America's Quest for Global Dominance - Hegemony or Survival

Hegemony or Survival continues Noam Chomsky's critique of post-WWII American foreign policy, and puts recent developments squarely in the context of the evidence for American policymakers' willingness to risk the human race's survival in their quest for global hegemony. In the book, Professor Chomsky takes us on a guided tour of various hot spots around the world which he identifies as generating undisputed facts about which, due to the distortions of American politicians and media pundits, our attending publics are largely befuddled.

The author is occasionally sarcastic, which I don't recall in his more scholarly pre-1990 writings. For example, on page 175 of the Metropolitan Books First Edition, Chomsky writes, "More than half of Qalquila's agricultural lands were reported to have been confiscated, to be annexed to Israel, with the munificent offer of onetime compensation equal to the market price of one year's harvest." Except for these occasional and very human expressions of exasperation, Chomsky proceeds characteristically unflinchingly, wielding his two redoubtable intellectual weapons. His moral imperative that policies must be judged prospectively by the foreseeable risks and rewards they entail, not by whether they "succeed" or "fail" in retrospect, and his methodological imperative that his analysis shall be based on published information.

Hegemony or Survival reprises, deepens, broadens, and raises to the highest level Chomsky's critique of post-WWII American foreign policy. Meanwhile, public irresponsibility and celebrity worship in America is at an all-time high -- I've heard it debated seriously who the country's biggest "national resource" is, Jack Nicholson or Ed Harris. Thankfully, the country's biggest national resource remains undeterred.

In 1986,Chomsky notes, the World Court of Justice ordered the United States to stop funding the contras and to pay massive reparations to Nicaragua. He quotes Michael Kinsley and Time Magazine lauding the massive attack on civilian targets that terrorized the Nicaraguan people into kicking out the Sandanistas as they did in 1990. He notes that the Sandinistas had won a free and fair election back in 1984. He observes that before U.S. terror had large effects, the inter-american development bank for laying a strong foundation for socio-economic development and UNICEF for dramatically reducing infant mortality praised Sandinista measures. Since 1990, half of working Nicaraguans have left the country to seek employment elsewhere and it is their remittances that keep the society afloat.
He observes that the U.S. early on began supporting terrorism against Castro's Cuba by Cuban exiles. Sugar and oil refineries were destroyed, crops burned etc. Shortly after the Missile Crises, Cuban exiles blew up a factory killing 400 Cubans. In early 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up rather diabolical proposals to stage terror attacks supposedly by Cubans to justify attacking Cuba. He points out that only a refusal of a Soviet submarine captain to fire nuclear missiles in retaliation for being fired upon by U.S. destroyer, saved the world from nuclear war in October 1962. He quotes a communication from the British ambassador to the U.S. in late 1959 that Allen Dulles wanted to deliberately turn Castro to the Soviets to justify overthrowing the former.
He notes how the Reganites praised Nicolae Ceausescu's human rights record and showered him with aid. Most of the crimes for which Manuel Noriega was indicted occured when George Schultz was congratulating him for steatling elections. The U.S. invasion in 1989 managed to kill perhaps thousands of civilians (perhaps why only 11 percent of Panamanians according to polls supported U.S. military action in Afghanistan). And then there is Alan Simpson's former buddy Saddam... He notes how the U.s. avoided a peaceful settlement to the first Gulf war and deliberately destroyed Iraq's water and sanitation facilities, and prevented them from being repaired causing vast epidemics.
He notes how in 2003 Al Qaida blew up in Jiddah the civilian headquarters of a U.S. firm which trains the Saudi Palace Guard to protect the dictatorship from its own people. He observes that people in the Arab world despise Al Qaida but tolerate it as the only force standing up to unjust U.S. support for dictatorships and other unjust policies.
Chomsky shows how the U.S. is worried about threats to its hegemony by events in East Asia. An oil pipeline from Siberia, through North Korea to China, South Korea, etc. would increase the regional strength of that region and leave out U.S. hegemony. Related to this is why the neocons are hostile to China.
He quotes Arthur Schlesinger's report to JFK in Jan 1961 that Castro was inspiring the poor masses in Latin American countries to improve their lot. The fruits of Kennedy administration policy of course were the setting up of hideous regimes in Brazil in 1964 and Indonesia in 1965. Then there is what Bernard Fall bemoaned as the extinction of Vietnam. Then of course hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered by U.S. backed forces in Central America in the 80's.
He notes that in the Khrushchev years, the Russians unilaterally cut back significantly their conventional military forces in favor of concentrating on internal development but recieved no reciprocal gestures from the U.S. If the Russians had been able to seriously concentrate on internal reforms instead of military spending, then maybe the horrors woul have been avoided in the 1990's (e.g. ten million extra deaths in the 1990's largely result of privatized health care system) as well as things like the invasion of Afghanistan. The arms buildup of the U.S. in the Kennedy years might have been that which helped destroy the Soviet Union with all its terrible side effects, Chomsky suggests (not the build-up during the Reagan years). Chomsky quotes Adam Ulam and Melvyn Leffler that Beria and Stalin proposed a reunified Germany that would not be part of Nato.
He notes who the U.S. "roadmap" gives Israel the right to essentially continue building settlements indefinitely. He notes how the path of Sharon's wall follows the division of land of the "generous offer" Camp David 2000, plus more land is being expropriated near the wall. If one actually looks at a map of that supposedly generous proposal Chomsky notes, one sees three isolated cantons on the West Bank, separated by Israeli settlement blocks. The goal of the "Peace Process," according to Barak's foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami in his 1998 book was to make the Palestinians into a "permanent neocolonial dependency." He observes that the suicide bombings have reduced the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed as decreased from 20 to 1 to 3 to 1. He points out how Israel deliberately avoided Sadat's 1971-peace offer and the 1976 UN resolution for a Palestinian state. He writes that the Osirak reaction was along way from producing plutonium but Israel's 1981 attack on it, accelerated Iraq's nuclear program.
He writes a lot about how the administration's "missile defense' insanity, part of its overall plan to "own" space is causing arms proliferation. He writes that the Bush-Putin treaty of May 2002 appears to be a meaningless gesture. Russia will in fact upgrade its nuclear missiles, continuing to place them on hair trigger alert in response to U.S. plans. He notes how the Chinese were encouraged to buildup up their fleet of nuclear missiles in return for agreeing to dismantle arms control agreements.
He notes how the Bush administration has undermined the Alien Tort Claims act.....

This brilliant study is based, like all Chomsky?s writings, on a vast range of sources, including Pentagon, CIA and White House statements. He uses these to detail how the US ruling class seeks to rule the world.

It seeks ?full spectrum dominance?, weapons in space, greater powers of attack through ?ballistic missile defence?, and the break-up of all international treaties and agreements that might limit its ambitions. Chomsky argues that the US ruling class threatens an earthly wasteland.

He explains that the Republican-Labour doctrine of preventive war justifies all aggressions: Japan at Pearl Harbour and Hitler attacking the Soviet Union also claimed ?anticipatory self-defence?. He points out that the US and British states constantly use the Security Council to flout UN Resolutions; their record numbers of vetoes prove them to be its worst non-compliers.

Chomsky reminds us that the old British Empire proclaimed the right to ?humanitarian intervention?. Liberals like John Stuart Mill defended this, writing shameful apologetics for the imperial crimes of aggression against India and China, and for France?s atrocities in Algeria, ?exterminating the indigenous population?, as its War Minister urged. The liberal David Lloyd George praised the British government?s sabotage of Disarmament Conferences by ?reserving the right to bomb niggers?. Now Blair?s adviser Robert Cooper writes, ?the need ? for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the 19th century.?

Chomsky notes that today?s imperialists commit war crimes too: President Clinton flew Al Qa?ida terrorists from Afghanistan to fight for the US side in Bosnia. Labour imperialists backed the Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists, even though Defence Minister George Robertson admitted, ?the KLA was responsible for more deaths in Kosovo than the Serbian authorities had been.?

The same forces drive empires past and present: John Maynard Keynes explained, ?the democratic experiment in self-government was endangered by the threat of global financial market forces.? So now the European Union uses Eastern Europe to ?hammer away at high wages and corporate taxes, short working hours, labor immobility, and luxurious social programmes?, as the business press boasts.

In sum, this extraordinarily well-informed survey shows how capitalism endangers us all.

Some people believe that holding America accountable for it's foreign policy decisions is no less than treasonous and anti-American. Thus they make the mistake of confusing the actions of the American government for the will of the people and rob this great Nation of any moral standing when criticizing the behavior of other nations.
America has supported, trained and funded terrorism for years when it served the elite Washington interest to do so. Any 10 year-old with a curious mind and an Internet connection can tell you that.
Chomsky is a true patriot. Not the cardboard chest-thumping kind we are usually fed as a standard mythological staple, but a thoughtful and intellectually precise critic of America so as to keep us honest and morally consistent. He has his work cut out for him.
So ignore the Orange alert propaganda designed to keep us all cowering until election day and read this book for a fuller context of our (yes OUR. We elect these bozos) moral responsibility to the world as the great United States of America.

Ironically, Chavez's exhibition at the United Nations has had a positive consequence - revitalized interest in this 2003 book. And for those of you that think this is a (current) Bush administration bashing book think again - this book's subject matter spans Republican and Democratic administrations with equal relevance. And in light of the domestic media furor over Chavez's calling President Bush "the devil", while at the same time giving Mr. Bush a free pass on the phrase "axis of evil", Professor Chomsky's Principle of Universality - that we should apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others - rings all the more true.

Professor Chomsky articulates a US foreign policy that includes state-sponsored terrorism and a perpetuation of the myth of Manifest Destiny which fuels an obscenely large appetite for the world's resources, at the expense of just and even-handed policies. He boldly suggests that we examine the causes of terrorism deeply enough to find solutions instead of band-aids. Solutions, I daresay, that may require, as Gandhi said, that we view "the essence of civilization... not in the multiplication of wants but in their deliberate and voluntary renunciation."

This book is very well written, but the subject matter is difficult - not unlike reading a pathologist's findings regarding death and dying, this book applies surgical-like precision to the challenges the US faces if it is to survive, and thrive, in the 21st century. A small criticism of Chomksy's writing style is that as a professor emeritus of linguistics there is a tendency to become a bit too intoxicated with a turn of a phrase, likely done in an effort to momentarily relieve the reader of the heaviness of subject matter.

In light of what has come to be accepted as a foreign policy debacle it is again ironic that it has taken the histrionics of a Latin American leader to bring awareness of this material to so many - a job one might think our own journalists would do in light of the facts. But regardless of the messenger, the message is still as relevant, and necessary for our survival as a nation, as ever.

Mr Chomsky presents a well biased book about how political allies excuse eachother for wrongdoing, but when those allies have a disagreement, those same actions which were excused before now become deemed ' actions against mankind.' Solid examples form around the world are presented. My favorite was the discussion of Noriega as first friend then foe by the United States.

