody with actual knowledge of the events and history that Chomsky was writing about.

[Ashwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a compilation of op-eds by Noam Chomsky written for The New York Times Syndicate. And here's the irony -- supposedly the views in these op-eds are such that US papers (including NYTimes itself) have declined to publish them. However, they've been published widely in Guardian and other non-US newspapers. The 44 op-eds in the book run from 2002 through 2006. Reading them I couldn't even figure out why they weren't printed in the US. They didn't seem offending or much different from his usual writing.

The main topics of the op-eds are:
* Iraq - US supported Saddam against Iran. He and the country becomes enemy when oil becomes important.
* Israel/Palestine - US+Israel have been pushing down all possible resolutions to the never ending conflict. In the UN, US+Israel alone have been voting against policies which could help while the entire rest of the world have voted for it.
* South America - US screwed the nations here destroying validly elected democracies and putting up puppet presidents and dictatorships. The nations here have been moving left-center in recent years with independent leaders who are increasingly defiant to US.
* Democracy - US bringing democracy to the world is such a farce. They'll support dictatorships, pull down governments, run elections, and of course force democracy -- basically do anything required to maintain control.
* Power - The only way to keep US off your country is to develop/acquire nukes. See how they can destroy Iraq while they can't touch N Korea.
* Policy - Chomsky and Sainath say the same with regards to this issue. Public opinion no longer matters. Public opinion doesn't influence public policy even a bit. Special interests, lobbies and big business run all the nation's policies.
* Iran - It's all about the control over oil honey.

Since these are op-eds written about current affairs, there is a lot of repetition of ideas while you read them. Since the op-eds are all byte-sized, the book is perfect to read over short breaks/commutes.

[Colin Chamberlin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I knew I had to read this book when I first saw it at the library I knew I had to read it. I love Noam Chomsky but I've never read any of his books so I jumped at the chance. Interventions is a series of pieces almost solely focusing on Iraq and was written in 2003-2006.

In most of the book Chomsky deals into US imperialism and how hypocritical Washington is on 'democracy promotion' worldwide. Noam Chomsky delves to deep into this that he predicts ISIS by almost ten years! Chomsky has an emphasis on Iraq but also deals a lot with the rest of the world. He discussed Iran's nuclear program and how its tied in with North Korea and China, South America's strive towards independence from the US, how to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict and how China is trying to set up an asian trading bloc with its neighbors, just to name a few. In all of these Chomsky exposes Washington's true colors showing their ridiculous amounts of corruption and hypocrisy on every level.

Chomsky is one of the smartest most reasonable men on the planet. I would recommend that if you are even remotely interested in the world in which you live (and why wouldn't you be after all you LIVE there) and you aren't a right wing US patriot bent on a global US dictatorship then I would highly recommend that you at least skim through this book. It's interesting and full of insightful information from one of the leading minds in global politics who no head of state listens to.

[Cristian Iancu · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the perfect thing to read after watching Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States. Just a collection of shocking, but easy to read, information about the cruelty of the US military interventions in the Middle East, but also warnings on the danger of nuclear war and climate change, which are even more threatening nowadays. As always, Noam Chomsky makes it easy for anyone to read him, so pick this book up as soon as possible!

I will end my review with one of Chomsky's inspiring quotes, for he has many:

“I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.”

5/5, definitely!

[Jovan · Rating 4 out of 5]

As i have finished this book, thinking perheps I have shouldn‚t cause it is better to live in ignorance, not knowing what is going on, the news has been that Pompeo (US secretary or something) without any evidence accussed Iran of attacking oil fields in SAR. It is like another page of this book.
Relactant I must repeat, how the less we know, our lifes are more care free, but also very relactantly one could observe that if US attack Iran 12. September isn‚t that far, and if so 13.September is the final day of our civilisation.
Burn after reading.

[عاطف عثمان · Rating 4 out of 5]

تشومسكي إنسان جدير بالاحترام، مشغول بالهم الإنساني العام، قسم الله له حظا من النزاهة يحسد عليها.

الكتاب مقالات (قرابة 50 مقالة) تدور نسبة كبيرة منها حول غزو العراق والباقي متعلق بفلسطين واسرائيل. قد يُعرض البعض عن قراءة الكتاب الآن اعتقادًا بأن هذه المقالات - المكتوبة منذ 2002 حتى 2007 - فقدت قيمتها بمرور الوقت وتغير الإدارة الأمريكية، لكن الواقع أن قراءة السياسة الخارجية الأمريكية (منذ ما بعد الحرب) غير مرهون بتغير الإدارات على ما أرى.

