Joe's Book Reviews

Pacifism as Pathology

2006-10-06T16:09:00.000-07:00

Ward Churchill argues that violence is the only feasible means to the end of confronting state power in his controversial essay. A preface by a former member of the George Jackson Brigade, which carried out violent actions that resulted in the deaths and incarcerations of its members, is included. The member, Ed Mead, provides testimony to his political actions and praise to Churchill’s view.

Mead’s preface only seems to complicate matters. After years of imprisonment and maltreatment, Mead still espouses violence as the sole tactic in an oppositional struggle with the state, but he does so with some hint of regret.

Early into the essay, the reader may think of Gandhi, the Vietnam War protests and the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. when Churchill begins to pronounce the diversion and failures of peaceful protests and pacifistic ideology. However, Churchill does confront history and these seemingly paradoxes to his argument. For example, Churchill points out that the Vietnam War ended not because of large dissent and protest but because of the armed resistance and increasing violence of the Vietcong. But nothing is mentioned about the U.S. government’s growing concern of civil unrest and Cointelpro.

Instead of choosing a violent or nonviolent stance, one may consider popular support in any situation. As we have seen recently in Bolivia, the people can change century-long customs of being governed by leaders subservient to imperial powers by electing a leader sharing their own beliefs. Such a change in leadership certainly has turned the tide in this country while other areas of Latin America declare their independence.

Chomsky wrote in the International Herald Tribune in 2006 that in Bolivia, “Voters were familiar with the issues, very real and important ones like national control over natural gas and other resources, which has overwhelming popular support…….The population chose someone from its own ranks, not a representative of narrow sectors of privilege.” Clearly we see that an active, knowledgeable, and nonviolent population can truly have a revolutionary effect.

Confronting state power does seem like a perplexing task only feasible by armed struggle, which is Churchill’s premise. But in my view, such a statement deserves merit only if you disregard the support of the people in any dilemma. Without a large following, oppression and/or comprehension of unjust policies, there is no victory for violent or nonviolent struggle.

The Cuban revolution and U.S. terrorism since its inception did not succeed because of violence. U.S. efforts to overthrow Fidel and spark another revolution failed perhaps because there was no strong support from within. The cadre of revolutionaries who landed in Cuba in December of 1956 wouldn’t have succeeded without the country’s peasant sympathizers.

In my opinion, Churchill’s essay is interesting and controversial; however, his argument seems to be lacking the key ingredient in any opposition force: popular support. His essay may just have been written for controversy, but Mead’s and the Coauthor’s input may lead one to believe that their argument was quite complete. Such a view does not offer solution to widespread apathy and ignorance endemic to America’s and other unfortunate citizenry. In such a scenario, no side exists to even fight on.

Imperial Ambitions

2006-09-15T17:19:00.000-07:00

In Imperial Ambitions, Noam Chomsky is presented with a series of questions at different venues and time periods. The informal discussions cover the Iraqi occupation and state of affairs facing Americans in a context of imperialism and empire. Chomsky explores the pretenses given by the US for invading Iraq such as regime change, the drive for resources and weapons of mass destruction. Regime change is discussed with the revolution in Iran and installing the Shah, along with running the Iraqi client state in the past and implications of recently invading a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.

The WMD debate collapsed itself when no evidence was found, exposing the main pretext given by the US. Iraq’s defenseless nature from years of economic and military interventions compares quite differently from other targets like Iran or North Korea, which are rushing into nuclear armament as a rational deterrent to US aggression. Iraq is just one of many strategic targets in America’s quest for global dominance.

Chomsky explains how American military occupations and projects will continue to strain the economy, end more lives, and cut social spending. Imperialism as savage and rampant as today promoted and supported by the Bush administration and unanimously in congress, reveals what little values and morals those in government have. Chomsky assumes the only values and morals such Americans have are to transfer the costs of deficit spending to next generations.

