Chomsky and the Linguistic Politics of War

Chomsky and the Linguistic Politics of War

Often, in war, diplomacy and other geopolitical matters, terminology has significant implications. It is frequently the case that terms such as 'terrorism,' 'genocide' and 'war crime' are applied as much if not more on the basis of the cultural identity of the perpetrator than the nature of the crime itself. This is the theme at the center of Noam Chomsky's 2012 article entitled "Somebody's Else's Atrocities." According to Chomsky, the determination to label a human rights disaster an atrocity is often contingent upon the global power balance, with those in a self-proclaimed position of ethical authority often spared this type of language. Indeed, the example cited by Chomsky that drives the discussion hereafter -- the U.S. military-led massacre of civilians in Fallujah, Iraq -- illustrates the duality of terms such as atrocity. The examination of varying media responses to the incident underscores Chomsky's claim.

History of Issue:

At the height of hostilities between U.S.-led coalition forces and Iraqi 'insurgents' in November of 2004, the U.S. mounted Operation Phantom Fury. According to Chomsky's reporting on the violent battle, "much of the city was left in 'smoking ruins,' the press reported while the Marines sought out insurgents in their 'warrens.' The invaders barred entry to the Red Crescent relief organization. Absent an official inquiry, the scale of the crimes is unknown." (Chomsky, p. 1)

That the United States was able to mount this operation without oversight from relief organizations, press personnel or international governing bodies allowed it consciously commit an act that Chomsky points out was eerily similar in detail to one for which Bosnian leaders were then facing genocide charges in international courts.

Purpose of Inquiry:

The primary purpose of the present inquiry is to open up the discussion in further detail of the atrocities that U.S.-led coalition forces committed in Fallujah in November of 2004. The intention is to demonstrate that with proper analytical consideration, the events in Fallujah would be considered a human rights atrocity for which perpetrators should be made accountable.

Sources Chosen:

One of the selected articles was provided by the Associated Press (2004), via Fox News, notorious for its right-leaning stances, its staunch support of Republican leaders and, in light of this position, its staunch support of the U.S. war effort in Iraq. What is particularly notable about this article is that it comes in advance of the November Offensive in Fallujah and seems both to justify and warn of an impending invasion. Accordingly, the article reports that "Allawi has told Fallujah leaders that they must surrender extremists, chief among them al-Zarqawi, or face attack. His comments Tuesday appeared aimed at preparing Iraqis for the eventuality of such an attack, which could inflame public opinion in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world." (AP, p.1)

This demonstrates that a military action that would ultimately produce the massacre in Fallujah would be given preemptive rationalization as a state-sponsored and strategic operation. As per Chomsky's argument, this is an approach designed to insulate action against terminology such as 'atrocity.'

Another source, provided by CNN, provided an equally interesting perspective on the subject. Through its series, "The War Through Your Eyes: Iraq 10 Years On," the more objective news source provides footage taken by an American marine in the midst of the raging battle. Replete with explosions and ensconced in smoldering rubble, it does reveal the utter destruction on the site of the atrocity. However, it is also literally shown through the eyes of the American soldier, which creates an inherent sense of sympathy to this perspective. This may itself have a distorting impact on how we perceive the events being shown.

By sharp contrast, the independent news outlet Democracy Now! provides an interview with reporters from Arab language news network Al-Jazeera, which is identified as the only network broadcasting on the ground during the invasion. They tell of a violent, chaotic and terrible scene during the U.S. invasion, with detailed accounts of civilian deaths and purposeful human rights violations. These accounts were roundly rejected by U.S. authorities.