This is the first time I have felt compelled to write a review. Perhaps I need to read earlier books, but Failed States seems extremely biased, lacking focus, incoherent, and having a weak structure. I don't necessarily disagree with the conclusions in it, but I find the presentation of his ideas inadequate toward convincing a non-biased audience.

The book throws facts, figures, and data at you at an impressive rate, but doesn't try to build that information into a convincing whole. The authors obvious familiarity with the topics matters little when an unbiased reader is confused by his casual references and statements of fact with minimal support. Information without structure and context is very suspect. In particular, his claims of what the American people really want seemed to be casually talked about.

Even so I enjoyed reading criticism of American foreign policy. Concerning that criticism, the author doesn't offer a foil by comparing it to those Failed States that the US is being compared to. Nor, despite the authors claims to the contrary, does he really offer much advice upon specific changes. I believe he thinks changes needed are evident by what he chooses to attack. They weren't obvious to me besides "Stop doing the horrible things I am telling you about." That isn't telling anyone what they should be doing instead.

I'm a bit curious if the authors believes he is influencing open-minded people with the book. Obvious bias weakens credability. I am forced to hazard the guess that this is simply written for those who already agree with his stances.

Noam Chomsky writes about the first 9/11 which took place on Tuesday September 11th 1973 in Chile when the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by the military forces of Augusto Pinochet. The coup had full backing of he US government and an estimated 3200 people where killed(although figures are believed to be twice as high) and over 30000 people tortured. The government of Pinochet started collaborating with other right wing dictatorships in the South american region creating an international state terrorist program called "Operation Condor". This program "killed and tortured mercilessly in the region and branched out to terrorist operations in Europe and the United States".

Pinochet was greatly honored by both Ronald Reagan and Thatcher. But worse terror was to come in both Argentina and the central American region by "the current incumbents in Washington and their immediate mentors". It was really the American fear of the independent nationalism of Chile that sparked this coup. The fear was based on the fact that Chile might become a "conttagious example", as Henry Kissinger called it, for other nations to follow. Therefore Americas obssession with Cubas successfull "defiance of the master" or even with Irans defiance with their overthrowing of the Shah in 1979. This was the real reason for the US intervention in Vietnam as well, because the country could become a "virus infecting others" (notably resource rich Indonesia). This could eventually destabalize the entire region putting the resource interests of US corporations and the British at risk . In other words, it was necessary to "justify destruction of parliamentary regimes and imposition of murderous dictatorships throughout much of the world in order to guarantee stability and control of vital resources". The virus had to be destroyed.

Public fear would have it that the domino theory would be put into effect. Ho Chi Min would conquer South East Asia, and the successfull rebellion in Nicaragua would create many similar states in central America spreading the communist scourge all over the world. Therefore it was important to sell the idea that you where fighting the Soviets, when in fact it was democracies pursuing national interests that where being crushed to ensure the safeguarding of access to resources. The Soviets have now been replaced by narco trafficers, Al-qaeda or just terrorists in general. These have all become legitimate excuses for interventions and "democracy promotion", the latest example of course being Iraq. As the pipe dream of weapons of mass destruction became apparent, the high flying ideal of democracy promotion was put forward by the Bush II administration. This would surley lead to a democratization of the whole region. The truth is that it has had quite the contraty effect, actually it has promoted the spread of terrorism in the region. This was now turned into an "idealistic war" based on Americas "messianic mission" to bring democracy to the middle east.

Britain created modern day Iraq to ensure control over its oil resources after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after world war 1. The Iraqi wealth remained in the hands of a few wealthy landowners, sheiks and of course the British. Their colonial rule and its brutally repressive society lasted up until 1958 when Abdul Karim Kasim overthrew the British colonial rulers. Both the British and the Americans reacted immediatley fearing the Qasims actions would spread like a virus among other Arab states in the region. It had to be stopped and president Eisenhower went as far as to say that Qasim was trying to "get control of the middle east oil to get the income and the power to destroy the western world". Of course this virus had to be stopped and in 1963 the CIA under the Kennedy administration organized a regime change in Iraq, in collaboration with a young Saddam Hussein and the Baath party. The CIA provided the Baath party with lists of suspected Communists and leftists and the slaughter began. National security council staffer Roger Morris writes about this time saying "The Baathists systematically murdered untold numbers of Iraqs educated elite" including "hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures."

Americas actions during the Reagan administration in El Salvador during the 1980s became a model for Iraq. Here the administration saw to it that "technically credible elections" where held but that the Christian democratic candidate won. The administration "could not concieve of an El Salvador in which the military was not the dominant actor, the economic elite no longer held the national economy in its hand" ..."the US government had no real conception of democracy in El Salvador." As the "democracy promotion" commenced in El Salvador the state sponsored terror expanded within the country, all the while supported by Washington. The opposition was slaughtered in the 10s of thousands, the independent press was completley destroyed, and torture, rape and other atrocities where rampantly commited by government sanctioned death squads. In the words of the (surviving) jesuit priests of the country "alternatives that differ from those of the powerfull" didnt stand a chance.

John Negroponte is serving in the current Bush administration in charge of counterterrorism. He worked as ambassador to Honduras during the 1980s. Here he was also in charge of, at the time, the worlds largest CIA station. Negroponte "was essentially managerially in charge of the Contra war in an extraordinary way for a diplomat". Negroponte denied the atrocitiés being commited in Honduras so as to assure that the military aid kept flowing to the international terrorist operations he was running. He was closely associated with General Alvarez who was the chief of the Honduran armed forces, Negroponte praised his "dedication to democracy", the infamous Honduran batallion 3-16 was one of the most brutal and vicious groups of Latin American killers and they where on the CIA payroll.

America has overthrown many democratically elected governments and installed brutal military dictatorships in their place. Some examples include: Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Brazil and a long list of others. All in the name of "democracy promotion". But instead of promoting democracy, democracy has been subverted. Client states have instead been created, designed to serve the privledged elites and creating "favorable interests for her(Americas) private overseas investment". Communism was often used as a cover term for the threat of independant development. So infact the "virus" that has been repeatedly destroyed has been popular democracy.

Noam Chomsky describes two diagramtically opposed faces of his own country; one relating to what its government does and another relating to what his fellow citizens know. In between there is a compliant press that is not good at being impartial. The government of the USA seems to be an oligarchy that leans to the far right and less far right alternately, and the press seems to be its propaganda machine. I am not a communist, not even a socialist. I merely belive in an intrinsic dignity of humanity that needs to be more assertive. While he may not have all the answers, Noam Chomsky helps us ask more questions.

