Coming
in September
From AK Press
Featuring Essays by:
Edward Said, Robert Fisk, Michael Neumann, Shahid Alam, Alexander
Cockburn, Uri Avnery, Bill and Kathy Christison and More
Recent
Stories
August
8, 2003
Dave
Lindorff
Snoops Night Out
August
7, 2003
M.
Shahid Alam
It the US a "Terrorist Magnet?"
Toni
Solo
Neo-liberal Nicaragua: a New Banana
Republic
Adam Lebowitz
Hiroshima Commemorated: the View from Japan
Hanan
Ashrawi
When the Bully Whines
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
Conscience Takes a Holiday
Jason
Leopold
Wolfowitz Lets Slip: Iraq Not Behind 9/11; No Ties to Al-Qaeda
Mike Kimaid
What's the Score?
Elaine
Cassel
The Smell of VICTORY: Ashcroft's Latest Stinkbomb
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
August 6, 2003
Steve
Higgs
Going to Jail for the Cause: It's Not
Easy Confronting King Coal
David
Krieger
Remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Robert
Fisk
The Ghosts of Uday and Qusay
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush's War on the National Forests
Elaine
Cassel
No Fly Lists
Stan
Goff
Military Equipment and Pneumonia
Hugh Sansom
An Open Letter to Nicholas Kristof on the Nuking of Japan
August
5, 2003
Uri
Avnery
The Prisoner of Ramallah: Arafat at
74
Forrest
Hylton
Terrorism and Political Trials: the
View from Bolivia
Ray
McGovern
"We Cook Estimates to Go"
David
Morse
Poindexter's Gambit
Edward
Said
Orientallism: 25 Years Later
George
W. Bush
My Darn Good Resumé
Hammond
Guthrie
It's Incremental, Watson!
Website
of the Day
National Prayer Day
August 4, 2003
Bruce
K. Gagnon
Another Peace Activist Detained by
Airport Cops: My Story
David
Lindorff
Fear-Mongering About Social Security
Mark
Zepezauer
George F. Will: Descent into Self-Parody
James
Plummer
Tracking You Through the Mail
Mickey
Z.
Marriage Insecurity from Sharon to Bush
Bruce
Jackson
News that Isn't News: How the NYT's
Pimps for the White House
August
2 / 3, 2003
Tamara
R. Piety
Nike's Full Court Press Breaks Down
Francis
Boyle
My Alma Mater, the University of Chicago, is a Moral Cesspool
David
Vest
Sons of Paleface: Pictures from Death's Other Side
Neve Gordon
Nightlife in Jerusalem
Uri
Avnery
Their Master's Voice:
Bush, Blair and Intelligence Snafus
Robert
Fisk
Paternalistic Democracy for Iraq
Jerry
Kroth
Israel, Yellowcake and the Media
Noah Leavitt
What's Driving the Liberian Bloodbath: Is the US Obligated to
Intervene?
Saul
Landau
The Film Industry: Business and Ideology
Ron Jacobs
One Big Prison Yard: the Meaning of George Jackson
Thomas
Croft
In the Deep, Deep Rough: Reflections on Augusta
Amadi Ajamu
Def Sham: Russell Simmons New Black Leader?
Poets'
Basement
Vega, Witherup, Albert and Fleming
August
1, 2003
Joanne
Mariner
Stopping Prison Rape
Alex Coolman
Who Moved My Soap: Trivializing
Prison Rape
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Stan Goff
Injury and Decorum: The Missing Wounded in Iraq
Wayne
Madsen
Europe Unplugs from the Matrix
Robert
Fisk
Wolfowitz the Censor
Elaine
Cassel
Ashcroft Loses Big in Puerto Rico
Website
of the Day
Stop Prisoner Rape
July
31, 2003
Ray
McGovern
The Prostitution of Intelligence
Brian
Cloughley
Wolfowitz's Operative Statement
Sheldon
Hull
The RIAA's Jihad:
The Devil's Music (Industry)
Elaine
Cassel
The Next Time You Crack a Lawyer Joke, Think of These Attorneys
Sheldon
Rampton
and John Stauber
True Lies: Propaganda and Bush's
Wars
Hammond
Guthrie
Speculation Blues
Website
of the Day
Army of One?
