Chomsky, Brzezinski and the allegation of terrorism in the american strategy for the global primacy

1- A Biased Official definition.

The term of «terrorism» is loaded with strong ideological and political connotation. As the famous adage says «One's Terrorist is the other's Freedom fighter».

In his book, ((What Uncle Sam really wants, 1992, Noam Chomsky shows one of the major features of the political speech. In fact, Chomsky observes that the terms used within political speech have a double meaning. On one hand we have the one found in the dictionary, and on the other hand we find the doctrinal meaning whose aim is to serve determinate policies.

Concerning the definitions given by dictionaries, we can give two from the same dictionary, but at different periods. In an edition of 1959, OXFORD Dictionary defines «Terrorism» as «The systematic intimidation as a method of governing or securing political or other aims». In a recent edition of 2008, the definition and may be in a determinate purpose, is similar to the official one. In fact the Oxford advanced learners dictionary 7^th edition defines Terrorism as the use of violent action in order to achieve political aims or to force a government to act. The US department of defense and a major part of official American speech give the following definition to terrorism⁽¹⁴⁾: «Terrorism is the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political,

(14) Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12April 2001 (Amended Through 23 January 2002, P 444.

religious, or ideological.

The main lack of this definition is its focus on legality. Considering that terrorism can only emanate from unlawful or illegal groups is totally wrong. According to Chomsky, for whom the political speeches are concocted in a way that prevents people to think, the notion of Terrorism is easily used by the Countries that couldn't recognize the Terrorist aspect of their own activities. So, by wagging an international war against terrorism, they will be fighting something they are the first to exert.

The decade of the 8O's was known as the one of international terrorism, but as Chomsky states, not for TSAHAL massacres in Lebanon during the Israeli invasion, the car bomb outside a mosque in Beirut, or the bombing of PLO in Tunis, systematic American interventions in Nicaragua, Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, and so forth, but due to hijacking operations of Palestinian Commandos (*).

After the 9/11 the number of terrorist organizations will increase in an important way (See Appendix). The major part of these groups coincides in being strong opponents to the American Hegemony in their respective region.

(*)Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival : Americas's Quest for the global Dominance, p 104.

A «Lewisian» Print.

The adjective lewisian, refers here to Bernard Lewis. Lewis is a British Historian, he is recognized as one of the most important specialists of the Arab World. He is also known for his political struggle and his unconditional support to Israeli's government policies. During the G.W. mandate he was one of the councilors of the neo-conservatives. In 2002, Paul Wolfowitz, declared that Bernard Lewis helped them to understand better the complex and important History of the Middle East, and to use it as a guide to build a better world for the future generations.

A year later, Bernard Lewis, guided the USA to Iraq. He explained that Iraq invasion was synonym of a new aura of enlightenment in the region, and that the American troops will go over well.

For Bernard Lewis, the History of the Middle East, according to the West, can be summarized on eternal spirals of struggle between West and Orient. It began with the Islamic conquests, the crusades, the Ottoman invasions of Europe and so forth. With the victory of the West and the weakening of Islam, people frustration in the Middle East will increase and transform in radical hatred toward West. In a lewisian logic, all the resistance toward West, is not the result of the West imperialist policies, but it comes from the categorical refusal and reject of the enlightened western values, such as Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights. To give examples, we can say that the struggles for independence were not against the French and British colonialism, but against the noble values they tried to inculcate. The Palestinian resistance is a reaction to the Hebrew Democracy rather than, oppression, territories theft, and rampage. In Iraq and Afghanistan, USA's coalition and NATO, are affronting dark forces which refuse democratic and human rights culture. Muslim, are

congenitally, violent and bad-tempered. Because of their blind refusal to the western noble values, rooted hatred to the west, they unfortunately cannot understand the same language the civilized world understands. That's why the only way by which they understand is force.

So, starting from such biased statements, we can easily understand, why G.W. Bush administration, had the policies it has have toward the Middle East.

Notwithstanding, one of the major mistakes of Bernard Lewis thesis, is his focus on Arabs and Muslims as violent actors. In fact, for him the anti-Americanism can only emerge within a Muslim Society. This is totally far from reality. It's just a simple and non censed axiom. The anti-Americanism and reject of Western exists everywhere. In Latin America, it is not weaker than in the Arab world and vice versa. Anti-Americanism has nothing to do with race or religion. Such feeling born in determinate circumstances and in objective situations, it does not come from the blind refusal of another culture or civilization. It comes from imperialist ambitions. It is a reaction, against the oppression imposed by the stronger on the weaker. Zbigniew Brzezinski is perfectly aware of that situation and he is totally opposed to such biased thought and approaches. That's why he was, as well as Chomsky one of the most fervent opponent to G.W. policy. For him the Arab world must be a major allied of USA. The main hindrance to this alliance is the non-resolution of the Palestinian Issue. For Realism rather Justice, Brzezinski criticizes the non efficient implication of USA in a conflict that it can easily solve. In addition he condemned the role played by Israel in the Middle East. For Brzezinski, the Arab World is a more important allied than the Hebrew State. In one of his recent interviews, he affirmed that if ever Israel dared to attack Iranian nuclear installations as it has been done with Iraq in 1983. The American forces in Iraq, must not hesitate to shoot down the Israeli

fighters, otherwise USA with wrong strategies in Iraq, troubles in Afghanistan, will be introduced in a mess from which it will not know how to go out. USA does not really need in such a moment to open a new front in Iran ^(15).

(15) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8656314677941975569#