When he stuck-to books on Transformational grammar,the Noamster was an interesting academic.[Providing insight into so-called Language Acquisition Mechanism...triggered in children in all languages by exposure to mother's "baby talk"and her function as LANGUAGE LOGOS...and a complementary READING Acquisition Mechanism(which is not-quite-as "automatic"(cf~Frank Smith UNDERSTANDING READING~A Psycholinguistic Analysis of Reading & Learning to Read)and can be(has been)driven into latency by too much of the Plug-in Drug(TV)and Digital stupor(Computer gazing & BATMAN violent/mindless video games;cf~The DUMBEST GENERATION by Professor Mark Bauerlein]...

As political commentator,however,Chomsky has consistently manifested himself as intolerant,intellectual inbred(disagree with NC at MIT seminar and you'll fail the class,or be thrown-out). His appeal is to relics of Marcuse-GrouchoMarxist/epoch who take their spoiled,privileged lives in the USA for granted like petulant brats they have" become like that which they behold & are beholden to." Chomsky's pol-raving is often unreadable dreck, popularized by Heideggerians and PM claque. If you want to read what you "think" you're reading in Chomsky,start with Czeslaw Milosz's THE CAPTIVE MIND. The United States is the most successful experiment in Res populi in world history. If you don't concede this,you need to visit a Worker's Paradise.(Second:read DARKNESS AT NOON by Koestler before you go~~it may keep you from getting shot by those you fawningly worship from safety of this wonderful nation.Or read some--now defunct--USSR history. Here's your murderous KGB/OGPU-power abusing FAILED STATE)...

Ever since learning about Ron Paul last January, my interest in politics, especially those of the libertarian position, have increased approximately 800%. I considered myself a libertarian a good year before learning about him and his campaign but once I got into his message and delved deeper into the foreign policies of the likes of McCain, Obama, Hillary, and past figures such as Reagan and Bill Clinton, I was revolutionized and cured of any and all political apathy I had. Of course my libertarian views don't just rest on foreign policy, but it is a large part of my concern.

So though I generally do not agree with Noam Chomsky on economics and private property, I understand where he's coming from and I know he means well; I generally agree with the rest of his views, including his foreign policy views which are similar to Ron Paul inasmuch as he views the United States' arrogance with nation-building and intervention as a key problem in the world today. This is actually the first Chomsky book I have read and will not be the last. Presented almost in the manner of an extended thesis paper (quotes and citations are in the thousands in this book), it makes for a stimulated if occasionally dry read as Chomsky begins by dissecting America's interventionist "democracy promoting" policies in Iraq, Vietnam, and elsewhere as well as our supreme hypocrisy with propping up brutal regimes in places such as Indochina and elsewhere. He mentions that as conflicts such as the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia raged, brutal dictators elsewhere were left unscathed, as our economic and resource interests lay abound with the support of many of these brutal regime. Chomsky proves in a very academic sense how few (and possibly none) of our foreign policy intrusions since Woodrow Wilson (and dating back to John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson) have been for much more than empire-building, resource claiming, and the removal and/or propping-up of dictators who are against our interests (in the former's case) and who will be an aid to our interests (in the latter).

Though I found Chomsky to be somewhat of a dry writer (like I said, the book assumes you have a vast knowledge of American foreign policy history past and present), he is brilliant. When I say dry I mean that it is very clinical and not written in a way that might grab the average reader, but for readers like myself with an attention span and an interest in the subject it is a blast to read. I found myself marking pages and highlighting a lot so I could go back and do further research upon completion.

In short, this is an excellent read for anyone curious about America's disastrous and insanely hypocritical and arrogant policies towards our fellow nations. Neocon republicans (and some Democrats who worship the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama) will be brought to rage by its brutal honesty, but in the end will not be able to intelligently refute any of it. Highly recommended.

Any seasoned Chomsky fan will find much to chew on in this book. Same strident tone, dry humour, deft wit, and outrageous sarcasm as always. Failed States applies the the paradigm that US policy wonks have created for assessing our official enemies and applies it to ourselves. As Chomsky says, "it is a moral truism that we apply to ourselves the standards we apply to others." Not surprisingly, Chomsky finds that the US is a failed state with a democratic deficit and a notorious habit of illegal interventions.

This book is reminiscent of Rogue States, where Chomsky used the then de rigour foreign policy parlance and, once again, found that the US would qualify as the worlds largest and most powerful rogue state.


The book contains tremendous overlap with other books Chomsky has written. It also is maddeningly written in a non-chronological, course, repetitive manner. This is par the course for Chomsky books. Does this mean I think the book to be worthless? On the contrary, my whole political education is little more than a series of footnotes to Chomsky books. The rewards of reading Chomsky's work are stupendous. I am simply warning the reader to be open minded, intrepid, and pedantic when reading Chomsky. It is not always easy.

Topics covered include:

Iran
Iraq
Middle East
Katrina
Science being attacked

If you are a fan of Noam Chomsky and familiar with his views, ideas and past writings, then there is nothing new to be found in this book. While the title provides a background theme, it's barely connected in a cohesive way to its content. But then again, that's most of Chomsky's books.

Of course if you are not familiar with Chomsky's work of the past, including his views, then this will be a new material, unfortunately lacking in depth. Hence, most new readers are unlikely to be convinced by this latest polemic.

Chomsky dedicates most of the book going through his regular mantra, from Vietnam War, US terrorism against Cuba under Kennedy, Reagan's war on terror in Central America, Bush's and Clinton's subversion of Haiti, Persian Gulf War, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, current Iraq War and the possibility of Iran War. That's of course nothing new given nearly identical sentiments expressed in all of his previous works, including "Hegemony or Survival". What's perhaps slightly original is what he discusses towards the end of the book: America's democracy. He makes a rather brief but convincing case that our democracy is in danger, much as it has been in the past, but with renewed intensity, particularly beginning during the 2000 elections. He discusses the marketing of candidates (which he properly compares to marketing of toothpaste, cars, etc.), public policy vs. public opinion, where there is a major gap, and provides some basic statistics about the falling wages, rising corporate profits and etc.

What's perhaps most unique about this work is the added sense of sharp, sarcastic humor one would expect of a top notch political humorist (Bill Maher, John Stewart come to mind), which provides an amusing side to a book which is supposed to be sad. Sometimes this humor is even hard to follow and detect, but once one accustoms to finding it, it results in an almost outright laughter, not to mention that it arms the reader with a plethora of quotes he/she can use in the future.

