There is no plausible theory under which the record of the Pentagon Papers can be interpreted as relating to the national defense.
I don't see any possibility of Britain and the U.S. allowing a sovereign independent Iraq; that's almost inconceivable.
Interpretation
What this quote means
The quote suggests skepticism about the likelihood of Iraq becoming a truly independent nation under the influence of Britain and the U.S.
Noam Chomsky expresses a belief that the political powers of Britain and the United States are unlikely to permit Iraq to operate as a fully sovereign nation. This assertion reflects his view on the challenges of imperial influence and the reality of geopolitical interests, indicating that true independence for Iraq is perceived as an unrealistic goal given the historical context of foreign intervention.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
During a panel discussion on international relations, one might reference this quote to highlight the challenges faced by nations seeking autonomy.
More from Noam Chomsky
All quotes βThe 'free-floating intellectual' may occupy himself with problems because of their inherent interest and importance, perhaps to little effect.
If you're teaching today what you were teaching five years ago, either the field is dead or you are.
There are very few people who are going to look into the mirror and say, 'That person I see is a savage monster;' instead, they make up some construction that justifies what they do.
The Republican Party has become overwhelmingly so extreme that it's hardly a traditional political party anymore.
There is still much debate about whether torture has been effective in eliciting information - the assumption being, apparently, that if it is effective, then it may be justified.
Similar quotes
Only 4 sets of people can vote for the PDP: (1) those who are intellectually blind; (2) those who are blinded by ethnicity; (3) those who are blinded by corruption and therefore afraid of the unknown, should power change hands; and finally (4) those who are suffering from a combination of the above terminal sicknesses.
If we live in a perpetual state of outrage, Trump wins. Because when we become depleted and exhausted and sapped of our energy, we're not as resourceful, creative, or effective.
We all want prosperity, but not at the expense of liberty. Poverty is not as great a danger to liberty as is wealth, with its corrupting, demoralizing influences. Let us never have a Government at Washington owing its retention to the power of the millionaires rather than to the will of millions.
This aesthetic quality, then, is what politics is all about. It's authenticity that separates winners from losers, good politics from bad, and he-man leader-types from consultant-directed puppet-boys.
Herr Schroder has conducted two electoral campaigns, and he is doing it again now, by not telling people what is really necessary. He keeps avoiding the difficult and uncomfortable issues, those that imply changes and therefore provoke discussions.
Would they not fear that citizens not less tenacious than conscious of their rights would flock from the remotest extremes of their respective states to the places of election, to overthrow their tyrants, and to substitute men who would be disposed to avenge the violated majesty of the people?