After reconsidering Chomsky’s arguments and the historical record, one observation becomes clear: ideology plays a role, but national interests, geographic position, the attitude of neighbors, internal dynamics of society, and economic considerations ultimately shape political models and foreign policy roadmaps
By Noor Muhammad Marri, Advocate | Islamabad
Reading Deterring Democracy opens a different doorway into Cold War history. Instead of presenting the era as a simple clash of superpowers, Chomsky reveals how much of the conflict rested on constructed narratives and an ideological frame that shaped global interpretation. This makes the Cold War appear less like an organic historical development and more like a deliberately crafted outlook through which powerful states justified particular interventions. The ideological lens often overshadowed deeper motives.
The Cold War as an ideological construct becomes clear in Chomsky’s treatment. Democracy and freedom were projected as guiding principles, but they frequently served as political instruments. Terms such as “containment,” “free world,” and “Soviet threat” became universal explanations, even when local realities did not align with them. This ideological vocabulary functioned almost like a global architecture: once accepted, it shaped how events were read, regardless of the complexities beneath.
Yet, when approached as a historical process, the Cold War reveals a far more intricate shape. Actual events—alliances, conflicts, national movements, strategic calculations—rarely followed the ideological map. Instead, they reflected long-standing concerns of statecraft: securing regions, controlling resources, ensuring political loyalty, and protecting economic interests. The ideological dimension existed, but the historical processes behind policy were driven by older and more durable motivations.
The Western portrayal of the Bolsheviks illustrates this tension. Even before Soviet policies stabilized, the revolutionary government was cast as a fixed adversary. Moderates who sought more gradual paths were almost completely overshadowed. The ideological narrative needed a clear opponent, and the Bolsheviks supplied that role. Once the image was crystallized, it became central to subsequent Cold War thinking.
The shift in Soviet–Western relations before and after the Second World War also reflects this pattern. Before the war, the Soviet Union was treated with distance and suspicion. After the war, with the United States emerging as a global hegemon, the Soviet Union was repositioned as the indispensable counterpart around which American global strategy could organize itself. This was not just a strategic shift; it also served the psychological need of a rising power to frame its actions in moral terms.
Postwar American policy, as presented by Chomsky, rested on two simultaneous claims: promoting democracy and containing communism. In practice, strategic concerns frequently outweighed democratic principles. In regions such as Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, elected governments were often undermined if their policies conflicted with American security or economic aims. The contradiction between proclaimed ideals and actual practices is one of the strongest threads running through Deterring Democracy.
As the Cold War expanded across the newly decolonized world, ideological categories became more elastic. Anti-colonial struggles and national liberation movements—many of them shaped by local histories rather than Marxist ideology—were routinely interpreted as communist extensions. The ideological frame allowed Western powers to justify intervention, even when local realities contradicted the narrative. Thus ideology broadened while retaining its original function: providing a global justification for strategic decisions.
Economic considerations are a crucial part of this picture. Chomsky repeatedly shows how global capitalism required stable environments, compliant governments, and predictable markets. Many Cold War interventions were rooted not in ideological confrontation but in the protection of economic interests. Resource-rich regions or states with independent economic policies often faced pressure or destabilization. The rhetoric of democracy softened the harder edges of these actions, but did not alter their underlying purpose.
Internal dynamics of societies also shaped the Cold War. The United States responded to pressures from security institutions, corporate interests, electoral moods, and media narratives; the Soviet Union operated under bureaucratic rigidity, political paranoia, and the fear of internal dissent. Both superpowers were influenced as much by their domestic constraints as by each other’s actions. This dimension often disappears in simplified Cold War explanations but remains essential for understanding the deeper forces at work.
At this point, however, I find myself differing slightly from Chomsky’s assertion that the Cold War was almost entirely shrouded in ideology. Ideology mattered, but it did not operate in isolation. National interests, geographic compulsions, economic strategies, internal social dynamics, and relations with neighboring states also shaped the nature of global relationships. In many crucial moments, these non-ideological factors carried equal or greater weight than the ideological framework used to explain them. The Cold War, therefore, cannot be reduced solely to ideological theatre; it was shaped by permanent realities of power and geography as much as by political myths.
Connecting all these threads, one sees a recurring gap between Cold War rhetoric and Cold War practice. The era promised a world divided between democracy and authoritarianism, but the actual conduct of states reflected a mix of self-interest, strategic calculation, and regional pressures. Many smaller nations, caught in between, discovered that their political choices were tolerated only when they aligned with the priorities of one bloc or the other. Ideology gave the conflict its vocabulary, but geography, economics, and domestic politics supplied its direction.
After reconsidering Chomsky’s arguments and the historical record, one observation becomes clear: ideology plays a role, but national interests, geographic position, the attitude of neighbors, internal dynamics of society, and economic considerations ultimately shape political models and foreign policy roadmaps. The Cold War, once stripped of its rhetorical layers, illustrates this enduring truth.
_______________________
Noor Muhammad Marri is an Advocate & Mediator, based in Islamabad.
