See, it is not radical. But your example right here is a perfect example of why he is more bad than good. He will say something as obvious as the US shouldn't invade countries. Who would disagree with that? We shouldn't kill innocent civilians. But he takes a massively complicated issue, such as the military industrial complex, and he downplays it as something so obvious and simple to solve that the US is just idiotic for not resolving it, creating the same resentment towards the US that he himself is feeling. The hard truth however, as cliché as it may sound, is far more complicated than that and you will never hear that from Chomsky. He is not the right person to get educated by when it comes to issues like these and as long as you listen to him you will consider these issues extremely marginalized and absolutely stupid and exclusive to the USA (when they in fact are NOT). And you won't be seeing any possible solution to them besides the overly simplified and uneducated answer of "the people need to speak up". If people don't know what is going on and they think the US just abruptly stopping to "invade countries" is a "solution", such an uneducated population "speaking up" is FAR more dangerous than any other solution there is.

Chomsky is a loser whose analysis doesn't go deeper than the surface of a pond. You got to do much greater research if you ACTUALLY want to help the country. You need to know where it was, what got it to where it is, and dismantle and resolve that in the best way possible. Chomsky doesn't do that. He tells you the USA is invading countries and that is bad and it needs to stop. The MIC is a horrible invention and Eisenhower warned about it. "We must wake up" and whatnot. Phrases like these don't help anyone and they don't educate anyone. If the MIC were really what Chomsky said they were and things were as simple and extreme as he's saying, we'd be all over Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran now.