I've read Chomsky... and though I think he makes some very good points and serves an important role in questioning authority, I do believe he takes an unrealistic black and white view of history. From what I've read, with Chomsky it seems your damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way he can point out the flaws and negative aspects of what was done. I happen to think history and world events are a bit more complex than the simplistic way Chomsky portrays them. In the real world many times choices are made between the lesser of two evils - there is no one 'good' option many times.
I think Chomsky is disingenuous in some respects because he paints a good/bad picture - explaining how the US made the 'bad' decision - though I wonder what negative view Chomsky would have proclaimed if the 'good' decision had been made along with all of its latent consequences. Hindsight is 20/20, but alternate histories cannot be accurately predicted. The world could have turned out just as bad if all of Chomsky's 'good' scenarios had played out.
Still, it's good food for thought.
rem