The United States is a Leading

Terrorist State
An Interview with Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian

Q: There is rage, anger and bewilderment in the U.S. since the September 11 events.
There have been murders, attacks on mosques, and even a Sikh temple. The University of
Colorado, which is located here in Boulder, a town which has a liberal reputation, has
graffiti saying, Go home, Arabs, Bomb Afghanistan, and Go Home, Sand Niggers.
Whats your perspective on what has evolved since the terrorist attacks?
A: Its mixed. What youre describing certainly exists. On the other hand, countercurrents
exist. I know they do where I have direct contacts, and hear the same from others. In this
mornings New York Times theres a report on the mood in New York, including places
where the memorials are for the victims of the terrorist attack. It points out that peace
signs and calls for restraint vastly outnumbered calls for retaliation and that the mood of
the people they could see was very mixed and in fact generally opposed to violent action.
Thats another kind of current, also supportive of people who are being targeted here
because they look dark or have a funny name. So there are countercurrents. The question
is, what can we do to make the right ones prevail?
Q: The media have been noticeably lacking in providing a context and a background for
the attacks on New York and Washington. What might be some useful information that
you could provide?
A: There are two categories of information that are particularly useful because there are
two distinct, though related, sources for the attack. Lets assume that the attack was
rooted somehow in the bin Laden network. That sounds plausible, at least, so letsay its
right. If thats right, there are two categories of information and of populations that we
should be concerned with, linked but not identical. One is the bin Laden network. Thats
a category by itself. Another is the population of the region. Theyre not the same thing,
although there are links. What ought to be in the forefront is discussion of both of those.
The bin Laden network, I doubt if anybody knows it better than the CIA, since they were
instrumental in helping construct it. This is a network whose development started in
1979, if you can believe President Carters National Security Advisor Zbigniew
Brzezinski. He claimed, maybe he was just bragging, that in mid1979 he had instigated
secret support for Mujahedin fighting against the government of Afghanistan in an effort
to draw the Russians into what he called an Afghan trap, a phrase worth remembering.
Hes very proud of the fact that they did fall into the Afghan trap by sending military
forces to support the government six months later, with consequences that we know. The
U.S., along with Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, Saudi Arabian funding, and Israeli
involvement, assembled a major army, a huge mercenary army, maybe 100,000 or more,
and they drew from the most militant sectors they could find, which happened to be
radical Islamists, what are called here Islamic fundamentalists, from all over, most of
them not from Afghanistan. Theyre called Afghanis, but like bin Laden, they come from
elsewhere.
Bin Laden joined very quickly. He was involved in the funding networks, which probably
are the ones which still exist. They were trained, armed, organized by the CIA, Pakistan,
Egypt, and others to fight a holy war against the Russians. And they did. They fought a
holy war against the Russians. They carried terror into Russian territory. They may have
delayed the Russian withdrawal, a number of analysts believe, but they did win the war
and the Russian invaders withdrew. The war was not their only activity. In 1981, groups
based in that same network assassinated President Sadat of Egypt, who had been
instrumental in setting it up. In 1983, one suicide bomber, maybe with connections to the
same networks, essentially drove the U.S. military out of Lebanon. And it continued.
By 1989, they had succeeded in their holy war in Afghanistan. As soon as the U.S.
established a permanent military presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden and the rest
announced that from their point of view this was comparable to the Russian occupation of
Afghanistan and they turned their guns on the Americans, as had already happened in
1983 when the U.S. had military forces in Lebanon. Saudi Arabia is a major enemy of the
bin Laden network, just as Egypt is. Thats what they want to overthrow, what they call
the unIslamic governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, other states of the Middle East and
North Africa. And it continued.
In 1997, they murdered roughly sixty tourists in Egypt and destroyed the Egyptian tourist
industry. And theyve been carrying out activities all over the region, North Africa, East
Africa, the Middle East, for years. Thats one group. And that is an outgrowth of the U.S.
wars of the 1980s and, if you can believe Brzezinski, even before, when they set the
Afghan trap. Theres a lot more to say about them, but thats one part.