Overall, it's a good read to refresh one's memories of America's atrocious foreign policy, which is sad. On the contrary, it's a fun read due to Chomsky's hidden but witty humor. However, don't expect anything new, deep or analytical. This is neither a historical nor a scholarly work.

so, i'm writing a review of a book by noam chomsky? presumptuous of me ... well, failed states summarizes chomsky's beliefs regarding failures of our democracy, mostly international but a few domestic failings as well. one gets the distinct feeling that he writes not just with facts at his fingertips, but with great passion about the topic. while he presents a strongly cynical perspective of our political system, it seems that chomsky holds great respect for the original principles of democracy espoused in the constitution. i did not find one grammatical or typographical error. i found one logical error in which he incorrectly made a conclusion based on incorrect statistical methodology. overall, this is another brilliant work by one of the true geniuses in this area. i hope that more people read this work and are driven to assume democratic action. we'll see ... at any rate, this book is worth twice the "new" price, at least. excellent resource and excellent motivational book.

By any modern definition of a "failed state" we are it. That's the take-away message from Chomsky's clear-eyed look at turn-of-the-21st Century America. If you don't read Chomsky the chances are good that you don't understand politics in this country or the world. It isn't necessary to agree with him to come away profoundly stirred by his incisive analysis. And if he's right, we're in very deep trouble.

I read this book when it was first released, almost two years ago, and I have seen nothing on the national or international level to make me think that Chomsky is even a little bit wrong.

We're in very deep trouble. But at least, through thinkers like this author, we can gain some insight about why the dream failed.

As a young girl and friend of mine who read all Chomsky's works said about Failed States: "I listened to Rush in my childhood and the song "Manhattan Project" tells us all you need to know about the topic in a much more funny, talented and concise way". She doesn't like reading, but she loves Chomsky's works, even though she's the most critical admirer of him that I know of. She doesn't belong in the anti-chomsky league, so I decided to take her argument seriously.

I guess she's right in one aspect: Rush's song addresses the gist of the book which is basically the threat to our species and the world we live in. But she's wrong, fundamentally wrong in all others: Chomsky doesn't claim to be breaking any new ground. In fact, he starts off by quoting Einstein and Russell's joint statement about the very same issue. Furthermore, he points out which are the threats to the world and our species in the context of the current international picture, hardly a pretty one.

His main concerns are:

* The effort by the present U.S administration to escalate their nuclear program in violation of the NPT and in a clear attempt to blur the distinction between "conventional" and "non-conventional" weaponry.

* The failure by the U.S government to comply with international law. His argument is more nuanced here: it's dangerous for the U.S not to comply with international law because it is a tremendously powerful state whose violations thereof might yield dreadful consequences.

* The dreadful consequences of U.S foreign policy for a whole range of countries - from Nicaragua and El-Salvador in Latin America to Iraq.

* The huge harm done to Iraq all through the sanctions period is enough to disqualify the Western Powers of doing any kind of intervention in the region. I guess his argument is unassaiable here: when the very people appointed to carry out the program resign in face of its disastrous impact on the Iraq society, I think the West, and not only the U.S, have a lot of soul-searching to do.

* As strange as it may seem to the reader, the war on Iraq is actually not the focus of the book. He just points out to Augustus Richard Norton authorative accounts of the invasion to demonstrate not only that the strategy, but the very goals of the war were flawed and unjustifiable legally or morally: people were lied into supporting a war and I guess that's not controversial anymore.

* I have some reservations about the final chapters on the relations between Iran, China, Cuba and Venezuela. I don't know if that's a hope, as Chomsky appears to present it, or a real threat, especially to Latin American countries: both Cuba and Venezuela are presided over by a very particular kind of leadership which is specific to Latin America in some aspects. It's a kind of leadership which emerged from the military and fought against U.S interests in Latin America in a confrontational, violent way, which was understandable at the time, but it doesn't fit the needs of our region now. These needs are primarily the consolidation of democratic institutions and a more liberal - in the 18th sense - democratic culture as the region already experienced ditactorial regimes in the recent years and many people expect a new kind of approach to politics that in a certain way is already an old approach in history. Chávez' attempt at coup d'etat and the very substance of the Constitutional reforms he proposed throw a shadow over his democratic credentials. "Socialismo moreno", as it is known in Latin America: it's the same old authoritarian kind of rule but whose legitimacy rests on the declaration of sincere, good intentions regarding poor and needy people and is often attended by some limited social programs to give some substance to the official statements. Things tend to go astray because a powerful ruling party and its leader begin to feel confident enough to wield power in such a way as to dispense with what people really want or need: people lose a legitimate and meaningful way of expressing their concerns and needs.

* As to Iran, I'm skeptical. The country is so far away from anything I'd call "democracy" that it's hard to see any benefit emerging from its alliance with other authoritatian governments.

* Chomsky is right that it'd be probably a good thing for the U.S and the world if the U.S began to put some restraints on the extent to which it wants to wield its power. People see the U.S as a threat and, what's worse for the U.S, I guess American citizens themselves are beginning to feel this threat.

* A huge chunk of the book is given over to the Israel-Palestine conflict and there's a helpful map to understand what's going on in the region. Chomsky's basic argument, and my friend says it's been his argument for decades, is that Israel should follow the international consensus and completely withdraw its troops and, if feasible, its settlements from the West Bank; that it should abide by the World Court decision regardless of its jurisdiction over Israel because it just reflects what's already embodied in international law. The wall, of course, should be dismantled. He claims that Palestine was divided basically into three enclaves cut off from each other and from the center of Muslim cultural and social life: Jerusalem.

* There are no critics either of Hamas or Hizbollah. He's only concerned about Israel's policy over the region because it is the occupying power, in his view, and supported by the U.S.

* He quotes Sarah Roy to the effect that Gaza is being torn apart by the Israeli policies and that the withdrawal of the settlements resulted in a siege of the region which is leading its population to the brink of extermination: hunger, disease, violence and the destruction of the region's infra-structure and possibilites of economic development are likelly to inflict much more harm that's already been done to the people in Gaza, he argues.

* Chomsky is worried about the programs to militarize the space, and hence the increasing threat of a major war or a dreadful preemptive attack carried out in a matter of minutes. This military power would also serve as a deterrent apt to allow the U.S to carry on its destructive foreign policy, he argues.

