Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
100716HenryKissingerNosePicking
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.

Day12Fixed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
cp-store

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

President Bush’s war planners have struggled to find a fitting code name for our latest military venture. But after a week of war, there’s only one appropriate label for the nightmare that has transpired: Operation Infinite Disaster. Leave aside, for the moment, the moral shortcomings and Orwellian implications of bombing starved people to “fight for […]

Operation Infinite Disaster

by Chris Kromm

President Bush’s war planners have struggled to find a fitting code name for our latest military venture. But after a week of war, there’s only one appropriate label for the nightmare that has transpired: Operation Infinite Disaster.

Leave aside, for the moment, the moral shortcomings and Orwellian implications of bombing starved people to “fight for freedom” or honor the dead of the September 11 tragedy. What’s even more striking about the War Against … Somebody is that, even on the Bush administration’s own terms, the bombing of Afghanistan has thus far been a failure — a series of tactical blunders guaranteed to make a bad situation much, much worse.

A quick inventory of the week’s events tell the story:

BOMBING PEOPLE WITH FOOD: The first sign of trouble was news that Bush — in a move to give the brutal bombings a humanitarian spin — had opted to drop food supplies along with cluster bombs. This public relations stunt quickly backfired, however, when every major relief agency in the world derided the drops for 1) being insufficient (enough to feed about .5% of the starving population for a single day, provided the rations got to the intended “targets”); 2) containing food Afghan people never eat (hello, peanut butter?!); and 3) having the disadvantage of landing in fields strewn with land mines, adding injury to insult.

HIGH-TECH STRIKES IN A LOW-TECH WORLD: Then came evidence that U.S. bombs are hitting worthless targets — when they hit at all. This may surprise U.S. readers, who, much like during the Gulf War, have been treated to giddy media reports cooing over the Pentagon’s high-tech “smart” weaponry: gee-whiz gadgets like satellite targeting which supposedly make military strikes “surgical” — and blood-free. (Although, in 1991 the Pentagon admitted that under six percent of Gulf War weapons used “smart” technology — and even among these brilliant bombs, fully 20% missed their mark.)

The Pentagon says they’ve gotten better; time — if not the media — will tell. But what have these intelligent machines of destruction been hitting? A few terrorist training camps, which, as British journalist Robert Fisk noted, our planes had “no difficulty spotting … because, of course, most of them were built by the CIA when Mr. bin Laden and his men were the good guys.”

But overall, the Taliban is a low-tech army — and bombing their outdated airstrips and archaic phone systems has had little impact on how they control their terrain. And technology is only as good as the fallible humans who use it, which leads to the next mistake:

KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE: “Serious blunders by American warplanes may have killed at least 100 civilians in Afghanistan,” according to eye-witness accounts obtained by The Observer of London and reported on Sunday, October 14. (U.S. newspapers have been slow to report evidence of innocent people dying.) These deaths — in Karam village, 18 miles west of Jalalabad — came after news of the four workers killed in a U.N. building devoted to clearing land mines.

A total of 400 civilian deaths have been confirmed. Personal testimony from fleeing refugees suggest hundreds more.

What has been the effect of these deaths, besides belying the notion that war can be waged without ending innocent lives? According to The Guardian of London, the Karam killings are straining ties between the U.S. and its shaky allies in the anti-terrorism coalition.

And among the Arab and Muslim populace, the response is predictable: “Reports of deaths” the Guardian reports, have “provoked rage and grief throughout Afghanistan and throughout the Muslim world.”

Which brings us to what the US-led strikes have succeeded in doing:

IGNITING AN EXPLOSIVE BACKLASH: I’m not referring to the 30,000 protesters who marched in England against the US-led bombing, the 70,000 who marched in India, the 70,000 in Germany, the 100,000 in Italy, or similar protests which have filled the streets in other “friendly” turf like Greece, France, and even our own cities.

I’m also not referring to the boomerang response to U.S. bombing in the form of terrorist counter-attacks, which have plunged Americans into dread fear of powdery envelopes and exposed nuclear reactors.

No, more troubling are the 20,000 students who took over the streets of Egypt yelling “U.S. go to hell!” The Jakarta Muslims threatening to kill U.S. tourists and embassy workers. The millions of Arab-Americans and Muslims who are raging — violently — against the U.S. in Jordan, South Africa, Iran, Bangladesh, Pakistan (brought to the brink of civil war) and Nigeria, where “hundreds” may be dead due to rioting.

President Bush’s reaction has instilled little confidence. When asked in a press conference last Friday for his response to the vitriolic hatred mushrooming around the globe, Bush could only mumble: “I’m amazed. I just can’t believe it because I know how good we are” — which, in the world’s eyes, must bring profoundly new meaning to the word “naivete.”

This disheartening string of missteps, feeding an upswell of moral outrage, led everyone’s favorite war-watching website — — to post this headline over the weekend: “First Week of U.S. Offensive in Afghanistan is Inconclusive Militarily, Earthshaking Geo-Politically.”

And for what? To the Pentagon’s dismay, Bin Laden hasn’t been “flushed out.” The Taliban isn’t waving a white flag. Our supposed allies, the opium-running North Alliance, seem confused about whether or not they should take over the country.

Amidst such chaos, the Bush camp has resorted to the time-tested tactic of creating a diversion, suggesting the blame for September 11 may lay elsewhere — Iraq (surprise) being the favorite fall guy. This comes just weeks after every media mouthpiece instructed us that “ONLY the resources and skills of Osama bin Laden” and the “al-Quaeda network” could have been responsible.

The U.S. may or may not be able to reverse its miserable military fortunes in Afghanistan. But the more dangerous consequences of the U.S. bombing campaign — a world aroused into anger against America’s armed arrogance, in part the very reason for the September 11 tragedy — will stay with us for a very long time.

Chris Kromm is Director of the Institute for Southern Studies in Durham, North Carolina.