Book Review:  Noam Chomsky.  Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.  New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2003.

With scathing prose, Noam Chomsky sharply critiques the current administration’s foreign policy and the rationale behind it in Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, published in late 2003. Chomsky emphasizes the aggressive and arrogant foreign policy approach of the George W. Bush administration and its historical antecedents. For Chomsky finds the current war on terror just another example of a long American tradition of foreign interventions carried out in the name of “liberation” or “counterterror.” Now, in mid-2006, it is evident that the United States’ foreign policy has not deviated from the historical framework that Chomsky identifies.

To begin, the author addresses what he defines as the new “imperial grand strategy” of the Bush administration, one that “threatens to leave the globe more dangerous and divided and the U.S. less secure.” The National Security Strategy, announced by the government in the fall of 2002 and reiterated on 16 March 2006, stipulates that America will pursue global hegemony by any means, most notably through threats or use of its vast military resources. This mandate, of course, is antithetical to international law (which the U.S. has historical helped shape). U.S. contempt for international law is nothing new, Chomsky asserts, and demonstrates this contempt by citing examples of the Reagan administration’s interference in Nicaragua, and more recent occurrences in East Timor and Kosovo.  These examples set the stage for Iraq because they ushered in “new norms” of intervention: the right to invade a country without UN authorization, a tactic utilized in the invasion of Iraq.

From there, Chomsky compares the Cuban Missile Crisis and the war in Iraq, arguing that both brought the world closer to whole scale destruction. The Cuban Missile Crisis grew directly out of a campaign of U.S. international terrorism, he contends, aimed at forceful regime change. Obviously, in Iraq, with the absence of WMD, regime-change and state-building became primary foci and this threatens international peace more than it helps.  More specifically, Chomsky cites many authorities stating the Iraq war is likely to increase risks of proliferation of WMD and terror against the U.S.

Evidently, the Bush II administration is “following the script” of their ideological predecessors, the conservative resurgence embodied in the Reagan administration. The “script” is as follows: the U.S. supports brutal dictatorships and suppresses democratic movements in certain areas to maintain stability (usually stability for American businesses). Then, if the autocrat does not do America’s bidding, as Saddam Hussein found out after his invasion of Kuwait, U.S. leadership can confidently take credit for the overthrow of the tyrants it supported until the very end. Another example Chomsky uses is Bush I support for the violent dictator of Romania; in 2001, his son visited the country and lectured on how ruthless dictators should be opposed.

Domestically, Bush II also followed the “script” solidified by his predecessors. In light of a sagging economy, Reagan realized the only way to maintain political power was to inspire fear, which he did through diatribes on the dangers of Libya and Panama, and through the 1980s “war on drugs”, all the while slashing social programs of the previous decades. In his reelection bid in 2004, seeing his popularity waning and witnessing growing discontent with the social and economic policies of the administration, Bush understood that any hope of maintaining political power would be accomplished through diverting “mass discontent into nationalism.”  Karl Rove reinforced this approach by making the center piece of the campaign national security and portraying Bush as a wartime leader.  The administration was able to manufacture enough fear among Americans for the invasion of Iraq and for Bush’s reelection, while also instituting new norms of aggressive war at will.

The book also gives a view of America and its foreign policies from an Arab standpoint. Why do they hate us? Chomsky asks.  They don’t hate us, but hate the policies of the U.S. government; there is a basic perception among Arabs that the U.S. supports corrupt and brutal dictators and opposes political and economic progress to protect its interests. Terms like “freedom” and “democracy” and other such values, spouted out by U.S. administrations for decades, sound “obscene” to those in Arab worlds, Chomsky says. To those affected by harsh U.S. policies in the Middle East, our government is a “leading terrorist state.” The definitions of “terror” are virtually the same, Chomsky notes, as the official U.S. policy of “counterterror” or “counterinsurgency.” This view of American policy has conveniently been discarded by successive U.S. administrations in “intentional ignorance”: the fundamental assumptions behind the new imperial grand strategy, Chomsky asserts, is that “we are good, even noble.”  Chomsky connects this contemporary justification with Wilsonian “elevated ideals.”

Chomsky identified the problem; what of a solution? He is not so cynical as to offer no resolution. The only other “world power” to compete with America is world public opinion. Chomsky feels that for the first time in American history there is some willingness to look honestly at America’s global role. And, in the course of modern history, there have been significant gains in human rights and democratic control of some sectors of life; these have rarely been the gift of enlightened leaders, but of popular struggle. “Change,” Chomsky concludes, “is within the reach of our opportunity and our will.”

In assessing Chomsky’s argument and contemporary relevance, one must be able to discern a clear connection between the aggressive natures of America’s past foreign policies and the current one. In this Chomsky is very convincing. Although he might have overstated the connection of the urgency of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the war in Iraq, he forcefully argues that although more militant and arrogant, Bush II is following the general “script” put forth by the Reagan revolution in the 1980s. The manner in which many of these “terrorist” activities took place has conveniently been marginalized if examined at all; this can be seen by the lack of critical journalism during the run-up to the Iraq War in early 2003. Agree or disagree, Chomsky is, at least, according to the New York Times Book Review, “sobering and instructive.” He definitely gets one out of their comfort zone.

Jason McCollom is a graduate student studying history. He also plays music in a local band, Brown Julius.