* Chomsky also talks about environmental threats and an eventual interruption of the thermohaline circulation.

It's basically a good book and a very thoughtful introduction to international politics in today's world. My main critiques are over the signs of hope detected by Chomsky and which I regard as threats, major threats, and not sings of hope, for peace and democracy.

A true American is a Caucasian or African-American Christian that loves his country. That's all there is to it.

America was discovered by Caucasian Christians and settled as a land where they could practice Protestantism freely. The Catholic church had grown corrupt and was persecuting other Christians for not following their newly-proclaimed dogma.

Americans soon found they had neighbors whom they mistakenly yclept Indians, whom they shared the truth of Christ with. The two got along well, but began to make deals with each other and change their minds afterward which led them to get into squabbles. America generously agreed to give certain portions of America to the Indians and they happily accepted.

Over in Africa, the Arabs were capturing African-Americans and enslaving them. America took up a collection and bought all the slaves from the Arab invaders, with the agreement that the African-Americans work for them to pay off the debt. The African-Americans kindly accepted. The Americans then shared the truth of Christ with their new African-American friends.

The World saw how free and happy America was and sought to destroy it. Britain, an evil empire that encompassed half the world decided to invade. Even though America was greatly out-numbered, God gave her the power to fight off the evil invaders and keep America the bastion of freedom it was.

When England was in rubble, the Americans got together and wrote down how their government worked so their descendants would never forget how it was done. They called it the Constitution. It said that Americans would be free to say anything they wanted, and practice any form of Christianity they wanted. They were kind enough to forgive the Catholic church for what it did and allowed people to be Catholic if they wanted as well. As well as a myriad of other wonderful things, it also stated that Americans' should be allowed to carry firearms.

Even though they would have been kicked out of the original America, there has arisen a new "false-American" that wants to destroy the country that has given him everything. They call themselves liberals, or sometimes progressives. They want to expand the Indians' territory to cover most if not all of America's territory, and they tell the African-Americans lies about how they were slaves. They burn American flags and claim the first Americans were devil worshippers. They also want to destroy the constitution because it gives people the freedom of religion and the right to bear firearms.

Yes, there is such as thing as true Americans, and unfortunately false Americans as well. The difference is obvious: one loves his country and wants to keep it like the original Americans had it, the other hates it and wants to destroy it.

This is my first Chomsky book. It is quite clear he is an academic and able to say the same thing in different ways (at least through out the first half of the book) but the context is nevertheless good and important- as a nation, we are "bullies" and it is ok for us to break laws but not for everyone else. He gives specific examples like treaties that have been violated and UN resolutions that we vetoed and violated too in order to protect and pursue our national security interests. And given the new generation of politicians- neoliberals and neoconservatives- it is nothing new when it comes to the Iraq War- It's all in the name of national security. We really don't care about democracy in the Middle East only that our thirst for oil is met.

The second part of the the book he clarifies the context and the meaning of the failed states. He delineates several examples after World War II in which we meddled into foreign country affairs and created "failed states"- from countries in Central America, South America, and the Middle East. Now because of our corrupt, immoral, and greedy influence, we are now more than ever looking like a failed state.

I thought he made several very good points but it was nothing new to me given that I have already read various books relating to U.S. foreign policy already. The only criticism I had was that it seemed redundant at times. Overall though, very good and recommended.

This is my first Chompsky book. It is quite clear he is an academic and to say the same thing in different ways through out the first half of the book but the context is nevertheless good and important- as a nation, we are "bullies" and it is ok for us to break laws but not for everyone else. He gives specific examples like treaties that have been violated and UN resolutions that we vetoed and violated too in order to protect and pursue our national security interests. And given the new generation of politicians- neoliberals and neoconservatives- it is nothing knew when it comes to the Iraq War- It's all in the name of national security. We really don't care about democracy in the Middle East only that our thirst for oil is met.

The second part of the the book he clarifies the context and the meaning of the failed states. He delineates several examples after World War II in which we meddled into foreign country affairs and created "failed states"- from countries in Centeral America, South America, and the Middle East. Now because of our corrupt, immoral, and greedy influence, we are now more than ever looking like a failed state.

I thought he made several very good points but it was nothing new to me given that I have already read various books relating to U.S. foreign policy already. The only criticism I had was that it seemed redundant at times. Overall though, very good and recommended.

This is my first Chompsky book. It is quite clear he is an academic and to say the same thing in different ways through out the first half of the book but the context is nevertheless good and important- as a nation, we are "bullies" and it is ok for us to break laws but not for everyone else. He gives specific examples like treaties that have been violated and UN resolutions that we vetoed and as well violated too in order to protect and pursue our national security interests. And given the new generation of politicians- neoliberals and neoconservatives- it is nothing knew when it comes to the Iraq War. We really don't care about democracy in the Middle East only that our thirst for oil is met.

The second part of the the book he clarifies the context and the meaning of the failed states. He delineates several examples after World War II in which we meddled into their affairs and created a "failed state"- from countries in Centeral America, South America, and the Middle East. Now because of our corrupt, immoral, and greedy influence, we are now more than ever looking like a failed state.

I thought he made several very good points but it was nothing knew to me given that I have already read various books relating to U.S. foreign policy already. The only criticism I had was that it seemed redundant at times. Overall though, very good and recommended.

Mr. Chompsky never fails me. Whenever I want to read something that makes me dislike America, I can count on Noam. His failure to be honest in this book is apparent from about page 5 onward. His positive reviews are pretty much canned and produced by the Jim Jones style followers he courts on college campuses. I give this book only 2 stars. One star because he uses a few big words and another star because in actually writing a book and marketing it, he is contributing to capitalism. Other than that, his rhetoric is tedious.

THIS WELL-RESPECTED AUTHOR HAS DONE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A GREAT FAVOR WITH THIS EASILY READ, WELL DOCUMENTED BOOK. TO ADMIT THAT WE, AS AMERICANS, HAVE INDULGED IN AND ALLOWED SUCH ABUSES OF POWER IS HUMILIATING. BUT WITH THIS AWARENESS, THERE IS HOPE WE CAN CHANGE COURSE AND MOVE AWAY FROM BEING A "FAILED STATE."

Well researched, well thought out. Another fine book. I will use it with my history students.

Reading Chomsky is like being sprayed in the face with a garden hose. Just as there is no question that you are now soaking wet, there is no question about what our country has become. Noam Chomsky is an excellent author who manages to get his point across with a good dose of truth and factual evidence. There is no denying what he says and it makes you fear the path our nation's leaders have chosen despite the wishes of the citizens. The author demonstrates a real need for change and gives you ideas on how to effect those changes. A quick read loaded with fact and not all that preachy. A good book to be sure.

