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

Subjective Violence

America Hopscotches Into Syria

by TARECQ M. AMER

I’ve been watching and listening to a growing number of people in the United States get their hackles up about the moral atrocities going on in Syria. And, with each tear shed and each cry howled, I have also become increasingly disgusted with what passes for geopolitical comprehension in this country.

As a nation, the chorus for war against Assad and his allotment of chemical weapons grows louder and louder. He has become the new Saddam, the re-worked Noriega: he is the object of our moral outrage and, therefore, the caricature that makes us feel better about ourselves. We must intervene to end this “unspeakable outrage,” declares the President. This Administration cannot stand idly by while a brute kills his own people. This is the rationale, at any rate, just as similar verbiage became the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, the deployment of drones, the destruction of Vietnam, etc. etc.

The basic question asked by so many hand-ringing and concerned westerners is, are there not moments in which the US/Europe has the moral imperative to intervene in a conflict? Put another way, is there really an argument against intervention in instances in which innocents are being coldly slaughtered? It sounds straightforward enough: If bad people do bad things to innocent people, then those who see those bad things should try to stop them from happening, particularly if they have the power to do so. However, this ideological stance would have the U.S. play the part of beneficent world actor and would purport that there are moments in which the U.S. should act because it has the ultimate moral authority. This is the (in my view) frightening view that I think has guided too many of us in this nation, generation after generation. A basic question is left unasked- who is the U.S. to act? We avoid this question, I believe, out of a sense of inherent superiority. The logic goes like this: when we kill, we display some degree of moral compunction. In other words, we do it, but we hate it. When those Brown or Black people do it, it is because they are intrinsically savage. With the dead piling up higher and higher in our name, I do not think that we, as a nation, can claim to hate it.

Beyond this, though, there is a misinterpretation of history that undergirds the interventionist thinking that has taken hold among some on the Left and would have us believe that “the bloodied hands” of the U.S. and Europe is a thing of the past, or that somehow we have transcended a past of boorish atrocities and arrived at a place of moral superiority. Clearly, this is not the case, and I don’t think we need to review the long list of disturbing foreign policy positions to prove my point.

We, as individuals, may watch in horror at atrocities committed throughout the world and want them to end. What we tend not to see are the long stretches of history (and the current meddling by so-called Northern powers) in which interventions in those nations have led to or exacerbated the very atrocities from which we cringe. In the case of Syria, humanitarian interventionists cry over the civilians killed by the Assad government, but are only marginally disturbed by the prospect of civilians being killed by Tomahawk missiles built in Ohio. Or dying from exposure to depleted uranium. Or, if things get really wild, being melted by phosphorous munitions. (All of which, of course, happened to countless civilians of Iraq. We, after all, love our chemical weapons, just not theirs.) Equally, few seem perturbed about the civilians who would invariably be killed in the eventuality of a rebel victory (as if Jabhat an-Nusra has proven itself thus far to be a band of right-thinking fighters for justice). These, I suppose, are problems that will prick the conscience later, after the dust has settled, and our warships cruise out of the Mediterranean. At least we will have done the right thing at that moment!

What is missing is a more complex analysis of the manifold forms of violence, so that we can begin to move beyond reacting to the flashes of subjective violence (the horrors that scream out of the television screens and drag us to do something, anything!) and start dismantling the objective violence that lies all around us. Until then, I am certain that the body-count of Black and Brown people around the world will grow and grow as the United States plays its own brutal game of hopscotch across the globe.

TARECQ M. AMER is an urban geographer who can be reached at tmamer@ucdavis.edu.