July
30, 2003
David
Lindorff
Poindexter the Terror Bookie
Marjorie
Cohn
Why Iraq and Afghanistan? It's About
the Oil
Elaine
Cassel
How Ashcroft Coerces Guilty Pleas
in Terror Cases
Zvi
Bar'el
The Hidden Costs of the Iraq War
Lisa Walsh
Thomas
Killing Mustafa Hussein: Death of a Child, Birth of a Legend?
Sean
Carter
Pat Robertson's Prayer Jihad: God, Sodomy and the Supremes
ND Jayaprakash
India and Ariel Sharon
Steve
Perry
Bush's Top 40 Lies
Standard
Schaefer
Correction about Bloomberg and Outscourcing
Website
of the Day
Bring Them Home Now!
Congratulations
to CounterPuncher Gilad Atzmon! BBC Names EXILE Top Jazz CD
July
29, 2003
Jeffrey
St. Clair
"Journalist Spotted! Journalist
Dead!" Guatemala Bleeds; US Press Yawns
Thomas
J. Nagy
The Belligerent Dr. Pipes
Kurt Nimmo
Tom Delay Goes to Jerusalem
Chris
Floyd
Dead Reckoning: Bush Warriors Sign Off on War Crimes
Robert
Fisk
Another Botched Raid; Another Massacre
Jason Leopold
Did Chalabi Help Write Bush's State of the Union Address?
Conn Hallinan
Food Bully: Bush's Biotech Shock and Awe Campaign
Dan
Bacher
Sacramento's War on Free Speech
Ray
McGovern
Cheney Chicanery
Website
of the Day
Julie Hilden Caught on Tape
Hot Stories
Dardagan,
Slobodo and Williams
CounterPunch Exclusive:
20,000 Wounded Iraqi Civilians
Steve
J.B.
Prison Bitch
Sheldon
Rampton and John Stauber
True Lies: the Use of Propaganda
in the Iraq War
Wendell
Berry
Small Destructions Add Up
CounterPunch
Wire
WMD: Who Said What When
Cindy
Corrie
A Mother's Day Talk: the Daughter
I Can't Hear From
Elaine
Cassel
Civil Liberties
Watch
Michel
Guerrin
Embedded Photographer Says: "I
Saw Marines Kill Civilians"
Uzma
Aslam Khan
The Unbearably Grim Aftermath of War:
What America Says Does Not Go
Paul de Rooij
Arrogant
Propaganda
Gore Vidal
The
Erosion of the American Dream
Francis Boyle
Impeach
Bush: A Draft Resolution
Click Here
for More Stories.
|
August
9, 2003
Changing
Numbers and Colors of the Dead
The Parade of the
Body Bags
By PAUL de ROOIJ
The body count used to be an integral part of
warfare--that meant counting the bodies of the enemy. RAF fighter
pilots would adorn their airplanes with kill signs, Israeli soldiers
put notches on their guns for each Palestinian killed, and the
American military reveled in body count statistics in Vietnam.
Now body counts are out; they are considered ill advised when
dealing with a passive but anxious home population. Perhaps
populations eating TV-dinners in air-conditioned environments
don't have the stomach for the truculent warrior-speak of yesteryear.
Certainly, the propagandists serving the Pentagon must have
determined that body counts should be phased out; it is better
not to cause anxiety among the American public.
But guess what, this author does body
counts, "coalition" body counts. I will dispense with
the ritual provisos that one doesn't mean the soldiers any harm,
etc. The fact is that the number of US-uk soldiers killed is
a good indicator of how the occupation is progressing in Iraq.
It will indicate whether this war is a bloody quagmire, or if
the dust is settling on the rubble.
The history of their body count
The rituals of war and its glorification
have certainly changed. Ancient warriors collected the scalps
of their victims, and so on. We will skip the long list of gory
practices. One must just remember that several medals in the
recent past were bestowed primarily based on a body count--the
German Iron Cross during WWI had this implication. (The British
and Americans, obviously more civilized, handed out medals for
valor.) During the Vietnam War, General Westmoreland elevated
the body count to a statistic meant to measure the performance
of his army. The daily bulletins included body counts to show
that the war was being won. Ultimately this backfired, and as
Gabriel Kolko put it: " [body counts] simply horrified ever-larger
sectors of American and world opinion [1]." Consequently,
the body count was phased out. Today questions about enemy body
counts are something that annoys generals--they are acutely aware
of the image they must portray to sell their wars. During the
next war, the media will have learned this lesson, and it will
be considered impolite to pose such questions. General Tommy
Franks won't have to state the obvious, that the US military
no longer issues enemy body counts for public consumption.