Depending on which side of the political fence you're on, Noam Chomsky can either represent the lone voice of truth shining forth from the depths of corruption and power, or a ranting, liberal lunatic, who sees conspiracies in every corner, monolithic `thought police', manufacturing illusion unknowingly on the masses, and those pulling the levers, residing comfortably behind computer screens at the New York Times. Since his magnum opus, `Manufacturing Consent', the far right has dismissed him entirely, calling this erudite work the scribblings of a madman. Despite this book's labyrinthine and somewhat dense arguments, his evidence is compelling. In our education system, for example, in certain history classes, we teach the workings of propaganda, particularly those efforts made by governments to round up more enlistments for the military to fight in WWI. For the most part, students find these examples laughable, but then are astonished, when comparing such propaganda with present day attempts by various governments around the world. A student asks, "Do they really think they can fool us with this stuff?" The response is "Yes, and they do it all the time and, more often than not, it works." Controlling public opinion has been on political agendas since the beginnings of civilization, the point, however, is whether we are able to recognize it for what it is and form our opinions accordingly. ~Hegemony or Survival~ is Chomsky's first major work in years, and he pulls no punches as it is a controversial and shocking text as to what it reveals.
But what is so shocking?
The premise of the book is a simple one. That is, since the end of WW II, the United States government has been ruthlessly pursuing world dominance, and it is known as "the grand imperial strategy". To comprehend this strategy, we need to understand the ideology underpinning it various policies. Chomsky suggests that it was formed based on a particular political view - Wilsonian Idealism - and that is, the "men of best quality" must rule over "the giddy multitude of beasts", the masses, in order to "...safeguard a system of elite-decision-making and public ratification - "polyarchy", in the terminology of political science - not "democracy". (p.5) Contrary to democratic ideals, the "dumb herd" (you and me) must be controlled, using coercion as a tool to "tame the beast", so that the goals of the state can be furthered and accomplished. This privileged elite, currently key players in the Bush II administration, "knows best", ignoring and lying to the public, breaking international law, committing acts of terrorism in the name of freedom and democracy on a grand scale, betraying alliances, switching sides when it suits them, all in the name of economic, military and political hegemony, risking the very survival of the planet itself.
This, of course, may sound alarmist, if not bordering on treason, but the evidence Chomsky provides, in a few important cases, is beyond dispute.
Therefore I submit that no matter what side of the political fence you're on, read this book, research the validity of his sources before dismissing it entirely, and then make up your mind.

Topics covered in this book have already been discussed by the author in other books. Basically as global governments are controlled by the only superpower. Read a book by Chomsky is read all of them. Nothing more to say.

"The fundamental assumption that lies behind the Grand Imperial Strategy [i.e., the essential foreign policy mandate of the Bush administration, revealed in 2002], often considered unneccesary to formulate because its truth is taken to be so obvious, is the guiding principle of Wilsonian idealism: We--at least the circles who provide the leadership and advise them--are good, even noble. Hence our [military] interventions are necessarily righteous in intent, if occasionally clumsy in execution.... Unwittingly, no doubt, [political commentators and historians Max] Boot and [Walter] Kagan [who agree with this premise regarding American foreign policy and show it in their writings] are plagiarizing John Stuart Mill's classic essay on humanitarian intervention, in which he urged [19th Century] Britain to undertake the enterpise vigorously--SPECIFICALLY, TO CONQUER MORE OF INDIA.... Unmentioned was that by doing so, Britain was...extending the near monopoly of opium production that it needed both to force open Chinese markets by violence and to sustain the imperial system...by means of its immense narcotrafficking enterprises, all well known in England at the time...Such facts might inspire some reflection, as Boot and Kagan illustrate Marx's dictum about tragedy replayed as farce...

"One may choose to have selective faith in the domestic political leadership, adopting the stance that Hans Morgenthau, one of the founders of modern international relations theory, condemned as 'our conformist subservience to those in power'--THE REGULAR STANCE OF MOST INTELLECTUALS THROUGHOUT HISTORY. But it is important to recognize that PROFESSION OF NOBLE INTENT[by political and military leaders] IS PREDICTABLE AND THEREFORE CARRIES NO INFORMATION, even in the technical sense of the term. Those who are seriously interested in understanding the world will adopt the same standards whether they are evaluating their own political and intellectual elites or those of official enemies. One might fairly ask how much [American rhetoric] would survive this elementary exercise of rationality and honesty."

Noam Chomsky
HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL:
AMERICA'S QUEST FOR
GLOBAL DOMINANCE
From Chapter Two:
"Grand Imperial Strategy"
(emphasis mine)

"We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas, than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, TO DRAW TO THEMSELVES THE POWER, THE WEALTH AND THE RESOURCES OF OTHER NATIONS."

Thomas Jefferson

(As quoted by Noam Chomsky
via Mexican historian Jose Fuentes
in "The View from Chapultepec", by
Cecil Robinson; emphasis mine)

While having an e-mail conversation with the great author of this great book, I told him that his book titles are too intellectual. Once you get past the small percentage of the American populace who even knows what "hegemony" means, I said, the fraction of the little overeducated subculture who could make sense of the esoteric dichotomy that is the book's title, and buy the book in that context, meant that, unlike Michael Moore's work, he'd be preaching to the choir instead of stirring up the congregation. He told me that his wife agreed with me! But now that his book has become a bestseller in paperback, I see I have thankfully been proven wrong.

The true litmus test for a patriot, or lover of anything--person, place or thing--is their ability to be true to the defining essence of a thing *within* what they love more than the outer shell of the thing itself. Even if it means going against the outer shell of the thing when it has lost its way. When someone can love the compassionate human being within the alcoholic but not the alcoholism--and divorce them compassionately on those grounds; love the frightened child within the raging teenager but not the disrespect that often comes with the rage; love the spiritual beauty within an art form that has been diluted or bastardized by the marketplace--and cuss out the sell-out artist exemplifying both dynamics for not being true to us or his/her own soul; or love the true essence of a nation whose leaders are selling its soul more than the corrupted leaders and their propaganda themeslves...this is when a person enters the high spiritual dichotomy of "loving the sinner and hating the sin"--above and beyond the stale, modern Christian hypocrite's use of the phrase--in a way that is truly redemptive for all of humankind.

It is in this way that Noam Chomsky, the Jeremiah of our American Century, has made his mark on world culture, for the good of us all. He is a true patriot/prophet of the American REPUBLIC in a way that puts all other fake, pseudo-intellectual hypocrite imperialists and those secretly contemputous of actual democracy to shame.

This being only the third of the more than seventy books he has written that I have finished, my first instinct is still to agree with the opinons of celebrated authors like Arundhati Roy, who believe this is the best introduction to the work, courage and window to truth and reason that is Noam Chomsky he has yet written. In this book, you will find the actual definition of terrorism; the actual definition of democracy; the actual definition of totalitarianism; the actual definition of propaganda; the actual definition of virtually everything you thought the evening news was telling you. And you will find, amidst the powerful, focused passion that is often the vehicle of his intellect, a cogent, rational, universally all-encompassing argument within an authentic historical perspective that can only be disagreed with or ignored in the name of the very evil forces America is supposed to be about the business of fighting against.

Thank God for Dr. Noam Chomsky. And God help us all if we don't start listening to him. This book, on so many levels, is one of the best he has ever written. And I highly recommend it for anyone who has never read his work before, as well as those who have, but want to hear the history of the American century summed up in the most important--though frightening--way you can imagine.

Noam Chomsky's Hegemony Or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance is truly like a bowling ball crashing dead-centre against the lies and distortions of the right wing. In a customary logical and authoritative manner Chomsky poses a simple and elegant question. Namely, why does America's internal and foreign policies amount to nothing more or less than direct or tacit support for criminal acts of violence against itself and others? He elaborates on the theme - citing examples - by pondering the consequences and amplifying the inevitable invitation for a reaction.

In this context, the book's pages flip briskly through America's criminal actions from the turn of the last century to World War II to the modern invasion of a defenseless Iraq and compare and contrast these with standards American sets for its adversaries. Page after page, Chomsky elucidates a regrettable litany of demonstrations of American injustice and terrorism past and present as the products of American policy. The comeuppance, predictably, is nothing short of horrific and the responsibility of a compliant and uncritical US press corps aligned with arrogant policy bureaucrats engaged in a docile frightening of the ignorant masses. As the serial of lies and fabrications are sold to the deluded public an emboldened and self-righteous American terrorist state pushes the envelope in its global hegemony and goal of imposing American domination.

In a chapter called Imperial Grand Strategy Chomsky demonstrates how America has positioned itself as the illegitimate heir to British imperialist regime and also demonstrates how many a quotation from Bush II are almost verbatim the words of the maligned Stalin. Then again, the standards America sets for others are never quite good enough (or relevant for that matter) for itself.

If that is not enough to scare the average comfy American hiding behind a shot gun imbibing something from Orange Julius then maybe the many quotations and illogical rants and tirades by clearly psychopathic American officials over the years should. Either way, the rational observer will discern the contents as the disclosure of the true nature of the weapons of mass content and the outing of the manifestations of the plot to rule the world in the name of the few and the privileged.

Chomsky is an amazing writer because of the blunt, unapologetic way he refuses to have any sacred cows and unsentimentally and effectively exposes the lies that we hear from our government all the time, whether from democrats or republicans. He backs up all his arguments, which tend to use the technique of juxtaposing politicians'and ideologues' comments with their off the record comments or actions that prove they were lying.

Everyone should read Chomsky at least once so they can get a sense of the depths of deception that we've been exposed to in regards to the motives of our foreign policy over the past fifty years. Don't go into this if you want to cling to some benign happy vision of everything. Chomsky will completely revolutionize your way of thinking when you realize you can't refute his facts.

He does it in such a striking manner, one I've seen few duplicate.

He's excellent at showing people how to critically interpret modern politics and shun credulity in favor of actively engaging power and demanding democracy and transparency.

After you read him the one required (in my opinion) time, you'll be capable of critically evaluating political rhetoric, white washed history etc. on your own and you really don't need to read his other works. I mean, they're good and interesting but it's not necessary. I just think everyone should at least get a feel for his talent and method because it's so unique.

Noam Chomsky uses his hyper-precise and hyper-logical mind to demonstrate that the US has always been on one line : to conquer the world to increase its own wealth. He starts seriously exploring this line with Wilson and no president since then escapes his logical scrutiny. Bush II, as he calls the present president, is just pushing this policy one point farther and further. Irak is the acme of the use of violent warfare and terroristic aggression to bring down a good servant turned rebellious. This policy wants to be a lesson to the world and it aims at conquering and controlling - forever of course - the oil resources of the world, forgetting that will only last fifty years. But Bush II is shown as being the continuator of all his predecessors, including Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton.Then Bush II is launching a monopolistic and illegal conquest of space for the sole military use of it by the US. And this will either lead the world into a devastating arms race that would halt all progress and to the absolute control of the world by the US, or to the destruction of the planet and humanity, a destruction that will be so complete that Russell's prediction will be fulfilled : « The earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return. » The analysis and exploration is so complete that it cannot be questioned in any way : there is no flaw, no leaking hole, no escape. And yet the book leaves us with a taste of incompleteness and it is not the last two pages that will balance the pessimism of 234 pages with the optimism of the superpower of public opinion and the birth of the solidarity and civil right movement of the World Social Forums. Chomsky forgets that the new technologies that make new weapons so deadly require everyday democracy at the work place and cooperation of all the members of the team that work behind from the producer of electricity to the designer of software and the programmer of customized applications. This goes against the militaristic ambition of the US elite since one person (or a very limited group) can block the whole military machine by pulling off the plug. The French have experienced this during the 1961 military coup in Algeria when the draftees who were supposed to service the military planes that were to invade France just dragged their feet and even plainly did not do what they were ordered to do, thus grounding the planes in Algiers. Chomsky also forgets that the US cannot pay for this militaristic adventure without the whole world financing its horrendous deficit, which means the emergence of new economic powers like China and India, and even Europe, or the consciousness of the elected popular leaders of the countries that control raw materials like oil or copper or iron and so can block the process by making the US unsolvent, and the US market is not the first market in the world anymore, far from it and steadily declining. The conclusion Chomsky implies though he does not state it, is that we, citizens of the world, must by all means block the neo-liberal policies that the US government and the main corporations in the world dominated by the US are trying to impose onto us. In Europe we have to become conscious we are the possible future for a peaceful world if we join our efforts with those of emerging economic powers. In other words the future is in the hands of the oldest cultures in the world, the Chines, semitic and indo-european cultures, in an alliance with Africa, the cradle of humanity, and the Americas of the Indian traditions. What can a country that has two centuries of history, three centuries of culture and is nothing but 25 decreasing percent of the economic power in the world and less than 5 percent of its population do ? Destroy it ? You're kidding. One should have a pretty suicidal apocalyptic mind to prefer their own destruction along with the world to a compromise that would ensure their survival. Or are we reliving Stephen King's The Dead Zone all over again ? Think of what the doctor says in the book about how to deal with the person who would represent this scary policy.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

What I love about the way professors write books is that they go the extra mile to get their facts right. Their sourcing is solid and they quote heavily as they write. In this case, it's a certain professor of linguistics and philosophy who turns out to be as well read in US foreign policy as they come.

