Failed States by Noam Chomsky

Several times the United States of America has made assertions concerning its rights to arbitrate military against "failed states" around the world. In this book of "Failed State" by Noam Chomsky turn s the table by indicating that there are features that the United States share with other failed nations. These features include: democracy deficit, disdaining egalitarian and international guiding principles, and adoption of policies that are a threat to its people and the world at large.

Chomsky reveals the Washington's plans to militarize the planet through his idea of exploring the latest developments in both the foreign and domestic policies. We also find that through the efforts to militarize the planet, it becomes clear that the risk of nuclear war is likely to increase. He further looks into the dangerous consequences associated by occupation of Iraq; he thus documents Washington's self exception from global norms such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Geneva conventions. He also examines the structure of U.S. electoral system which he feels is aimed at eradicating indisputable political alternatives, impending momentous egalitarianism (Chomsky, 56). Noam Chomsky sets a turning point to whatever people viewed America to be. The self-image of the united states as a democratic state as contrary to the perception of people. He says "Failed State: the Abuse of Power and Assault on Democracy." That aims at exposing the origin of the unblemished city on a vestibule from its basis to steeples (Chomsky, 78).

At the middle of the book we find the American mission of spreading democracy throughout the world. Noam concedes that America has been rhetorically been a state that spreading democracy has been its mission since the reign of Wilson Woodrow, but he absolutely insists that this has not been the case and is contrary to the deeds of the America. International interventions have it that Washington has generally acted with the aim of frustrating the efforts of the people through engaging in chilling violence. In Iran, Chile, Guatemala, and "a long list of other countries," democratic government has been overthrown by the United States. It has usually paid leap to democracy by ensuring that it rigs the general result. There is what he refers to as "rational consistency" that means the inconsistency of words and actions (Chomsky, 126).

Whatever people are witnessing today does not count to the interest of American people but rather of the corporate elite which dominates the country as well as the process of policy making. He insists that America is not a democratic state since a democratic state is a nation that the will of its people is practiced. For instance, looking at health care, he has record to prove that America has a system that is economically inefficient, and more costly than other nations with socialized models. Its ways of ruling are unpopular with majority of Americans since he says that this is a failed state because majority of Americans are willing to pay for higher taxes due to an increased government intervention. The majority who are democratic remain unheard since the financial industries and pharmaceuticals and other private powers remain opposed. And that is why he insists that publicly funded health care system is not politically supported. He further explains that even though the majority may support it but it is clear that not the people who count (Chomsky, 154). Chomsky also demonstrates another linguistic meaning concerning the destruction for media definitions of affluence.  Even though the experts may put it that the economy is healthy as it may appear to the top 1% whose wealth rose by at least 42% between 1983 and 1998 but it is not healthy for many whose wages have stagnated or declined in real terms nor for those who go without food in America because of being incapable to buy food (Chomsky, 187).

To veterans of Chomsky readers much of this will be familiar, but the truth is that in this book he employs a new twist. What he refers to as failed state is that which cannot be able to provide security to its people as well as guarantee rights both at home and abroad. A nation that is not capable of maintaining functioning democratic institutions. Chomsky further argues that the United States is one of world's biggest failed states. Even though it may sound like a hyperbolic change that has been ludicrously overblown, but he engages it by going further and substantiating his stand. He goes further pointing out the efforts of Washington's woeful efforts of protecting Americans from terror attacks, and on one occasion he points out that through such efforts those in power ravishingly swindle more resources on the imaginary threats from Cuba and Al Qaeda (Chomsky, 216).

And if at all a rogue state is defined by its defiance of international law, the according to Chomsky, the United States has been rogues' of rogue. It has generally ignored the Geneva Conventions through the manner at which it treats its prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Iraqi civilian in Falluja; it has also violated the Nonproliferation Treaty through its development of new weapons when it should be making good faith efforts in order to get rid of the ones that are old. It has also flaunted the United States Charter that allows the use of force in case there is an instant and overwhelming necessity of self-defense. He also gave the definition "World Court" of the unlawful force that in 1980s held Washington guilty against Nicaragua, ruling of the United States simply rejected. It is true that most scholars like talking about United States as an exceptional state but in this book Chomsky phrases takes new meaning: America exempts itself from the rules it demands for everyone else. He refers to this as not a double standard but he goes further quoting what Adam Smith refers to as single standard as "vile maxim of the masters of mankind, all for ourselves but nothing for other (Chomsky, 246)."

Throughout the book "Failed State" Chomsky focuses on the vein of fierce excoriation and says that not even one is exempt, according to him. He says that even the traditional liberal heroes are dwelling on the rotten system. John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, all he termed as being faulted due to their pursuit of global supremacy. He figures the efforts of Roosevelt to firebomb Japanese cities more than a year before Pearl Harbor to Kennedy's efforts to fight in Vietnamese territory. He also condemns the makers of constitution and feels that the constitution should aim at protecting the general public. He does not even like the New York Times. The morsel of ease to the readers is seen when he says that "Americans are not inimitably malevolence people." He says that on the contrary the imperialists throughout the history have been behaving in the same manner, from the Greeks to British by arguing that they have always been driven by noble purpose even when the elites concentrated on their own interest (Chomsky, 235).

However, the book is filled with flaws as it is almost broken in every subsection through extensive quotations. It is also unrelenting as it is episodic by instances of sporadic flash of pungent intelligence. We also find that the author of this book is selective in his material as he cites ruling by the Israeli Supreme Court that has led to many of the Palestinians being injured, but he ignores those who respect such rule. He also fails to radiate outside the United States as active moral agents in their own rights. We also find that he argues with justification to what American invasion of Iraqi has unleashed. He also further dismissive of the liberal interventionists, who are interested in see American power deployed to thwart genocide and he vies them also as meager patsies of imperialism (Chomsky, 289). Generally his views of politics are too mechanistic, and planned by those in power. Finally we see that he also offers only two paragraphs solutions to such problems. It is clear that there is still the need to point out the exact way out and I feel it hard to imagine an American citizen reading this book and not seeing this situation of deeply troubling light (Chomsky, 297).

In conclusion, we realize that it might be right to argue with the manner in which Chomsky interprets facts, but it is a big task to argue with the facts. The book is painstakingly and comprehensively documented and the critique of America's current foreign policies as well as domestic shortcomings that requires to be read, understood and mediated upon. Finally, it might be true that the United States may currently be the "big man" in the intercontinental university grounds but we must not be "big bully" in the global school yard.