* * * Here's a GREAT Review of ''Hegemony or Survival'' * * *

[wyldwolf]

''Hegemony or Survival'' is a raging and often meandering assault on United States foreign policy and the elites who shape it... For Chomsky, the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. America, the prime oppressor, can do no right, while the sins of those categorized as oppressed receive scant mention. Because he deems American foreign policy inherently violent and expansionist, he is unconcerned with the motives behind particular policies, or the ethics of particular individuals in government. And since he considers the United States the leading terrorist state, little distinguishes American air strikes in Serbia undertaken at night with high-precision weaponry from World Trade Center attacks timed to maximize the number of office workers who have just sat down with their morning coffee.

It is inconceivable, in Chomsky's view, that American power could be harnessed for good. Thus, the billions of dollars in foreign aid earmarked each year for disaster relief, schools, famine prevention, AIDS treatment, etc. -- and the interventions in Kosovo and East Timor -- have to be explained away. The Kosovo and Timor operations' prime achievement, he writes, was to establish the norm of resort to force without Security Council authorization. On this both the Kosovars and the Timorese, whose welfare Chomsky has heroically championed over the years, would strongly disagree.

''Survival or Hegemony'' is not easy to read. Chomsky's glib and caustic tone is distracting. He relies heavily upon quotations, but rarely identifies the speaker or writer. The endnotes supply more frustration. Bill Clinton's humanitarian rationale for the Kosovo war was ridiculed ''by leading military and political analysts'' in Israel, we are told, but the citation leads only to an earlier book by Chomsky himself. When he agrees with a claim, Chomsky introduces it with the word ''uncontroversially'' or credits it to ''distinguished authorities.'' Those who don't share his viewpoint don't simply disagree; they are the ''prevailing intellectual culture'' or the ''educated classes.'' This is a thinker far too accustomed to preaching to an uncritical choir.

Often he meets official falsehoods with exaggerations of his own. President Clinton, he says, ''was flying Al Qaeda and Hezbollah operatives to Bosnia to support the U.S. side in the ongoing wars.'' And ''radical Islamists'' have taken over in Kosovo, leading to a ''Taliban phenomenon.'' These are far-fetched claims that he doesn't adequately back up.


http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:8jvJROU0rT8J:www.ksg.harvard.edu/cchrp/pdf/Chomsky.Review.pdf+Samantha+Power+Hegemony+or+Survival+review&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

Don't worry. The piece is complimentary in some passages.

[Karenina]

1. What are your motives? Here are more:

(Courtesy Rodeodance)

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Noam Chomsky is considered the father of modern linguistics. In this richly detailed criticism of American foreign policy, he seeks to redefine many of the terms commonly used in the ongoing American war on terrorism. Surveying U.S. actions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, the Far East and elsewhere over the past half a century along with the modern American war in Iraq, Chomsky indicates that America is just as much a terrorist state as any other government or rogue organization. George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq drew worldwide criticism, in part because it seemed to present a new philosophy of pre-emptive war and an appearance of global empire building. But according to Chomsky, such has been the operating philosophy of American foreign policy for decades. Opponents of the Bush administration's tactics consistently point out how the American government supported Saddam Hussein for many years prior to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand are easy to come by) as a means of pointing out how the United States is happy to fund despots when it's in American interests. But Chomsky, armed with extensive historical notation, takes this notion further, arguing how the repression of other nations' citizenry is, in fact, the very reason Americans support certain foreign leaders. The charges made throughout the book are severe, as are the dire consequences he posits if current trends are not reversed, and Chomsky is no more likely to make friends or gain supporters from the mainstream now than he's ever been. But Hegemony or Survival is relatively dispassionate. Instead of relying on camp or shock value or personal attacks as some of his contemporaries have done, Chomsky drives his well-supported points steadily forward in an earnest and highly readable style. --John Moe --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Publishers Weekly
In this highly readable, heavily footnoted critique of American foreign policy from the late 1950s to the present, Chomsky (whose 9-11 was a bestseller last year) argues that current U.S. policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are not a specific response to September 11, but simply the continuation of a consistent half-century of foreign policy-an "imperial grand strategy"-in which the United States has attempted to "maintain its hegemony through the threat or use of military force." Such an analysis is bound to be met with skepticism or antagonism in post-September 11 America, but Chomsky builds his arguments carefully, substantiates claims with appropriate documentation and answers expected counterclaims. Chomsky is also deeply critical of inconsistency in making the charge of "terrorism." Using the official U.S. legal code definition of terrorism, he argues that it is an exact description of U.S. foreign policy (especially regarding Cuba, Central America, Vietnam and much of the Middle East), although the term is rarely used in this way in the U.S. media, he notes, even when the World Court in 1986 condemned Washington for "unlawful use of force" ("international terrorism, in lay terms" Chomsky argues) in Nicaragua. Claiming that the U.S. is a rogue nation in its foreign policies and its "contempt for international law," Chomsky brings together many themes he has mined in the past, making this cogent and provocative book an important addition to an ongoing public discussion about U.S. policy.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

[wyldwolf]

3. to present a balanced view of the book. What are your motives?