It is beyond doubt that foreign policies of nations is based on self-interest, and not on moral, ethical or fairness grounds. And history has also taught us that power corrupts, and more power corrupts more. The combination of power and self-interest is a lethal one, and the unambiguously stated US ambition to achieve permanent global dominance should come as no surprise, therefore. If Chomsky was trying to reverse this fundamental human behavior, it would be worthy of criticism. However, I feel that Chomsky makes some passionate arguments in this book to make US weild their power more responsibly when it comes to foreign policy.

Nationalism is the biggest threat to world peace. In the modern world, violent conflicts based on religion or ethnicity or territorial ambitions have all lost favor in the mainstream. However, nationalism still remains a worthy cause for countries to go to war, and for people to kill other people en masse. This book helped me better understand this phenomenon.

As an immigrant in the US, it is not emotionally hard for me to accept and absorb the realities revealed in this book. I do not look down upon Noam Chomsky as unpatriotic, nor his theory as a far-fetched conspiracy theory. On the contrary, the book gives me closure about why US foreign policy is the way it is and why it manifests itself in the way it does. It helps me connect the several dots blotted in my head from my travels across 20 countries, each affected by US foreign policy in one way or the other.

I would recommend this book to any person, American or non, who cares about the global impact of US foreign policy, and is grappling with unanswered questions about it.

Noam Chomsky has been a brave voice proclaiming that the Emperor Has No Clothes since the Vietnam War. He is a hero, a veritable prophet, in our dark and disastrous times. The current analysis of course includes Bush and the neoconservative faction, the "pre-emptive doctrine" (actually preventive), the propaganda of the "war on terrorism," and Iraq -- but the Empire is much bigger than the current Gang, and that is the radical strength of Chomsky's critique. HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL is published alongside anti-Bush tomes from Al Franken, Michael Moore, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, David Corn, and others. But if you could read only one of these worthy books, you should read Chomsky. The focus is on the structure of Empire, rather than the details of the current Emperor.

It is easy to become cynical and complacent given the forces of evil that we are up against. Personally, I take more inspiration from the fact that people resist than any theoretical insight. Ordinary people have always resisted Empire. I participated in a weekly peace vigil from October 2002 through the April 2003 war on Iraq. Why? Because I felt I had a moral obligation to take a public stand. Noam Chomsky's writings and talks over the years are a form of resistance that has informed and inspired many of us to continue. Thank you, Noam!

Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance is one of the greatest reading on US imperialist maneuvers and plans to dream of a 'Pax Americana' or in other words, endless imperialist hegemony. Venezuela's anti-imperialist President Hugo Chavez recommended this book to the people, especially the American people, for an independent analysis on US foreign policy.

This is easily the most depressing book I've read. More so than any fictional tragedy ever conceived. I see it as the high-IQ version of "Dude, Where's My Country?"

Even if Chomsky has half (50%!!, people) his facts wrong, the revelations and analysis in the book are shocking, outrageous and extremely cautionary.

It speaks of a parallel universe of power-corrupted White House Machiavellis who routinely sacrifice innocent blood around the world to sustain the "american way of life";
Of a foreign policy that is committed to ravaging and de-stabilising economies by funding crackpot dictators (Idi Amin, Manuel Noreiga, Mobutu Sese Seko, Sukarno, Qaddafi and yes..Saddam Hussain) and then invading these countries to "liberate" them from the very same dictators. This is to make way for American Corporations to waltz in and start exploting the resources of these countries.

With staggering attention to detail, and in prose that is constantly quoting from sources, American leaders' despicable tactics are documented and analyzed.

Most of what is in the book does not exist in popular memory. That is a sad triumph of the way the White House has wielded the media in this country as a propaganda machine and effectively rewritten recent history using "lofty rhetoric and a feel-good theme".

For Americans who may read the book, and are opening their eyes to alternative realities (i.e., the Rest Of The World), this is my advice - stop reading and watching American media for world news. They only serve you propaganda. Get your news from third-party countries and/or press agencies...bbc.com, [...]

Chomsky has unearthed an infallible pattern in the "pretext of war" served up by the White House Administration over the years. It is a different country, a different set of brown-skinned people each time. I have culled the essence of the book, and the pattern he describes, for you busy folk who may not have the time to read the book -

0. Identify a target - Any country that has Oil reserves or is strategically placed near oil reserves is a prime target. It helps if just a handful of boy scouts with sticks and stones defend its borders. This is the ideal "soft target". DEFINITELY steer clear of worthy opponents - i.e., the Koreas and Pakistans of the world who actually have nukes. This country represents billions and trillions of dollars of (someone else's) money. It is good.

1. Invent a reason to invade the country - Lie about one of its dictators being a threat to the US. If a threat does not exist, CREATE one, y'all! Give the dictator arms and training to fight the Arabs or the Russians. Then just wait in the wings until he takes one false step, one "unauthorized move".

2. Brainwash simpleminded Americans by repeating this "threat" at all possible media occassions, like so - "That man is a threat to our country. Look at these satellite photographs, these reports....he has WMDs!!"

3. Thereby get "popular support"

4. Bomb the country in question.

5. Repeat until satisfied.

6. Always call it "liberation". It goes down well with the people back home.

7. Push in with "Reconstruction/Restructuring Programs", so that all the Corporations (Haliburton, anybody?) that backed your campaigns get their due in dollars. Proclaim that you are installing a "democratic" government of your choosing.

8. Pat yourself on the back for creating yet another overseas market for manufacturing surplus at home, and oh ! a source of cheap labour too. (You see, years of state sponsored terrorism has left this place with a shattered economy, no trade unions and people who will work before they ask for decent pay)

9. Set up a big oil pump over there to keep the "american way of life" ticking over. Yaaaaaaaaaahoooooooo!

10. What about American casualties?
In all sincererity the numbers are very small, which explains the monumental hype attached to every single casualty. The number of deaths caused by American interference (claims the book) in Nicaragua ALONE - about 850,000 - is more than the sum of all American deaths in all wars from the Civil War through to the current war in Iraq. Digest that.

Dont believe this? ...think back to Panama, Nicaragua, Angola, Vietnam, Lebanon...(whew! running out of breath here..) , Iraq, Venezuela, Phillipines. Dig up any source as long as its not American or American-sponsored. All the best with your investigation!

One of the great mass delusions of modern history is that there is some categorical, intrinsic difference between the aims and methods of a democratic/capitalist state and a totalitarian/communist state (or a socialist state or a pure monarchy or an anarchosyndicalist agrarian commune). Like the Wankel engine vs. the V8, the distinctions are in design only. The purpose and applications are identical.

Governments -- whatever the stripe -- are, by design, ruthless power-aggregating devices, and the USA is no exception. Chomsky's only "sin" is in making that truth self-evident.

The moronic devolution of the language of foreign affairs to polar realms of "good" vs. "evil" is an innovation of the Bush administration, with a somewhat higher-flown antecedent in Reagan's concept of the USSR as "the Evil Empire." Chomsky's essential value is not in the trivialization of the "evil" we face -- which he patently does NOT do -- but in his systematic deconstruction of the whole 1950s-movie-serial-pulp-fiction language in which the argument is framed, as well as his fiercely well-documented demonstrations that the USA is just as "evil" as everyone else. Big whoop. Who knew?

Are we a true representative democracy? Of course not -- grow up. Do we heroically support democratically-elected governments abroad? Well, yeah -- until their policies conflict with the balance sheets of United Fruit or Exxon, in which case assassinations and coups are indispensable tools of US diplomacy. Do we relentlessly abjure and reject thuggish, repressive regimes? Certainly -- oh, except for Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, the Iraq of the '80s, Pinochet and any other hoodlum enterprise that is usefully disposed to our geopolitical/strategic/corporate imperatives.

Is the USA blameless? No doubt -- except that we created Saddam Hussein and supported him through all of his chemical/genocidal escapades; deposed the democratically-elected ruler of Iran and installed the muderous psychotic Shah; cynically armed both sides during the Iran/Iraq war; trained, equipped and motivated Osama bin Laden to be our proxy warrior in the Soviet/Afghan war; and first encouraged, then abandoned both the Kurds and the Shiites to a failed rebellion against Saddam after the Persian Gulf war.

Chomsky is wonderfully effective in correctly rephrasing "blame America first" as "chickens come home to roost." He is also galling (to many) in his rightful insistence that the "War on Terror" is a transparent pretext for securing, by force, the pivotal strategic resource of Middle East oil.

Frankly, one needn't even read Chomsky, except to delight in his language and logic. The truth is already bluntly spelled out in Zbigniew Brezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" and -- more pointedly -- in the Project for the New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (by Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol and a rogue's gallery of Bush/neocon opportunists). The latter document is by any estimate the "Mein Kampf" of the Bush League, in that the full scheme of hegemonic conquest is laid out in plain sight for all to see. But is anyone seeing?

Yes, America has been hypocritically and criminally self-serving, at least since the beginning of WWII...and probably much earlier. Bush is only the latest avatar of our collective national psychopathy. And, one fears, the least subtle.

It's only a shame that the present book was published before Vladimir Putin -- seeing the USA mired in its own Afghanistan and militarily helpless -- decided to follow our lead, co-opt the neocon playbook, create his own "terrorist" crisis and adopt Bush's preferred strategy of pre-emptive invasion in order to seize the Middle East for Russia. Touché!

Chomsky would have a field-day with that one. But I guess we'll have to wait for his NEXT book.

In theis book, Chomsky lays out his opinion of American power in the world. His basic premise is that the American government will do anything to protect it's economic interests and it's global power, even if it includes supporting acts that could be considered terrorism. For example, all of the worst war crimes that Saddam Hussein committed were during the time when Iraq was a client state of the United States. Chomsky argues that the definition of terror isn't applied equally to all nations.
For example, consider the case of Emmanuel Constant. Constant was a leader of a paramilitary force in Haiti which was responsible for the deaths of thousands in the early 90's. Haiti has repeatedly requested for the extradition of Constant, so that he can face trial for his crimes. However, the U.S. refuses to do so. Would it be justifiable for Haiti to bomb New York in an attempt to recover Constant and to punish the government that protects him? Most people would say no, but they would support a similar case--the invasion fo Afghanistan to find Bin Ladin. Why the double standard?
ANother point he covers is the atrocities committed by the Israeli government against the Palestinians and by the Turkish government against the Kurds. These campaigns kill thousands and terrify the local populations, but they aren't call terrorism because they are campaigns supported by the American government. If we're going to have a war against terror, shouldn't we be a little more objective?
This book was an excellent read. I recommend this book for those who want to think seriously about America's role in the world.