What is a failed state? A failed state, according to the MIT linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky, is a state that doesn't protect its citizens. A rogue or outlaw state flaunts the core principles of international law and places itself above and beyond those laws; it plays by a double standard and changes the rules of the game when that serves its own interests. And how should we describe a country's leader who orders a massive bombing campaign with the chilling words, "anything that flies on anything that moves?" That, says Chomsky, is a "monstrous war crime" and "virtual genocide," even if the directive did come from Richard Nixon to Henry Kissinger. And so as he has said in many other places, in this book Chomsky argues that America is the worst failed, rogue, and terrorist state.

Chomsky is openly subversive, unapologetically strident, and unnecessarily sarcastic. Don't expect any nuance here. He gives scant attention to the responsibilities of other state actors that fail to provide much at all for their citizens, or to jihadists who behead people. He ignores the genuinely good and good faith aspects of American policy, however occasional and compromised. In his view virtually all public discourse is little more than a propaganda charade. His long, dense, heavily-quoted paragraphs make the reader work hard.

Still, reading this book might make you a better citizen. It's sobering to read a 300-page jeremiad that details our flagrant disregard for the International Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions, the latter of which our Attorney General wanted to rescind as "quaint," our insistence that we alone have the right to nuclear proliferation because our motives are noble, prisoner torture that by normal standards constitutes crimes against humanity, overwhelming military force whose main purpose is uninhibited economic exploitation any and everywhere in the world, monster tyrants we have supported and vulnerable states we've ignored, democracies we have overthrown, the weaponization of space, and rationalizing it all a sanctimonious civic rhetoric. It's bizarre that we exempt ourselves from principles of universality and then wonder why other nations resent us, or why they might choose to act like we do (eg, in "anticipatory self-defense" against us). Extreme, yes, but not partisan. Chomsky is critical of the entire system and not just Bush. And those who question his conclusions can wade through his 500 footnotes that document his claims. There's one glimmer of hope here; Chomsky argues that there exists a deep divide between the public opinions of normal citizens and the public policies of America's rogue state.

At nearly 80 years old, Chomsky is still writing carefully argued, heavily documented analyses of American foreign and domestic policy, offering a detailed but not complicated framework for understanding an enormous range of policies at home and abroad. He has lost neither his intellectual powers nor scathing irony, exposing doctrinal illusions, hypocrisies and extensive atrocities of what he has called the greatest country on earth. Neither his premise nor conclusion is that America is evil, as anyone who took the trouble to read the book would know, especially if by 'America' we do not restrict ourselves to the concentrations of state and economic power, but include the public at large.

As he has said in the recent past, America is the greatest country on earth, and its leaders have been committing and continue to commit atrocities and crimes that they should stop. What those crimes and atrocities are, why they are committed, and why they should stop are all detailed in this devastating criticism of state and business-sponsored doctrinal illusions supported by a complicit corporate-owned media. No evil people, just powerful entities doing what they always have: America is no exception, and is in fact less vicious than some others and than it has been in the past, due mainly to popular civilizing forces, especially in the 1960s.

This book, combined with Manufacturing Consent (or a more recent media studies analysis of corporate media) will give you the tools to understand both the point of much foreign and domestic policy (notwithstanding the unquestioned assertions of our Dear Leaders) and why you haven't heard about it in the news.

People in other countries have access to this kind of information about our country that is systematically kept from us. Reading it should at a bare minimum help to understand why the U.S. is now widely considered the single greatest threat to world peace. Whether you end up agreeing or not, that alone is worth the investment.

This first part is not a review of the book, but more a diatribe over something that bothers me about some of the reviews I have read on Amazon. I will give a brief review of my own afterwards.

I have read so many one and two star reviews of Chomsky's works that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual book being reviewed that it begs the question of whether or not the reviewer even read the book. Here is an example of this taken from a review by Mark bennet for this book, "[Chomsky] takes almost 700 pages to say close to nothing of use." Now, for me 320 pages do not qualify as "almost 700 pages". Seems like the kind of mistake made by someone unfamiliar with the actual work.

Another reads, "Chomsky and his ilk lick at the midsection of any machete wielding psycho with sufficient anti-American credentials." Wow, a very scathing dissection of the themes and conclusions of Chomsky's works from this reviewer. How could Chomsky write again after being discredited to this extent?

I could go and write reviews for books I have not read by Ann Coulter's or Sean Hannity's books that would even be more cogent than this slander, but I don't because that is intellectually dishonest. If I am going to review a book I will make sure to read it first. It's only common courtesy that every book reviewed should be read first, and I hope this practice becomes more common.

I apologize if I have simply wasted space here. Now for some brief thoughts of my own about this book.

I was skeptical coming into this book, but found the themes to be enlightening if not a little disconcerting. The fact that this country's policies are directed for the benefit of an exclusive elite while the rest of the masses are forced to bear the brunt of this policy is proven by the increasing numbers of Americans falling below the poverty line. Government domestic and foreign policy is directed at maintaining American hegemony abroad while maintaining the status quo here at home. The U.S spends millions of dollars abroad every year in an attempt to influence the elections of other nations; while here in the U.S. 30 million people do not have health coverage, millions of children are malnourished and American's wages have remained stagnate.

After reading this book I went back and checked out several sources and have read several of the books cited by Chomsky, and I have yet to find any discrepancies between how they are used in Chomsky's work and the original context. This is where any attack should be directed against Chomsky either the scholarship or the conclusions. The personal attacks that fill the reviews here on Amazon are the work of simple minds, but then again it's hard to mount a coherent attack on the scholarship of a book when you have failed to even read it.

Chomsky gives an insightful view of America's past, present and future. This book should be required reading for every American who wants to take back control of our government from the present administration. If we do not learn from history we will relive it.

We all take for granted that politicians are untrustworthy and corrupt. And as I enter my mid thirties, I noticed it has been getting worse.
Why do democratic governments give vast sums of money to already profitable industries when some of their citizens are homeless and hungry. This prompted me to find out more. And this book explains it very well. Now I can see, that without any one person clearly having evil intentions, the combination of objectives, philosophies, self-interest, influence and funding have driven America down a morally sickening path against the will of it's people.