[Naveed Qazi · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this book, Chomsky's perspectives are mainly prompted towards the Bush fiasco and the Iraq War. The foreign policy strategy drives American politics, mainly for the Republicans and the author is very bold in acknowledging that. And he has quoted numerous passages from the articles of secondary authors to give an insight to the reader.

[Matt Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

In this collection of essays, Chomsky again gives his intelligent opinion on topis ranging including the US invasion of Iraq, US imperialism, the 2004 presidential election, and the Palestine and Israel conflicts. Chomsky's mental acuity and sharpness are shown through his essays.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read, quick and easy to understand. Chomsky has a really mastered a meaningful and insightful view into the relationship the US has among other countries. It makes one really consider "is our government truly acting in our interests? (the people) or just for themselves? (politicians)"

[Abdulslam · Rating 4 out of 5]

يبقى رأي تشومسكي مثري حتى لو كان كثير من المواضيع انتهى ودفن، لأن ماعلمنا إياه التاريخ بأن الحكومات الإمبريالية تكرر رعونتها دائماً.

[Sandip Roy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Noam Chomsky nails the US Foreign policy with deep insights and established facts. A brilliant account on the war agenda in the Middle East with its ulterior motives. A brilliant perspective....

[Sam Ruddick · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is obviously very polemic, but that's not a problem in itself, because it ain't like he lied, in spite of what some third rate conservative pundits claim. They shout about him being anti-American or lying about this or that, but there own research is so poor and their claims are so specious that if you're at all serious about the world you have to just dismiss them, because Chomsky's claims are all very well documented. The research is solid. It's all substantiated. It all checks out.
I mean, Dershowitz accused him of lying (not in this book, specifically, but regarding a letter Chomsky cowrote with Pinter and Saramago), and it was very telling to see Dershowitz point out that "a five minute Google search" revealed that Chomsky's claims were untrue, because a six minute Google search revealed that in fact everything Chomsky said was 100% true, and that the problem with Dershowitz was just that he didn't really know how to read.
But back to this book. It's all very well documented, very well argued, and very important, even though the time has passed now. I mean, this book is a collection of essays from the period of the Iraq war. I think the oldest essays in it are from 2007 or so, so there's an argument to be made that it's dated. That doesn't make it irrelevant, especially since it clears up a lot of bullshit that was floating around the mainstream press at the time.
There are two reasons I give it four instead of five stars.
One is that it's all short essays, and that really has nothing to do with the book or with Chomsky, because it's advertised as short essays. It's supposed to be short essays. I just kind of wanted longer ones, probably because I found these short ones so informative that I wanted to see the arguments drawn out a little, developed more fully. I mean, they were perfectly well developed for short essays but they made me want to read his longer, more comprehensive work.
The second reason for the four star rating is the polemic tone. I mean, they are polemics, and they should be. You know. That's fine. There's no reason to be measured in one's condemnation of war crimes or war criminals, especially when the hypocrisy of said criminals is twenty miles high. Bush could no more wage a war on terror than shit can wage a war on stink. And I imagine that, after a hundred years of making this argument about similar presidents in similar circumstances, Chomsky has simply lost patience with the "measured" debate.
And you can see this in Pinter, too. His Nobel address. When I first read it I thought he was being, I don't know, asinine or something, because he so harshly attacked the U.S. war in Iraq that I felt there was no way he was going to persuade anybody.
But after a while I realized that I was wrong. That there was really no point in engaging the "debate" in a reasoned tone, that to treat Bush's actions in Iraq as though they merited some kind of measured debate was to participate in the problem, to lend it a credibility it didn't have. And when you look at U.S. war crimes over the past fifty years or so alone, we're talking about millions of people. Hundreds of thousands in Iraq alone, I imagine, between the innocent civilians killed in bombing campaigns and the subsequent refugee crisis and then this ISIS business.
But still, the tone of Interventions seemed to me a writing problem, at times. Like it has the potential to make an uninitiated reader take Chomsky less seriously, and that was a problem for me because I'm trying to find something I can use as a teaching tool. Something that will simultaneously show students how to put together a good paper - researched argumentation - and clue them in to what their country's doing, because that seems important to me.
And I don't think it's a political agenda. Maybe my politics are (ahem) "radical," but it's not a political agenda to say that, if the Nuremburg laws were applied, every U.S. president since WWII could be hanged for war crimes. That's just a fact. And it's a fact that young people need to be aware of that they aren't taught in school and that they don't hear on TV. I mean, that's not what this book is about. This book is more paticular. But the information is really important, and I think the tone makes that information less likely to be taken seriously by an audience that has largely been duped into believing that their country's behavior overseas is noble.
Chomsky's talking to his fans here. I'm one of them. But I'm not sure this is his best book.
Manufacturing Consent, which he wrote with Edward Herman, is I think much better for the uninitiated reader. The arguments are more involved and more extensively researched and lay the groundwork for being able to understand and approach the rest of his political writing, and the tone is pretty straighforward. There was never a time where I felt like he was off on a screed, or where I felt like a reader who was unfamiliar with him would think he was off on a screed.
That's the problem with Interventions. I know it's not a screed. I know it's not knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But I only know because I had already come to the same conclusions, just with much less information.
The best thing about Chomsky is always the information. He's an encyclopedia. It's pretty impressive.
Anyway, this is a book I recommend with those reservations. If you've never read Chomsky before, read Manufacturing Consent or Understanding Power first.
It goes without saying that you have to know a little about the history of the world since WWII to make any sense of any of this stuff, by the way. I mean, if you can't find Cambodia on a map and you don't know what "USSR" stands for then obviously a lot of this stuff is going to go way over your head, but I imagine most of the people who would bother to read my Goodreads page or a review of a Noam Chomsky book know all that stuff already.
Okay. I don't know why I'm still talking.
I'm eating a delightful cupcake right now, by the way, and having a lovely cup of tea.