Noam Chomsky is one of the most noteworthy and influential intellectuals of modern times. Whether you like him or not, in my opinion, everyone should read his books in order to get a general yet very insightful view of current political affairs and their historical and philosophical backgrounds. His unflinching motivation to unearth the truths behind many political events, bold character, and extraordinary ability to see and make sensible connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena is absolutely outstanding.

This book is a product of post-9/11 era, but contains a lot of information in regards to USA's preceding quests for global dominance, too.

On page 2, he mentions a very common trait of humans which one cannot help but accept: "...a hypothetical extraterrestrial observer might well conclude that humans have demonstrated that capacity throughout their history, dramatically in the past few hundred years, with an assault on the environment that sustains life, on the diversity of more complex organisms, and with cold and calculated savagery, on each other as well."

There is a very conspicuous fact that the leaders of the USA would not understand in many ways, which is mentioned on page 4 as follows: "...there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion ("the United States" here meaning state power, not the public or even elite opinion."

When I was a little boy in the 1980's, I was hearing the US military operations (direct or indirect) in Central America, but could not figure out what was happening exactly. In order to see the whole picture, one should read this book and compare with the news published and aired in media channels in those days. One would see that there is a stark difference between the aforementioned sources.

The author bases many of his ideas on John Ikenberry's very interesting comment which is "...a grand strategy [that] begins with a fundamental commitment to maintaining a unipolar world in which the United States has no peer competitor, a condition that is to be permanent [so] that no state or coalition could ever challenge [the US] as global leader, protector and enforcer."

On page 12, the author argues very successfully the question that many Americans could not find a satisfactory answer in their minds. They wonder why many countries, which exhibited immense support and sympathy to the USA right after 9/11, turned their support away from the USA during the Iraqi war. The book says "...the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9-11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism, and even in friendly countries the public regards Bush as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein."

Chomsky describes the driving philosophy behind the Reagan and Bush administrations as "...the US reserved the right to act unilaterally when necessary, including the unilateral use of military power to defend such vital interests as ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."

He describes the motto of the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Powell trio as well above and beyond a defensive instinct and goes on to say "...officially declaring an even more extreme policy, one aimed at permanent global hegemony, by reliance on force where necessary."

Another world leader, Nelson Mandela, who had immensely suffered from oppression and repression, condemned Tony Blair for "encouraging international chaos, together with America, by ignoring other nations and playing policeman of the world."

The USA made a series of severe mistakes where it forbade other nations on the same issues. On page 26, it is mentioned as "...after 9-11, often with questionable relation to terror, the Bush administration claimed, and exercised, the right to declare people -including US citizens- to be 'enemy combatants' and to imprison them without charge or access to lawyers or family until the White House determines that its 'war on terror' has been successfully concluded."

The author quotes the famous "regime change" phenomenon as "...regime change does not mean a regime that Iraqis might prefer, but one that the conqueror will impose, calling it democratic...". This brings the question that how effective, realistic and long-lasting this artificial democracy would be, in the hands of people who have absolutely no knowledge and experience.

On page 41, there are interesting statistics as to how some nations think of the USA and its current political ambitions.

The following chapters of the book has a great deal of well-scrutinized historical examples in which the USA was, in some way and to some extent, involved politically, militarily, and economically such as the Middle East, Central and South America, and Asia. There are vivid examples about the ideas and presumptions mentioned in the first 40-50 pages of the book. One should read the book for further discussions.

There is an interesting fact stated on page 130; Jack Straw of UK released a report on Saddam's crimes in 2002, but it was drawn almost entirely from the period of firm US and UK support, a fact which was grossly overlooked. Of course, this does not mean that Saddam was a fine leader; he was, in fact, a vicious dictator with a perverted mind and excessive cruelty.

The USA invented the terms "Old Europe" and "New Europe" describing the anti-war European countries and countries who gave direct support to USA's Iraqi operation respectively. This discrimination caused some tension among European countries. The details can be found in the book.

There is a noteworthy historical turning point in Turkey mentioned on page 135 and onwards as "...in the end, the Turks proceeded to teach a lesson in democracy to the West. Parliament finally refused to allow US troops to be deployed fully in Turkey..." and implicitly criticized as follows: "Strong governments disregard their populations and accept the role assigned to them by the global ruler; weak governments succumb to the will of 95% of their population."

The following chapters mention the relationships between the USA and countries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East (e.g. Balkans, Turkey, Israel, Iran, S.Arabia et al.).

The rest of the book presents very strong and useful advice to the US government as to how they can construct and sustain viable, healthy, peaceful, and long-lasting relations with other countries without repeating the old mistakes which were proven to be absolutely wrong and conducive to animosity and resentment. There are very valuable lessons regarding how the entire World can benefit from mutually respectful administrations and how strong, democratic societies can be built on solid grounds.

Overall, this book is very much recommended to those who would like to see and understand the current political phenomena which were not covered by some right-wing, biased media.

Noam Chomsky in this book offers an amazingly compelling account of historical events to justify his main theses, as well as insight that would befit even the most informed American. His theses are that America is singularly bent on global hegemony and utter domination, and that it prioritizes this objective with such brazen religiosity--not dissimilar in intensity from American perceptions of so-called "Islamofascists"--that it may ultimately be ruinous to mankind as a whole, provoking an arms race of unprecedented proportions, including the likely participation of "terrorist" groups (aside from the United States).

This mission, by itself, may not bother some (in fact, many would hold this to be a noble objective, using a twisted logic of malignant ethnocentrism), until one considers the historical implications that all point to catastrophic consequences but which cannot even begin to fathom specific results. Nothing of this magnitude (mostly because of the technology involved) has taken place before in the history of mankind. This is especially worrisome, though it is highly unlikely that even with such empirical proof staring it in the face, the oligarchy ruling with ostensibly democratic pretexts in this country would recognize its application or relevance to "them" and act accordingly. For history has a disturbing trend of repeating itself.

Chomsky also demonstrates the particularly unnerving paradigm that constitutes prevailing American foreign policy for the past half-century: that of blatantly patronizing or simply disregarding the resolutions and rulings of international law-making and arbitrating bodies, flagrant violations of treaties, and abstention from or veto of critical UN votes in clear pursuit of its hegemonic aspirations. This attitude of patent arrogance pervaded many empires of times past and so does it in the current administration, as well as most of its post-Wilsonian predecessors.

Without divulging of the contents of the book in what is supposed to be a generalized review, I unequivocally recommend "Hegemony or Survival," as it offers an edifying, if highly disconcerting, glimpse into the disturbing trends that our "freedom-loving" country has and continues to pursue. Whatever your political inclinations, read as objectively as possible, for the many machinations, subtexts, and acts of direct, absolute, and heinous contradiction with moral and historical principles you discover within are meticulously substantiated with fact and plainly irrefutable.

I could easily dismiss Chomsky's book as the ranting diatribe of a fanatical, left-wing demagogue, but Chomsky raises interesting points in Hegemony or Survival. He makes interesting observations and conclusions about American Foreign Policy of the last century or so and he gives detailed examples that support his views and political leanings. I don't agree with pretty much all that he writes and points out in the book, especially the part where he distinctly equates the American government as being a terrorist state. But he does have passion in his convictions to even make such observations.

What Chomsky's book does is to show just how the far-left thinks of the nation, its government, and the majority of its population. It's a polar opposite of books written by Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. But when one compares Chomsky to those two standard bearers of neo-conservative writers it is not hard to come to a conclusion that their books have alot more in common in rhetoric and tone that they'd like to admit. Chomsky's writing and points are interesting and thoughtprovoking but he fails where O'Reilly and Coulter have also failed: He doesn't have an answer or a solution to the problem he sees.

Chomsky's book is all ideas and pointed accusations, but little or no solution. It doesn't even try to come up with an alternate way for the American government to do things on the international stage. I'd grudgingly recommend the book just for its ideas alone, but it's a frustrating read once one gets halfway through and realizes that Chomsky just repeats himself over and over. Those who wholeheartedly believes all that Chomsky stands for would enjoy this book and those on the opposite end would probably burn it than lay eyes on it. The rest of us in the center might find it an interesting window into what the far-left thinks about American foreign policy.

After accurately addressing the current state of affairs in the United States government, which can be called by many names - Chomsky uses polyarchy - he radically reframes the last several decades of U.S. history in impressive detail, and his work is to be commended.

My major criticism is that he gave far too little attention to the idea of polyarchy and the problems it attempts to address. Such an issue bitterly divided the Founders, but is far older than the United States - Plato dwelled on it in "The Republic." He saw a democracy as nothing but a wreckless mob, and that they must be ruled like children by "guardians," who live apart from the masses and consider the good of the people more important than their own.

Of course such guardians are very rare - for every Marcus Aurelius or Diocletian there are half a dozen Nero's and Caligula's. Although Bush is particularly odious his policy is merely at the extreme of a narrow spectrum, as Chomsky acknowledges. So a system run by an elite will naturally reflect the interests of the elite and not of those whom they govern. Chomsky makes that very clear and that is one of work's best messages. But what to replace it?

Lenin would have us believe that even a cook should be able to run a country, but I doubt most people would agree. Jefferson also trusted the people, but was he too idealistic? What should replace this corrupt polyarchy? Although Chomsky offers no solution, it is still an important and informative work.

Chomsky amply demonstrates how the U.S. Government, over the last few decades and especially since the Soviet Union fell, has gradually increased its dominance through bribing dictators, arming maniacs, and complicating already complicated situations in foreign countries to produce bloody stalemates. I do understand how this might affect the survival of our species as a whole, but I can't help wishing Chomsky had more thoroughly documented it. He does mention the environmental destruction through U.S. Government policies, but he really could have devoted a whole chapter to it. He could also have documented more thoroughly how the U.S. arming whatever enemy of our enemy of the moment puts us all in danger. I appreciate the further investigation into what we knew (or didn't know) about Bin Laden's guilt or innocence as we demanded the Taliban hand him over; and I also appreciate his analysis of the Iraq situation in light of current events and revelations of old secrets. However, this book was published before Hussein's capture, so it cannot include any analysis of this event. Stay tuned for that, because Chomsky isn't the sort of guy to let that go by uncommented on.

This guy is only one of the most distinguished minds of the last century who revolutionized linguistics in the 1950s and 1960s. He has devoted much of his writing to analyzing American foreign policies for the last 40 years. He is also Jewish for the information of those pro-Israelis who suggest that because of his criticisms of Israel that he MUST be anti-semitic. He is so controversial because he does not pull any punches and "calls em as he sees em". He must read EVERYTHING because he cites fact and opinion from the most various sources. He has a remarkable analytical mind for pulling together pieces of relevant information and presenting them in prose. He is often wickedly satirical and reminds one very much of Bertrand Russell's style.

