Skip to Content

Share

Sam Kerbel: Best Battle Royale of 2011: Chomsky vs. Hitchens

December 19, 2011

Bookmark and Share


Guernica recalls the ferocious (and prose-laden, foreign policy-focused, and politically savvy) battle of heavyweights.

By **Sam Kerbel**

hitchens painting.jpgPhotograph via Flickr by Nic*Rad.

The Huffington Post’s obituary of the late thinker and writer Christopher Hitchens observes that writing became “the perfect outlet for him to enrage and enlighten.” One gets plenty of both throughout Hitchens’s noteworthy exchange with renowned philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky on the death of Osama bin Laden.

The heated dispute began with Chomsky’s piece for Guernica Daily, which featured this unflinching pronouncement: “It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law.” Chomsky makes several bold proclamations, among them that George W. Bush’s crimes “vastly exceed bin Laden’s.” Needless to say, Chomsky says the mission to kill bin Laden—and the entirety of the United States’ post-9/11 approach to combating terrorism—“provides us with a good deal to think about.”

It also gave Hitchens much to write about. In a piece for Slate entitled “Chomsky’s Follies,” Hitchens excoriates Chomsky for intimating that “[w]e have no more reason to credit Osama Bin Laden’s claim of responsibility…than we would have to believe Chomsky’s own claim to have won the Boston Marathon.” Calling Chomsky’s intellectualism into question, Hitchens challenges the implications of the former’s 9/11 narrative, which include suggesting that America brought the attacks upon itself and that, in Hitchens’s words, “America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn’t even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations.”

In a speech before over a thousand people at Nottingham High School in Syracuse, New York, last May, Chomsky addressed the Hitchens attack directly: “If I wanted to stoop to that level, there would be very simple responses. He’s been producing hysterical rants for 20 years… I just ignore them. They’re not worth responding too.” He does, however, disparage Hitchens (whom he calls a “brazen liar”) for falsely accusing him (Chomsky) of citing Clinton’s bombing of Sudan as worse than 9/11, when in fact Hitchens himself made those remarks.

[The pair’s dispute reveals two different approaches to America’s role in contemporary geopolitics—or, as Hitchens muses in his final rebuttal, “whether Bush or bin Laden is the Nazi.”

On the same day as Chomsky’s speech, book critic and columnist George Scialabba took Hitchens’s own scholarship to task in a piece for Guernica, deriding the manner in which Hitchens “has reenacted the drama of Dorian Gray: his prose style has waxed ever more elegant, while his political judgment and his polemical morality have decayed.” In distorting Chomsky’s views—in this case by taking them out of context—Scialabba argues that Hitchens epitomizes the failure of American intellectuals to engage in foreign policy discussions “beyond uncritical acceptance of the premises of state policy.” Unlike Chomsky, Hitchens and others have been dishonest in their evaluation of 9/11 and its aftermath.

Hitchens, of course, disagrees. His brief response in Guernica entitled “Refutations from a Stalinist Commissar-Lookalike” chides Scialabba for focusing on disagreements between Chomsky and himself from a decade ago, conveniently ignoring the arguments made in his more recent Slate article. He also criticizes Chomsky for his aforementioned assertions regarding the Sudan issue, telling him “to produce the reference or to withdraw both allegations.”

By the end of this dispute—not the first between these public intellectual stalwarts—one gets not just two renowned thinkers making increasingly amusing ad hominem attacks. On the contrary, it reveals two different approaches to America’s role in contemporary geopolitics—or, as Hitchens muses in his final rebuttal, “whether Bush or bin Laden is the Nazi.”

Chomsky, for his part, had little more to say on the record. But he did, notably, expand on his original piece, which ran in several publications—and which ran here as part of our syndication with TomDispatch.

The original Chomsky blog that started the kerfuffle received more than a million hits around the world. And the dispute, therefore, was our best editorial debate of 2011.

________________________________________________________________________

Sam Kerbel is an editorial assistant at Guernica.