Another is the people of the region. Theyre connected, of course. The bin Laden network
and others like them draw a lot of their support from the desperation and anger and
resentment of the people of the region, which ranges from rich to poor, secular to radical
Islamist. The Wall Street Journal, to its credit, has run a couple of articles on attitudes of
wealthy Muslims, the people who most interest them: businessmen, bankers,
professionals, and others through the Middle East region who are very frank about their
grievances. They put it more politely than the poor people in the slums and the streets,
but its clear. Everybody knows what they are. For one thing, theyre very angry about
U.S. support for undemocratic, repressive regimes in the region and U.S. insistence on
blocking any efforts towards democratic openings. You just heard on the news, it sounded
like the BBC, a report that the Algerian government is now interested in getting involved
in this war. The announcer said that there had been plenty of Islamic terrorism in Algeria,
which is true, but he didnt tell the other part of the story, which is that a lot of the
terrorism is apparently state terrorism. Theres pretty strong evidence for that. The
government of course is interested in enhancing its repression, and will welcome U.S.
assistance in this.
In fact, that government is in office because it blocked the democratic election in which it
would have lost to mainly Islamicbased groups. That set off the current fighting. Similar
things go on throughout the region.
The moneyed Muslims interviewed by the Journal also complained that the U.S. has
blocked independent economic development by propping up oppressive regimes, thats
the phrase they used. But the prime concern stressed in the Wall Street Journal articles
and by everybody who knows anything about the region, the prime concern of the
moneyed Muslimsbasically proAmerican, incidentallyis the dual U.S. policies,
which contrast very sharply in their eyes, towards Iraq and Israel. In the case of Iraq, for
the last ten years the U.S. and Britain have been devastating the civilian society.
Madeleine Albrights infamous statement about how maybe half a million children have
died, and its a high price but were willing to pay it, doesnt sound too good among
people who think that maybe it matters if a half a million children are killed by the U.S.
and Britain. And meanwhile theyre strengthening Saddam Hussein. So thats one aspect
of the dual policy. The other aspect is that the U.S. is the prime supporter of the Israeli
military occupation of Palestinian territory, now in its thirtyfifth year. Its been harsh
and brutal from the beginning, extremely repressive. Most of this hasnt been discussed
here, and the U.S. role has been virtually suppressed. It goes back twentyfive years of
blocking diplomatic initiatives.
Even simple facts are not reported. For example, as soon as the current fighting began
last September 30, Israel immediately, the next day, began using U.S. helicopters (they
cant produce helicopters) to attack civilian targets. In the next couple of days they killed
several dozen people in apartment complexes and elsewhere. The fighting was all in the
occupied territories, and there was no Palestinian fire. The Palestinians were using stones.
So this is people throwing stones against occupiers in a military occupation, legitimate
resistance by world standards, insofar as the targets are military.
On October 3, Clinton made the biggest deal in a decade to send new military helicopters
to Israel. That continued the next couple of months. That wasnt even reported, still isnt
reported, as far as Im aware. But the people there know it, even if they dont read the
Israeli press (where it was immediately reported). They look in the sky and see attack
helicopters coming and they know theyre U.S. attack helicopters sent with the
understanding that that is how they will be used. From the very start U.S. officials made
it clear that there were no conditions on their use, which was by then already well known.
A couple of weeks later Israel started using them for assassinations. The U.S. issued some
reprimands but sent more helicopters, the most advanced in the U.S. arsenal. Meanwhile
the settlement policies, which have taken over substantial parts of the territories and are
designed to make it virtually impossible for a viable independent state to develop, are
supported by the U.S. The U.S. provides the funding, the diplomatic support. Its the only
country thats blocked the overwhelming international consensus on condemning all this
under the Geneva conventions. The victims, and others in the region, know all of this. All
along this has been an extremely harsh military occupation.
Q: Is there anything else you want to add?
A: Theres a lot more. There is the fact that the U.S. has supported oppressive,
authoritarian, harsh regimes, and blocked democratic initiatives. For example, the one I
mentioned in Algeria. Or in Turkey. Or throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Many of the
harsh, brutal, oppressive regimes are backed by the U.S. That was true of Saddam
Hussein, right through the period of his worst atrocities, including the gassing of the
Kurds. U.S. and British support for the monster continued. He was treated as a friend and
ally, and people there know it. When bin Laden makes that charge, as he did again in an
interview rebroadcast by the BBC, people know what he is talking about.
Lets take a striking example. In March 1991, right after the Gulf War, with the U.S. in
total command of the air, there was a rebellion in the southern part of Iraq, including Iraqi
generals. They wanted to overthrow Saddam Hussein. They didnt ask for U.S. support,
just access to captured Iraqi arms, which the U.S. refused. The U.S. tacitly authorized
Saddam Hussein to use air power to crush the rebellion. The reasons were not hidden.