This guy is absolutely worth reading if you have ANY desire at all to be objective about America's role in the world. If you want to take on critics of America's foreign policies don't waste your time with anyone else, take on the heavyweight champion of the world. If you can refute Chomsky honestly you can say you've really done something. If, like many of the "America right or wrong" super-patriots who have given this book a one here on the store, have already made up your mind, then don't bother reading Chomsky he'll just make you apoplectic.

Although he is frequently ignored or reviled in the US because of his willingness to criticize American policies he is read avidly all over the rest of the world and that explains why Hugo Chavez referred to this book at the UN. If you care enough to read the very best, read Noam Chomsky.

The basic theory of HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL is found in its subtitle that the United States has and has had (back to at least JFK and perhaps the end of WW II) a goal of America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project). Noam Chomsky uses specific examples from the past four decades to defend his argument that owning the world and militarily space have been the real objectives of American foreign and domestic policy. Chomsky also parallels the American global empire building to that of the eighteenth and nineteenth century British Empire where the sun never set until 1942 in North Africa. He insists the current administration is willing to risk human survival to prove they are right. He succinctly and intelligently supports his thesis by tracking the U.S. government's aggressive pursuit of attaining "full spectrum dominance" at any cost.
This tome is extremely well written and worth reading as the historical based logic is quite easy to follow and seems so valid that the spin is the USA is the freedom providers and anyone opposing America is a vicious totalitarian. Chomsky's belief that a global empire must fail like the British did, but in this NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical WMDs) age will lead to an orb- wasteland is not as reliable of a conclusion as its defense seems more of a supposition. Still this is an eye opener that will receive praise from the left, condemnation from the right, sadly ignored from the middle, and never reach the global unaligned masses more interested in surviving leaders who know what is best for everyone.
Harriet Klausner

Like many, the Iraq War stirred within me, great interest in American Foreign Policy. I was strongly against the war mainly because I was skeptical of the reasons why it was being fought -something just seemed rotten beneath the official pretext, something deeper than wanting to rid the world of a dictator. Afterall, the U.S. has both installed and has supported dictators in the past, so what made Saddam different? Why was Iraq chosen as the next target after Afghanistan when there were a host of other nations that seemed far more involved in terrorism such as Syria, Iran, and ofcourse, Saudi Arabia?
I must admit Mr. Chomsky's political views are similar to my own so you may say this was a case of preaching to the choir. However, just because Chomsky has become so closely attributed to the political left doesn't mean that he's just another mere political pundit like Al Franken or Bill O'Reily - the man is a world renowned intellectual for godsakes! Instead of offering the usual rhetoric, emotional appeals, and effective, yet woefully, inaccurate generalizations Chomsky offers arguments supported by strong evidence and sound logic.
Critics will say Chomsky's intellectual acclaim is for Linguistics, not foreign policy, however, they fail to realize that while he may have made a name for himself in another field, that does not diminish the logic and validity behind his arguments.
The main point that I took away from this book was that the U.S. partakes & supports many of the same atrocities as those of the people it condemns, engages in what would easily be seen as war crimes if they had been commited by another nation, and continually acts against international law. Clearly, there is a double standard here and that is what Chomsky spends most of this book examining.
Chomsky argues that the Bush Administartion, contrary to their rhetoric about wanting to spread democracy, is in actuality resentful of it. Case in point, how such the leaders of such nations as France, Germany, and Turkey simply followed the will of their peoples, who were overwhelmingly against the war, while Washington dismissed these nations as weak and caring little about spreading democracy. The leaders of these nations were simply acting in accordance to the will of their peoples, unlike the leaders of the "colalition of the willing." Chomsky claims that support for the war was LOWER in such colalition nations as Poland and Italy than in nations such as Germany or France, and therefore, were acting in a far less democratic manner than their anti-war counterparts.
In regards to the spread of WMD's, Chomsky points to the U.S.'s continued opposition to such bills as those limiting chemical and biological weapons and that the U.S. contrary to international law, does have a chemical and biological weapons program. In the addition, the Bush Administration is seeking to 'modernize' the nuclear arsenal, in particular, to develop nuclear weapons intended for actual use and not as a deterant.
Chomsky also details the horrific atrocities committed in such Latian American countries as El Salvador, Nicaruga, and especially Cuba either by forces supported by the United States or committed by the United States itself. He then turns to the many crimes of Isreal against the Palestinans and how the United States continues to support a regime that has one of the worst human rights records in the region.
The reason why the U.S. violates international laws regarding human rights and conduct in war (one only has to look at the ever expanding Abu Gharib scandal) while at the same time condemning other nations for the same violations is because, well... it can. The book reveals that despite the lofty rhetoric involving the spread of freedom, democracy, and prosperity American Foriegn Policy is bent on achieveing hegemony - a state free of any competing powers and a world where the U.S. dominates the world economicially, culturally, and militarily. Ofcourse this hegemony wouldn't be a utopia by any means, but one that would be run by self-serving U.S. elites and their allies in ways that best met their needs, at the expense of well... the rest of us. The chapter on long term implications of the United States' space based weapon program and it's intention of weaponizing space is particularly chilling....
The book also mentions the possibility that due to it's heavy-handed foreign policy driven by self interest and imperial ambitions, America may never get a chance to achieve hegemony. Resentment towards the U.S. has never seemed higher and as even the Bush Administration now admits, reistance is growing and Islamic terrorist networks are expanding in numbers due largely to the Iraq War and the continuing heavy-handed Isreali treatment of Palestinans. In addition the aggressive actions of the U.S. will likely trigger a new arms build up amongst rival states that may once again plunge the world into a nuclear standoff.
I've only touched on SOME of the main arguments of this book, there are many and it would take far too long to discuss all of them. Overall, I found Chomsky's arguments reasonable and convincing, supported by both solid evidence and sound logic.
While I don't expect any hardcore Bush supporters or conservatives to ever read a novel by an author who has become so closely associated with the left, those of you wanting to gain a better understanding of just how America's, particularly Bush's America, foreign policy has effected the world and will continue to do so and what that may mean for both Americans and everyone else may find this book well worth the $.

If you want a good understanding of world events, then I would tell you to buy not just one copy, but two copies of this book. One copy for yourself, and one copy to lend to anyone who is a fan of FOX news and other sources of right wing media.
This book has ample documentation to back it up, contrary to those who say the Chomsky is some radical who just sat somewhere and made it up. I find his discussion of the Reagan administration quite interesting, all of it is backed up and documented under the ICJ ruling of Nicaragua vs United States.
If you are a Republican, I suggest you stick to O'Reilly and associates, this book will only make you loose more hair if you are not already bald.

This is another winner from long-time foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky. His unswerving honesty and scrupulous documentation of sources continues to justify his analysis and its scholarly value. However, I am not writing this review to talk about another enjoyable Chomsky book; I'm writing to respond to the lack of intellectual honesty in the reviewer at the top of the list.

To respond to the questions raised by the member called 'A reader' in the review entitled 'Not for the open-minded':

1. Almost all foreign policy historians will refer to the United States as a hegemon. This is well established in academia and Chomsky does not have the responsibility of answering the question for you. Before you go and embarrass yourself, try reading a standard textbook in diplomatic history, such as American Foreign Relations by Thomas Paterson, et al.

2. Chomsky has never advocated isolationism; he has spoken out against interference, not engagement. There is a huge difference between trading with a nation as an equal and exploiting it through neo-liberal policies designed to reinforce the status quo and prevent development in the Third World. Think for a second about how the United States developed as an industrial power: through high tariffs, not 'free trade'. By refusing to allow other nations to develop self-sufficiency and local industry and agriculture, we keep them in a state of perpetual enslavement to American corporate interests. Again, this is not a 'liberal screed', it is modern economic theory, right out of the Wall Street Journal.

3. What does being an anarcho-syndicalist have to do with 'hating' America? Why do so many establishment 'conservatives' assume that disagreeing with the structure of government implies hatred for the nation as a whole? Think about this for a second: if you're not allowed to disagree with the structure of government, you're living in a police state. A flourishing democratic tradition allows for the expression of all political views; you either accept that freedom or not. Issuing an illogical ad hominem attack on Chomsky's American citizenship on the basis of his political views runs contrary to every principle this nation was founded on, not to mention the fact that it debases what it means to be a true conservative. Democracy is about dissent, not lock-step conformity; active civic engagement like Chomsky's is evidence of true love for a country (one that he has frequently praised for its freedoms, incidentally).

This review is for the writer of the review entitled "Not for the open-minded" submitted in July 2004. His or her title is a juicy irony, as he goes on to demonstrate his own close-mindedness. He begins his review with the assertion that Chomsky is a "former linguist." That might come as news to MIT. Small point perhaps but typical of the misinformation and misunderstanding of this clearly biased review. He says Chomsky is famous for his "poorly written, almost unreadable screeds." Even Chomsky's critics credit his writing skills. What may make Chomsky difficult to read is the depth of research and documentation he brings to his work. It can get to be heavy going; not for the average comic book reader.

The reviewer goes on to ask why Chomsky doesn't move to some place like Sweden--a suggestion reminiscent of the same suggestion to anti-war protesters, or anyone else who disagrees with some action of their government.

He states baldly--I say baldly because he makes no effort to back it up--that Chomsky "makes no attempt at argument, taking his own beliefs as automatically correct." Again the irony. In fact the book is replete with multifaceted arguments before Chomsky draws a conclusion. It is the central strength of his writing and the direction of his conclusions. Chomsky sustains his arguments with 26 pages of detailed footnotes (pretty substantial for a 236 page book).

The reviewer accuses Chomsky of being "neo-isolationist." This makes one wonder if he even read the book or was told about it by a fellow member of his (or her) own "ideological choir." Chomsky clearly advocates engagement with the world, just on different terms; ones more closely aligned with the rhetoric of freedom and justice than with the actions of post WWII US governments.

It is understandable that, much like finding out one's father is an abuser, it is painful to face that one's own country may have been a greater force for evil in the world than for good; but the unacceptable alternative, especially if one has read and understood the book, is willful ignorance.

Chomsky's analysis is brilliant, but there's one problem: this book is hard to read. It's dense and throws so much information at you at once. On the other hand, you can't call yourself an educated person unless you understand Chomsky's position -- because he is one of the great thinkers in our world. A Chomsky interview book, like Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, is a lot easier, because it is edited oral answers and also has a ton of documentation that is accessible. Also, the David Barsamian interviews are good, but they are a little more limited in scope, whereas Understanding Power is more of a complete introduction and kind of hits on everything. Like another reviewer, I do think people should prove Dershowitz wrong and get to the end of a Chomsky book. But that might be easier with a slightly more accessible volume -- and they exist!!

Noam Chomsky's latest book, "Hegemony or Survival," presents a view of American foreign policy, which lies in stark contrast to that depicted by corporate media, popular pundits, and US heads of state. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has emerged as the preeminent superpower of the world and Chomsky dissects with meticulous research how the United States has chosen to leverage that position to pursue an "imperial grand strategy", which will ensure itself "unilateral world domination through absolute military superiority".

What sets Chomsky's work apart from so many others who write social and political theory today is that he is equally critical of the Democratic party as he is of the Republican party. Chomsky's theory portrays America's foreign policy as being consistent across partisan lines. Democrats and Republicans for that matter appear more as two wings of a capitalist, imperialist party than the two vastly different political ideologies that are presented in the popular media.

