> : October 15, 2001
> :
> : OP-ED/POINT OF VIEW
> :
> : WEEK ONE: 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 U.S.-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 U.S.-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 -- www.debka.com -- 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.