The problem is whether any of criticism can make a diference and whether it can or it, boils down to debate between Hobbes and Rousseau. Followers of Hobbes believe that humans are naturally violent creatures and need an organizing body, like the state in order to control his violent urges (through force of course) and because there is no real organizing body in the international stage, states like individuals in the state of nature, violent and lustful.
Rousseau on the other hand, people that humans were naturally kind and compassionate in the state of nature, it was only when they wanted again recongintion from others that they become violent and built power structures (religion, the state, guilds, companies, etc) to oppress their fellow man. So Rousseau believed that these structures are leads to man's violence and lustfulness and must be done away with to encourage good behaviour and a return nature amongst humans.
Now whether Chomsky's criticism has any real meaning depends on who the winner of this debate is, if Hobbes is correct than Chomsky's criticism is useless, because states and people are ntural violent and lustful and nothing will change that. Chomsky's criticism is onlt relevant if Rousseau is correct, but let's face it, that debate has been going on for a few centuries at this point, it won't be solved anytime soon.