The real meat of Chomsky's work lies in the analysis produced from a re-examination of history. By examining key moments in America's history, Chomsky is able to elicit a more consistent and plausible set of motives for US foreign policy actions rather than the hyperbolic calls for democracy and totalitarian regime change that we have become so accustomed to hearing.

Questions immediately begin to rise to the surface while Chomsky exhumes the historical record and aligns it back into context. Was the United States really concerned with democracy when it supported a viscous proxy war in Nicaragua, even though their government had been democratically elected? Is the United States government hypocritical when it condemns state sponsored terrorism when it sponsored terrorism itself against such countries as Cuba and Nicaragua. And, how does the United States rationalize the School of the Americas, which has long been understood as a training ground for Latin American neo-fascist terrorists? Is the United States truly interested in peace in the Middle East when it denies the "Saudi Plan" set forth in early 2002, which would offer "full recognition and integration [of Israel] into the region in exchange for withdrawal to the 1967 borders?" Why did we go to war with Iraq when no imminent threat of WMD's could be found, no connection to Al Qaida could be proven, and multiple studies were produced by leading agencies suggesting that invading Iraq would only decrease domestic security?

The answers for Chomsky are surprisingly consistent with what he feels are a foreign policy guided by imperial global expansion and military dominance. Countries must be aligned with US interest in order to ensure capital penetration and corporate and military hegemony. If a country does not choose to align, then it will wind up a target of US backed aggression, or branded a terrorist state. In 1965,Indonesia expressed its intention to elder statesman Ellsworth Bunker that they wished to "'stand on their own two feet in developing their economy, free from foreign, especially Western influence'. A National Intelligence Estimate in September 1965 warned that if the efforts of the mass-based PKI 'to energize and unite the Indonesian nation ... succeeded, Indonesia would provide a powerful example for the underdeveloped world and hence a credit to communism and a setback for Western prestige." A US backed coup ensued, killing close to 1,000,000 people, and installed the brutal dictator General Suharto. This is the cost, Chomsky highlights, of not aligning with the "master" state.

If a country does choose to align, as is the case with countries like Israel and Turkey, they become client states and are protected under the aegis of the American military, and given monetary and military aid. Although Turkey is run by an iron fisted dictator with an abysmal human rights record, the US government makes concessions for Turkey's actions, as it is a client state and performs a strategic role in the interest of the American government.This notion of the client state is why popular solutions to the Middle East crisis like the "Saudi Plan" are not accepted.

Chomsky concludes by discerning "two trajectories in current history: one aiming toward hegemony, acting rationally within a lunatic doctrinal framework as it threatens survival; the other dedicated to the belief that 'another world is possible', in the words that animate the World Social Forum, challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought action and institutions." Chomsky does not foresee which trajectory will dominate, but feels strongly that because we live in a critical moment in US history, the course we choose is crucial as it is the survival of our own race that is at stake.

To read Chomsky's HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL is to visit a world turned upside down. A world where the characterization by U.S. elites of the 90s as the "decade of humanitarian intervention" is sharply questioned, it's also a place where interventions in the name of the "war on terror" are shown to be just the latest manifestations of an expansionist U.S. administration determined to hold onto long-range strategic imperatives, to disable rival systems and people that threaten its imperial objectives, and to strictly enforce its true animating principle -- the pro-market, anti-human ethos of the neo-liberal economic system. In other words, it's not the fumigated middle-school version of US foreign policy offered to Americans on TV
Readers accustomed to the usual sycophantic justifications of U.S. foreign and policy may have a difficult time with Chomsky's remapping of recent political history. Those on the right will reject it as a Chomskyite confabulation. Moderates will wonder why he seems to hate America so much. Those on the left will be upset that the policies of Democrats are seen as little different from that of Republicans. Chomsky sees the two parties as nearly indistinguishable, calling them the two "business parties, one slightly less reactionary than the other." And here's Chomsky quoting Dewey on the narrow U.S. political spectrum.: "...John Dewey scarcely exaggerated when he described politics as 'the shadow cast on society by big business.'
One of his main themes is that the United States, like its imperial predecessor, Great Britain, employs an idealizing and utopian language (the language of democracy and freedom) to justify its opposition to and extirpation of any countervailing force, even those founded upon the democratic or populist impulse, e.g., Nicaragua, Guatemala. This is not, of course, an insight original to Chomsky. But what is so disorienting and unique about Chomsky's renarration of recent events is that he is exquisitely alive to the efforts of those in power to efface the historical record, to enforce forgetfulness and unknowing through a steady diet of fear and triumphalist propaganda. Reinscribing history, he quotes mainstream sources, official records, military and diplomatic experts, many of whom are unsympathetic to his point of view, and builds a compelling case to support his thesis that even the "exceptional" United States unexceptionally behaves like powerful states typically do: enhancing their power through violence, and legitimizing their policies through whatever discourses are available. And while its not original to Chomsky that absolute power corrupts absolutely, what is fine and bracing is the way he marshals legions of facts to show how those in power, unchecked in our "open society," move to stifle or subvert the will of its citizens in favor of the money power it truly serves.
One of the more memorable examples he cites in making this case is the special wrath of the present administration for "Old Europe" when it failed to march in lockstep into the war in Iraq. Chomsky notes that, in fact, the leaders of France and Germany by refusing to along were giving voice to and representing their citizens, great majorities of whom were against the war. He notes that the citizens of "New Europe" were even more opposed to the war than citizens of "Old Europe," and futher, notes that public opinion polls in South America showed more opposition than "Old Europe," too.
Chomsky does not simply offer a counternarrative of facts in his recovery of the historical record. He offers insightful interpretations of facts to attack that seemingly endless supply of elite apologists who offered cool intellectual frameworks for deciding whether the war in Iraq was "just or unjust," reminding us that their bloodless formulas fail to take into account the experience of people in the "New Europe" and South America who lived through other "just wars" and the installation of "democracy." He suggests that citizens of South America, are just a tad more gun shy than most of "Old Europe" after having experienced liberation at the hands of the United States in the form of secret terroristic training of death squads and the support of military dictators and anti-Castro insurgents during the Kennedy and subsequent administrations. And the citizens of Eastern Europe, having experienced the creative destruction of the free-market system under the Reagan-Bush I and Clinton regimes -- an exercise in freedom which has pauperized them and made them dependent upon the goodwill and largesse of the international bankers -- have seen first hand the discrepancy between the liberatory promise of Western democracy and reality of the neo-liberal economic system, a system which has served to mightily prosper the upper echelons of the ruling class
Chomsky does make the case he begins with: that humanity is now situated at the brink of biological destruction, and the survival of the species depends upon worldwide resistance to the U.S. regime. Concentrating on the murderous antics of nation states and their elites, he shows how the U.S. is creating enemies around the world, enemies who, through the example of North Korea, have come to see that states with nuclear weapons need not fear US invasion. He shows how our policies conjure new and more powerful enemies out of the ground, enemies who will perhaps help us achieve the nuclear Armageddon our leaders appear to so badly want for us.
Here's Chomsky at his best on the neo-liberal agenda: "We are instructed daily to be firm believers in neoclassical markets, in which isolated individuals are rational wealth maximizers. If distortions are eliminated, the market should respond perfectly to their 'votes,' expressed in dollars or some counterpart. The value of a person's interests is measured in the same way. In particular, the interests of those with no votes are valued at zero: future generations, for example. It is therefore rational to destroy the possiblity for decent survival for our grandchildren, if by so doing we can maximize our own 'wealth' -- which means a particular perception of self-interest constructed by vast industries devoted to implanting and reinforcing it.'

"If (any liberal or progressive writer, actor, or singer) doesn't like it here then why doesn't (that liberal or progressive writer, actor, or singer) just move to (communist or socialist country)?"

If I hear that stupid argument again, I'm gonna go crazy. This is the argument of people who don't care enough about the subject to actually read the book, and don't care enough about their country to look at it objectively. Yes, the US is the best country in the world. I think we've all agreed on that. What Chomsky wants to do is make the country better, and despite what his critics would like you to believe, he presents a good argument. He always has.

Many people come away from Chomsky's books feeling personally insulted. They cry that he can't be objective. Being objective is not his intent. Presenting his argument is, and he's always done it well. If you can be objective, and you're not scared that some mean old author is going to make you think about another side of your country's government, then take a look. I guarantee you'll learn something.

With most Americans stuck with sound-byte information regarding US foreign policy, it is refreshing to see books such as this getting the attention that they deserve. If more people had this meta-level perspective over the past 30 years, people would have been protesting in the streets regarding US foreign policy, that could have prevented our steps in areas like the Middle East and, in turn, prohibited the devloping anti-American sentiment in the region, which begat the events of 9/11, which begat our invasion of Iraq. Reading this book makes you wonder why morons like Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were advising the president, while significant intelectuals like Chomsky are kept to the underground lecture circuit.

I have been meaning to read a 'full Chomsky' since reading the 9-11 book and hearing him on the radio a couple times. I found this book amazing, well constructed,fact ladden, and difficult.
It's difficulty for me was timely, I want to know what we are actually up to. I found it difficult to contemplate the administrations that I thought were 'not so bad' where actually in my opinion pretty awful.
I have been struggling with the concept of how is it possible to be proud of my country given the activities of the current administration. I am resigned to first being willing to get over my fairy tale innocence and be willing to know, more than i have been willing to know up to now.
in this way this book was helpful.

...about what our government has brazenly done in our name, without ever actually consulting with us or getting our consent based on the facts. I just finished reading this the day this became so talked about because of Chavez. I couldn't believe it. I don't care how this gets popular but it has to become generally understood: we are largely unwitting dupes of an agenda that is so cynically anti-human, anti-egalitarian, anti-democratic and anti-american (in the real sense of that buzzword)that I am filled with shame for what we stand for in the world (from THEIR point of view, not what we like to think).

But don't take my word for it (as Chomsky would say), learn the facts for yourself as he did: by going to the declassified original documents and little known articles. Chomsky is nothing if not a thorough and responsible academic mind who starts all his research with a healthy scepticism.

Yes he has a point of view and a philosophy, like everyone else. He is not some cookie cutter leftist, though, or radical extremist who enjoys finding critical things to say about his homeland. He just wants, as many naturally do, to have a society in which all people have the opportunity for living informed, creative lives with a big say in how government is run and organized.

He does an excellent job outlining the big and largely invisible agenda that actually manipulates our consent on things we would never agree to had we known the facts. The rise of multinational corporations to hegemonic power and the rich elites that both serve and comprise them, are the elephants in the room we can feel but dare not discuss or describe. If you think we live in a democracy, you are blind.

These are big statements. Please read this for yourself and see if alot of apparently unrelated things start making sense. It's not a conspiracy of a few "number ones"; more insidiously, it is a culture of dogged pursuit of wealth and self-aggrandizement for the few at the expense of everyone else. It is the world's biggest pyriamid scheme and we are all watching the house of cards before the fall. Time to change. Time to take responsibility rather than blaming others. This is a work of insightful courage.