My wife is studying law in Australia, and I found it alarming to learn from her that Australia's lack of a bill of rights makes us one of the least democratic democracies in the world. Out of all Western Democracies it is currently the closest match to the US. It is no coincidence that our government has been implicated in a corruption scandal in Iraq, laws have been introduced to keep the majority of Government information secret from its people, and the press recently launched an attack on the government when Australia was found to have the third worst freedoms of speech of any democracy.
This book explains so well the mechanisms at work in our society that lead to this outcome.
Excellent Book.
P.S. It was interesting to read the sections about Paul Wolfrowitz - written before the scandal broke, and very accurate about his true character.

arrived timely and in fine condition

Although the material contained in this book makes for tough reading, both for the sheer scope of information and for what it tells us about the "American Empire," it is absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the history and behind-the-scenes shenanigans of our elected rulers.

Depressing at times, but eye-opening in its wealth of detail and for sounding the alarm about what is happening now and how today has been built on yesterday.

Although it is often 'easier' to be ignorant of what is behind many political decisions, this book provides the truth for those who don't fear to learn it.

Mr. Chomsky is a true American Hero.

Hard to read but the book has some good facts and info......

The seller provided the book on time and in perfect condition.

Of course the answer to my rhetorical title is YES, especially if one is in the Bush Administration. Mr. Chomsky - who should be in a high government post - cites a vast amount of material that lays the lie to much of our foreign policy. Just one example and not from current events: Months before Pearl Harbor Mr. Roosevelt's military planners had prepared a detailed design for the firebombing of Japanese cities. The president received the results with his customary gusto. The plan became known to the Japanese; thus the bombing of Pearl Harbor can be seen as a premptive action to save the Japanese Empire from American attacks. The Bushies need to read Noam Chomsky and learn something about foreign affairs. I doubt that they will and I doubt that Mr. Chomsky will be asked to serve in goverment.

While I was reading this book, I remember having to stop a few times, set the book aside, and basically take a break. Not that the book was bad, but because its content is rather heavy and alarming: imminent doom. Reading this book has opened my eyes on many issues that I did not know about, or knew very little.

The problem is that, as it is the same with any political, social or scientific research, the people who ought to read this book probably won't read it, and if they do, they might let their emotion/pride/stubborness blind them, and only read what they want to read... as I've noticed reading some of the reviews on many Chomsky's book.

I'm not saying that I 100% agree with Chomsky. I think that some of his conclusions are sometimes far-fetched, but one cannot deny facts. You can very well not understand or approve of a conclusion, but facts are facts, and should be treated as such.

Now, it's all about being brave enough to face those facts and come to the most logical, thus universal conclusion.

I remember reading somewhere that an effective approach to life requires one to dedicate at least 90 percent of their attention to developing a solution while focusing no more than 10 percent to identifying the problem.

And so while in principle I wholeheartedly agree with Chomsky's analysis of the U.S.'s predatory relationship to the rest of the world,I feel that such analyses often, unwittingly, tend to accent the enormity of the issues to the point of rendering the reader either into a state of inert hopelessness or angry resignation (generally indicated by the serial purchase of other similar analytical tirades). And I write here from self-disclosure. Also, I say this not at all as an indictment of Chomsky's work-- which stands mightily on its own-- but rather as commentary on this phenomena of "civil overwhelment" which works such as his have frequently helped to spawn.

Nevertheless, I urge others to use his works and the passions to justice they may stir, to propel them towards actively participating in the "solutions". If you believe with Chomsky that many of our wars grow out of coercion from the military-industrial comlex,eg if you believe that the Iraq War translates into blood for oil, then take it upon yourself to support "clean elections' and alternative energy projects.

Can you imagine what impact a Manhattan Project for alternative energy would have on world peace processes? Of course the issue then presents itself that perhaps the multi-national energy corporations would prevent(and probably already have)such an undertaking lest they gamble away their financial well-being which includes the well being of their thousands of workers lest we forget.

A couple of years ago I watched Charley Rose interview the CEO of Exxon and, characteristically, not once did the topic arise of retooling for alternative energy. In light of capital pressures this is certainly understandable.The point here is that we need to bring these dormant but clearly relevant issues to the fore of public dialogue and thus allow the consumers,the voters, the politicians, and the CEO's to re-direct their investments as they see fit-- from a stance of knowledge and inclusion.

So, yes, I urge you to read this book... and to use it to galvanize you into constructive action.

The great problem with Noam Chomsky is that politically he stopped thinking around 1973. Every book amounts to repetition of the same old tired script and ideas that he has put out so very many times before. He takes almost 700 pages to say close to nothing of use.

The Chomsky script:

1) America is evil. It was born in evil, its history is full of evil and its the great evil in the world today.

2) If there is a problem in the world, its really an American problem. There is no middle east "problem". The problem is that the middle east sells oil to the world.

3) The solution to nearly all of America's problems is to reduce the standard of living of the majority of Americans. They need to be pushed back into coldwater tenaments and put back to work in the mills. We need laws that will make it 1910 again.

4) He brings out the standard list of "bad" conflicts of the US in the last 60 years. We hear about Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia....etc. And we get the lecture about US business practices that is about 30 years out of date.

5) He drags out the rights and wrongs of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. There is no political insight offered, only complaints about Israeli actions.

6) He says the US is undemocratic. Its undemocratic because the wrong people (in his opinion) are being elected.

Aside from the script, we don't get much else. His critiques of the Iraq war are often based on the stated premises of the neocons in starting the war and the fears of the same people if the war ends.

He misses the rather basic fact that the conflict in Iraq and conflict between Shia and Sunni in the middle east isn't necessarly seen as a bad thing in washington. The US can only justify its permanent armed presence in the middle east if fighting continues. Rather than being against US interests, conflict between a sunni and a shia Iranian block in the middle east exactly fits US strategic requirements. The US has been playing Iran off against the Arab states in the middle east since the 1960s. He doesn't stop for a second and consider that maybe the people who wanted the Iraq war have gotten exactly what they wanted. And that *they* dont consider it to be a failure at all. That maybe winning to them is a war that goes on forever.

I dont understand why Chomsky still has a following or why much of anyone listens to what little he has to say. If he wants to be relivant, he needs to take a couple years off and try to understand the modern world because right now his mind is stuck in the past.

