C'est confirmé: fièvre en phase terminale

Dans le Newsweek du 9 janvier, fronté sur les répercussions du scandale du faux pas présidentiel sur les technicalités de la NSA, une courte entrevue avec Noam Chomsky:

You were involved in the antiwar movement in the 1960s. What do you think of the Vietnam-Iraq analogy?

I think there is no analogy whatsoever. That analogy is based on a misunderstanding of Iraq, and a misunderstanding of Vietnam. The misunderstanding of Iraq I've already described. The misunderstanding of Vietnam had to do with the war aims. The United States went to war in Vietnam for a very good reason. They were afraid Vietnam would be a successful model of independent development and that would have a virus effect—infect others who might try to follow the same course. There was a very simple war aim—destroy Vietnam. And they did it. The United States basically achieved its war aims in Vietnam by [1967]. It's called a loss, a defeat, because they didn't achieve the maximal aims, the maximal aims being turning it into something like the Philippines. They didn't do that. [But] they did achieve the major aims. It was possible to destroy Vietnam and leave. You can't destroy Iraq and leave. It's inconceivable.

A Tale of Two Quagmires, Noam Chomsky-Michael Hastings, 9 janvier 2005