This book shows that America is not the wonderfully idealistic, selfless country our politicians and mainstream media claim. Instead it show America as a rather ruthless Machiavellian state; whose policies have encouraged tens of thousands of murders; and whose actions have purposely denied many countries the very democracy and human rights we claim to spread. For those who do not know these seldom-told truths, or who need reminding of them, this book is extremely valuable. For this reason I have given it four stars.
Unfortunately, this book is extremely one-sided. It ignores many of the arguable justifications for the behaviors it condemns, and it fails to consider the possible risks of totally abandoning such behaviors.
For example, Chomsky fails to point out that many of the killings he blames on America were done to counter a political force, i.e., Communism, whose killings have far exceeded those of Hitler and have many times exceeded those Chomsky blames on America. Unfortunately killing and threatening to kill are extremely powerful tools for gaining and keeping power. If one side in a conflict freely murders those it suspects of being opponents, while a second only punishes people under the due process of law, the first is almost certain to win, unless its cause is extremely unpopular or its numbers very small. Thus, it is not clear America could have stopped the spread of totalitarian Communism without using at least some of the ugly methods that Chomsky criticizes. Chomsky failure to confront such arguments casts doubt on the realism and open-mindedness of his obviously powerful mind.
Despite Chomsky's acknowledgement that greater powers have almost always abused smaller ones, he fails to consider the most obvious implication of that acknowledgment, i.e., that, if America wasn't pushing its weight around, somebody else would be. He fails to mention that since no current world institution has the power to forcefully settle disputes between major powers, the world's current state of governance is one of anarchy. Given these facts, Chomsky should at least have considered the argument that, by helping enforcing some order upon a largely chaotic, Machiavellian world, America may actually have decreased, rather than increased, net human suffering.
Chomsky provides valuable, seldom-heard discussion of Israel's racist brutality. Since he is Jewish and a darling of the Left, he has a degree of immunity from the charges of anti-Semitism that normally prevent such truths from being heard. But Chomsky largely portrays Israel as a vicious militarist underling that serves America's imperialist interests in the Middle East. He ignores the extent to which pro-Israeli groups control America's foreign policy. As "The Sampson Option" by Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Hersh details, pro-Israeli groups in the U.S. are so powerful that for eight successive US administrations no American President, nor any political figure of any significance, dared speak against Israel's development and deployment of nuclear weapons. This even though such activity was well known by the CIA; was clearly contrary to our nation's stated policies; and very arguably presented a major threat to America's security interests.
Before I read this book I was deeply opposed to the Bush administration's Neo-Conservative policies. Although not commonly said, these policies have been largely, but not entirely, developed by a small group of pro-Likud American Jews. In addition to proposing that America fight Iraq and all of Israel's other enemies, the Neo-Cons have proposed that America seek to maintain it global hegemony throughout the 21st century by actively suppressing the power of all the world's other major states, including the newly unified Europe. This is an extremely risky policy. At a time when America's economic and technological power relative to the rest of the world is rapidly declining, it appears unwise to risk earning the world's hatred in return for a probably unsuccessful attempt to selfishly suppress the other nations of the earth. Instead we should be using what considerable power we have left to create alliances and world institutions that share our values and interests. Otherwise, in several decades when countries like China, India, and the EU each have GDPs and technological sectors roughly as large as our own, we will have lost not only our world dominance, but also our most valuable friends.
Surprisingly, reading Chomsky's book has actually made me less certain in my above criticism of the Neo-Cons. That's because this book, unlike most criticisms of the Neo-Cons, does not portray their position as major change of American policy, but rather as a continuation of, or perhaps slight expansion of, imperialist policies that have been supported by every U.S. administration, and by most US foreign policy experts, since the end of World War II. It is one thing to dismiss the current administration's foreign policy as crazy. It is another to dismiss the foreign policy of every US administration since Truman's as crazy.
Nevertheless I still think I disagree with the Neo-Cons. I agree with Chomsky that we are rapidly losing the overwhelming relative economic power we had after World War II. In addition, our major allies no longer need our protection from the Soviet War Machine. Thus, the type of imperialist leadership that worked for America after WW II is unlikely to continue working much longer. I also agree with Chomsky that winning the War On Terrorism should include, where possible, seeking to decrease behaviors that justifiably cause others to hate us, such as our support for Israel's racist oppression in the Middle East.
If I had to choose between the Neo-Cons' pro-Likud, short-sighted, but more realpolitik views or Chomsky's shockingly idealistic naivety, I would probably hold my nose and side with the Neo-Cons. But hopefully American can find a policy in between - a policy that honestly deals with the ugly realities and necessities of the world stage while at the same time realistically seeking a more enlightened, democratic, and peaceful world.

Noam Chomsky's book, Hegemony or Survival, presents an analytical critique of American foreign policy in the post Soviet Union era. Through referencing critical actions taken by the US in recent history, he pursues his theory of what he believes is a direct mission by the US for total and complete global dominance. Chomsky believes that the road in which US foreign policy has been charging down is clearly towards supremacy. This drive avoids yielding to opportunities of peace and threatens the future survival of the US and the world as a whole. Throughout the book, Chomsky continuously rallies around this overshadowing question that is essentially the core of his book. How will the future of America unfold as a result of the short-term actions it is currently seeking out and will total global dominance lead to survival or destruction?

In September of 2002, the Bush administration proposed its declaration on the national security strategy of America. As stated in the US declaration and reiterated by Chomsky in his book, the US intends to dominate the world indefinitely and through force if necessary. The proposal announced by Bush raised concerns throughout the nation and the international community. Mainstream news sources such as the journal of Foreign Affairs had criticized and questioned the true intensions of what the Bush administration set to achieve through such radical goals. This outright declaration of complete dominance is dangerous to the future of the state. As one of Chomsky's many themes in the book, he feels that the style and implications being carried out by the US are extremely dangerous. Such propositions leave America isolated from the rest of the world and hated by virtually everyone. Threatening to destroy any domination that gets in its way, America is not only putting itself at risk, but resonating fear in the international arena.

America's continual pursuit for supremacy, as defined by Chomsky, revolves around one central control and that is militarily. As of now, the US is without a doubt militarily supreme over the rest of the world. Chomsky makes this clear and goes on to discuss how it plans on expanding that supremacy. One of the issues covered is the militarization of space. The key tribulation associated with this idea is the fact that America wants absolute control of space. The US is alone in the world in trying to move to the militarization of space. Those plans threaten survival because of the measures being risked.

Survival is an issue that Chomsky continuously draws back too. Survival in the future as a superpower, survival as a state, survival of the human species; all these predicaments are never a sure thing. Americas drive towards hegemony through Chomsky's theories is to take the world by force and leave no competitors. It is the undoubtedly evident that survival becomes seriously threatened. When reading this book one has to step back and ask themselves, are these claims accurate. Many of Chomsky's theories resonate out the historical events conducted by America in recent year. These events deal with the international relations and financial aid America has supported. The views presented by Chomsky, although accurate, are one sided and leave the reader without any choice but to point blame at the US. In mentioning Iraq, he makes a very convincing argument by questioning why the Regan administration increased aid to Saddam Hussein after learning about the gassing and holocaust of thousands of innocent civilians. Yet his claims towards Nicaragua and Kosovo, just to name a few, seem very far fetched. America did indeed deliver aid to those regions and financial support may have been misused as some point by the aiding states. But was it part of America's larger "agenda". Such claims need to be seriously questioned.

As both the leading superpower in the world today and the most hated state in the international arena, America continues to face many criticisms. Noam Chomsky continues to be at the heart of the criticism America is facing. Although he makes clear and clever arguments questioning foreign policy and overall strategies, the tone of his book leans more towards and a projection of negative sentiment. He sees America as less democratic and more Imperialistic. It is of course the goal of America to stay supremely on top in the international arena, but Chomsky believes the US has gone beyond that. As he understands it, it is not natural law to obtain power and control, but a clear stride towards global supremacy.

I've enjoyed this book very much, but feel compelled to comment on something that began to grate on my nerves as early as page 15.
I'd just like to point out that there is no morning meeting held in a public square each day in Washington. The citizens of that city are not responsible for the actions of the temporary few, who jet in and then out of their fair city during several months of the year. It is a common error, perpetrated by journalists, that is then instilled into the rest of the country's population to tar all inhabitants of a nation's capital with this brush - thereby creating an acceptable target for the rest of the country's vilification. I know this from having lived in Canberra, Australia for the past 15 years. It may surprise you to learn that some people who live in national capital cities are not even public servants. Shock, horror. So please, I beg of you, Noam, when you're talking about the actions of the US Federal Government, then say so - 'the White House' is also acceptable - but stop attributing them to Washington!
And what of the rest of the book? It's refreshing to hear an alternative perspective coming out of the USA - although in the current world and local climate, I'm almost surprised it was allowed to be published. I guess the assumption is that the masses will never come close to opening its pages or their eyes, to find out what sins are being committed against our oft glorified but largely theoretical democratic rights.

Chomsky continues to be one of the few sane voices in America. In this book he examines America's experience with and oftentimes support for terrorism around the world, noting that the current "War on Terror" is really a renewal of activities dating back to the 1980s.

This is not a book of easy answers like so many on the topic of terrorism and foreign policy today. You will not find any "us vs them", "they hate our freedom", "we gotta get them before they get us" nonsense in Chomsky's works.

If you are actually interested in the realities of America's foreign policy decisions and the potential consequences of our actions, past and present, then you should read this book.

I'm going to keep this review short, unlike others who feel they have to express every bit of insightful quip.

This book is a good read. Difficult and enlightening. This is not an anti-America book, or an anti-regime book, it's a book with facts. One has to keep an open mind and like any good reader, don't buy into everything you read. Double check the resources and references. Read other material from other writers and other points of view. It's not an afternoon read at the beach with a soda in hand. Unless of course you can learn in that kind of milieu. It's worth your time and money.

While Chomsky isn't new, his books are readily diced everytime he publishes. Thank goodness Chavez renewed interest in a writer whose very subject matter is validated by that dismissal, through those bad reviews, not through censorship. He speaks about not being heard, and the best form of censorship in my experience is not to ignore a piece, but to talk about its faults and problems. Bad reviews are excellent censorship. Don't ban a book anymore, just damn it with faint praise, or tell that it's riddled with bias and inaccuracy. Alan Dershowitz was quoted in the New York Times as follows, and I repeat this as a challenge to the readers and reviewers here:

"I don't know anybody who's ever read a Chomsky book," said Mr. Dershowitz, who said he first met Mr. Chomsky in 1948 at a Hebrew-speaking Zionist camp in the Pocono Mountains where Mr. Dershowitz was a camper and Mr. Chomsky was a counselor.

"You buy them, you put them in your pockets, you put them out on your coffee table," said Mr. Dershowitz, a longtime critic of Mr. Chomsky. The people who are buying "Hegemony" now, he added, "I promise you they are not going to get to the end of the book."

He continued: "He does not write page turners, he writes page stoppers. There are a lot of bent pages in Noam Chomsky's books, and they are usually at about Page 16." (Rich, NYT, Sept 23, 2006)

Dershowitz believes you don't read this book--he says this about liberals and conservatives alike. Let's all get to the end of page 301 and write Mr. Dershowitz and tell him what we think. Don't know what the store will do with this "review"--but a review technically gets you to read a book, or buy it, and I think this qualifies. I don't claim to have read the book, only to know its value in American Literature right now. If we seek to understand what Chavez believes, then we have to read what Chomsky believes; if we believe Chomsky, though, we might just believe Chavez and that scares people---but books that DON'T make you think--well, that scares me even more.

The stunning statements of Hugo Chavez at the UN last year prompted me to read this book and I concluded that there was more than a little truth in his words. Most Americans cruise blissfully unaware through life while our national leaders pursue goals that are the polar opposite of the fundamental American Values we were all taught in school. Democracy, self-governance, freedom, opportunity for all and justice are not the priceless gifts America takes to foreign nations. Instead, we take alliances with priviliged and corrupt elites, military strongmen and corporados designed to prevent the vast majority from enjoying their own nation's wealth. Chomsky demonstrates fifty years worth of specific, documented activities our govenment has undertaken that should make each of us feel ashamed. Chomsky is a hero and a national treasure.

