Noam Chomsky: bad memory, liar, loon, or what?

Where is the "silent genocide" you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?

That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First, the facts: I predicted nothing. Rather, I reported the grim warnings from virtually every knowledgeable source that the attack might lead to an awesome humanitarian catastrophe...

All of this is precisely accurate and entirely appropriate. The warnings remain accurate as well, a truism that should be unnecessary to explain. ...

I did a bit of searching on the the web and found a few instances of him being quoted in late 2001 which looked to me that he was saying exactly that was going to happen in Afghanistan, or what was already happening in Afghanistan, was a silent genocide.

So I wrote to him:

---

Subject: "silent genocide" predictions
From:
To: chomsky@mit.edu
Date: 04 Dec 2003 20:09

Dear Professor Chomsky,

In the 'Independent' today (http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=469811) you were asked "Where is the 'silent genocide' you predicted would happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?"
And you answered "That is an interesting fabrication, which gives a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First, the facts: I predicted nothing ..."

Please, if you would permit me to jog your memory?

<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/559/8war1.htm>
Prominent linguist and writer Noam Chomsky defined the situation [planned invasion of Afghanistan] as a form of genocide. "Plans are being made on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people. Very casually, with no comment and with no particular thought about it. It looks like what is happening is some sort of silent genocide," said Chomsky.

and
<http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2001/oct24/chomsky.html>
He returned consistently to the theme of ending violence, stopping terrorism and warding off the impending "silent genocide" of starvation that US bombings could cause millions of Afghans by making food delivery
impossible.

and
<http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N52/52chomsky.52n.html> (unreachable when I tried, but cached by google at <http://tinyurl.com/xqi4>)
Chomsky's talk last night focused on the September 11 disaster and its
implications within and outside the U.S., [...] He expressed his
astonishment at the reaction of people in U.S. and Europe over the situation in Afghanistan. "Seven to eight million people are on the urge of starvation in Afghanistan now," he said, "but there has been no reaction to the stopping of food delivery trucks through Pakistan since the bombings have started.
"This is a silent genocide,"

In the third quote you do not so much predict a silent genocide as say that one is ongoing as you speak. Of course, you may have been misquoted.


      Regards,
         Rob Hinkley

---

---

Subject: Re: "silent genocide" predictions
From: chomsky@mit.edu
To:
Date: 05 Dec 2003 02:34

Thanks for confirming the accuracy of what I wrote in the Independent. See below.

Noam Chomsky

At 05:09 PM 12/4/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> Dear Professor Chomsky,
>
> In the 'Independent' today
>(http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=469811)
> you were asked "Where is the 'silent genocide' you predicted would
> happen in Afghanistan if the US intervened there in 2001?"
>And you answered "That is an interesting fabrication, which gives
> a good deal of insight into the prevailing moral and intellectual culture. First, the facts: I predicted nothing ..."
>
> Please, if you would permit me to jog your memory?
>
> <http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/559/8war1.htm>
> Prominent linguist and writer Noam Chomsky defined the situation
> [planned invasion of Afghanistan] as a form of genocide. "Plans
> are being made on the assumption that they may lead to the death
> of several million people. Very casually, with no comment and with
> no particular thought
> about it. It looks like what is happening is some sort of silent
> genocide," said Chomsky.

Note first that it is not what I said, therefore a terrible source. But OK here because it is quite accurate. As your ridiculous source makes clear, I predicted absolutely nothing. And if you compare it with what I said in the Independent, you will see that I repeated it quite accurately. That's exactly the assumption on which plans were being made, as conceded, and we evaluate actions on the basis of the moral truism that I repeated -- as you I am sure do as well, in the case of official enemies, like the example I gave. I realize that it is hard to apply to oneself the standards we automatically and rightly apply to others, but it is a useful exercise.

> and
> <http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2001/oct24/chomsky.html>
> He returned consistently to the theme of ending violence, stopping
> terrorism and warding off the impending "silent genocide"
> of starvation that US bombings could cause millions of Afghans
> by making food delivery impossible.

If I had done returned to it consistently, it would have been
appropriate. Regrettably, I didn't, but only mentioned this utterly
disgraceful crime -- in which you and I share complicity -- in
passing. Again, you are using a rotten source, obviously -- particularly when you can easily find my own words -- but even this one suffices to undermine your claims, utterly.

