Noam Chomsky breaks down power into different segments to show its real face at political and corporate level. It is an equally important book for a leader or a citizen. Sometimes while reading I felt he was overly pessimistic, but then there are good supporting facts. But isn't his viewpoint also a bias? I am not saying power is good - or the USA had pure intentions to save civilians in Iraq (actually exactly opposite: no intention related to civilians) - but there is one main point I think or find missing till now.

I think it is important to acknowledge that sometimes power come beyond any logic or intentions or facts. Sometimes, power comes into the picture (or the USA invades) only to exercise power - to showcase "I am the leader". Following text includes personal notes (mostly a comparison to the developing world) and a summary of the major takeaways. Thus, at points, I might digress a bit from the discussion in the book specifically.

In the first few pages itself, this book clearly shows the critical view Chomsky has against the powerful country of the USA. But I find it interesting to note that as much as the USA exercises the power, it has people like Chomsky who can stand and criticize every move of the powerful ones even when the country is under a terrorist attack. I see the developing countries like India still facing issues at that front - because having a voice against those in power will bring you nothing good at least personally - might in the slightest case inspire one or two, but would surely lead you to many more troubles. But anyways, let's look at what Chomsky actually has to talk about:
Effect of terminology used for propaganda (basically how and why do we choose these words in media to showcase power?)
Special interests are only for the deprived sections of the community and do not include only one segment - corporates - because they are national interest - so is defense.
"Containment" of Russia - how is the USA actually containing them when they have never crossed more than their neighbors? Chomsky criticizes historians to stick to these words because they have been used by leaders. He compares it very accurately with how Nazis used similar terms as they were "under attack" by Jews.
"military spending is our method of industrial management-it's our way of keeping the economy profitable for business" - now look at this, I completely agree to this and when Chomsky wrote this it was not very common to talk against your own defense. If in India, you would say one thing against the military (Arundhati Roy, Gurmehar Kaur), you already have threats. So, if we continue at this pace, it will still take India ages to actually have a free country from power. Therefore I think - It is very important for developing countries to leapfrog - and adapt not just technologies but ideologies, freedom of thought and not just expression.
Usually, power is used not to deploy what is right, but to prevent eliminating something which might become more powerful. That's why communism movements were "contained" by the USA.
If "business elements are not represented in dominating the state
much beyond their numbers", we fail to recognize the country as a "democratic" and Chomsky here gives the example of Nicaragua.
What he talks about GDP is so true to Indian context (Now one thing I missed saying to keep in mind is he is talking about USA of 90s). So what he talks about GDP is something very basic discussion in economics or social sciences - but still relevant - Economy simply doesn't resemble growth because of a growth in GDP. It does not constitute the growth of poor urban population in any form (a person who was earning negligible if still earns peanuts, his share to the economy/GDP remains zero compared to the rich guy who lived in a villa and now lives in a 10-story house), so how can it be a growth? Now take a minute and look at the number of 8+% of India. There is no denial that this number shows growth still, but it does not show an inclusive growth - and that is where the problem lies.

I realized there are just too many things to summarise in terms of my opinions on developing contexts. I am just on 10% of the book - so I am just going to write main points in bullets now. Then, I will give a comparative study later to the developing countries context.

Marijuana legalization is important to curb the impacts of the drugs on lives of poor
Crime lives with poor because they are the people who are not protected by "barricades" which rich are protected with. Poor live on crime for survival needs.
When you do not have a stable political system, a stable social system, then people look for safety in religions.
Japan and Europe's potential to overcome the USA as the superpower
The most interesting thing Chomsky starts talking about is decentralization - that agreement do not need to be centrally approved always. He is also a proponent of the participatory parties and decision making (what I see from personal experience is this is something done in European local governments, and also India in rural areas. The difference is that former has well informed educated population, while the latter has social-norm-savvy hierarchical men as participants)
The USA has not just opposed extreme right-wing governments but also left-wing governments because " If a country begins to pay attention to its own population, it's not going to be paying adequate attention to the overriding needs of U.S. investor" and that is what USA does not want.