The Myth of American Idealism: How U.S. Foreign Policy Endangers the World

by Noam Chomsky, Nathan J. Robinson

From one of the world’s most prominent thinkers comes an urgent warning of the threat that US power poses to humanity’s future

The land of the free. The home of the brave. But what has America achieved in the aim of “spreading democracy” — except wreak havoc in country after country and establish a reckless foreign policy that served the interest of few and endangered all too many? Without, ironically, making Americans any safer. In this timely book, Noam Chomsky, one of the most widely known intellectuals of all time, and his fellow political commentator Nathan J. Robinson vividly trace America’s pursuit of global domination, offering an incisive critique of the self-serving myths they continue to push.

Offering penetrating accounts of Washington’s relationship with the Global South, its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they argue, they are now driving us closer to wars with Russia and China that imperil humanity’s future. At once thorough and devastating, urgent and provocative, The Myth of American Idealism offers a highly readable entry to the conclusions Noam Chomsky has come to after a lifetime of thought and activism.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Current Affairs, Political Science, 21st Century, Economics

400 pages, Hardcover

First published October 10, 2024

About the author

Avram Noam Chomsky is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics", Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. In addition to his work in linguistics, since the 1960s Chomsky has been an influential voice on the American left as a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, and corporate influence on political institutions and the media.
Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants (his father was William Chomsky) in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B.F. Skinner.
An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard M. Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide and the Bosnian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians to be worse than South African–style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel.
Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. Since 2017, he has been Agnese Helms Haury Chair in the Agnese Nelms Haury Program in Environment and Social Justice at the University of Arizona.

Reviews

[Grant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much of the newer works involving Chomsky are compiling previously published works, interviews and thoughts from the author, but they always serve as an important refresher course. Here we have some new ground covered but overall a really concise encapsulation of Chomsky’s views on world affairs and that’s never a bad thing.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 5 out of 5]

Curtis LeMay said if the Allies lost WWII, they’d be tried as war criminals. After WWII, “Soviet power paled next to that of the US” because it was an exhausted, devastated nation” and so the Cold War was secretly a war instead against nationalism (countries instituting policies or neutrality that benefited their people over US corporations). Paint all countries going their own way with a commie brush, and then freely take them out. To help achieve this, “between 1946 and 2000, the United States undertook over eighty election-interference operations around the world.” Ask any American liberal about election interference and instead they will comically mention Russian interference with US elections and stare at you blankly if you mention what the US has done. God forbid you tell them Israel and US billionaires have successfully influenced US elections far more than Putin could dream of.

The first 9/11 (Sept 11th, 1973) happened in Chile with Pinochet removing democratically elected Allende. Had it happened in the US that would have meant 150,000 deaths and a million torture victims, overthrowing a president and stopping the electoral system, replacing it with “pure state terrorism”. Thank US corporate media for telling you none of this. Within days of Allende’s election, Nixon demanded his downfall by clandestine coup and the CIA made it so. According to Noam, Allende was removed because he “posed the threat of a good example” which would have “inspired other countries to act similarly.” Can’t have that.

Meddling R Us: The US turning Greece against its own population in in 1947 and the US in Korea in 1950 became the blueprint for US in Vietnam in 1964 as Adlai Stevenson pointed out then. Reagan did the same thing in Central America with the same template. Such interventions use “Mafia logic”: “What we say goes” and if anyone raises their heads, “humiliate” them (to put it mildly). Did anyone think Vietnamese peasants were going to conquer anyone? Or destroy our American way of life? Of course not. Just like in Chile, the threat was of the good example which might lead other countries to dare raise their heads and choose their own people’s welfare over US financial interests. US paranoids feared if Asia helped Asians, the “Grand Area” would be lost. Think of the “domino theory” not as threat of the world going red, but as the world thinking first of their own interests (the threat of a good example) over US financial interests. How dare they! “America First” means other countries have to put America first before their own people. This is why we even invaded Grenada. When the US says it seeks “stability” elsewhere it means security for the “upper classes and large foreign enterprises”, certainly NOT for the people of other countries. “Nationalism is off-limits to Latin Americans.” A study by Lars Schoultz showed that “US aid has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments that torture their citizens.” Yum. In the words of a 1949 State department intelligence report, “Communist” is a term to refer to people who think “the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people.”

Cuba: The US tried so many ways to kill Castro – if ANY other country had done that we would label them a terrorist state. “Yet we claimed that right to do just that to Cuba.” One CIA official said later, “We were really doing almost anything you could dream up.” One Mexican diplomat said, “If we declare that Cuba is a threat to our security, forty million Mexicans will die laughing.” Our Cuba Embargo exists to kill any voice of a threat of a good example. The threat of Castro wasn’t communism, it was that he dared listen to the “prevailing majority opinion” (something US politicians will NEVER do). Remember the US intervened to keep Cuba from determining its own future after Spanish rule, turning it into a virtual US colony. Batista anyone? Our land of Guns R Us took Guantanamo Bay at gunpoint. Hey, we can’t torture on US soil, so….

Jimmy “Carter escalated arms supplies to Indonesia, which were used to crush the Timorese resistance.” We know that the US and Israel despise the idea of Iran getting nuclear power (because we doubt it could be used for peace), but did you know that when Iran was controlled by the dictator Shah, the US helped him pursue nuclear power? The US and Israel love to mention Iran’s horrendous human rights record but note that our leaders will NEVER mention that Saudia Arabia’s record is worse because we need their oil. Biden fist-bumped the leader of Saudi Arabia on camera; can anyone imagine him doing that to the leader of Iran?

US Benevolence in Southeast Asia: From 1965 to 1968, the United States dropped 32 tons of bombs per hour on North Vietnam; we dropped 7 million tons of bombs and 400,000 tons of Napalm on Southeast Asia. For those who have morals: that’s three times the amount of bombs the US dropped in ALL of WWII. The US joy of dispersing Agent Orange and Agent Blue around Vietnam thus eliminating “half the mangrove forests of the country” as a parting gift. Those in the US armed forces were told in training do NOT call them Vietnamese – call them “gooks” or “dinks”. General Westmoreland was a racist who felt “burning women and children alive in their huts need not trouble the American conscience” because “life is cheap in the Orient.” Philip Caputo in Vietnam was told “Your mission is to kill VC. Period. You’re not here to capture a hill. You are not here to move from Point A to Point B to point C. You are here to kill Viet Cong. As many of them as you can.” “Laos is still one of the most war-contaminated places on Earth. Since the bombing of Laos stopped, over 10,000 children have been killed just by exploding left-behind land mines. So much for “Go outside and play.”

Southeast Asia Part Two: The US deputy chief of mission explained the Laos bombing thusly, “we had all those planes sitting around and couldn’t just let them stay there with nothing to do.” The bombing of Cambodia led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge where incessant US carpet bombing by B52s was “probably the most important single factor in Pol pot’s rise” where he would kill 1.7 million Cambodians. As Kissinger said of the Khmer Rouge, “we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way.” We were told we were protecting South Vietnam from North Vietnam when in fact we imposed a “dictatorial client state on South Vietnam” to subvert Vietnamese public opinion. The US gave the same reasons for what it was doing in Vietnam as what the Soviet Union gave for defending Afghanistan in the 1980’s. However, the Pentagon Papers show that the real reason for the Vietnam War was “70% to avoid a humiliating defeat” and 20% to keep it from the Chinese. When Kissinger showed concern about the bombings Nixon told him, “You’re so goddamned concerned about the civilians and I don’t give a damn. I don’t care.”

Afghanistan: Post 911, Bil Laden answered the “Why do they hate us?” question with saying jihad is just because “the US government …has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous, criminal,” both “directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation” of Palestine. Noam says the Post-911 US/Afghan War was about little more than “killing some people who resembled the people suspected of being responsible” and to “show muscle”. Two great recruiting tools for the Taliban became the image of Americans as illegitimate invaders, and the Afghan government acting as a US puppet while becoming noticeably corrupt (the US trained Afghan police were especially hated for this). And so Afghans turned to the Taliban to restore order. In 2015, a US Air Force AC-130 gunship “attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital In Kunduz, burning patients alive in their beds and killing a total of forty-two people.” No wonder the US & Israel are such allies – they both are fine targeting doctors (“Doctors Without Borders had provided the US with the GPS coordinates of the Trauma Center beforehand”). I forgot the Hypocritic Oath trumps the Hippocratic oath. The last US missile fired in Afghanistan killed an aid worker and seven children. No one was punished. In 2021, millions of Afghans were facing starvation. As George Bush would say, “Mission Accomplished”. Why blame the US? Well in 2021, the US “froze $9 billion in Afghan central bank assets” and then to make matters worse, the Biden administration announced it would give half of that $9 billion to US family members related to 911. To recap: Zionists made Palestinians pay for the unrelated crimes of the Nazis, then in imitation the US made Afghans pay for the unrelated crimes of the 911 terrorists. You don’t need good PR if you can just keep blatant theft quiet. Why stay in Afghanistan so long? It was the patented Vietnam Tango – no president wishes to lose an already unfair fight.