As usual with Chomsky’s unambiguous dissemination of information, he conveys optimism throughout his discourse. Never in history have so many Americans and people around the world protested against a war before its inception. Such a precedent offers hope but Chomsky asserts that significant change requires tremendous energy over a period of time, as the protests against Vietnam began to have more of an impact after several years of war. Chomsky affirms about the war in Iraq and dissent that “It’s psychologically easier to organize to oppose military attack than it is to oppose a long standing program of imperial ambitions of which this attack is one phase and of which others are going to come next.”

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

2006-09-14T23:04:00.000-07:00

Gore Vidal is a well established writer of novels, plays, essays and editorials. Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace is a New York Times bestseller that came out in 2002, providing more recognition to Vidal's political work. Some readers may be surprised to learn that Vidal was one of the few people allowed to witness the execution of the Oklahoma city bombing's culprit, Timothy McVeigh. Vidal reveals his correspondence with McVeigh and how he "became interested in Timothy McVeigh and vice versa."

Vidal's analysis and concern is unique and refreshing amidst the U.S. media's narrow coverage of the Oklahoma city bombing and Timothy McVeigh. He also discusses the infamous 911 terrorist attack in New York, which is another event with huge, but homogeneous media coverage. Americans are never told why or what may have significantly contributed to 911, just empty patriotic rhetoric ("they hate democracy" or "our freedom"), actually contradicting reasons clearly given by Osama Bin Laden (US military on Arab lands, occupation, aggression, etc.).

A convenient "scoreboard" of ongoing and completed US military operations is provided, along with discussions about the War on Drugs, healthcare, and the big-government's "shredding of the Bill of Rights" (paradoxically being done right now by a right-wing administration).

Vidal's essays and reflections in the book offer critical analysis of past and present issues. Considering the matters of terrorism and carnage today, Vidal provides alternative perspective to the Bush administration and media's rationale of good vs. evil, spoon-fed to the public.

Failed States: The abuse of power and the assault on democracy

2006-09-09T10:43:00.000-07:00

Failed States by Noam Chomsky

Chomsky writes in his new book that failed states "do not protect their citizens from violence--and perhaps even destruction--or that decision makers regard such concerns as lower in priority than the short-term power and wealth of the state's dominate sectors."

There are great points to be made and urgency in his wealth of information and logic. Chomsky refutes US pre-emptive war or Bush's "anticipatory self-defense" by the simple moral principal of universality, explaining that if the US could wage such wars, so could any other country. But the US and the world would surely disagree to such elementary logic, thus the US shares another characteristic of the outlaw state "whose leaderships dismiss international law and treaties with contempt. Such instruments may be binding on others but not on the outlaw state."

Failed States is Noam Chomsky's most recent book, which is a part of the American Empire Project. Noam highlights US foreign interventions, involvements and resulting atrocities throughout the book, which you may recall from his other works. But only about 1/4 of failed states is a rehash of his other work.

Many recent international issues are reviewed by Chomsky such as the conflict in Lebanon (past and present), Venezuela and Bolivia, the Iraq war and elections, and Iran. Pressing domestic issues such as education, social security, healthcare, the 2000 and 2004 elections, and public opinion are covered as well.

Overall, Failed States is a must read for Chomsky regulars and those unfamiliar with his work.

100 Ways America is Screwing up the World

2006-09-01T12:30:00.000-07:00

John Tirman's 100 ways is a very easy but important read. His analysis will undoubtedly be amusing, interesting, and distressing at times for any concerned reader in times like these. It doesn't attack conservative people (like other conservative books with similar titles) but takes on real important issues like nuclear weapons, genocide, war, globalization, etc.

In one section called Forgetting History, Tirman writes about the many instances of forgetfulness plaguing Americans. He writes the following statements and usual responses:

"American-led genocide in the Philippines in the early 1900's? Never heard of it. Ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples in what is now America? We call that Manifest Destiny. Multiple military occupations of Nicaragua, Mexico, Cuba, Dominican Republic...? Didn't get that in my schoolbooks. A nation of immigrants? We're shutting down the borders."

If you're unfamiliar with American foreign policy and the influence of domestic issues abroad, this book provides an entertaining, concise and comprehensive list of 100 ways America is screwing us all over.