[QuestionAll...]

10. so what would your balanced view on the Bush administration be? nt

[PeaceProgProsp]

18. It was a positive review. Here are the last two paragraphs:

And it is essential to demand, as Chomsky does, that a country with the might of the United
States stop being so selective in applying its principles. We will not allow our sovereignty to be
infringed by international treaty commitments in the areas of human rights or even arms control,
but we demand that others should. We rebuff the complaints of foreigners about the 650 people
who remain holed up in Guantanamo kennels, denied access to lawyers and family members,
with not even their names released. Yet we expect others to take heed of our protests about due
process. We have ''official enemies'' -- those whose police abuses, arms shipments and electoral
thefts we eagerly expose (Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, Iran). But the sins of our allies in the
war on terror (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan) are met with
''intentional ignorance.'' Although he is typically thin on prescriptions, Chomsky offers ''one
simple way to reduce the threat of terror: stop participating in it.''

Chomsky is wrong to think that individuals within the American government are not thinking
seriously about the costs of alliances with repressive regimes; he is also wrong to suggest that it
would be easy to get the balance right between liberty and security, or democracy and equality --
or to figure out what the hell to do about Pakistan. But he is right to demand that officials in
Washington devote themselves more zealously to strengthening international institutions,
curbing arms flows and advancing human rights. ''It is easy to dismiss the world as 'irrelevant,' or
consumed by 'paranoid anti-Americanism,' '' he writes, ''but perhaps not wise.''

---

The woman who wrote that review wrote a book about genocide in Bosnia and that's why she's very defensive about Chomsky's criticism's of Clinton's actions there.

[Totally Committed]

2. Have you read the book?

Almost every piece of Political Non-Fiction I have read (from either side) could appear to someone with a different POV to be erroneous or worse. My guess is there is nothing that Chomsky could write that would make you burst into spontaneous applause, but if you read this book and try to keep an unjaundiced eye, you might learn something of a great thinker's thoughts and reasoning for his POV.

Rarely have I ever read ANY political book (even from our side) with which I have agreed 100%. But, some are better than others. This is a pretty good one as they go... It would never be my favorite, but it was an interesting and informative read.

TC

[wyldwolf]

4. nope! And after reading the review in the OP, I don't plan to... but...

..thanks for bumping the post!

[Spazito]

5. Well, I do have to give you credit for .....

being consistent in your OPs. Beyond that.....well.....never mind.

[wyldwolf]

6. thank you!

After all, we do want to hear both sides, right?

By the way, can you refute anything in the review?

[Spazito]

7. Gosh, given you only posted the negative parts, I should be asking you

if you can provide back up from your own reading of the book but, it seems, you have NOT read it nor have any inclination to do so. If you DO decide to read it I would then be happy to discuss it in depth but, until then, posting a second-hand critique with NO knowledge of your own means any discussion I would have should be with the person who wrote the critique, AFTER having read the book, not someone simply passing that critique on for their own reasons.

[wyldwolf]

9. yes, but I also posted, quite plainly, that the review gets better

Of course, I don't see you in the other thread that is gushing with positive reviews asking the OP there to confirm the details based on his/her own reading... but that is to be expected.

[Spazito]

11. Hmmm, seeing as you don't link to "that other thread", I am left to

assume you mean the one simply stating Chomsky's book is #1 on Amazon? If not, I am not sure what thread you mean. Does it upset you that Chomsky's book is #1 on Amazon? I sure hope not.

[wyldwolf]

12. the other thread was going before this one...

...odd you zeroed in on this one first (not really it isn't).

So, did you go to that thread and ask about what I mentioned? No.

Why are you upset that someone posted a review that isn't kissing Chomsky's ass?

[QuestionAll...]

13. I didn't see the other thread either.

can you link it?

[Spazito]

14. ROFL! Gosh, from your non-answer answer, I must conclude

the answer is "yes" to whether you are upset that his book is #1. Again, credit for your consistency!

I actually didn't zero in on yours, I responded to the "#1 on Amazon" thread before yours which, I noticed, you didn't post your OP critique on it where you would have had interesting responses, I am sure. I guess we can't respond to all threads on this topic and have to choose which ones we feel a comment is due.

Oh, and I am now finished bumping your thread and have said what I came here to say, anything more would be mere repetition.

[wyldwolf]

15. ROFL! A non answer to an irrelevant question!

hey! Are you upset you missed having a tuna fish sandwich today?