[Eric G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a collection of around forty-five 1000 word essays that are part of Chomsky's New York Times Syndicate writings. As always, the essays are usually printed outside of the United States, but rarely featured domestically. It is a quick read, and despite the fact that Chomsky does well in synthesizing information, these essays do not lend themsevles to comprehensive analysis or detailed footnotes (that which Chomsky is know for). However, these essays are extremely timely (with the most recent appearing in March of 2007) and lend themselves to quick insights of importance. It is refreshing to read and re-read the essays and scan over the updated footnotes and furthermore, the encouraged readings that always adorn the margins. Chomsky has always been an inspiration, and this book continues to lend support and encouragement for the future of democracy in dire times.

[Eric Piotrowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

How odd to get Chomsky in bite-sized chunks. These were written for the NYT Syndicate (though none have been printed in the NYT), so they're all 2-3 pages. He clearly has a bit of trouble making it concise enough, and the desert-dry sarcasm that I love so much doesn't show up much. But it's still packed with important info and perspective, so it's certainly worth a read. Finally -- a Chomsky book you can keep in the bathroom!

[Doug · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nothing earth-shaking if you are familiar with Chomsky's other work. Lots of insights into events of the time period covered by these essays, again typical of Chomsky. Very worthwhile reading if you want to have a broader view of world events than what is portrayed in the US news. I've read a few of his other books, which I also highly recommend. Manufacturing Consent, Hegemony or Survival, Profit vs. People.

[Kesh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very insightful. Author prattles on slightly too much about Iraq. I do however believe it to be a good overview of a variety of issues. Essays are short and largely to the point. There are also a good deal of references. From this collection of essays, interested readers can then move onto others of his works which delve further into the topics covered here.

3.75 stars: Lost points on excessive focus on Iraq, but I admire what he is trying to do in all.

[Kaspars Koo · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first encounter with Chomsky. These short essays written mainly focuses on the absurdities of the Iraq war.
It seems like everyone nowadays are screaming in the media and there are a lot of noise, but not actually much content and data that backs it up. Noam speaks quietly, but it all adds up.
The best part about these essays were that they were written from 2003 till 2007 and it's possible to follow what Noam has written and how that proves to be true later.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a collection of essays Chomsky writes from 2000-2007. You basically are able to follow a timeline month by month through the years of some of the largest stories. Interesting concept and my first time reading something like that. Definitely helps to unravel the ever evolving rhetoric throughout the years.

[Daniel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chomsky as usual is on point, but I want to hope that with the Neocon administration out of power that many of his arguments in this book are obsolete or perfectly applicable to the next administration. But I'm probably wrong.

[Jason · Rating 2 out of 5]

I heard this guy's name bandied about in nearly all areas of global policy, war, human rights, etc. so I figured I'd give him a chance. A little too liberal for my tastes, but decently written. I don't know that I will be trying to digest him in such a large dose again.

[robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a collection of brillant and concise (easy to read!) Op-Eds written by Prof. Chomsky during Bush 2 for the New York Times syndicate (none of which the NYT paper accepted for their own Op Ed section for publication). Way recommended!

[Raya · Rating 3 out of 5]

I see why these essays were called interventions. Chomsky's sharp style gives a poke to the American political system. Reading them all together made his argument seem repetitive. Still, an interesting perspective on the actual state of the American democracy.

[Jonathan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some are lured by reputations, statuses, Phd's and diplomas. Chomsky is the biggest fool of our time and a big hypocrite. He should go on living on the other side of the world to see what he is destroying. Pure anarchism.

[Charles Weinberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

easily digested essays. will use for the pacifist club at h.s.