Iraq: The Highway of Death is where “The US killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers by using plows to bury them alive in their trenches.” Burying fellow humans alive, something no doubt Jesus would do. Targeting civilian infrastructure was another thing Bush’s team did in Iraq. The Iraq War was represented as a “moral triumph” – who knew that was what you called the bombing of civilian electricity and water treatment facilities. At Abu Ghraib, US guards “beat and sodomized prisoners with broomsticks”, “urinated and spat on them, “poured chemicals on them, stripped them naked and rode them like animals.” Pause to salute the American Flag. One soldier said of Iraq, “we were just mowing people down. We were just whacking people.” And they “shot civilians too.” When an insurgent stepped behind a woman, a US soldier shot through the woman (killing her), and then reported “the chick got in the way.” Not surprisingly, this “caused Iraqis who were fence sitters to turn against the Americans.” One soldier wrote in lipstick on a mirror of a ruined Iraqi home, “Fuck Iraq and every Iraqi in it.” “One congressional report counts 237 ‘misleading’ statements” about the Iraq War. “When the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops in 2020, Donald Trump responded by threatening the country with sanctions.” George W. Bush “destroyed an entire country” yet now note his image is conveniently reduced to that of “a goofy grandpa” and painter of puppies.

Zionism: In 1905, leading Jewish writer Hillel Zeitlin wrote that Zionist plans for settlement ‘forget, mistakenly or maliciously …that Palestine belongs to others, and it is totally settled.” Early Zionists realized they had to “impose minority rule or embark on a program of ethnic cleansing.” Palestinians clearly never persecuted Jews and yet they “were made to pay for a crime that others had committed.” “Israel was born in conquest and ethnic cleansing.” “Since 1967, Israel has kept the Palestinians under a harsh military occupation.” No Zionist will ever tell you David Ben-Gurion actually said this: “When we say the Arabs are the aggressors and defend ourselves – that is only half the truth” because “politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves” because “the country is theirs.” Zionist Benny Morris says the Israeli occupation “was founded on brute force, repression and fear, collaboration and treachery, beatings and torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation, and manipulation.” Former Israeli Foreign Ministry chief Michael Ben-Yair, said, “we established and apartheid regime in the occupied territories.” “52% of US foreign aid since 2001 has gone to Israel.” For those who care, this aid is illegal since “US law formally prohibits aid to human rights violators.” Oops… “Only through domestic public pressure in the US can the pattern of this country’s policies be disrupted.” This year (2024) New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof said the killings of civilians (in Gaza) was comparable to the Rwandan genocide [which was also funded by Israel – see my other reviews]. “A Haaretz analysis of the deaths found that the percentage of civilian casualties was ‘significantly higher than the average civilian toll in all the conflicts around the world in the 20th century’.” “More aid workers were killed in 2023 than were killed in all the world’s combat zones combined in any previous year over the last three decades.” Politico reported that a big reason Biden’s team won’t allow a ceasefire is because that would allow journalists into Gaza and Americans who presently have zero interest in looking for Gaza footage on Instagram might actually see it on Mainstream Media and thus further upset them. The “overwhelming majority of Americans” want a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but they aren’t getting whopping checks from AIPAC and their ilk, so only well-financed Congress and doddering Biden refuse to call for one.

John Mearsheimer says, “leaders in democracies lie to the public far more often than leaders in autocratic countries, because the public has a mechanism of expelling the leaders and thus must be manipulated more.” Note that the US insists it only “defends” while our non-allies are capable only of aggression. Never forget “Russia was invaded TWICE by future NATO member Germany.” Noam says the corporate sector “will fight to prevent the problem (problems in the public’s interest) from being solved.”

Ukraine: When Putin wanted Biden to commit Ukraine to NOT joining NATO, Biden said, “I don’t accept anybody’s red lines.” Translation: I don’t accept the healthy boundaries of non-allies. Inconvenient Facts: allowing basic implementation of Minsk II, or simply not expanding NATO would have meant no Russian invasion of Ukraine. Note that General Milley wanted diplomacy in Ukraine to end the bloodshed, but Biden and his team wouldn’t allow it. Imagine being more of a hawk than your generals. Instead, the US stance has been “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.” Forcing US taxpayers to pay Peter to kill Paul. So noble.

China: Noam says you can reduce the REAL China threat to this – the fear “that the United States will no longer rule the world.” What? You mean the US will have to share the planet with another country? Unspeakable. Trump said, “China is our enemy. These are not people that understand niceness.” As if Trump ever did. Anyway, our leaders tell us to concentrate on China’s human rights violations while ignoring those of Israel (w/ Palestinians) and Saudia Arabia. If you mention those of Israel and Saudi Arabia you will be accused of whataboutism. How dare you mention that my best allies do it even worse than China? Funny how propagandists like to pull the whataboutism card.

Obama: Forbes Magazine noted that oilman Bush presided over declining US crude oil production while Obama was the opposite, to the point of even bragging, “we are drilling all over the place.” Obama “attacked Libya in flagrant violation of the War Powers resolution, which requires congressional authorization for military engagements.” Funny Obama felt how overthrowing the Libyan government (where Gaddafi got bayoneted up his ass and to death) did NOT qualify as “hostilities”. Jeremy Scahill says Obama maintained and even escalated the crimes of Bush (and not one liberal complained because Obama to them is untouchable).

Fun Facts: “If Nuremberg standards were consistently applied, every president since the Secord World War would have to be convicted and sentenced.” “The United States has tested biological weapons on its own people without their knowledge, including a 1966 experiment that released clouds of bacteria onto New York subway passengers. The US “has been engaged in wars for 93.65% of all years between 1775 and 2018.” The primary enemy of the US is its own population which is controlled by exploiting fear of the “other”. This began with “the ‘merciless Indian savages’ mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to today’s fear of migrants, China, or ‘cultural Marxism’.” Our collective lack of knowledge (by trusting ONLY Corporate Media) “is an important part of what allows the powerful to maintain their position.” The US is largely responsible for its own biggest threats: climate change and nuclear war. The real definition of “national security” is “security for the rich, the corporate sector, and arms manufacturers …but not the rest of us.” US elites work “to ensure that their exorbitant short-term profit and power will remain untouched as the world goes up in flames.” “An extraterrestrial observer looking at our species would say that our primary trajectory is toward suicide, that we are collectively running towards a cliff.”

US as Rogue State: the US firebombed Japanese cities AFTER A-bombing Nagasaki and AFTER Japan had already surrendered. Check it for yourself. No military justification whatsoever – so why do it? Global consensus is against using cluster bombs yet the US defends them because we are the biggest maker and user of them. Explain this one: The Security Council made a resolution “calling on all states to observe international law, yet the US all alone vetoed it (p.252).” Explain this one: “In 2023, the US vetoed a Security Council resolution to ‘condemn all violence against civilians in the Israel-Hamas was and urge humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza’.” Given that Jesus was basically a Palestinian and every US President pretends to be a devoted follower of Jesus, explain why the US would publicly say yes to violence against civilians and no to their aid? Explain why it took the US forty years to ratify the Genocide Convention? “Hey, telling us we can’t commit genocide as a nation really cramps our style!” The ONLY reason to have Guantanamo prison is to deny basic rights including trial to those we really want to convict. The US invasion of Panama constituted “a flagrant violation of international law”. The UN Charter in the US is “the supreme law of the land” and it says, “force can only lawfully be deployed when authorized by the Security Council, or under Article 51 of the charter.” “Any other resort to force is a war crime” – it’s what the Nuremburg Tribunal and WWII was all about (unlawful use of force, etc.). “The use of force requires authorization.” Noam has often stated that the US and Israel have a long history as rogue states routinely violating international law. For example, in 2022 the world voted against the US embargo of Cuba in the UN (185 to 2) with only the US and Israel voting against it. What did Cuba do to anger the US so much? As Noam repeatedly says, Cuba merely offers the threat of a good example. Perhaps we should next invade or embargo all 72 countries that happily unlike us, offer free healthcare. How dare they act as good examples, unlike the US?

continues in comments...

[Melody · Rating 5 out of 5]

There’s an old Cold War joke that goes something like this:
USA Spy: "I know we are enemies, but I wanted to let you know how impressed I am at Russian propaganda."
USSR Spy: "Thank you, but it's not nearly as impressive as your American propaganda."
USA Spy: "What American propaganda?"

This book dives deeply into why we are often blind to our country's own propaganda even often at the highest levels of power. If you feel like everything around the world - Congo, Palestine, Ukraine, etc - is overwhelming and a lot, this book could be a great way to lean into those feelings and process them through knowledge. It creates a throughline to so much going on globally and in the US right now that make it feel less like competing urgencies, elucidating the ideologies and political and capitol machinations behind the atrocities of our lifetime without dipping into conspiracy theories.

[Thomas Ray · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Myth of American Idealism: How U.S. Foreign Policy Endangers the World, Noam Chomsky and Nathan J. Robinson, 2024

Clear, complete, concise, and current. Read this one first, then /Understanding Power/, if Chomsky is new to you. And read Nathan J. Robinson's /Current Affairs/ magazine: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news

Contents
*Disciplining the Global South
*The War on Southeast Asia
*9/11 and the Wrecking of Afghanistan
*Iraq: Crime of the Century
*The U.S., Israel, and Palestine
*The Great China Threat: A taste of it here, where Nathan J. Robinson debunks Rahm Emanuel's yellow-scare tactics: https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/p...
*NATO and Russia after the Cold War
*Nuclear Threats and Climate Catastrophe
*The Domestic Roots of Foreign Policy
*International Law and the "Rules-Based Order"
*How Mythologies Are Manufactured
*Conclusion: Hegemony or Survival?