Our body counts
On May 1, 2003 when Bush Junior landed
on the aircraft carrier, he officially announced the end of the
war. Like Moses before the parting of the Red Sea, he commanded
the war to end. But no Iraqis were present who could indeed
enforce an armistice; no Iraqi is obligated to stop fighting,
and the hostilities will continue for the foreseeable future.
It is evident that there is a full-fledged guerilla war, and
that things may be getting worse.
The media tends to focus on the last
casualty, and doesn't put it into perspective. For a public
so accustomed to seeing stock charts with trend lines it would
be informative to see the body bag chart to determine how the
war is progressing. This is the purpose of graph below [2].
The columns in red indicate US-uk soldiers killed by hostile
action, and the blue sections are "other" causes.
Note that the trend line indicates an increasing death toll.
Projecting the trend line out through the 200th day of occupation
would imply 2.2 daily US-uk deaths (current average = 1.3).
In other words, the situation is worsening and the death toll
is going to be significant.
Changing the color
of the bodies
During the early 1970s, the American
death toll became a major reason for the increasing opposition
to the Vietnam War. One of the ploys Nixon used to extend the
war was to shift the responsibility for the conduct of the war
onto the South Vietnamese. This became known as the Vietnamization
of the war, a.k.a., "changing the color of the bodies."
It is already evident that the US wants to implement the same
policy in Iraq. From the Indian press it is clear that Washington
wants to obtain a large contingent of Indian troops, and pressure
has been exerted on India to prove its "you are with us"
credentials. It would be natural to utilize Indian or Pakistani
troops because some of them already have substantial experience
in the area. In some Gulf countries, the police force includes
many Indian nationals. Saudi Arabia finances at least one Pakistani
division that would likely be used either for external defense
or internal repression. The US would like to use these mercenary
forces to reduce its own exposure. Another solution in the offing
is the creation of Iraqi units loyal to the Americans--reportedly
12,000 strong. Wholesale killing would remain an American specialty,
but the retail side would be spun off to pliant mercenaries.
The US is also busy horse-trading to
get more foreign troops on the ground. It must have offered
something to the Japanese because Japan has offered a contingent
to be stationed in a "non-war zone" in Iraq. When
Prime Minister Koizumi was asked where this would be, he answered
that he did not know! [3] Japan won't contribute US$15bn as
it did after the 1991 Gulf War, and this time some of its soldiers
may be the expendable currency--Japan is in a recession after
all. Other countries joining this pathetic effort are: Spain,
Poland, Hungary, The Netherlands and a wee island in the Pacific
may send an entertainment corps (maybe some hoola hoola girls
for the troops).
Although some noises have been made about
the introduction of United Nations troops, this will be resisted
by the US. The problem with the UN is that it would want some
say in political and economic matters, and thus UN troops will
be a last resort. It is only when the resistance to the American
rule becomes excessively bloody that the intervention may be
spun off to the UN.
There are a fair number of foreign nationals
in the US army. Among the casualties since May 1st there are
four foreigners (Polish, Guyanese, Mexicans). One of these received
the US nationality posthumously. What an honor! Why didn't
CNN or Fox film the spectacle of a coffin where the US flag is
bestowed on the remains of the foreign mercenary?
For the color of the bodies in the US-uk
casualty list, see the following table:
Delight over bodies
American casualties in Iraq receive ample
coverage in the Arab media, and this is received with relish
in some quarters [4]. Reports from the Middle East suggest that
folks may be cheering the casualty reports.
On July 23rd Robert Fisk wrote from Iraq:
"To the shopkeepers and the drinks stall workers, it was
just an explosion []. They thought that a second, wounded soldier
must die, and they said that with enthusiasm. [5]" In other
words, if the Iraqis are cheering the killing of American soldiers,
then the occupation forces will loath admitting their losses
on a daily basis. This may explain why the US army is harassing
Al Jazeera journalists, and will likely shut down their
offices in Iraq.
Body counts going,
going
Here is a prediction: within the next
few months the body count for US-uk troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
will be phased out. First, the daily reminder that American
troops are being killed is something propagandists must dislike
intensely. Long before the US election campaign starts in earnest,
we will find that the body count in Iraq will be something that
will disappear. Second, the delight the body count causes in
some quarters must also be of some concern for the propagandists.