On April 4th, the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an "Easter gift" to the British people. He released the 15 sailors and marines that Iran held on charges of illegally entering Iranian waters. Obviously it was nothing more than a not so clever PR move as Ahmadinejad had gotten as much geopolitical traction from holding the sailors as he could. But, what interested me was the response by the American media. CNN had a large discussion about whether these sailors were held and treated according to the Geneva Convention. It seems in that half hour they covered the Geneva Convention more than when the United States violated the convention at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Enter the United States' resident dissenter, Noam Chomsky. In his work Failed States, Chomsky outlines the use of fear mongering the United States uses to excuse its geopolitical power plays. His thesis is pretty simple: The government and the media are not telling the true story. Both are using scare tactics to press up oil prices and continue American world hegemony. In fact, Chomsky goes as far to declare that the United States is moving toward a failed state as it is again and again ignores the consent of the governed to press geopolitical power politics.

The United States ignores International Law as it sees fit. Hence the fit over whether Iran followed the Geneva Convention, but the US open declaration that it does not have to because our enemies are unlawful combatants. While the United States has a constitutional requirement to follow international law (Art. 1, sec 8), to Chomsky the government is found wanting in this regard.

What moves Chomsky, as well, is the media's less than stellar record reporting to the American public. He lists a great number of polls that the media does not report. To report such polls "just wouldn't do." Most Americans support the Kyoto accords, believe the UN should have handled the post war Iraq and that the US should always follow international law.

The fact that the US does not do these things and that the media does not report them, places the US in a position where it may become a failed state. True or not, the myths of American intervention and political process that Chomsky challenges makes one think. As usual the writing of the book is fantastically written and flows as well as a work of fiction. I would not put this on the must read list, but way up on the second tier of your reading list.

Chomsky observes that, quoting Alan Greenspan's congressional testimony in 1997, attacks on worker organizing efforts led to restraint on growth of wages for a significant majority of the workforce and greater worker insecurity. Meanwhile according to government figures in 2004, 38 million Americans were going hungry, an increase of about seven million over the previous 5 years. At the same time, he notes, quoting a UN human development report, U.S. infant mortality rates have increased since 2000, putting the U.S. with that health indicator at the level of Malaysia, which has a quarter of the national income of the U.S. He notes the cruelty of the 2005 bankruptcy bill which will predominantly affect ordinary people in heavy debt because of medical or job losses. He quotes polls which show that alarming numbers of Americans put off getting health care they need for long periods because they can't afford it. The extreme cruelty of the Bush administration was illustrated, Chomsky notes, by its disregard of FEMA warnings months and years before Katrina, that a hurricane in Louisiana was one of the top threats of natural disasters facing the U.S. In 2003 and 2005 the Bush administration pushed through drastic cuts in funding in Army Corp of Engineer programs for reinforcing levees, as well as programs for strengthening wetlands, in places like New Orleans.

He quotes Thomas Carothers, who was in charge of "Democracy Promotion" at the Reagan state department---the democracy the US preferred was in countries like El Salvador, that had multi-party elections but at the same time ensured that economic and political power thoroughly was controlled by the wealthy minority who supported U.S. interests. This is what the U.S. prefers for Iraq......Resistance to this mission has been met by such activities as the slaughter of six hundred civilians in Fallujah in the Spring of 2004 in response to the killing of the four contractors (which itself was in response to the killing of Sheikh Yassin and about half a dozen innocent bystanders by Israel in Gaza). U.S. troops like the 82nd airborne division have engaged in racist humiliation, torture and killing of Iraqis (see Chomsky's citation of Dexter Filkin's NYT article in his endnotes). The siege of Fallujah in November 2004, as the New York Times blandly reported at the time, saw the U.S. invading hospitals and shackling the patients and doctors, because the hospitals were reporting civilian casualties caused by the U.S. and bombing another hospital, killing about 60. Males trying to leave the city were turned back by U.S. troops, to the charnel house of their city, obviously copying Bosnian Serb tactics at Srebrenica. Chomsky quotes polls of Iraqis including the August 2005 British defense ministry poll that was leaked to the British Press. That poll stated that 45 percent of Iraqis support attacks on Coalition forces, 70 percent had no confidence in Coalition forces, few people had access to clean water or electricity, etc.

Perhaps the most devastating section of the book deals with the Iraq oil for food scandal. While right wing elites have tried to score cheap points against the UN for this scandal, according to the Volcker report many hundreds of U.S. corporations including Texaco were involved in giving kickbacks to Saddam. According to the Financial Times, both the Clinton and Bush administration told Congress that they were turning a blind eye to the multi-billion dollar trade in oil outside Oil for Food jurisdiction that U.S. allies Turkey and Jordan conducted with Saddam. Meanwhile the Coalition Provisional Authority could not account for billions of Oil For Food money that fell into its hands. During 1991-2003, while the U.S. and UK were vetoing Iraqi efforts on the UN Sanctions Committee to procure ambulances, equipment for heart machines, new parts for sanitation facilities and so on, they were approving suspiciously high contracts......Most of Saddam's oil ended up in the U.S.

Also perhaps the most devastating section is his update on the Israel-Palestine situation. He covers the fraudulence of the "disengagement' from the Gaza strip. He shows the consistent Israeli policy of turning Palestinians in the Occupied territories into a state of "permanent neocolonial dependency" in the words of Shlomo Ben Ami in 1998, with Israel stealing all of the territories natural resources and destroying its economy and its soldiers and settlers regularly being excused for murdering and torturing Palestinians. Chomsky notes the recent case of a Palestinian man whose wife was murdered by Israeli Border Guards being told by the occupation authorities that he did not deserve any compensation because losing his wife should be a boon to him because he didn't have to support her financially,etc. He provides a map from a director of the Shimon Peres Center showing that the Camp David proposal of 2000 were contrary to much fabrication consistent with Israel's policy of turning the occupied territories into severely impoverished isolated Bantustans. He discusses the fabrications involving Palestinian and Israeli policies towards the Clinton parameters and Taba Accords of December 2000-January 2001.

He adds some more about the topic of Kosovo, noting that the atrocities of the Serbs in Kosovo, that which Milosevic was tried for, were for the sharp increase in atrocities that took place not coincidently after Nato started bombing Kosovo on 3/24/99, as Wesley Clark blandly stated in his memoirs. In his endnotes, he quotes the former director of communications in Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott's office that the bombing of Serbia was not because of abuses against the Albanians but because of Milosevic's refusal to integrate into U.S. dominated world economic and political structures. He refers to earlier work where he quoted U.S. and European government sources which testified that Serbian atrocities were at a rather low level compared to that of the Kosovo Liberation Army. He quotes the Dutch government investigation into the Srebrenica massacre to the effect that Milosevic had no knowledge of that that massacre was going to occur.