It is an error to treat this book as arguing that "the United States is terroristic and destructive," /if/ the "United States" is understood to refer to some kind of collectivity of all Americans. p. 8. The United States is not uniquely evil. It is no worse than many other ruling powers have been. It is just uniquely powerful, and it is captivated by a /dangerous/ false mythology. p. 16. U.S. actions would get any other country labeled a terrorist state. p. 19.


DOMINATION

The United States is very much like other powerful states. It pursues the strategic and economic interests of dominant sectors of the domestic population. pp. 4-5. The first beneficiaries of a country's resources must be U.S. investors and their local associates, not "the people of that country." p. 11.


KEEP AMERICANS FROM KNOWING THE TRUTH

Americans are never shown what it actually looks like when a U.S. drone strike hits a wedding party, or a child is crushed by a U.S. tank. p. 13.

The Truman administration told the public that Soviet military power was a threat to the U.S. That was a lie. The truth was, Soviet /political/ power was a threat to the U.S. corporate elite's control of the world's wealth and resources. p. 26. The CIA routinely interferes in elections around the world to defeat leftists. Americans aren't told. p. 27.


U.S. and USSR

Some leftists mistakenly believed the Soviet Union was a superior and more egalitarian form of society. The U.S. and USSR were both superpowers lacking meaningful popular control over the government. Marxist-Leninist communism and free-market capitalism were both largely false descriptions of how the societies actually operated. p. 18.


DISCIPLINING THE GLOBAL SOUTH

The problem with Salvador Allende, Chilean president 1970-1973, was that he had posed the threat of a good example. If he had succeeded in his course of independent nationalism and leftist economics, he would have inspired other countries to act similarly. This could have diminished U.S. power. Allende had to go. p. 25.

After World War II, it was only anti-fascist resistance that impeded the U.S. goal of empowering corporations, weakening labor, and placing the burden of reconstruction on the working class and the poor. So the U.S. crushed anti-fascist resistance, unions, and independent governments worldwide. pp. 25-27.



Chomsky's co-author, Nathan J. Robinson, is editor of Current Affairs magazine: currentaffairs.org/news

Here's Chomsky on "How to Prevent World War III:" https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2... 2022.04, interviewed by Robinson in Current Affairs.

Robinson's wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_...



The U.S. War Department's 1945 explanation of fascism: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack... posted by Heather Cox Richardson. Note the use of the word, "American," in the final paragraph, rather than "every person in the world," which attitude brings fascism home to us now.

[Brian Mikołajczyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise history of the various wars and covert actions undertaken by the United States since WW2.
Coups in Latin America, wars in the middle east, and all leaving a wake of countless deaths.
Chomsky argues that the US hegemony is a net negative for the world at large. Especially when it comes to the modern antagonizing of Russia and Iran which could lead to WW3.

An quintessential read!

[Maham Amina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well organized, easy to read, and a strong thesis. I think everyone that lives in the US should be required to read this book. I don’t think what Chomsky says is necessarily provocative, but a fair and objective analysis of US Foreign Policy. I doubt even the most conservative politician could dismiss Chomsky’s critique. At the end of the day, the US is on “top” for a reason. I think the challenge would be getting liberal US Americans to digest their “favs” like Obama, Carter, and Biden are just as bad if not worst than Trump, Reagan, and Nixon.

[Megan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I mean, it’s Noam Chomsky. Doesn’t this alone warrant a five-star rating? For me it does, as I’ve always known him to be a great political philosopher and the father of modern linguistics, yet this was my first time reading his work (or the compilation of such by one of his longtime mentees, Nathan J. Robinson).

The Myth of American Idealism focuses on debunking the fictionalized principles and lofty rhetoric seemingly upheld by all Americans - that only America is and has been the true purveyor of democracy and universal human rights.
This flawed logic has been repeated ad nauseam from our country’s highest government leaders to our most enlightened academic scholars. It is one of the few ideologies to transcend political affiliations, educational attainment, and other ordinarily non cohesive groups, to be embraced by all as unquestionable reality.

As noted in the preface, ”We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace. The U.S. government is honorable. It is capable of mistakes, but not crimes. The U.S. is continually deceived by others. It can be foolish, naïve, and idealistic - but it is never wicked. Where other countries have sought to push their national interest, the U.S. tries to advance universal principles.”

It was specifically after World War II, when the United States emerged as the most powerful global hegemony backed by the world’s most powerful military, that its government, leaders, and foreign policy goals began to contradict our “humanitarian” values.

Perhaps some citizens may be forgiven for buying into this lie - after all, it’s been sold to us all our lives, no matter our age, no matter who currently serves as President. Our government has become so proficient at keeping its activities in foreign countries hidden from the public that many of us who don’t follow history and research deeply into world affairs mostly believe in our country’s “goodness” and our invasion of sovereign countries as a means of “protecting our national interests” (right, because what exactly constitutes as our interests in Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, Indonesia, Palestine?!).

The U.S. government has a very reprehensible history of paying large sums of money to dictatorial regimes backed by the military - which then go and overthrow the country’s democratically elected government, in favor of a government that is despotic and tyrannical, yes - but more importantly, willing to become America’s ally. A group of thugs who will help serve our interests in that region.

That’s what makes it so atrociously comical when we shake our heads at Russian election meddling in our country, or we cry out in moral indignation at Putin’s invasion of Ukraine (despite us knowing for years that all we had to do was not continuing pushing Ukraine into NATO and thus further east).

We have rigged so many of the “free and fair” elections we’ve called for, after seeing that the people were choosing the “wrong” candidate. The “wrong” candidate is the one who wants little, if anything, to do with the U.S. It’s been in those instances where we’ve paid off their military to seize control, with the understanding that they will live like kings - so long as they protect our interests and keep their citizens out of it.

Chomsky is not the only realist political theorist (I believe he’s a realist) who explicitly points to the West as causing the war in Ukraine. John Mearsheimer has been warning about this forever, too. It’s just that we don’t care about Ukraine the way we claim we do. We care about what we can get from them, sure. But this isn’t about human rights.

If it were, again - we wouldn’t prop up brutal dictatorships as US puppet governments across the world. We’d have condemned China (fully, not only when it’s convenient) along with ISRAEL and Saudi Arabia as countries propagating the worst human rights abuses, such as genocide against their people, and called for them to be hauled in front of the ICC.

But… oh, wait. That would mean forcing us to stand before the ICC, too, given how much we’ve helped these countries, especially Israel (hence the Middle East’s nicknames for the US and Israel: Big Satan and Little Satan, respectively).

There are government officials who openly admit that draconian policies supporting America’s interests throughout the world should take precedence over “anti-American” policies that are better for that country’s citizens but do not bring us any benefits. Chomsky mentions Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who ”writes in his foreign policy manifesto that the goal of American strategy is the ‘safety, freedom, and prosperity of the American people’. For him, that means that whether something is good for the United States matters far more than whether it is legal, democratic, or moral. Hurting others to help ourselves is legitimate.
Cotton is frank that the United States should support dictatorships when those dictatorships support the United States. What matters, in the end, is less whether a country is democratic or non-democratic, and more whether the country is pro-American or anti-American.”

Chomsky does not merely single out Republican presidents. In fact, no president, from the “fiercest hawks” (Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr.) to the “peaceful doves” (Carter, Obama) escapes his careful scrutiny. He makes it clear that if any other country acted as we did, throughout all regions of the world, we’d brand them terrorists or war criminals and demand that they face international justice.

It’s a book that should be required reading in schools. Not to make citizens hate our country like so many critics would surely claim, but so we can understand the truth of the horrific misdeeds we’ve committed in the name of “containing Communism”, “spreading democracy”, “protecting our national security interests”, or “liberating the oppressed masses” (all euphemisms for “countries stubbornly refusing to bow down to the U.S.”). This way we can learn from our mistakes and form relationships still beneficial to our nation, but which allow other nations to live free from our interference.

Unlike what Bush, Jr. suggested immediately following the 9/11 attacks: that Middle Eastern countries hated us “for our freedom, for our rights and our democracy” - there was a far simpler explanation (and a much more plausible one). One which bin Laden had been complaining about for years, and which was included in his manifesto after the hijacked planes hit the towers: if we’d stop interfering in Middle Eastern affairs, especially with aiding Israel militarily, financially, and technologically, they’d have no problem with us.

Is launching strikes on Iran on behalf of a genocidal state to showcase our military might really what we want? When it’s very possible the country could retaliate (and certainly will if ever provided the right opportunity)? I’m certain if we were exposed to these needless acts of violence and gruesome deaths up close, especially in our own country, we’d immediately be protesting our government’s actions overseas. Even more so if these countries began to retaliate.

I don’t know, we’re having enough problems with our domestic affairs under this administration right now that foreign affairs might not even be a priority much longer. I hope not, but time will tell. Absolutely recommend reading this book. You’ll find it impossible to disagree with the points Chomsky makes (I’d like to see someone try). Check out a much better and more detailed review by my GR friend Randall, who I believe has the top five-star rated review for this book. I’ll provide a link to it later when I’m on my laptop, so long as he has no complaints!

