Well, the reason why I shorted the quote, is because he doesn't elaborate on this issue:
http://www.zmag.org/chomskygsf.htm
"In the early 90s, primarily for cynical great power reasons, the US selected Bosnian Muslims as their Balkan clients, to their enormous harm.
Without continuing, exactly where do we find the divide between "civilizations." Are we to conclude that there is a "clash of civilizations" with the Catholic Church on one side, and the US and the most murderous and fanatic religious fundamentalists of the Islamic world on the other side? I do not of course suggest any such absurdity. But exactly what are we to conclude, on rational grounds?"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Onward
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I believe that Psuedo Intellectual suits him.
And I don't think I'm short changing him in the least, and that I supported the title well, especially when one takes in to consideration his words and writings. He embraces a one sided intellectual totalitarianism which is reminiscient of Zeb's "If You Don't Agree With Me You're Misinformed" attitude. Take for instance, his book, What Uncle Sam Really Wants.
He launches the narrative by stating that it is first going to explore the history of U.S. foreign relations since World War II. Barely having ventured into page 2, Chomsky is in the middle of a brief discussion of planning for the postwar period. Four paragraphs are devoted to (National Security Council) NSC 68 and its consequences, in which NSC 68 is exhibited in a sterile vacuum. He does not even bother to pretend indulging the idea that there was a gradual shift in U.S. policy from Roosevelt era cooperation with Stalin to Truman's Cold War confrontation tendancies. There is nary a word concerning how NSC 68 had no prospects of becoming policy until Josef Stalin took off the leash and Kim Il Sung began the Korean War. Context is everything, but Chomsky seems to believe that his thesii are above answering to it.
Now this is a book, buddy Burbank. Not a glib explanation to a generalist, or a message board post. One should expect only this low brow level of journalistic quality from say, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore. Oh, but there is worse to come. . .
While centering his attenion on European political events, he alledges U.S. armies conquered North Africa and Italy, and then Roosevelt decided to put fascists like Darlan and Badoglio back into power. Do I even need to respond to this? The true events surrounding those two men coming to power is far, far more complicated. We had over overextended the U.S. forces deployed in those regions, and as a consquences, were forced to make capitulate to the tinier tyrants that we might better prepare ourselves to battle our main opposition. Anyone with a High School education should be willing to agree that Roosevelt's decisions to back Darlan and Badoglio were mistakes, but one would have to be a shit witted fool to believe we orchestrated those events as Chomsky seems to believe.
My biggest objects to Chomsky revolved around his tendancy to twist events almost wantonly, and to further more offer only information agreeable with whatever thesis he is exploring at the moment. These tendancies makes it impossible for anyone ignorant of the topic to even understand what the live and much-debated points of contention are. It also reduces his work to the status of Propaganda and Misinformation. When one educates, they do so by through explanation and citation, not brainwashing. The lack of background he employs is appalling. The lack of context is abhorrant. These are not simple mistakes which can be disregarded as simply lazy investigation techniques. That is far too benign of an explanation.