Chomsky says "If you look back at the record, what was the main reason for the U.S. attack on Vietnam? Independent development can be a virus that can infect others. That's the way it's been put, Kissinger in this case, referring to Allende in Chile. And with Cuba it's explicit in the internal record." He is actually arguing that the Vietnam War was fought because the United States is opposed to independent countries going their own way? Amazing that a guy as old as Chomsky can no longer remember that balance of power politics between the US and USSR was the determining factor for regional conflicts the world over. Whether you see the Vietnam War as a huge gaff or a noble cause, you have to see that the US motivation there was to counter a perceived power shift that threatened Southeast Asia, not stifle a country's independent aspirations.

I stopped reading when he got to defending Hugo Chavez as a man moving Venezuela toward independence. Hugo Chavez has repealed most of Venezuela's democratic structures and traditions, taken control of the press in that country, and established himself as a dictator in the mold of Fidel Castro. Not my idea of progress.

I don't totally disagree with everything that Chomsky states,(I agree that the progress with Korea is primarily the Bush Administration clutching at straws for any kind of foreign affairs progress) but I certainly find his arguments less than persuasive.