Anybody who has ever wanted to see the excitement an academic rock star can generate should have hung around outside Miller Theatre yesterday before famed linguist, political activist, and cultural icon Noam Chomsky spoke.

Noam Chomsky delivered a speech entitled "After the War" to a theatre packed with listeners eager to hear one of America's best-known intellectuals. The engagement was dedicated to the memory of Edward Said, late Columbia University Professor and political activist who passed away earlier this year.

In addition to strongly criticizing the Bush Administration's war against Iraq, calling its approach "dominating the world by force, permanently," Chomsky spoke against the power investors have over world affairs and the media's capitulation to these arrangements.

Chomsky, a longtime professor at MIT and famed linguist, has written countless books and articles and was the subject of a documentary film. Arguably the world's most famous critic of American political culture, Chomsky generates strong feelings from both his admirers and his critics.

After calling the death of Edward Said an "incalculable loss", Chomsky went on to say Americans have a tendency to gloss over their government's multitudenal historical mistakes and make "self-serving reconstructions" of the past. While denying their own government's history, Americans tend to "recall with great horror the misdeeds of political enemies."

According to Chomsky, almost all intelligence agencies made two predictions before the start of the war on Iraq. The first was that the war would increase the threat of terror, and the second was that it would encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Both have come true, he said, and the United States should not be surprised.

When a country is invaded, Chomsky said, those who were invaded "don't say 'Thank you. Here's my neck. Cut it.' People turn to the weapons they have available to them." For a country like Iraq, Chomsky argued, the available weapons are terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

Chomsky said the Bush Administration expected such resistance. "The Administration was certainly aware of this, and they don't desire that outcome, but they don't care that much." He said the goal of long-term military dominance made the Bush administration willing to take those risks.

Throughout the night, Chomsky quoted many polls, usually to point to the international community's unfavorable feelings about President Bush and his policies. He quoted the Mayor of London as saying that Bush is the "greatest threat to life on the planet that the world has ever seen," and another commentator, speaking in reference to Bush's current visit to England, as saying that Bush is the "most unwelcome visitor to England since William the Conqueror."

Chomsky argued that support for the Iraq war in the United States was based on misinformation about the security threat Iraq posed to the United States, Iraq's knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and the way Iraqis would react to U.S. military presence. "The U.S. was alone in having a detectable part of the population holding these opinions," Chomsky said.

Arguments in defense of the war, Chomsky said, are built on colonialist foundations. Defenders of the war are "simply plagiarizing the worst episodes of European imperialism."

Chomsky said the invasion of Iraq was especially troubling because it is widely known to be an "exemplary action" intended to show how serious the U.S. is about maintaining its domination over world affairs. The U.S. government's position, as he put it, is that "no potential challenge to U.S. authority will ever be tolerated and force will be used to prevent it."

Chomsky closed his remarks on a hopeful note. Though he acknowledged that there is much that is wrong, he expressed his belief that hardworking activists can affect change. "But it's going to require will and dedication. It's not going to happen by itself," he said.

In the question-and-answer session, an audience member asked Chomsky about the difficulties of being an activist in the United States. He was not sympathetic to the question, pointing out that activists in other countries have had success despite greater obstacles. "We're lucky," he said. "We're extremely privileged. We have wealth...The PATRIOT Act is a triviality compared to what people around the world face." He cited the examples of Brazil and Colombia as countries where, despite an oppressive political culture and worse living conditions than in the United States, progressive leaders have recently been elected.

Johnstonian Professor of Philosophy Akeel Bilgrami introduced Chomsky. Bilgrami described the Bush administration's attitude as "reckless and self-serving", but said that social movements and intellectual leaders like Chomsky have the power to fight back. He also paid tribute to Said, who he described as a good friend.

Student reactions to the speech were mixed. Though many huddled around a table outside the auditorium to buy Chomsky's newest book, some students were disappointed with the talk.

A graduate student at NYU, who wished to be identified only as Joseph, said he was uninspired. "I thought it was boring. I thought he rambled quite a bit, I though he was too pessimistic, and I thought he was preaching to the choir: too many of his arguments were set up against straw men."

His friend Vera Trofimemko, CC '05, disagreed. "I thought, on the contrary, it was optimistic, because he clarified the changeable quality of society and the potential to bring about big changes in society."

© 2003 Spectator Publishing Company

###