[counter-hegemonicon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent survey of American opinion vs reality from Iraq and Afghanistan to Ukraine, the dangers we face, and how to surmount them.

Edit: A lot of people got their flowers in this one, namely, one prominent anti-Vietnam war activist by the name of WD (William Daniel) Ehrhart, known more simply to me as Dr. E, my high school history teacher. I fondly describe him as Chomsky before I knew who Chomsky was, so seeing his name and work referenced was nothing short of amazing. Long live them both

[Elliot Steed · Rating 5 out of 5]

If only the people who voted for Trump could read this book and understand the dynamics of their foreign policy, I’m certain the world would be a better place. As quoted from the book; “We citizens of democratic societies must develop critical thinking skills as a form of intellectual self-defense, to protect ourselves from manipulation and control.” Now if that doesn’t ring true today, I don’t know what does…

[emily · Rating 5 out of 5]

every book i read by noam is my new favorite! TMOAI is an excellent overview of noam’s findings and conclusions over 95 years of relentless dedication to understanding the political economy of the US and its allies. it focuses on the US’s orwellian commitment to broadcasting its ‘ideals’ while holding itself to the exact opposite standards that it holds the rest of the world to: if any other country in the world had 800 overseas military bases (the entire world in SUM minus the US, in fact, has under 30), we would designate them as ‘terrorists,’ or as people who use or threaten force to sway the political agenda of foreign nations. this book has especially made me question the use of the word ‘terror’, for isolated instances of mass murder by brown populations will be construed as ‘terror’, but systematic, constant, daily mass murders by the US and its allies is mere diplomacy. the US is king of a kingdom that spans the entire world, and anyone who threatens this power will be targeted and killed, along with all of their supporters. the horrifying testimonies of prisoners at the mercy of US soldiers go beyond a mentally sane person’s conception of the worst cruelty, and yet the US echoes its client state, claiming it has the most moral army in the world. nationalism is another worry, for if a country’s citizens had control over the material wealth of their country, they most certainly would not agree to the gross exploitation the US inflicts upon them. international law is a joke, with the US refusing to ratify any conventions on human rights unless itself and its allies are excluded from repercussions. and the american government gets away with it by finding scapegoats for the public to rally against, to the detriment of whatever minority it is in fashion to discriminate against at the moment. i cannot recommend this book enough to first time readers of chomsky-> i thoroughly enjoyed it even as an avid follower.

“Rather, the concern was about a kind of domino effect, but under the rotten apple theory, it follows that the tinier and weaker the country, the less endowed it is with resources, the more dangerous it is. As a George H.W. Bush national policy review on third world threats explained, ‘much weaker enemies must not simply be defeated, but defeated decisively and quickly. because any other outcome would be embarrassing, and might undercut political support. a much weaker enemy poses no serious threat, but must be pulverized in order to reinforce the lesson. if even a marginal and impoverished country can set out on an independent path, others may follow.’”

“George Kennon, head of the state department planning staff and one of the leading architects of the post WWII order, outlined the basic thinking in an important 1948 planning document: “we have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when are going to have to deal in straight power concepts, the less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

“The US planners specified the function that each part of the world was to have within the US-dominated global system.

‘The major function of southeast asia was to be a source of raw materials and a market for japan and western europe’, in the words of kennon’s state department’s policy planning staff in 1949.

‘the middle east was a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in the world’s history as well as probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment.’ that meant nobody else could interfere and nationalism, the control of a country’s resources by its own people, was a serious threat. as a state department memo put it in 1958, ‘in a near east under the control of radical nationalism, western access to the resources of the area would be in constant jeopardy.

‘policy in latin america,’ CIA historian gerald haynes explained, was designed to develop larger and more efficient sources of supply for the american economy, as well as create expanded markets for US exports and expanded opportunities for the investment of american capital, permitting local development only as long as it did not interfere with american profits and dominance.’ with regard to latin america, secretary of war henry stimson said, ‘i think that it’s not asking too much to have our little region over here.’ president taft had previously foreseen that ‘the day is not far distant when the whole hemisphere will be ours, in fact, by virtue of our superiority of race, it already is ours morally.’”

“A 1954 policy statement by the national security council lays out US doctrine frankly: ‘recognizing a trend in latin america toward nationalistic regimes, maintained in large part due to appeals to the masses of population and concerned about anti-US prejudices and increasing popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses, official policy is to arrest the drift in the area toward radical and nationalistic regimes. nationalism is off limits to latin americans, because it entails a government that favors the population’s own interest rather than the interests of the United States.”

“‘’communist’ was a term regularly used in American political theology to refer to people committed to the belief that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people’, in the words of a 1949 state department intelligence report. or, as [secretary of state] john foster dulles put it, communists are those who appeal to the poor people, who have always wanted to plunder the rich.”

“in considering the iran threat, we must also consider the threats against Iran, and how they compare. iran does not assassinate israeli scientists, or carry out sabotage. but israel does against iran. benjamin netanyahu has claimed that ‘iran must face a credible nuclear threat,’ a statement he walked back, perhaps upon remembering that israel’s nuclear weapons are illegal and supposed to be a secret.”

“Testimonies from americans who served in vietnam confirm that, from basic training onward, “right away, they told us not to call them vietnamese", call them ‘gooks,’ ‘dinks.’ as for the vietcong, ‘they were like animals. they wouldn’t allow you to talk about them as if they were people’, they told us, ‘they’re not to be treated with any type of mercy nor apprehension.’ there was an important racist underpinning to the assault on vietnam that greatly facilitated the manipulation and destruction. the refrain that ‘orientals’ are essentially lower animals who don’t feel pain as sensitive westerners do and who only respect force had its effect on policy. the head of the us information agency in saigon, a critical supporter of us involvement, wrote that ‘vietnamese peasants have reasoning powers only slightly beyond the level of an american six year old, and mumble to each other in vocabulary of a few hundred words.’ westmoreland was openly racist, ‘the oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does the westerner. life is plentiful, life is cheap in the orient.’”

“In 1986, disabled america leon klinghoffer was murdered by palestinian liberation front members on the hijacked cruise ship achille lauro. the murder seemed to set a standard for remorselessness among terrorists. senior nyt correspondent john burns wrote, ‘capturing the general horror at a despicable crime,’ yet no such standard is set in similar cases, such as when british reporters found the flattened remains of a wheelchair at the remnants of the jenin refugee camp after ariel sharon’s spring 2002 offensive, ‘it had been utterly crushed, ironed flat as if in a cartoon,’ they reported, ‘in the middle of the debris lay a broken white flag, held by a disabled palestinian. kamal zghair was shot dead as he tried to wheel himself up the road. the israeli tanks must have driven over the body, because when a friend found it, one leg and both arms were missing, and the face, he said, had been ripped in two.’ another act of unterror, which does not enter the annals of terrorism along with leon klinghoffer. his murder was not under the command of a monster, but rather a ‘man of peace’, as ariel sharon was called by george w. bush.

“the US also attacked an iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 people aboard, including 66 infants and children. when given the opportunity to express contrition for the calamity, george hw bush said instead, ‘i will never apologize for the united states. i don’t care what the facts are. i am not an apologize for america kind of guy.’”

Jason washburn, a corporal who served three different tours in Iraq, recounts that, ‘when a woman looked like she was headed toward us with a huge bag, we blew her to pieces, only to discover it was filled with groceries.’ other testimonies describe similar instances, ‘i was explicitly told by my chain of command that i could ‘shoot anyone who came closer to me than i felt comfortable with, if the person did not immediately move when i ordered them to do so, keeping in mind, i don’t speak arabic.’”

“american guards beat and sodomized prisoners with broomsticks and phosphorous lights, forced them to eat out of toilets, slammed them against a wall, urinated and spat apon them, made them wear female underwear, led them around on leashes, made them sleep on wet floors, attacked them with dogs, poured chemicals on them, stripped them naked, and rode them like animals. the bush administration initially buried the reports of torture, then tried to blame low level soldiers for the abuses. although, it eventually emerged that authorization for enhanced interrogation techniques had come straight from the secretary of defense, donald rumsfield.”

“Chomsky has previously quoted a placard held by an old man that reads ‘you take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all, but i am to blame. i shot a rocket back.’”

“‘if washington dc crumbled to the ground, the last thing that would remain is our support for israel,’ nancy pelosi told the israel american council national conference in 2018.”

“ze’ev jabotinsky, the founder of revisionist zionism, was blunt, ‘palestinians oppose zionism because they understand as well as we what is not good for them, and look upon palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any aztec looked at his mexico, or any sioux looked upon his prairie.’ jabotinsky thought that ‘every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement,’ and concluded that ‘that is what the arabs in palestine are doing. and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of palestine into the land of israel.”

“david ben-gurion warned fellow zionists that, ‘a people which fight against the usurpation of its land, will not tire so easily.’ bluntly telling them to not ignore ‘the truth among ourselves,’ that ‘when we say that the arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves, that is only half the truth. because politically, we are the aggressors, and they defend themselves, because the country is theirs. israel was born in conquest and ethnic cleansing, and palestinian resistance has from the start been predictable.’”