New York Times Middle East correspondent Alan Cowell described the strikingly
unanimous view of the U.S. and its regional coalition partners: whatever the sins of the
Iraqi leader, he offered the West and the region a better hope for stability than did those
who have suffered his repression. Times diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman
observed, not critically, that for Washington and its allies, an ironfisted Iraqi junta that
would hold Iraq together just as Saddams iron fist had done was preferable to a
popular rebellion, which was drowned in blood, probably killing more people than the
U.S. bombing. Maybe people here dont want to look, but that was all over the front
pages of the newspapers. Well, again, it is known in the region. Thats just one example.
These are among the reasons why pro-American bankers and businessmen in the region
are condemning the U.S. for supporting antidemocratic regimes and stopping economic
development.
Q: Talk about the relationship between ends and means. Lets say you have a noble goal.
You want to bring perpetrators of horrendous terrorist crimes to justice. What about the
means to reach those ends?
A: Suppose you want to bring a president of the U.S. to justice. Theyre guilty of
horrendous terrorist acts. Theres a way to do it. In fact, there are precedents. Nicaragua
in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people
died. The country was substantially destroyed, it may never recover. The effects on the
country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They
didnt respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which
issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called unlawful use of
force, which means international terrorism, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay
substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding
with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security
Council, which passed a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The
U.S. vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution
that passed nearunanimously, which the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row
(joined once by El Salvador). Thats the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had
been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the
measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobodys going to block it. Thats what theyre
being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies.
Remember, the governments in the Middle East and North Africa, like the terrorist
Algerian government, which is one of the most vicious of all, would be happy to join the
U.S. in opposing terrorist networks which are attacking them. Theyre the prime targets.
But they have been asking for some evidence, and they want to do it in a framework of at
least minimal commitment to international law. The Egyptian position is complex.
Theyre part of the primary system that organized the bin Laden network. They were the
first victims of it when Sadat was assassinated. Theyve been major victims of it since.
Theyd like to crush it, but they say, only after some evidence is presented about whos
involved and within the framework of the UN Charter, under the aegis of the Security
Council. Thats a way to proceed.
Q: Do you think its more than problematic to engage in alliances with those whom are
called unsavory characters, drug traffickers and assassins, in order to achieve what is
said to be a noble end?
A: Remember that among the most unsavory characters are the governments of the
region, our own government and its allies. If were serious, we also have to ask, What is a
noble end? Was it a noble end to drive the Russians into an Afghan trap in 1979, as
Brzezinski claims he did? Supporting resistance against the Russian invasion is one thing.
But organizing a terrorist army of Islamic fanatics for your own purposes is a different
thing. The question we should be asking now is: What about the alliance thats being
formed, that the U.S. is trying to put together? We should not forget that the U.S. itself is
a leading terrorist state. What about the alliance between the U.S., Russia, China,
Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, all of whom are delighted to see an international system
develop, sponsored by the U.S., which will authorize them to carry out their own terrorist
atrocities? Russia, for example, would be very happy to have U.S. backing for its
murderous war in Chechnya. You have the same Afghanis fighting against Russia, also
probably carrying out terrorist acts within Russia. As would perhaps India, in Kashmir.
Indonesia would be delighted to have support for its massacres in Aceh. Algeria, as just
announced on the broadcast we heard, would be delighted to have authorization to extend
its own state terrorism. The same with China, fighting against separatist forces in its
Western provinces, including those Afghanis whom China and Iran had organized to
fight the war against the Russians, beginning maybe as early as 1978, some reports
indicate. And that runs through the world.
Q: Your comment that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state might stun many Americans.
Could you elaborate on that?
A: I just gave one example, Nicaragua. The U.S. is the only country that was condemned
for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council
resolution calling on states to observe international law. It continues international
terrorism. That examples the least of it. And there are also what are in comparison, minor
examples. Everybody here was quite properly outraged by the Oklahoma City bombing,
and for a couple of days, the headlines all read, Oklahoma City looks like Beirut. I didnt
see anybody point out that Beirut also looks like Beirut, and part of the reason is that the
Reagan Administration had set off a terrorist bombing there in 1985 that was very much
like Oklahoma City, a truck bombing outside a mosque timed to kill the maximum
number of people as they left. It killed eighty and wounded two hundred, aimed at a
Muslim cleric whom they didnt like and whom they missed. It was not very secret. I
dont know what name you give to the attack thats killed maybe a million civilians in
Iraq and maybe a half a million children, which is the price the Secretary of State says
were willing to pay. Is there a name for that? Supporting Israeli atrocities is another one.
Supporting Turkeys crushing of its own Kurdish population, for which the Clinton
Administration gave the decisive support, 80 percent of the arms, escalating as atrocities
increased, is another. Or take the bombing of the Sudan, one little footnote, so small that
it is casually mentioned in passing in reports on the background to the Sept. 11 crimes.
