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
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
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But overall, the Taliban is a low-tech army -- and bombing their outdated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
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
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
Chris Kromm is Director of the Institute for Southern Studies in Durham,