“in 2019, the UN human rights council released a report on israel’s 2019 conduct in gaza. it found that israel shot a schoolboy in the face as he distributed sandwiches, shot a footballer in the leg, ending his football career, killed a mechanic standing 300 meters from the border, shot a student journalist wearing a press vest, fatally shot a man running away from the fence, and shot a man smoking a cigarette standing hundreds of meters from the fence, a university students was shot in the head and killed as he spoke on the phone, a member of the palestinian cycling team wearing his cycling kit and watching the demonstration was shot in the leg, ending his career. the most upsetting crimes in the report are the murders of disabled people. israeli snipers shot and killed a double amputee in a wheelchair, whose legs had been amputated after a previous israeli bombing and two men who walked with crutches.”

“politico reported that one reason that the biden administration didn’t want to stop the fighting is that ‘there is some concern in the administration about an unintended consequence of a pause, that it would allow journalists broader access to gaza, and the opportunity to further illuminate the devastation there and turn public opinion on israel.’”

“the more the PRC associates the cause of taiwanese independence with the US strategy to encircle China with hostile countries to maintain US power in the region, the PRC may become determined to crush any prospect of taiwanese independence. to give another analogy, if puerto rico sought independence, we can ponder whether a favorable US response to the cause of independence would be made more or less likely if china declared its intention to defend puerto rico militarily, and used puerto rico to combat hegemony in the caribbean.”

“to take another example, in the 1980s, nicaragua had a strong legal case against the united states. tens of thousands of people had died in the civil war fueled by US support for the contras, and the country was substantially destroyed. the attack was accompanied by a devastating economic war, which a small country, isolated by a superpower, could scarcely sustain. so nicaragua went to the world court, which ruled in their favor, ordering the united states to desist and pay substantial reparations. nicaragua dealt with the problem of being terrorized by a foreign power in exactly the right way: it followed international law and treat obligations, it collected evidence, brought the evidence to the highest existing tribunal, and received a verdict. the united states dismissed the court judgement and immediately escalated the war. so nicaragua then went to the security council, which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. the US alone vetoed it. nicaragua next went to the general assembly, where they got a similar resolution, which passed with the US and Israel opposed two years in a row.”

“but the US has also stymied efforts to create new international agreements that make the world safer. take cluster munitions for instance. there is a consensus among human rights groups that cluster munitions are an inherently barbaric weapon because they leave hundreds of tiny unexploded bomblets strewn across the battlefield, which kill and maim for years after the cessation of war. veteran national security journalist jeremy scahill describes witnessing the effects: in a marketplace in serbia, he saw the aftermath of the use of cluster bomb, which ‘shred everything in their path into meat and limbs. the result of any bombing is horrifying to see,’ he says, ‘but cluster bombs are especially brutal,’ and he saw what had happened to children who picked up bomblets days after the initial attack. well over 100 countries have agreed to the convention on cluster munitions, promising never to develop, stockpile, or uses these weapons under any circumstances. the united states has refused to join. the institute for policy studies notes that, ‘as a global consensus against the use of cluster bombs has developed, the US, the largest manufacturer and user of them, has defended them as a valid tool of warfare…Richard kidd, the director of weapons removal and abatement in the US state department, said that “cluster munitions are available to use in every combat aircraft in the US inventory. they are integral to every army and marine maneuver element, and in some elements constitute over 50% of tactical indirect fire support.’ we both produce and use these weapons despite the condemnation of human rights groups.

In afghanistan between 2001 and 2002, the US dropped over 1200 cluster bombs. of course, this did not stop the US from criticizing Russia for utilizing cluster munitions in Ukraine, with US’s UN ambassador saying that Russia was using ‘banned weapons that had no place on the battlefield.’”

“other crucial treaties left unratified by the US include: the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the convention on the rights of the child, the international convention for the protection of all persons from enforced disappearance, the anti-personnel mind man convention, the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, and the kyoto protocol. in the case of the genocide convention, the US took 40 years to ratify the convention, and even then only did so with the express reservation that the US was exempt from being accused of genocide.”

“for instance, in 1963, when the kennedy administration launched a direct attack against south vietnam, there was almost no protest in the united states. by the late 1960s, public outrage had become so substantial that one reason the military hesitated to send more forced to vietnam was that they were expected to be needed at home to quell public uprisings.”

[Keen Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business

JOHN DEWEY

“In the United States now, there is essentially one political party, the business party, with two factions.”

If you only read one Chomsky book this year or indeed at all, then this would be a good choice. This compilation of sorts provides an ideal and comprehensive introduction and overview of much of Chomsky’s work, focusing largely on America’s foreign policy since the end of the Second World War and of course it’s devastating impact which has impacted across every single inhabited continent across the world.

“If the Nuremberg standard were to be consistently applied then every single US president since the end of WWII would be convicted and sentenced.”

One of the many things that Chomsky makes abundantly clear is that the US government, like most around the world rarely has any interest in what the public really want, but instead operate policy strictly along the lines of increased corporate profits for the uber wealthy and ensuring that those in power get their share of that and create and maintain circumstances so that it remains so.

“History teaches us that there is no situation so bad that U.S. intervention cannot make it worse.”

And as for the rest of the world, US governments routinely laugh at any suggestion or insistence that any human rights or political related laws should ever apply to them. They have shown time and time again exactly how seriously they care what the rest of the world thinks or wants, routinely violating treaties, disregarding any protests never feeling the need to answer to anyone apart from its own corporations.

“Never has a population so safe ever been so terrified of external threats.”

In spite of repeated global outcries and condemnation, the US remains the chief enabler and cheerleader for the continuing Israeli genocide campaign on Palestine. We see that in Gaza 2018 and 2019 where Israeli soldiers opened fire on peaceful demonstrators, fatally shooting hundreds of Palestinians over the months, in many cases permanently maiming thousands of others. Those hit include journalists, medics, children and the disabled.

We see that the political situation in America has become so woefully atrocious that some idiots are even looking back at Bush as not being so bad -

“Bush intentionally offered false justification for a war, destroyed an entire country, and committed major international crimes. He tortured people, sometimes to death. Yet his public image is now that of a goofy grandpa, for whom even Democrats are nostalgic.”

Chomsky singles out many bizarre and draconian measures taken by recent US leaders, such as in August 2021 when the US froze $9 billion in Afghan central bank assets - Biden’s government announced that it was going to give half of the Afghan money to American families related to the victims of 9/11 even though Afghanistan had nothing to do with it.

“The term “national interest” is itself a euphemism, for what is usually meant is the interest of a small sector of wealthy domestic elites.”

As the US has wreaked so much chaos and killing across so much of the world, Chomsky obviously covers a lot of ground, but the statistics regarding one tiny nation make for terrifying reading, in Laos the US made 580,000 bombing runs between 1964 and 1973 (working out as a planeload every 8 minutes for nearly a decade). A ton of ordnance was dropped for every person, in total the war killed 1 in 10 in the country, by the end the US Had dropped 2,093,100 tons of ordnance on Laos making it the most over bombed country in history.

Robinson has done a grand job of editing and polishing these pieces up making them sharper, fresher and ultimately more accessible for a wider audience as well as a younger generation of readers who will hopefully gain insight into so much of the horror and hypocrisy which has been such a critical part of successive US governments and the way they respond to the rest of the world. They should put a copy of this in every single school, library and college in America.

[Rhys · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compendium of American idealism and beneficence.

"We will investigate the techniques that serve to reinforce our moral blindness, our wondrous capacity for self-adulation, and the intellectual armory that ensures that nothing is learned. First, we’ll examine how the domestic structure of power helps explain U.S. conduct in the world. We will see that what is called the pursuit of the “national interest” does not, in fact, serve the interest of the overwhelming majority of the U.S. population, who are kept in the dark and excluded from meaningful decision-making. This is followed by a look at the U.S. relationship to international law, and the postwar presidents’ unwillingness to subject the U.S. to the same rules we demand others conform to. Finally, we look at the role of the press and state propaganda in “manufacturing consent” for U.S. policy" (p.19).

[Colleen Yerton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Honestly, under the current administration with orange idiot in chief, I don't even feel that I can safely review this book on the internet. Every American should read this book. The things the USA has done claiming they are fighting for the entire world and freedom are just horrendous. This book looks at so many atrocities that have been committed since WWII and man, it's hard to read all together. USA is a rogue state that under our own definition would be a terrorist threat...but no, the land of the free and the brave................................................

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Straordinario, come sempre. Il titolo non gli rende giustizia, ma la traduzione dall’originale sarebbe stata fuorviante, soprattutto per chi si appresta alla prima lettura di Chomsky.
Sarebbe enormemente riduttivo pensare all’opera di Chomsky come semplice critica alla politica estera degli Stati Uniti. È molto di più.
Raggiungere obiettivi di bene comune implica necessariamente un’attenta autocritica, se crediamo in questi obiettivi.

[Tallulah Thangathurai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thankful for Noam’s valiant and lifelong commitment to scream into the abyss and hope to god somebody hears. This book seems to be the culmination of his life’s work, an attempt to once again reiterate the constructed mess of US hegemony, and remind us that it simply doesn’t have to be this way.

[Cian Moran · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great analysis of the US' role in the Middle East. Awful analysis of the Ukraine war, stripping Russia of agency for deciding to invade and of the Ukrainians for decided to resist.