I am a high school student taking an AP government course, and was absolutely terrified to open this book. I feared the issues would be way over my head; his style resembled a syntactical obstacle course that I felt unprepared to brave. I was not particularly interested in foreign policy--I am a teenager; I hate the government by default.

But now...well.

I think I just got my first gray hair. Indeed, Chomsky's formal, unforgiving logic and systematic attack of every conceivable aspect of his arguments soon transformed what seemed like a heavy-handed intellectual diatribe into a frightening page-turner that will have you sitting up in your seat, uttering curses to yourself. A brilliant organizer, Chomsky anticipates your every question and stands at the ready with entire sections of well-sourced, footnoted fact. Every paranoid implication swiftly morphs into ironclad argument; the essay-like chapters invite the reader to reconsider at will, on any page, at any time, without feeling lost. I particularly enjoyed "the New Era of Enlightenment," in which Chomsky highlights the hollow altruism of recent administrations with embarrassing, razor-sharp analysis, providing historical examples in East Timor and the Kurdish genocide.

It is important for youths to read this book. Chomsky does claim "the unfolding events should be deeply disturbing to those who have concerns about the world they are leaving to their grandchildren." In that sense, I see it not as more than an opportunity to gain a truly excellent background on the history of US foreign policy. It's more than a forcible means of thinking out of the box.

In a culture where the next generation is conditioned not to even look in the government's direction, where we are mollified and anesthetized and socialized beyond any semblance of a will to think about the future...it's plain preparation.

Professors Chomsky's observations on U.S. foreign policy are accurate and correct. High school history classes(and Junior high for that matter)would not be so boring if the details, and roots of the reasons why events happen, were not omitted from school textbooks. It's as if certain people out there don't want our children to learn from past mistakes. It's no wonder why history repeats itself - go figure.

We would have already achieved world peace, for the most part, if the government worked for "we the people" instead of the multinationals and the defense contractors(WMD makers).

You can bet that those negative reviews are coming from people who, in one way or another, work in the interests of the multinationals and war profiteers.

This book like many of Noam Chomsky's books, expose the hypocrisy behind American foreign policy. This book is timely and is an update to his 9-11 and Power and Terror books. This book deals with the current situation as far as the US occupation of Iraq and the underlying implications of where the government wants to go with regards to creating an American Empire at the expense of the so called "rogue states."

This book like many of Noam Chomsky's books, expose the hypocrisy behind American foreign policy. This book is timely and is an update to his 9-11 and Power and Terror books. This book deals with the current situation as far as the US occupation of Iraq and the underlying implications of where the government wants to go with regards to creating an American Empire at the expense of the so called "rogue states."

I admire and appreciate Mr. Chomsky's brilliance, depth of knowledge and willingness to courageously criticize this government publicly. The title of this book is intriguing because all people and countries that strive to dominate others, do it out of a perceived albeit mostly unconscious need to survive. I view this compulsion as hard wired into all systems but Mr. Chomsky doesn't seem to be aware of this fact and it is as though he believes we can just arbitrarily and intellectually change it. Nevertheless he clearly lays out his case in writing that moves along and builds in a smooth and consistent manner. He makes clear that this plan didn't start with George Bush, but rather has been in force since shortly after the second world war and he writes about how most of our presidents since have been compelled in one way or another to contribute to it. Each time I hear Mr. Chomsky speak or read one of his books I realize to a greater depth how hypocritical our country really is, how unaware of how we're paving the way toward real destruction, that we'll have to pay for the harm we've brought to other countries in one way or another. I personally do not think there is any way out of our dilemma. In spite of this I savor Chomsky's insight and highly recommend this book.

It may be difficult for some readers of this book to accept the facts of American aggression and hypocrisy. They are however, well documented in Chomsky's book. To avoid facing these political realities could have serious consequences as America finds itself increasingly isolated from many countries in the rest of the world. For democracy to function the general population needs to be informed and this book reveals much of what American foreign policy is all about. It may not be pleasant reading but it is necessary.

Chomsky reveals much, though not all, in this polemic against dominance and human rights violations by THE GOOD GUYS (the USA). "America, love it or leave it" types will hate it as "Un-American." This begs the question: "What is American?"
His knowledge of recent history is quite thorough. I rank it 5 stars for his bravery in speaking out in a country where "You had better be careful what you say (Donald Rumsfeld)."

This is a remarkably revealing book. It is like Understanding Power in that it hits on a broad range of topics, although Understanding Power is a bit more accessible and easier to read, and has some more illuminating moments. If you've never read Chomsky before, the two books together provide a good introduction before moving on to more specific Chomsky topics like the media (Manufacturing Consent) or the Middle East (the Fateful Triangle).

Both books contain a hard-hitting critique of American foreign policy which is really unanswerable. The important thing about Chomsky's analysis is that it is not just a limited analysis of Iraq or Afghanistan -- his argument is that things don't change much and that if you look at the broader history of the last 100 years, the present involvements are not some "new age" requiring a "new prism" but are more like old wine in new bottles.

I really recommend picking up these books. We need them now more than ever.

Using an encyclopedic grasp of US foreign policy Noam Chomsky builds a case proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the US is embarked on a policy of world domination. This is important because we need to have a real national debate about what we stand for as a country. Our current direction is increasingly pro-corporate and callous with regards to the human costs of our policies here and abroad. Prof. Chomsky's book gives us a chance to actually understand our impact on the rest of the world so we can decide if it's really what we want for ourselves and our children.

Chomsky, as usual, is brilliant and lays out the facts so that the truth appears obvious: America is a terrorist state, run by terrorists as much as any other rogue government or out-law organization. In fact, its government more resembles the mafia than a government in the genuine service of its people. Chomsky tends to be repetitive, but so what. But sometimes he gets carried away, as in asserting, for example, that the Israel lobby is Christian, not Jewish - which is hardly the whole truth - making this reader, for one, wonder what his underlying motive might be for this obfuscation. The Christian zionists lack the political savvy and strategic thinking of their Jewish counterparts, who run the show. His work in linguistics likewise is brilliant - and not entirely workable. A streak of perversity in the brilliant mix.

Noam Chomsky, the world's leading voice on foreign affairs and foremost American intellectual, explores America's notorious past in supporting and sponsoring terrorism. With sharp and relentlessly sound reasoning Noam Chomsky strips down and explains convoluted concepts such as preventive war versus pre-emptive war, which often can be used to vindicate imperial strategy. Hegemony or Survival is an easy read encapsulation of America's most appalling foreign policy throughout history.

A well-written, accessible book by an academic who doesn't live in an ivory tower.

I read it together with "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire", and couldn't fail to notice the similarities between the two empires. At the end only mercenaries would fight wars for the Romans, while they were feasting, and the "barbarians' were circling closer and closer.

I don't know, but living at the periphery of the empire i can't help being struck by its decadence. The "barbarians" are people like me, tired of being used as pawns in a game that benefits only American lobbies and international corporations. The decline of the American empire has started, and its collapse is only a matter of time. But the dark age started a long time ago, when international law was twisted by force.

On page 75 Dr. Chomsky has a Martian looking down on the world and has him attack America, for not playing fair during the Cuban missile crisis. The Russian and Cuban Machiavellians made a sudden move for our throat and now Chomsky's Martian with out-of-this-world fairness has come down here with his level to check and see if the playing field where the life-and-death contest took place was not tilted in our favor.

A more perceptive Martian free of the Chomsky doctrine and ideology would not get stuck on "logical illogically" but would roll back the cameras and see that in spite of some flaws the American system is so superior, attractive and successful that people all over the world are implementing elements of that system in their countries. The objective Martian would observe Capitalism spreading and creating wealth all over most of the world, knocking down communist walls and freeing enslaved people in the process. Capitalism is even rescuing Communist China from poverty. The hypothetical extraterrestrial would also clearly see that the main promoter of this dynamic system of free markets is, yes indeed, that "Empire of Liberty" America. The Martian must say to herself this system is so popular with so many different kinds of people -- it must be a good thing. I'm not sure if she could detect human emotion from that great distance but if she could, she would feel and understand the bitterness expressed by supporters of left-wing and communist ideas. Recent history has not been kind to them.

The author is angry about almost every aspect of U.S. policy. He uses carefully selected information to put most U.S. actions in a negative light. But in the end he provides no positive alternative policy or vision for America to follow. He only mentions the possibility of "constructive alternatives". Perhaps that is because Karl Marx already presented the world with another system in great detail and it caused a global disaster. But on page 69, Mr. Chomsky seems to suggest that it did not have to be that way -- the Bolsheviks destroyed the popular councils in Russia. Were these councils in the process of building that fabled road to a "workers paradise"? Does the professor still have dreams too big to write about at this time?

Near the end, on page 336 the author makes a pathetic attempt to finally be positive by expressing the belief "that another world is possible" and then merely refers the reader to the World Social Forum. Fine, he creates all this gloom and then drops us. He's the smart one? Where are the solutions? He leaves us to struggle along with that same old Wilsonian Idealism that he also does not like. No Chomsky idealism? Then, is there no hope? Are we doomed? --- Maybe not? Actions speak louder than words. Follow the money if you seek the truth. We can discount a lot of what Dr. Chomsky writes if we look at where and how he lives. He lives the life of a rich American Capitalist. The profits from his books keep rolling in and he invests this excess cash in expensive real estate located, of all places, in America. Noam Chomsky is betting on America's future, because real estate is a long-term investment. The word "survival" in the title is there to sell more books. I give Dr. Chomsky two stars, because in addition to being a distinguished linguist he is also a good businessman.

Noam Chomsky has done it again. With his latest book, "Hegemony or Survival, America's Quest for Global Dominance," Chomsky presents a thorough, meticulously-researched indictment of prevailing American foreign policy - a policy which, as Chomsky correctly observes, is sure to lead to disaster for not only the United States, but ultimately, the entire world. Chomsky vividly illustrates the great alarm that is now pervasive even among the American foreign policy establishment as it struggles to come to terms with an administration that has so recklessly endangered American national security through its single-minded focus on securing a global "Pax Americana." As far-fetched as these claims may sound to many, Chomsky's documentation is irrefutable, and his research impeccable. Chomsky provides an even-headed critique of our current course through a rational examination of the frightening consequences that are sure to follow.
While his detractors are sure to resort to their usual accusations of virulent, knee-jerk anti-Americanism, asking any of them to substantiate their utterly baseless (and woefully ignorant) allegations through actually refuting the vast amounts of factual evidence Chomsky cites in his endnotes will prove to be nothing more than an exercise in futility - Chomsky's analysis is formidable, and it rests on a remarkable synthesis of practically-undeniable evidence.
I'd recomend this book highly for anyone seeking to put the policies of the second Bush administration into a more fitting historical context. It is only through analyzing our current course in a post-September 11th world through this wider historical context that we find ourselves properly equipped to dissect the mindset of the current administration's foreign policy apparatus and the inevitable implications of its unabashed quest for global domination.

The writing has Chomsky's typical laser-like clarity. The facts are abundant and irrefutable. The arguments are powerful and inescapable. A refreshing break from all the propaganda and indoctrination that cover the landscape.