Edited by author 11-15-2001 10:49 AM
My response to Chris:

On your first point, you're right that my logic is unclear. My meaning, however, is of course "would not have fed everybody". The purpose of this statement is to argue that the Pakistan convoys were not sufficient to feed "millions of people" and that therefore their cessation does not constitute a "demand to impose massive starvation on millions of people". I stand by my statement about Taliban diversion (there is other evidence of diversion beyond the Kabul example). However, did the shutdown make the hunger situation in southern Afghanistan worse, on balance? Of course. But the complicating factors I mention go unacknowledged by Chomsky; my point was to raise them, not to justify the US policy. As a side note, it appears that the US has allowed the route to reopen in the last few weeks.

I didn't explain this sufficiently, but my point on bringing food into Afghanistan via other routes was based on a) Northern Alliance advances and b) bringing food shipments across Taliban lines (admittedly unlikely given the Taliban's treatment of aid workers). On point a, see http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011114/w...istan_aid_dc_3.html - it appears likely that the aid community will be able to re-establish a base in Mazar-i-Sharif and reach the area you refer to. This is of course partially 20/20 hindsight, but the point is that the US is not trying to impose starvation on millions of people.

I believe the evidence is against you on your claim that "[Chomsky] does not claim that anyone desires to starve millions of Afghans." Here's his statement in the MIT speech: "we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people, not Taliban of course, their victims". Note "trying". There's clearly intentionality implied, if not "desire". Here's his statement in another interview (http://www.guerrillanews.com/counter_intelligence/208.html): "Well, I'm strongly opposed to policies that are aimed at killing, I don't know how many, it could turn out to be millions of Afghans, who have nothing to do with the Taliban. They're victims of the Taliban." Note "aimed".

I think you're also mistaken about Chomsky's take on the press coverage of the hunger problem. He references news that wasn't covered, news that was buried in other stories and how the news is presented differently in other countries.

You're absolutely right, however, about the transcript and the NY Times line. I was clearly mistaken to depend on it as an accurate representation of the speech - I've listened to it, but hadn't done a word-by-word check. An alert reader also pointed out that the transcript quote says "plans are being made, and programs implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the deaths of several million people in the next couple of months" but it's actually "couple of weeks" (even more overstated, in my opinion). I will append a retraction on this to the end of the post.

Finally, I certainly understand what Chomsky is trying to say with "silent genocide". I just think it's an inflammatory charge that he fails to prove. The burden is on him as the proponent of the charge, not me. If he cites news stories and then calls it "silent", it's not up to me to reconcile the two, but I'm well within my rights to point out the contradiction. And if he's making a case for a functional definition of genocide, he should offer an argument for the functional definition or proof of intentionality. He does neither.