Noam Chomsky, hero of the radical left, is at it again with a new and meandering essay in which he makes the following claims:
-That any "challenge" to US military power should not be met with "force", but with something else.....the opposite of force?
-That John Ikenberry, one of the "foreign policy elite", is right is stating that the US should not allow itself to be in the position to carry on as "global leader, protector, and enforcer", even though, more often than not, the international community wants it that way (see Liberia, Kosovo, and Bosnia...not to mention World War I and World War II. In addition, the French didn't mind our help in Vietnam.)
-That the UN had zero obligation to enforce the resolutions that it had passed regarding Iraq.
-That the US and the coalition of the willing carried out an "preventive war" in Iraq that is on par with the "preventive war" Germany engaged in during the 1930's and 1940's...holocaust and all!
-That "historian" Arthur Schlesinger is correct in stating that "the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the US after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism". Someone ought to tell the both of them that Albania, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine have all sent troops to Iraq to help with the post-war situation. How's that for a "global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism?"
Then Chomsky goes in to some very confusing ideas. He says that only the people of Iraq were punished by liberating Kuwait because Saddam unfairly escaped unharmed. But Chomsky is not in favor of removing Saddam, thus his disagreement with the recent Iraq war. So, that being said, I'm not sure what option was left, other than to let Saddam have Kuwait, which is not very kind to the Kuwaiti's, is it? Are you as confused with all this as I am?
Noam Chomsky, you've done it again!