Photograph 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

Sam Kerbel is an assistant editor at Guernica.

At Guernica, we’ve spent the last 15 years producing uncompromising journalism. 

More than 80% of our finances come from readers like you. And we’re constantly working to produce a magazine that deserves you—a magazine that is a platform for ideas fostering justice, equality, and civic action.

If you value Guernica’s role in this era of obfuscation, please donate.

Help us stay in the fight by giving here.

4 Comments on “Best Battle Royale of 2011: Chomsky vs. Hitchens

  1. “[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. 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. 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. 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

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *