Yeah, see, the Israelis have secretly developed time travel (in collusion with the RAND corporation, and the reverse vampires), which allows them to start something by destroying it in its nascent form. It's all a rich tapestry.

Chomsky should stick to linguistics. Although, recently, a lot of people have been contesting his ideas even in that field. Poor guy.

Chomsky's view on Osirak was based on an examination of the nuclear facility by a American nuclear physics expert. I believe he was a prof at Harvard. Can't remember his name off hand. Now, there weren't a lot of examinations of the facility by qualified experts. So evidence is limited to pretty much that investigation. So what evidence there is, suggests the plant was just for power production and not for weapons. You can disagree with that and Chomsky in other writings has himself acknowledged that the argument is not proveable one way or another. What seems to be indisputable is that if a nuclear weapons development plan wasn't in the works prior to Osirak, then the Israeli attack certainly made one a necessary priority for Iran. It seems to me a reasonable argument and Chomsky's basic point remains valid. Attacking someone is going to force them to try and go nuclear. Maybe 'set off' is too strong but certainly the attack had to of increased the importance of nuclear weapon production by a significant factor.
We've talked about this before CY, but for the record I have to protest your characterization of Chomsky as being particularly biased. His bias runs in a different direction from most people and so it is more evident perhaps. But it is less pronounced than just about every other political commentator out there. He describes Israel's attack as an attack. He doesn't call it 'vicious.' He never refers to leaders as 'nutty'. And so on and so on. The very epitome of balanced writing. It seems to me you call for a level of precision from him that nobody else comes close to achieving and one wonders why he has to do better than other people. Your point is a common enough attack by liberals and conservatives against the left. Mainstream biases aren't seen and every word of a dissenting intellectual is dissected and criticized.
Finally, and just out of curiousity, does it bother you that idiots like chefamabushi support your Chomsky-bashing?

Well, Chomsky insinuates that Israel led Saddam Hussein to the dark side, nuclearly speaking, and that but for Israel's strike, Iraq wouldn't have shifted from peaceful nuclear power production to nuclear weapons research. I don't buy it:

*The country had one of the largest oil reserves in the entire world. Was nuclear power really a priority?

*Iraq was locked in a vicious war with Iran. Look, nukes are really *useful*. That's why people want them. It's completely understanable. I would have wanted them too if I had been Saddam Hussein. Hell, I would have wanted them if I hadn't been.

*Iraq made unambiguous claims at the time to Iran that they were developing nuclear weapons but that they were intended for Israel. Bluster? Perhaps. But perhaps not.

* The fact that Osirak was a nuclear power plant is irrelevant to the question of whether it was part of a program to develop nuclear weapons. And the fact that Osirak was a nuclear power plant does not tell us what Saddam Hussein's long term nuclear ambitions were.

Now Israel's strike might have convinced Iraq that it was under an even greater threat than it had assumed. But it was already dealing with such a great threat in the form of Iran that I don't see how anyone can say that Israel's strike was decisive in determining its behaviour. The development of Iraq's nuclear weapons program strikes me as wildly overdetermined: there were a lot of causes all operating at the same time.

I don't see why you think that what I wrote makes Chomsky particularly biased. I think he's wrong about something and I'm pointing it out. I do that with people all the time on this site. (And see the other comments for more on this.)

There is more to balance that refraining from name-calling. If I'm right here, then Chomsky is simply wrong. If I'm wrong, then show me how and I'll immediately issue a retraction.

As for providing solace to such villians as chefamabushi, I must say that I completely disagree with his remarks, but it's not my fault if someone happens to get off on something I write when I happen to criticize Chomsky. Indeed, this reminds me a bit of the "How can you provide comfort for Saddam Hussein by criticizing Bush" line.

You seen to think that solidarity requires me to refrain from criticizing Chomsky. What I'm trying to make clear is that I criticize Chomsky because I think that he's interesting and worth criticizing, because it's part of my own project of figuring out exactly what I want to believe myself. I criticize Krauthammer because he's an ignorant fuck. They're not on par, and if I give that impression, I really do need to rethink how I'm presenting my ideas. But good golly, I thought my next post provided necessary context.

"I criticize Chomsky because I think that he's interesting and worth criticizing, because it's part of my own project of figuring out exactly what I want to believe myself. I criticize Krauthammer because he's an ignorant fuck. They're not on par..."

Prefuckingcisely. (Swearing here denotes enthusiasm). The sad thing is the mainstream view is exactly the inverse of that.

One could conclude (like Peter) that one should therefore waste no time quibbling with Chomsky, instead focusing on the egregious Kraut. But, on the other hand, if one wants to develop one's capacity for independent thought it's best to disregard the Krauthammers and engage the Chomskys.

Aye, engaging someone, asking them hard questions, taking them seriously, doesn't seem like marginalization to me. And I don't think what I wrote was a smear. It was a serious point. If Chomsky is wrong about Osirak and its consequences, then he really is missing an important part of the story of nuclear proliferation in the mid-east. And if he never uses the same kind of language in connection with Israel that raises important questions. Pointing that out is not the same as mindlessly dismissing him.

Chris,

As I understand it, Iraq in the early 80s had a lot of reasons to think they could win and maybe even win easily against Iran. If nothing else, a country rarely starts a war unless it has a fair bit of confidence about it chances. As far as I know such predictions of success were born out for a few years into the war. Furthermore, Iraq enjoyed significantly more diplomatic support both regionally and internationally than did Iran at that time. Remember, this is just after the Shah was send packing. Europe, Russia and the US all favoured Iraq.
So, at the time of the Osirak attack, I have little doubt that Israel probabely looked like a much bigger threat to Iraq. Israel had superior military abilities than Iran. It enjoyed a far better political and military relationship with the US than any other country in the region. Also it had proven itself even before Osirak to be aggressive and eager to establish itself as a regional hegemon by fair, foul or military means.
So, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to posit that Israel was of more longterm concern to Hussein in the early 80s than was Iran. Thus, if Hussain decided to accelerate his nuclear program in the early 80s, I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that the Osirik attack had a lot to do with it.
Did Iraq accelerate its program in the early 80s? Or was it always a priority? Well, I've read that top emigre Iraqi nuclear scientists have asserted that that this was indeed the case. And their assertions have some credibility behind them. Prior to Osirak, Iraq was in full compliance with both IAEA guidelines and the nuclear weapons treaty whose formal name escapes me. Or so I understand. At any event, compliance ceased in the 80s. Why? Okay, there was a war going on between Iran and Iraq. But before that war soured for Iraq, there was the Osirak attack.
So, it seems to me that Chomsky's using the verb 'to set off' is not entirely unreasonable. Particularly, when he is making a point in parenthesis.

A few other points. You find it questionable that Hussein would have Osirak built considering his oil reserves. Okay. But neither of us are experts on nuclear engineering and if I read that the reactor was specifically built so that it could not produce plutonium I feel sort of compelled to think building Osirak is not evidence of evil intent. Particularly when oil is so useful in the international market place and when a regime might want to maximize its foreign earnings or even its leverage in the market. Or maybe I'm missing your point here.

I also think Hussein probabely always dreamed of having nukes. But the question may well be, when did he decide to seriously pursue them as something more than a cautiously pursued longterm goal? And, again, if I read that Iraqi scientists say Osirak was the key moment, I'm not sure I immediately see a reason for doubt.