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.

Day11

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

Ambiguous Victories

Civil Rights in the Age of Neoliberalism

by JORGE MARISCAL

The widespread celebration around the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) was certainly justified. The fundamental unfairness of a policy–at its core a free speech issue?that forced U.S. servicewomen and men to lie about an important part of their identity made DADT unsustainable. Generational change and common sense won repeal despite opposition from the most retrograde elements of the military hierarchy and their surrogates like John McCain.

Advocacy groups called the repeal of DADT a “civil rights” victory and the corporate media trumpeted it as one of several end-ofyear victories for the Democrats. MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell called the lame duck session the “most productive Congress since Lyndon Johnson maybe since the New Deal.”

One of the pieces of legislation that did not make it through this “productive Congress” was the DREAM Act, a bill that has languished in the Senate for almost a decade. Like DADT, the basic appeal of DREAM is difficult to resist?hard-working undocumented youth brought to the United States as children deserve a pathway to legalization. The vast majority of DREAMeligible youth have no direct experience of their family’s country of origin and many of them are high achievers with college and even graduate school degrees.

The subtext to DREAM is far less sentimental. As some Latino activists have pointed out, DREAM legislation from its earliest incarnation was the handiwork of the Department of Defense. The Pentagon understands that a large pool of eligible young people, many of them bilingual and well educated, would be a potential bonanza for recruiters. Given that the vast majority of undocumented working-class youth find it difficult to complete even two years of college, this particular path to legalization will lead them necessarily into an eight-year military enlistment contract in exchange for permanent residency.

What the movements to pass the DREAM Act and repeal DADT have in common is an uncanny admixture–the goal of regularizing the status of two admirable and aggrieved communities and their direct connection to the machinery of U.S. militarism. At a time when the United States is engaged in a number of hot wars and an unknown number of covert operations, this connection should concern everyone who otherwise supported the passage of DREAM and DADT.

Few of us would deny gay and lesbian people or qualified undocumented youth their right to serve in the military if they choose to do so. But what was difficult to watch was the parade of queer servicemen and women making the media rounds describing the U.S. military as the “greatest organization in the world.” Even more disturbing were public protests and hunger strikes where undocumented youth held “Let us serve” signs and proclaimed their eagerness to enlist and a willingness “to die for my country.”

The point is not to criticize immigrant youth who, desperate for legalized status, perceive military service as a way out of a life of constant fear of deportation. The real question is whether or not any of these young people understand the uses to which politicians have put the U.S. military over the last sixty years.

If in fact the activism around DREAM and DADT are civil rights movements, it seems clear that civil rights in 2010 is remarkably like civil rights circa 1940 when excluded groups, eager to win a modicum of inclusion, remained silent about the most destructive aspects of liberal capitalism. Were he to reappear today, Dr. King would be hard-pressed to recognize his own values in this contemporary civil rights agenda.

What is missing above all is King’s critique of U.S. militarism, his insistence that bloated Pentagon budgets make the social safety net impossible to sustain, and his stunning proclamation that his country was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. All of these assertions are as true today as they were in 1967.

As we celebrate the repeal of DADT, let’s be realistic. Military culture will continue to be homophobic, sometimes violently so (the astonishingly high percentage of women in the military who report sexual harassment is a related facet of this culture). As we advocate for comprehensive immigration reform that will include legalization for deserving young people, let’s be pleased that hundreds of DREAM youth may attend college but lament the fact that thousands will be tracked into the armed forces.

Our gay, lesbian, and immigrant sisters and brothers are faced with a dilemma. Will their communities support a spirited debate about the advisability (morality) of military service in this most recent chapter of U.S. imperial adventurism? DREAM and DADT activists (and President Obama himself) would do well to revisit Dr. King’s “fierce urgency of now” text, especially the part where he warns: “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

DADT had to be repealed; DREAM students deserve a path to legal status. But given its on-going imperial role, is the U.S. military a legitimate means for achieving the goals of civil rights at home and human rights abroad?

JORGE MARISCAL is the grandson of Mexican immigrants and was a conscripted pawn in the U.S. war in Southeast Asia. He currently teaches at the increasingly privatized University of California, San Diego. His website is http://jorgemariscal.blogspot.com/