[wordup] operation infinite disaster

[Adam Shand]

Via: Ryan <wise at inetarena.com>
From: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1016-03.htm

Published on Tuesday, October 16, 2001
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 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 between 50 and 150 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 who marched in Germany, or similar protests
which have filled the streets in "friendly" turf like Italy, Greece, and
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 America 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 that
has mushroomed 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 American 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.