Apart from that issue, those who have been concerned with the tragedy of Iraq had three basic goals: (1) overthrowing the tyranny, (2) ending the sanctions that were targeting the people, not the rulers, and (3) preserving some semblance of world order.

There can be no disagreement among decent people on the first two goals: Achieving them is an occasion for rejoicing, particularly for those who protested U.S. support for Saddam and later opposed the murderous sanctions regime; they can therefore applaud without hypocrisy.

The second goal could surely have been achieved, and possibly the first as well, without undermining the third.

And my response was, basically, "how?"

I'd love to see Chomsky's plan for overthrowing Saddam's regime. Maybe lecture Saddam into catatonia.

Of course, his entire dialogue is based on the premise that "world order" is defined as only doing things approved by that mass of corruption, the United Nations. Or maybe just France.

Frankly, the United States and its many allies have done just fine accomplishing 1, 2, and 3, unless, again, your definition of "world order" means only "U.N. control."

I suspect Chomsky would be a lot angrier about success in Iraq than failure.