[Kyle Reid · Rating 5 out of 5]

“We must make sure we are not falling into the trap of believing we are on the right side simply because we have been told so. Instead we must confront the ugly truth and pay attention to the victims if our country’s actions”

The main point that this book is trying to get across is that if any other nation acted the way that America does when it comes to foreign policy, America would not only view that nation as an enemy, but as a terrorist state. The US has actually violated the Department of Defense’s own definition of terrorism but of course it doesn’t apply to us because we’re the “good guys”. The US violates international law, UN charter, and many other treaties it signs. This book shines light on the truth that American’s were never taught in school - “if all counties acted like the U.S., the world would quickly be destroyed”

This book is filled to the brim with information. It goes through a lot (but not all) of America’s significant foreign policy measures that destabilizes the world and how politicians and the media try to convince the public that we are in the right. The case studies range from the end of WWII all the way up to present day.

The chapter “Disciplining the Global South” shows how we have overstepped in many ways to keep our influence there. Multiple coups, election fraud and assassination attempts on leaders in the Global South during the Cold War which often lead to worse, genocidal leaders being in power for the sole purpose of not letting a socialist leader rise to power. The rise of socialism in the Global South would lead to the US having less dominance in the world, and we can’t have that happening, of course.

Then there’s the wars. Going very in depth about Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, this book shows how truly careless American leaders are when it comes to preserving civilian life. Using actual quotes from presidents, advisors and military leaders, it’s truly insane to read quotes about how leading into the war in Afghanistan, Bush “wanted vengeance”, “wanted to kill somebody” and once said “I’m having trouble controlling my bloodlust” before launching into a war that killed tens of thousands of civilians.

The book goes into our relationship with China and Russia. Making a great case for why it is counter productive and even dangerous for us to be so hostile towards China. The book goes into our relationship with Israel, and our compliance with Israel’s war crimes. The book also goes into Americas policies when it comes to nuclear arms and climate change (spoiler: it’s not good).

There’s a lot to go over in this book. The atrocities are committed by republican and democratic leaders. Read with an open mind and understand that if you’re an American, how you view America is likely not how the rest of the world views America. This is one that I’m going to keep on my desk, and will re-read with a notepad and pencil.

[Sam Greenberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this was like watching a pileup on the highway: one horror after another, but you can’t look away. A much needed reality check after reading Obama and Albright. Feel like Comey recognized some of this stuff more than the others.

One thing I think could have been highlighted more in this book is how difficult it is politically for public figures to criticize American foreign policy (or domestic, for that matter). People both in and outside of the political realm are always quick to shut down criticism, framing it as “unpatriotic”; this mechanism makes change far harder to achieve for those in power. Probably lots more to it.

Good book!

[Seán Holland · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first half and all the sections on the Middle East are fantastic and feature brilliant analysis on how American has continuously fucked up. The latter half and China/Russia/NATO sections are much poorer. It feels as if Robinson dismisses the human rights issues in these countries to exonerate the US. It feels as if he is trying to squeeze his ideas in and they don’t quite fit.

Loved all the 20th century getting it both barrels. America is fucked. Free Palestine.

[Nnamdi Martyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow!

[Darius Darko · Rating 4 out of 5]

In The Myth of American Idealism, Noam Chomsky and Nathan J. Robinson successfully and neatly argue that the United States is a hegemonic and warmongering state that has used and continues to use brunt force and unchecked power to illegally bully the rest of the world — mainly left-wing governments in smaller, poorer countries — at its will, for no good reason and in a grossly hypocritical fashion.


Chomsky and Robinson put forward reasonable hypotheticals, realistic theocraticals and solid side-by-side comparisons to compare and contrast the United States’ wartime actions to countries that the U.S. detests, such as Russia (and the former Soviet Union), China, Iran and Cuba, in addition to comparing the actions of U.S. presidents to other leaders that we accuse of war crimes, such as Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin.


Chomsky and Robinson show that the U.S. is unserious when it comes to accusing foreign adversaries of acting unethically, from China’s “spy balloons” to RussiaGate to Iranian nuclear weapons. Not only does the U.S. regularly spy on enemies but also allies. It also meddles in elections all over the world and stores a cache of nuclear weapons. The U.S. constantly mischaracterizes and lies to maintain and gain power.


Even the wars that the U.S. does not technically directly initiate, it uses soft power and other techniques to ignite, sometimes by proxy, by sending billions of taxpayers of dollars to countries or by training eventual government overthrowers. The authors cite examples of NATO’s involvement that largely led to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, and U.S. staunch support of Israel.


The authors reveal the consequences for the United States’ dangerous mission. The U.S. has killed children, journalists and overthrown left-wing governments. The world suffers at the behest of this country’s mission, and the U.S., of course, simply does not care.


The authors uses a variety of sources of differing political backgrounds to prove their points. The authors successfully argue these points — and much more — largely by citing journalistic and academic work, from respected sources such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

I don’t think conservatives would entirely disagree with their points. The authors include works that they clearly disagree with, such as opinion pieces and news articles from the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and either pick apart their arguments or use them to their own advantage. The authors sometimes use authors they clearly disagree with to strengthen their own arguments, mainly pro-war authors who seem to concede points to the authors. The author's strengthen its arguments successfully, often asking the reader to consider hypothetical situations, and also confronts the “whataboutism” rebuttal.

The reader benefits from these types of interesting thought experiments. In short, the author’s arguments mostly work.

However, I sometimes don’t agree with their framing.

Take the Oct. 7 attack. The authors seem to argue that Oct. 7 is a disgusting act of terrorism by Hamas. I tend to agree. But I believe there needs to be a better argument as to why the attack isn’t a form of resistance against Israel’s genocide and occupation.

While the authors do have a well-written chapter on Israel-Palestine, the authors don’t seem to place the events that occurred on Oct. 7 in the context of the genocide.

Other scholars on the situation, such as Norman Finklestein, seem to be able to take these factors into account. I wanted the authors here to do so as well. The authors also do not seemingly mention other factors that played into Oct. 7, such as Israel’s own intelligence failures. The authors seem to understand the concept of “blowback” when it comes to Osama and 9/11, but not seemingly when it comes to other events, such as Hamas’ resistance to Israel.

At the tail-end of the book, the authors seem to argue for a “mass movement” of peaceful protest, but seemingly neglects to mention other forms of resistance that may be deemed necessary by the oppressed. To be clear, I’m not saying I am in support of such resistance, but I’d at least want a solid argument against it from the authors.

While the book has a Gladwellian type of style at times — very easy to read, but sometimes devoid of full context — this book is both evergreen and prescient, and, overall, worth reading.

[Mario Reads · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book and will likely be one of my favorites this year.

[Rual Marva · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read book. Will be maybe like a documentary level transcript. Updates of the book will come surely.

[Katie Duffy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Damn! They really taught us nothing in history class. I cannot recommend this book enough !!!!!

[Leah Hortin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have admittedly had my head in the sand about foreign policy for much of my life and now, at nearly 40, I thought I ought to learn a bit more. I don't watch or read news, getting most of my headlines from Facebook like the masses but I am at least decently well read and have the ability to both think critically and care about my fellow mankind.

All that to say I am horrified by much of what I read. I was aware of many of the autrocities in passing but having them condensed to a 400 page book was a slap in the face. The greed and power that runs our world is absolutely sickening. And no one was safe from scrutiny, including many of the Democratic politicians I have admired (as much as one can admire a politician).

And while they tried to end on a somewhat hopeful note of what could change, I am left utterly disheartened at our lack of humanity.

[Twain · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book in a way a summary of a lot of different books and ideas Chomsky has pursued throughout his life.

Opens on how every empire claims they are different and unique and better and more moral than all the other empires before it. But we should not judge empire on the flowery stories it tells about itself, rather its actions. And often it acts strictly and coldly in its own interests (namely the interests of its elites).

The sourcing on this book is crazy I def recommend an e-reader otherwise you’ll be flipping back and forth basically every paragraph.

Begins with the coups, death squads, military juntas, etc. that we funded and supported in South America. Arbenz redistributing unused land that’s owned by an American multinational? That’s too far he must be couped. Allende coming to power democratically in Chile? We must sanction their economy and if not crush them with a military coup. The US was often even just worried of the appearance of a good example in South America, a country successfully enacting left wing and democratic reforms that it put down any such movement with force and basically replaced it with an emboldened military ready to stop dissidence by force. We were functionally practicing domino theory even under Reagan, the idea that if one country has a successful left wing government other copycats will follow and soon we will be surrounded by communists. That’s actually the explicit reason given for our opposition of the Sandinistas and support for the Contras who were essentially the previous dictators national guard. Looks at other US interventions in the global south, including the US sponsored genocide in Indonesia that received positive coverage in Time, the NYT and the Atlantic since the million or so people being murdered were communists or alleged communists.