How would the same commentators react if the bin Laden network blew up half the
pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? Or Israel? Or
any country where people matter? Although thats not a fair analogy, because the U.S.
target is a poor country which had few enough drugs and vaccines to begin with and cant
replenish them. Nobody knows how many thousands or tens of thousands of deaths
resulted from that single atrocity, and bringing up that death toll is considered scandalous.
If somebody did that to the U.S. or its allies, can you imagine the reaction? In this case
we say, Oh, well, too bad, minor mistake, lets go on to the next topic. Other people in the
world dont react like that. When bin Laden brings up that bombing, he strikes a resonant
chord, even with people who despise and fear him, and the same, unfortunately, is true of
much of the rest of his rhetoric.
Or to return to our own little region over here, as Henry Stimson called it, take Cuba.
After many years of terror beginning in late 1959, including very serious atrocities, Cuba
should have the right to resort to violence against the U.S. according to U.S. doctrine that
is scarcely questioned. It is, unfortunately, all too easy to continue, not only with regard
to the U.S. but also other terrorist states.
Q: In your book Culture of Terrorism, you write that the cultural scene is illuminated
with particular clarity by the thinking of the liberal doves, who set the limits for
respectable dissent. How have they been performing since the events of September 11?
A: Since I dont like to generalize, lets take a concrete example. On September 16, the
New York Times reported that the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan cut off food aid to
Afghanistan. That had already been hinted before, but here it was stated flat out. Among
other demands Washington issued to Pakistan, it also demandedthe elimination of
truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistans civilian
populationthe food that is keeping probably millions of people just this side of
starvation (John Burns, Islamabad, NYT). What does that mean? That means that
unknown numbers of people, maybe millions, of starving Afghans will die. Are these
Taliban? No, theyre victims of the Taliban. Many of them are internal refugees kept from
leaving. But heres a statement saying, OK, lets proceed to kill unknown numbers,
maybe millions, of starving Afghans who are victims of the Taliban. What was the
reaction?
I spent almost the entire day afterwards on radio and television around the world. I kept
bringing it up. Nobody in Europe or the U.S. could think of one word of reaction.
Elsewhere in the world there was plenty of reaction, even around the periphery of
Europe, like Greece. How should we have reacted to this? Suppose some power was
strong enough to say, Lets do something that will cause a million Americans to die of
starvation. Would you think its a serious problem? And again, its not a fair analogy. In
the case of Afghanistan, left to rot after it had been exploited for Washingtons war, much
of the country is in ruins and its people are desperate, already one of the worst
humanitarian crises in the world.
Q: National Public Radio, which in the 1980s was denounced by the Reagan
Administration as Radio Managua on the Potomac, is also considered out there on the
liberal end of respectable debate. Noah Adams, the host of All Things Considered,
asked these questions on September 17. Should assassinations be allowed? Should the
CIA be given more operating leeway?
A: The CIA should not be permitted to carry out assassinations, but thats the least of it.
Should the CIA be permitted to organize a car bombing in Beirut like the one I described?
Not a secret, incidentally; prominently reported in the mainstream media, though easily
forgotten. That didnt violate any laws. And its not just the CIA. Should they have been
permitted to organize in Nicaragua a terrorist army which had the official task, straight
out of the mouth of the State Department, to attack soft targets, meaning undefended
agricultural cooperatives and health clinics? Whats the name for that? Or to set up
something like the bin Laden network, not him himself, but the background networks?
Should the U.S. be authorized to provide Israel with attack helicopters to carry out
political assassinations and attacks on civilian targets? Thats not the CIA. Thats the
Clinton Administration, with no noticeable objection, in fact even reported.
Q: Could you very briefly define the political uses of terrorism? Where does it fit in the
doctrinal system?
A: The U.S. is officially committed to what is called lowintensity warfare. Thats the
official doctrine. If you read the definition of lowintensity conflict in army manuals and
compare it with official definitions of terrorism in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you
find theyre almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian
populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. Thats what the
World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime. And thats
official doctrine. I mentioned a couple of examples. We could go on and on. Its simply
part of state action, not just the U.S. of course. Furthermore, all of these things should be
well known. Its shameful that theyre not. Anybody who wants to find out about them
can begin by reading a collection of essays published ten years ago by a major publisher
called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George (Routledge, 1991), which runs
through lots and lots of cases. These are things people need to know if they want to
understand anything about themselves. They are known by the victims, of course, but the
perpetrators prefer to look elsewhere