Chomsky in this book mentions many other things such as U.S. policy towards ICC investigations of Darfur war crimes, the U.S. support for the murderous, horrendous oil and gas rich dictatorships of Central Asia--he mentions the interesting story of the Uzbekistan dictator Islam Karimov's warm friendship with former German foreign minister Joschka Fisher..., etc. He provides new quotations from Eisenhower administration officials that the U.S. deliberately wanted to induce starvation and chaos in Cuba with their embargo on the latter. He discusses the roots of Bush's foreign policy ideology in Andrew Jackson's and J Q Adam's racist agression against Spanish Florida in 1818-20

Chomsky's arguments are very clearly stated, arguments advanced in previous books are updated with new info, and meticulously documented from credible elite sources, demonstrating the Bush administration's threat to human survival.

Chomsky observes that, quoting Alan Greenspan's congressional testimony in 1997, attacks on worker organizing efforts led to restraint on growth of wages for a significant majority of the workforce and greater worker insecurity. Meanwhile according to government figures in 2004, 38 million Americans were going hungry, an increase of about seven million over the previous 5 years. At the same time, he notes, quoting a UN human development report, U.S. infant mortality rates have increased since 2000, putting the U.S. with that health indicator at the level of Malaysia, which has a quarter of the national income of the U.S. The extreme cruelty of the Bush administration was illustrated, Chomsky notes, by its disregard of FEMA warnings months and years before Katrina, that a hurricane in Louisiana was one of the top threats of natural disasters facing the U.S. In 2003 and 2005 the Bush administration pushed through drastic cuts in funding in Army Corp of Engineer programs for reinforcing levees, as well as programs for strengthening wetlands, in places like New Orleans.

He quotes Thomas Carothers, who was in charge of "Democracy Promotion" at the Reagan state department---the democracy the US preferred was in countries like El Salvador, that had multi-party elections but at the same time ensured that economic and political power thoroughly was controlled by the wealthy minority who supported U.S. interests. This is what the U.S. prefers for Iraq......Resistance to this mission has been met by such activities as the slaughter of six hundred civilians in Fallujah in the Spring of 2004 in response to the killing of the four contractors (which itself was in response to the killing of Sheikh Yassin and about half a dozen innocent bystanders by Israel in Gaza). U.S. troops like the 82nd airborne division have engaged in racist humiliation, torture and killing of Iraqis (see Chomsky's citation of Dexter Filkin's NYT article in his endnotes). The siege of Fallujah in November 2004, as the New York Times blandly reported at the time, saw the U.S. invading hospitals and shackling the patients and doctors, because the hospitals were reporting civilian casualties caused by the U.S. and bombing another hospital, killing about 60. Males trying to leave the city were turned back by U.S. troops, to the charnel house of their city, obviously copying Bosnian Serb tactics at Srebrenica. Chomsky quotes polls of Iraqis including the August 2005 British defense ministry poll that was leaked to the British Press. That poll stated that 45 percent of Iraqis support attacks on Coalition forces, 70 percent had no confidence in Coalition forces, few people had access to clean water or electricity, etc.

Perhaps the most devastating section of the book deals with the Iraq oil for food scandal. While right wing elites have tried to score cheap points against the UN for this scandal, according to the Volcker report many hundreds of U.S. corporations including Texaco were involved in giving kickbacks to Saddam. According to the Financial Times, both the Clinton and Bush administration told Congress that they were turning a blind eye to the multi-billion dollar trade in oil outside Oil for Food jurisdiction that U.S. allies Turkey and Jordan conducted with Saddam. Meanwhile the Coalition Provisional Authority could not account for billions of Oil For Food money that fell into its hands. During 1991-2003, while the U.S. and UK were vetoing Iraqi efforts on the UN Sanctions Committee to procure ambulances, equipment for heart machines, new parts for sanitation facilities and so on, they were approving suspiciously high contracts......Most of Saddam's oil ended up in the U.S.

Also perhaps the most devastating section is his update on the Israel-Palestine situation. He covers the fraudulence of the "disengagement' from the Gaza strip. He shows the consistent Israeli policy of turning Palestinians in the Occupied territories into a state of "permanent neocolonial dependency" in the words of Shlomo Ben Ami in 1998, with Israel stealing all of the territories natural resources and destroying its economy and its soldiers and settlers regularly being excused for murdering and torturing Palestinians. Chomsky notes the recent case of a Palestinian man whose wife was murdered by Israeli Border Guards being told by the occupation authorities that he did not deserve any compensation because losing his wife should be a boon to him because he didn't have to support her financially,etc. He provides a map from a director of the Shimon Peres Center showing that the Camp David proposal of 2000 were contrary to much fabrication consistent with Israel's policy of turning the occupied territories into severely impoverished isolated Bantustans. He discusses the fabrications involving Palestinian and Israeli policies towards the Clinton parameters and Taba Accords of December 2000-January 2001.

He adds some more about the topic of Kosovo, noting that the atrocities of the Serbs in Kosovo, that which Milosevic was tried for, were for the sharp increase in atrocities that took place not coincidently after Nato started bombing Kosovo on 3/24/99, as Wesley Clark blandly stated in his memoirs. In his endnotes, he quotes the former director of communications in Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott's office that the bombing of Serbia was not because of abuses against the Albanians but because of Milosevic's refusal to integrate into U.S. dominated world economic and political structures. He refers to earlier work where he quoted U.S. and European government sources which testified that Serbian atrocities were at a rather low level compared to that of the Kosovo Liberation Army. He quotes the Dutch government investigation into the Srebrenica massacre to the effect that Milosevic had no knowledge of that that massacre was going to occur.

Chomsky in this book mentions many other things such as U.S. policy towards ICC investigations of Darfur war crimes, the U.S. support for the murderous, horrendous oil and gas rich dictatorships of Central Asia--he mentions the interesting story of the Uzbekistan dictator Islam Karimov's warm friendship with former German foreign minister Joschka Fisher..., etc. He provides new quotations from Eisenhower administration officials that the U.S. deliberately wanted to induce starvation and chaos in Cuba with their embargo on the latter. He discusses the roots of Bush's foreign policy ideology in Andrew Jackson's and J Q Adam's racist agression against Spanish Florida in 1818-20

Chomsky's arguments are very clearly stated, arguments advanced in previous books are updated with new info, and meticulously documented from credible elite sources, demonstrating the Bush administration's threat to human survival.