>and
> <http://www-tech.mit.edu/V121/N52/52chomsky.52n.html> (unreachable
> when I tried, but cached by google at <http://tinyurl.com/xqi4>)
> Chomsky's talk last night focused on the September 11 disaster
> and itsimplications within and outside the U.S., [...] He
> expressed his
>astonishment at the reaction of people in U.S. and Europe over the
>situation in Afghanistan. "Seven to eight million people are on
> the urge
>of starvation in Afghanistan now," he said, "but there has been no
>reaction to the stopping of food delivery trucks through Pakistan since
>the bombings have started.
> "This is a silent genocide,"

Same rotten source. If you check, you'll find that the earlier ridiculous source that you are using was accurate: it was indeed a plan based on the assumption that "silent genocide" was a strong likelihood, as was detailed by those I quoted: the New York Times, just about every international human rights organization, Harvard's leading specialist in its leading international affairs journal a few weeks later, etc. It is interesting that you do not regard it as problematic for them to say what I repeated, without change -- from which you can learn something about yourself.

I can understand that you do are not happy at your complicity and support for horrendous crimes, but if you think through what you are quoting (ridiculous as the source is) and what I wrote in the Independent, I think you will come to understand something useful about yourself.

> In the third quote you do not so much predict a silent genocide as say
> that one is ongoing as you speak. Of course, you may have
> been misquoted.

Not misquoted. not quoted at all. But even your source more than suffices to demonstrate that what I wrote in the Independent was an
understatement. Try reading them, and I'm sure you will easily understand -- and, again, perhaps even come to understand something about yourself -- again, always a valuable exercise.

>      Regards,
>         Rob Hinkley

---

I have no idea what this thing I might learn about myself, which must be pretty important because he mentions it three times, is meant to be. I have even less idea how it relates to the accuracy of what he said or didn't say about genocide in Afghanistan in late 2001.

I don't know what "horrendous crimes" he thinks I am unhappy about my complicity in. I think he must mean toppling the Taliban, but I regard that as a Good Thing and am entirely happy about whatever complicity I had in it.

Anyway... I couldn't really make any sense out of what he wrote, so I had to call in some help from friends. I think Michael probably got closest when he decoded it thus - "He is trying to say that he didn't predict anything, just state what might occur, and the fact that those plans were drawn up knowing that they might occur was wrong (that is the thing he's trying to make you see I think)".

I did another search to try and find exactly what he had said, and found that everything stems from a speech he gave in October 2001, of which the transcript (excluding the Q&A with the audience at the end) is here, and a streaming audio recording is here.

The earlier articles I cited do misquote Chomsky, and he does not say the exact words "there will be a silent genocide in Afghanistan". But he does say that the US has turned to a policy of "silent genocide" through starvation in Afghanistan after it got cold feet about "its initial plans for a massive visible slaughter" (1:33:20 into the audio recording) and was actively trying to starve millions of people to death as he was speaking. Not so much a prediction of what may happen in future as a statement that what was currently happening was genocide:

[...]
After the first week of bombing, the New York Times reported on a back page inside a column on something else, that by the arithmetic of the United Nations there will soon be 7.5 million Afghans in acute need of even a loaf of bread and there are only a few weeks left before the harsh winter will make deliveries to many areas totally impossible, continuing to quote, but with bombs falling the delivery rate is down to ½ of what is needed. Casual comment. Which tells us that Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that.

On the same day, the leader of Western civilization dismissed with contempt, once again, offers of negotiation for delivery of the alleged target, Osama bin Laden, and a request for some evidence to substantiate the demand for total capitulation. It was dismissed. On the same day the Special Rapporteur of the UN in charge of food pleaded with the United States to stop the bombing to try to save millions of victims. As far as I’m aware that was unreported. That was Monday. Yesterday the major aid agencies OXFAM and Christian Aid and others joined in that plea. You can’t find a report in the New York Times. There was a line in the Boston Globe, hidden in a story about another topic, Kashmir.

Well we could easily go on... but all of that... first of all indicates to us what’s happening. Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide. It also gives a good deal of insight into the elite culture, the culture that we are part of. It indicates that whatever, what will happen we don’t know, but plans are being made and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next couple of weeks... very casually with no comment, no particular thought about it, that’s just kind of normal, here and in a good part of Europe.

[... then near the end of the transcript ...]

The initial proposal, the initial rhetoric was for a massive assault which would kill many people visibly and also an attack on other countries in the region. Well the Bush administration wisely backed off from that. [...] And they are turning to what I described earlier which is a kind of silent genocide. It's a.... well, I already said what I think about it. I don't think anything more has to be said. You can figure it out if you do the arithmetic.

In his speech in October 2001 Noam Chomsky clearly said that the US was setting out to try and kill millions of people through starvation. As the US had every ability to make this happen if that was their intention - by bombing or shelling food shipments - he was predicting the murder of millions through starvation even though he didn't use the exact words "I predict a genocide" of "I predict millions of deaths from starvation".
But it is perfectly clear that millions of people did not starve to death. So Chomsky's statement that this was the US's intention was flatly wrong, along with the intertwined prediction of millions of deaths.
It is dishonest of him to claim that he never made any prediction of genocide.