A question with as much relevancy to the discussion as yours!

But of course, your question answering skills are bit sketchy themselves.

[cool user name]

29. How can you come to a conclusion about Hegemony or Survival

without having read the fucking book for cryin' out loud?

It's 'Beyond Chutzpah!" ... another favorite of mine too. :D

[independentpiney]

8. "the citation leads only to an earlier book by Chomsky himself"

I've got a hold request at my library for the book, the first of his i will have read. I tend to agree with many of his conclusions that I've read about, but I've also heard criticisms from historians that his sources and citations are often either questionable or don't actually support what he claims they do. So i'll do a kalama sutta and decide for myself.

[Moochy]

26. Nah better to take the advice of an avowed

hater of Chomsky and who spits hatred for the "leftists" here at DU.

Nothing wyld about it. Quite the opposite, very tame, very housebroken. But still makes messes in front of everyone.

[wyldwolf]

16. kicking the anthill again! Kick!

[On the Road]

17. As Far as Kosovo and East Timor Go,

one of the things that kind of appalled me at the time was the US choice to ally themselves with the KLA, a violent splinter faction with ties to other violent Islamic groups and drug running. This would not have been quite as bad if it were the only anti-Serbian game in town. But there was another much more popular peaceful resistance movement that had established its own schools and taxation system. The US choice was not consistent with the stated principles.

Likewise in East Timor, the US response in the late 70s was to support the Indonesian invasion by blocking any UN action against Indonesia, even while their military was wiping out large numbers of Timorese. More recently, when East Timor finally won independence, the US was very slow to intervene and allowed huge numbers of unnecessary casualties.

Now, the invasion of East Timor was under Carter while Moynihan was UN Ambassador. The two more recent interventions were under Clinton. Those were two of the least hawkish presidents we have ever had, and two of the least callous toward loss of foreign lives. To me, that pretty much supports Chomsky's view that US policy tends to vary only slightly with changes in the presidency.

I might be more likely to withhold judgment if there were a compelling narrative on the other. I'm actually anxious to read an account like that. But intelligent support of US interventions is rare. It's mostly simplistic and based on "good intentions" argumentation.

I'm much more practical. I want to judge my country by the effects of its actions, not by its intentions and rhetoric.

[wyldwolf]

19. Ask the people of Kosovo about the effects

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/22/clinton.05/

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/36

[paulk]

20. I saw Mr. Chomsky speak when I was in my mid twenties

during the height of Reagan's Nicaragua follies... that talk went a long way toward activating me politically. For many years Chomsky was a hero of mine.

But, I got older, had some experiences (mostly involved in traveling to other countries and forming my own first hand opinions on things) and I came to question a lot of what I had previously taken as gospel regarding Chomsky. Mostly this had to do with what I perceived as a built in bias that underlay everything he wrote, best expressed by this part of the review -

"For Chomsky, the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. America, the prime oppressor, can do no right, while the sins of those categorized as oppressed receive scant mention. Because he deems American foreign policy inherently violent and expansionist, he is unconcerned with the motives behind particular policies, or the ethics of particular individuals in government. "

Not to say that Chomsky should be disregarded, but I do think it's important to read him with an understanding that he's not a dispassionate observer - he has an agenda, and it's useful to be aware of what that agenda is.

[G2099]

21. he has an agenda, and it's useful to be aware of what that agenda is.

So what do you perceive as his agenda? Please enlighten me. I have no opinion on him; I am neutral on him.

[paulk]

22. to put it bluntly, his agenda is finding fault with everything

and anything the United States does.

Every action undertaken by the US has an ulterior and negative motive...


Not that there isn't some truth in the idea that the US foreign policy is aimed at benefiting our country - but there are plenty of instances where it's also benefited both countries involved - something Chomsky doesn't often acknowledge.


He's gotten to be much more of an ideologue as he's gotten older - his view on things has narrowed - as the review says -

"This is a thinker far too accustomed to preaching to an uncritical choir."

He's grown too comfortable with that choir - to the point where he doesn't seem to challenge his own precepts and worldview at all anymore. This is not a good place for an intellectual to be.

[Moochy]

27. Aggravating everyone who doesnt have him on ignore?

with the exception of his meat puppet pals. Lol oh you werenot talking about ignored were you?

[malaise]

23. Great review?

I read books and review them for myself.

[wyldwolf]

24. yep. Great review!

But in your case, there are no great reviews.

[Moochy]

25. Chomsky ate my baby dingo

or maybe ate wyldwolf's man-cub, benchley?

[cool user name]

28. Have YOU read Hegemony or Survival?

Why don't you read it and judge for yourself instead of relying on someone else's opinion?

It worries me that people rely on "reviews." Are we too lazy to read and think for ourselves now?