“In 1975, Suharto invaded East Timor, which had recently won its independence from Portugal, overthrowing the leftist government and launching a decades long occupation that killed hundreds of thousands. People were herded into buildings and or fields and killed en masse. The UN Security Council ordered Indonesia to withdraw, but to no avail. The failure was explained by then UN ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In his memoirs, he took pride in having rendered the UN ‘utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook’ because ‘the United States wished things to turn out as they did’ and ‘worked to bring this about’. C. Philip Liechty, who served as a senior CIA officer in the Jakarta embassy during the East Timor invasion, confessed that Suharto was ‘given the green light’ by the United States, which supplied his forces with ‘everything they needed’. When news of the mass civilian deaths came out, the CIA tried ‘to cover them up as long as possible’ “ (50-51). Because he was tough on labor and dissidents, and deregulated the economy and welcomed foreign investors, he enjoyed US support and friendly US media coverage until his last days in office, despite doing multiple genocides (both supported and armed by the US). Suharto eventually stepped out of line, failing to implement harsh IMF recommendations, at which point the US Secretary of State called on him to step down and he did hours later. Seems like that could have been done at any point, just that when he was murdering civilians the US was totally cool with that. There’s like 6-8 examples like this in the first chapter, and we usually don’t ask them to step down.

The following chapter moves on to Southeast Asia. It opens with a look at liberals who think the US falls victim to Noble Mistake theory, that it’s well intentioned but makes missteps due to its lofty and noble goals. One of them was Daniel Ellsberg who originally thought the US had noble intentions in Vietnam before doing some real research and writing the Pentagon Papers. This book was really the first longer form thing I’ve read about the war in Vietnam and holy shit that’s one of the most evil things anyone’s ever done. The war was just functionally about killing as many Vietnamese as possible by any means (bombs, napalm, destroying crops, etc.) there weren’t even many traditional war objectives like capturing towns or strategic lands just quotas on how many Vietnamese should be killed each month. Gets into the bombing of Laos and how the main goals of this war was mainly to decimate the countries where communism might happen, kill and intern the civilians and peasants, just destroy any civilizational capability for those governments. Then gets into the US support of Pol Pot as he was doing genocide because the Vietnamese did not like him either.

Then we get into the post 9/11 Middle East which was basically just as bad. Almost 4 million dead and 38 million displaced by official counts, the Taliban repeatedly offered to have bin Laden put on trial (even before 9/11) but the US refused. Then after the bombing the Taliban offered to just hand him over to the US to stop the bombing, but the US decided it would rather bomb civilians and Red Cross and UN facilities and demand Pakistan stop shipping food into Afghanistan. CNN declined to cover civilian casualties or any requests from civilians in Afghanistan to stop the bombing as it didn’t want to be seen as unpatriotic. Delves into the horrible conditions the US created in Afghanistan (despite the fact that the Taliban played no role in 9/11 and disliked bin Laden, Bush just wanted a show of force against an Islamic power due to 9/11). The destitution, corruption, and death the US fostered in Afghanistan also led to the Taliban being seen as freedom fighters from an oppressive and corrupt US regime, and now the Taliban are much more popular than they were pre-invasion. The net result of the war in Afghanistan was two decades of immiseration for the civilians of Afghanistan, increases in hunger and poverty, all to replace an unpopular Taliban with a more popular Taliban.

Moving from Afghanistan, we get to the next logical place which is Iraq. Details the US supported Saddam Hussein’s coup to power, gave him chemical weapons and helped him strategically in a war with Iran, and he was a genuinely useful leader of a client state until he went to invade Kuwait and the US feared he was becoming too powerful (Hussein believed the US approved of or was at least ok with the invasion). But he ran afoul of the US by trying to become too powerful, and the US started vilifying him for crimes overwhelmingly he supported. Diplomatic options were not considered as Hussein could win some concessions, and the US didn’t want him to seem like a reasonable character once they started vilifying him, so the Gulf War was the only answer. The Gulf War went as most US wars did: bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure, killing retreating troops and burying them alive in trenches, and various other war crimes meant to show dominance and weaken post-war Iraq. The plans to invade Iraq were made pre-9/11, and 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade despite no clear links between Iraq and Al Queda. The US also employed a brutal sanction regime in the lead up to the war in Iraq, which destroyed the society and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths of children (and surely more of adults). Despite this, they were willing to sell the idea Saddam had WMDs despite the fact the last time he used WMDs (chemical weapons) they were supplied by the US for use against Iran, and despite the fact that the US had crippled Iraq’s manufacturing base and economy through the sanctions and Gulf War, they were willing to sell that despite that Saddam had somehow massively progressed on WMDs. The ensuing war led to mass civilian casualties but it protected American access to oil, allowed the US to project military strength so it was a win. Afterwards, we just tacked on the human rights angle despite the terrible cost to civilians the war cost.

From there we move to Israel, Palestine and the US. “Biden specifically said that ‘were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region’ “ (p344). The US and Israel obviously share an origin story (Europeans fleeing religious persecution, colonizing and “ developing a virgin land”, genociding natives to that land and putting them in ever smaller camps or reservations, etc.) but another thing they shared is interest in destroying Arab nationalism (the US for oil and resources, Israel due to their sympathy for the Palestinians) so this created a natural confluence of interests. “Henry Jackson, who was the Senate’s major specialist on the Middle East and oil, pointed out that Israel, Iran (under the shah) and Saudi Arabia ‘inhibit and contain those irresponsible and radical elements in certain Arab states, who, were they free to do so, would pose a grave threat indeed to our principal sources of petroleum in the middle East’ “ (p137). Looks at the founding of Israel where a lot of the early zionists were very open about it being colonialism and displacing an indigenous population. Looks at how the US gives Israel basically carte blanche to do whatever it wants, kill and bomb Palestinians, steal their land, and the US blocks resolutions at the UN and ignores any international rulings against Israel and keeps sending them large amounts of weapons and funding. The Israeli attacks on Palestinians are carried out with US weapons and support, and could not happen without that support, meaning the US is effectively facilitating the brutal treatment of the Palestinians. Nathan tacks on a little piece at the end of the chapter documenting the post October 7th horrors Israel carried out.

Quick chapter on China detailing the American insanity around China and how a lot of things the US accuses China of it is typically guilty of 100 times over (also a large amount of US accusations about China are false or vastly overstated). Looks at how the US is making war over Taiwan more likely and how the US does not see itself as an aggressor despite surrounding China with military bases, nuclear weapons, high end bombs, and being the country typically doing sanctions to China instead of the other way around. The US worries China will cause the US’s South Pacific influence to wane, without really considering why it thinks it deserves uncontested influence in the Indo Pacific. Ultimately, the issue with China is that we cannot control it like we can countries where we have military bases and send weapons and are the dominant partner in military alliances, and therefore it is an enemy.

“Without any looking Soviet hordes, what was NATO for?… It became a US run intervention force with a worldwide mandate to secure the West’s strategic interests. Part of its mission was to maintain control of the international energy system. NATO Secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer instructed a NATO meeting in June 2007 that ‘NATO troops have to guard pipelines that transport oil and gas that is directed for the West’ and more generally have to protect sea routes used by tankers and other ‘critical infrastructure’ of the energy system” (p183). Opens with the concerns a lot of security people had post fall of the Soviet Union, that NATOs continued existence/expansion would appear as a threat to Russia and that Russia would do wars of conquest as a result of continuing to exclude Russia from this ever growing organization that is hostile to it. Looks at the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and what a drastic failure it was, despite being paraded as a great success in the west. The worst abuses against the Albanians happened in *response* to the NATO bombing (which also killed a lot of civilians). However, this bombing was obviously celebrated in the paper of record where Thomas Friedman explicitly called for war crimes against the Serbian population. NATO expansion freaked out Russia, as the US was building a security alliance all around it without it. The Ukraine war can be directly pinpointed to the talk of adding Ukraine to NATO (which was never very serious). Russia demanded a backdown, and when none was forthcoming went to war. Part of the reason people in the US were so ok with the war was that it would push Europe closer to the US and away from Russia, and the war would have a very detrimental effect on the Russian economy. Because of this, the West never tried diplomacy, and instead called Russias bluff, leading to an awful war out of western hubris and game theory over how it would hurt Russia vs the US. The logic wasn’t much different than arming the Mujahideen in the 1980s and hoping Afghanistan would become a quagmire for the USSR like Vietnam had been for the US. The war in Ukraine is a great cost benefit analysis for the West (as they exclude lives lost) the West gets to show off their weapons systems, the US gets to sell more weapons to Europe, and for a few billion here or there they are depleting Russia’s future war capabilities since Russia is using and losing a large amount of weapons and soldiers in the Ukraine war. Russia promised Ukraine peace in exchange for not joining NATO, but western countries encouraged them to fight. The Russians have been put under sanctions from the west that do not end if the Russian aggression ends, meaning the sanctions are not an incentive to end the violence mainly just to harm Russia further. The war has also been a boon for US energy companies. Overall, what it seems like is the US is willing to sacrifice Ukrainians in exchange for profits and for weakening Russia. No other logic really makes sense. Another good indicator to the war is the global south, a victim of aggression from European and US powers for hundreds of years, sees this as a battle between superpowers (Russia and the US) and not as a large country aggressing on a small one.

Looks at some other threats to our well being (climate change and nuclear war) and how the United States has been the leading force in making both of these problems worse and more likely to eventually cause a civilizational doomsday.

After looking at the myriad of ways that the United States has made life on earth worse for the vast majority of its inhabitants, we move on to the US power system and the undue influence elites have over our system and the lack of popular will enacted by the government. This is traced all the way back to the founding fathers, who had little faith in the average man and believed the owners, enlightened statesmen, and political philosophers would divine the true interests of the country, not the dumb masses that constitute the majority of Americans.