  Conversations with History: U.S. Foreign Policy in a World Undergoing Change: Journalist Tom Wicker discusses the Presidency and the media at the height of the Cold War. More
 
  Noam Chomsky: My Response to #OccupyWallStreet: With #OccupyWallStreet, the linguist and political critic sees a reason for hope that lies closer to home. More
     
  Robert Reich: The First Amendment Upside Down: Why we must occupy democracy. More
 
  Tom Engelhardt: An All-American Nightmare: This is what defeat looks like. More

SUBSCRIBE TO GUERNICA’S RSS FEED

Readers like you make Guernica possible. Please show your support.

Tagged with:

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterAdd to BufferShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUpon
Submit to redditShare on App.netShare via email

You might also like

  • Sam Kerbel: Memoir WarsSam Kerbel: Memoir Wars  Neil Genzlinger of the NYT charges that the contemporary memoir is dull, “unexceptional,” and evidence of “the current age of oversharing.” Maybe. But what […]
  • Sam Kerbel: Rec Room: Bruno SchulzSam Kerbel: Rec Room: Bruno Schulz   Frightening at times, uplifting at others, the liminal, dreamlike spaces of Bruno Schulz’s fiction are rare amongst even our most imaginative artists.
  • Sam Kerbel: Top 3 Book Review Take-DownsSam Kerbel: Top 3 Book Review Take-Downs  A sample of this year’s most linguistically creative and intellectually exasperating spankings.
  • Sam Kerbel: The Tree of LacrimosaSam Kerbel: The Tree of Lacrimosa  Zbigniew Preisner’s Requiem for my friend headlines a magnificent score that complements the sublimity of Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life.

4 comments for Sam Kerbel: Best Battle Royale of 2011: Chomsky vs. Hitchens

  1. Comment by mason on September 24, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    “[Chomsky] does, however, disparage Hitchens (whom he calls a “brazen liar”) for falsely accusing him (Chomsky) of citing Clinton’s bombing of Sudan as worse than 9/11, when in fact Hitchens himself made those remarks.”

    The author speaks of “false accusations” against chomsky by hitchens about sudan as if it were self evident. Has this cretin actually ever read either men’s responses to 9/11 or the resulting debate between them? Chomsky’s immediate response very straightforwardly compares 9/11 to the rocketing of Sudan, and he goes on to say that the Sudanese case is worse. The first line of his sept. 12 article reads as follows:

    “The September 11 attacks were major atrocities. In terms of
    number of victims they do not reach the level of many others, for
    example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext,
    destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing
    tens of thousands of people”

    The argument between the two was largely over this remark, and now years later, Chomsky exhibited for the whole world a public display of senility by denying everything and laying the responsibility entirely on Hitchens.

  2. Comment by Jason on November 3, 2012 at 3:51 pm

    Chomsky was very clearly drawing a comparison to highlight the manufactured outrage by the state and its actors and he used the two cases to do so. Hitchens ran with it and made bogus assertions about “more equivalence” that he concocted. He drew that from a quick response given to multiple media outlets, as is pointed out in the original response from Chomsky. Maybe he should have joined in the hysterics like everyone else? That’s the makings of an honest intellectual! He really turned into a troll in the last years of his life.

  3. Comment by Rory on January 10, 2013 at 10:58 pm

    Chomsky needs to learn one important lesson.
    Whilst he thinks he’s now only talking to die hard Chomsky-ites in his latter years,
    people like Christopher Hitchens will still catch wind of it and still bring him to task.
    Why not write an extended essay this decade (for a change) instead of these tid-bits of nothingness, as Hitchens would say, nothingness at the very best.
    Lies, lies from tiny eyes are the norm for Noam and it ain’t looking to good into the future for the foolish, old coot.

  4. Comment by Jonathan on April 30, 2013 at 10:01 am

    Jason, how could you so firmly assert that the state’s outrage was manufactured as though that sort of thing is unequivocally quantifiable, then
    go on to build a case on that assertion as if that case were logically consistent? What struck you as manufacted about the state’s outrage over the
    murder of innocent Americans?

    It’s quite clear to me that Chomsky is doing the arithmetic of lives here in an effort to undercut the significance of the 9-11 attacks.

Leave a comment




Anti-Spam Quiz:

Subscribe without commenting