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 "naiveté." 


            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. 


 ###