From there we move to the “rules based international order” and all the times the US has blatantly ignored it, like with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Panama. The US is also not signed on to the International Criminal Court, and actually has a Hague Invasion Act (American Service-Member Protection Act) on the books to do everything in its power (up to invasion) to free a US citizen or US ally from the court. It has pulled assistance from countries who will not agree to never put an American in front of the court. The US refuses to sign on to ban cluster munitions, anti-mine, anti nuclear testing or biological weapons. The US has left treaties on children’s rights, ending discrimination against women, protection of people from forced disappearances, and disabled rights unsigned. We also refused to sign on to the Genocide Convention for 40 years until it was guaranteed exemption from ever being accused of it. The US stops UN action on actors like Israel and Rhodesia, various president regularly circumvents laws on military force, employs kill lists, and give aid and weapons to serial human rights abusers, and do illegal surveillance. Every president post WWII could have been convicted and sentenced under the Nuremberg standards if they were ever applied. Truman for the civilian bombing in Japan and putting Nazi collaborators in charge in Greece who killed and tortured hundreds of thousands, Eisenhower for civilian bombings and infrastructure bombings that reduced North Korea to nothing and killed 20% of the population, Eisenhower also for coups in Iran and Guatemala that led to mass killings. JFK, LBJ, and Nixon for bombing in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. They all also supported a number of coups by right wing forces that led to a lot of mass death and repression. Ford approved Suharto’s mass killings in East Timor and operation condor. Carter supports the Somozas in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, park in South Korea, Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, Mobutu in Zaire, and the Brazilian junta to name a few. Reagan supported the contras (his admin actually lost a case at the ICJ over it), invaded Grenada and supported apartheid South Africa. Bush I for Panama and the Gulf War, Clinton for his Middle East bombings and military aid to a Colombian regime with horrible human rights records, Bush II for the wars he started and his torture programs. Obama covered up the bush era war crimes, and set off on blatantly illegal drone strikes. Trump amped up drone killings, claimed rights to indiscriminately murder high officials in other countries (which he did with Soleimani), and imposed collective punishment on the civilians of Venezuela via sanctions which killed 40k people in 2 years. Biden obviously for the weapons he provided Israel for their genocide in Gaza. Non-exhaustive list by the way mostly just the highlights. The UN charter bans the threat or use of force in international affairs, and treaties are the law of the land according to the constitution, but laws do not matter to the president.

Ends on a little media/manufacturing consent like chapter. Corporate media only promotes viewpoints from the elite as it is owned by the elite, and has great ability to stifle or ignore ideas its owners don’t like or paint them as unserious or unrealistic. It sets the boundaries for discussion and which ideas are worth considering and how things are interpreted (the NYT asked “could we have won Vietnam” instead of “why the hell did we go to war with Vietnam”). In instances of conservative presidents, support for the Contras or the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, liberals critiqued more on the effectiveness, the strategy, the management, the way of doing things more so than “should we be doing these things”. Citations Needed shoutout was awesome lol.

Does that fun thing that some lefty books do where after beating you over the head with darkness for 290 it tries to be uplifting and optimistic in the conclusion.

[dana · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be required reading for all Americans, but unfortunately the ones who need to hear it the most are the ones who will resist the message the most. The US government has sold the world, and most importantly, its own citizens, a lie with their reckless foreign policy. The authors give numerous examples that demonstrate the hypocrisy of the government, and how if any other country operated in this way, it would be considered terrorism. The US simply believes itself to be above international law. They will invade your country, or collude to topple a freely elected leader, in the name of “spreading freedom.”

George Bush, a war criminal who should be prosecuted for his crimes, famously asked after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” He answered his own question, “They hate our freedoms.” One only needs to open a history book to understand why the Middle East distrusts, or dislikes, the US—and of course, this only increased with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it’s certainly not about being jealous of American freedom.

Chomsky and Robinson do an incredible job of explaining how the “War on Terror” was used as a justification for illegal invasions, but really just an opportunity for them to protect their interests in the region and send a message that “the US will not be humiliated.” It was the same thing in the Cold War, where containment was used to justify the toppling of any leader that promoted nationalism and didn’t align with US interests. The rhetoric from government insiders and mass media at the time was extremely blunt, as can be seen in this New York Times article after the CIA-backed coup that removed Iranian leader Mohamed Mossadegh:

Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism… It is perhaps too much to hope that Iran’s experience will prevent the rise of Mossadeghs in other countries, but that experience may at least strengthen the hands of more reasonable and more far-seeing leaders.

It is ironic that what is referred to as “fanatical nationalism” in other countries is simply considered patriotism in the US. And during the era of McCarthyism, a patriot was all one could be, for fear of being labeled an American-hating communist. The term “communist” was clearly a label being thrown around without much meaning. Quite simply, a communist could be anyone that didn’t agree with the US, and any foreign leader that wanted to promote the interests of their own people over American interests. Obviously, this was unacceptable.

The authors use an ongoing metaphor of the Mafia to describe how the government operates, whether it’s in Latin America, Vietnam, or the Middle East. They really highlight the aggression and the hypocrisy of these institutions and the myths that government officials use to prop it up. The result is a powerfully written, highly readable book that I sped through, despite its heavy subject matter.

The US’s foundation as a country is that it is inherently great and exceptional, and they are committed to spreading their values for human rights throughout the world. Most people in the world come from countries that have been affected by American foreign policy, and so of course they see through this facade. But so many Americans still believe this “myth of idealism”, and refuse to criticize, or sometimes even acknowledge, the terrors the government has committed. I do think something that makes the country great is the fact that Americans like Chomsky and Robinson can write a book like this, because the message is truly powerful.

[Evan Andresen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Glad to have read and learned so much about US foreign policy WWII-present but admittedly a very grim subject to read every night before going to bed. I agreed with the premise and was aware of some facts presented in the book before reading but it was nice to see the argument formally laid out.

The ‘myth of american idealism’ is that the US acts as a moral entity in the world stage and acts primarily to promote values of democracy, freedom/self determination, etc. In reality, the US acts with self interest and a mafia mentality, as presented in the book, using whatever force it can to increase its own power and security in the world. Chomsky does note that this “evil” is not unique or special to america but is very often the case with powerful nations.

The first half of the book covers the each region of the world and how US has harmed or acted unjustly towards different peoples. From the global south, using the CIA and others assets to coup democratically elected governments to ones that support US interests to the Middle East where the US incites terror onto innocent people. The amount of suffering instigated by the US is staggering.

Most interestingly now is the Russia/Ukraine conflict given recents events. NATO, formed originally as a military defense alliance against Russia in the Cold War has continued to expand eastward in Europe. Russia made it clear that continued expansion would be a threat to their security and they would invade Ukraine if Ukraine would join NATO. Despite it not likely working out, the US threatened that NATO would expand into Ukraine thus prompting the invasion. The US favors Russia being in a proxy war simply to sacrifice Ukrainians to weaken Russia. Now Trump has u-turned on Europe being against Russia causing a huge shift in foreign relations with seemingly former allies. (I believe Trump wants to gain domestic favorability by ending wars, no matter who suffers or what principles are abandoned-given Israel/Palestine).

The second half of the book covers the breaking apart of the international community covering Nuclear Disarmament and Climate Change Action and how this myth has perpetuated american culture. The US has consistently gone back on international deals to reduce nuclear weapons, which threaten our world every second of every day. Climate change appears to not be a serious issue given the governments actions. The US continues to ignore or veto UN agreements on various subjects of world peace and security.

This myth is not partisan. All democrat and republican presidents since WWII have committed terrible acts that constitute war crimes all while pretending the US acts with morals. Chomsky, known for “Manufacturing Consent” (which I plan to reread soon) cites the media being controlled by the domestic elite for promoting the morality of american acts of violence. American culture cannot handle admitting the terrible actions the government has taken around the globe after enforcing such strong patriotism towards the military.

This book and the subject is incredibly important for me to know and share given that our government not only hurts its people but so many others in the world and this information should be known to its citizens. The government has been and especially now, owned and controlled by the rich and powerful. Chomsky is, as always, very optimistic about the state of the world even if I don’t see things improving as much as he hopes. I believe that american society still has a long decline towards fascism before class consciousness is wide spread enough to overcome it.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

While Robinson did a fine job distilling Chomsky's political writing/ideas, here's a list of recommendations for Chomsky's actual writings; if you're looking for something on his...

...excerpts pulled from different influential texts: The Chomsky Reader
...most up-to-date text on politics/history: Who Rules the World?
...perhaps greatest output as an author/thinker: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
...first political text on what it means being an intellectual: The Responsibility of Intellectuals
...very very thorough analysis of Israel-Palestine-USA relations (which hasn't changed much in forty years, unfortunately): Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

America is a terroristic state who since the end of the Second World War has completely disregarded International law with impunity has preached “democracy” and “sovereignty” so long as those words meant do what America wants when America wants it.
Anyone that wants to understand what is truly happening in the world needs to read this book and then read more Noam Chomsky. He is an amazing scholar and can see through the bullshit propaganda that is the media and the “official narrative”.

A great eye opening terrifying book that is essential reading.