Whereas body counts of yesteryear referred to the enemy, the
current US-uk body count is having undesirable effects.
The first evidence that the home-team
body count is being whitewashed has to do with the "cause
of death". There are increasing reports that soldiers killed
due to hostile action are listed by the Pentagon as killed in
accidents [6]. A clear example is the killing of Sgt.
Christopher Coffin--listed as "died [] after his vehicle
ran into a ditch on July 1st." However, other reports state:
"his convoy was hit by an improvised explosive device."
There are far too many fatalities with the Humvee (the military
SUV)--its record certainly suggests the need for the promotion
of safety belt usage. There have been 19 traffic-related fatalities,
most of them Humvee rollovers. However, this author suspects
that its associated fatalities are likely to be from hostile
action. Other causes like: "responding to a civilian call
when his vehicle rolled over," are suspicious -- the US
military responding to a "civilian call"? Hmmm Soldiers
stepped on a landmine near the airport, but the landmine was
supposedly planted before May 1st; presto, this was classed as
an accident [7].
One doesn't have to go further than the
CentCom
and DefenseLink
reports to determine that whitewashing of the casualty figures
is taking place. CentCom usually issues a press release with
a cursory explanation of the circumstance, but without a name,
when there is a US fatality. After notifying the next of kin,
DefenseLink issues a press release with the names of the victims
and a broader explanation of the cause of death. The bright
lights hired by the Pentagon don't realize that in some instances
the cause of death is reported as hostile by CentCom, but then
as an accident in the DefenseLink release. For example, on May
26th the CentCom lists a cause of death as a "landmine or
unexploded ordnance"; a few days later this is listed as
hitting unexploded ordnance, thus accidental. There is a disparity
in about a dozen of the CentCom and DefenseLink announcements
[8]. Furthermore, by the time the incidents are reported by
DefenseLink, the cases of wounded soldiers have been expunged.
The title of one communiqué: "Third Armored Cavalry
Regiment Convoy Ambushed" (May 26), but one must read the
body of the press release to find that one soldier was killed.
Whereas usually the press release title indicated casualties,
now one must now read all communiqués to find references
to casualties.
Robert Fisk reports: "they have
failed to report a mass of attacks and assaults against patrols
and bases in and around Baghdad. [9]" Although attacks
where Americans were killed are reported by the Pentagon, other
incidents aren't. The situation surrounding the British contingent
is much the same--scant reporting from the field on hostile actions.
Here is an emerging trend: Tracking
the number of dead in Reuters, AP, or BBC already yields a higher
number of casualties than those reported by the Pentagon--admittedly
there is a small discrepancy at present [10]. July 28th is an
interesting example; early in the day, the BBC reported two combat
fatalities, but later on, the BBC Online altered its reports
to show one fatality and one accidental death. Furthermore,
the delay between the date of the death and the date of a confirmation
has also increased--reporting may soon be offered on a weekly
basis [11]. And finally, there is no accounting for the wounded
soldiers and what has happened to them. All told, expect the
war in Iraq to become like the wars in Orwell's 1984;
these were only used to stoke jingoism and rile the crowd, and
would occasionally yield a glimpse of a captured enemy in a cage
on display. Every other facet of those wars was not reported
on. In Iraq, reporting on the daily carnage will be a thing
of the past--wars will also soon be something occurring far away,
and the plight of the mercenaries fighting them will not be something
the home crowd will have to know anything about.
The BBC is also reducing the reported
death toll. On July 16th a BBC Online article stated:
"Thirty US troops have been killed as a result of hostile
action since US President George W Bush declared major combat
over on 1 May." After complaining to the BBC that the number
was exactly 92 US-uk casualties (42% of which had been killed
due to hostile action [12]), the BBC helpfully changed this to:
"More than 30" The disingenuous excuse was that they
were only reporting the hostile action casualties, but even this
was wrong. Similarly, the July 20th article
stating: " deaths bring to 151 the number of American soldiers
killed in action since the start of the war", is wrong too
because it excludes "other" deaths. NB: these fatalities
wouldn't have occurred if these folks weren't in Iraq. The soldiers
killed clearing mines are classed as accidental and are not included
in the BBC's death tally! How does the BBC explain that it is
excluding British soldiers from its tally? What we witness
here is a crass whitewash operation; this is dishonest and it
serves to downplay the severity of the situation.
Support the bodies
One factor that was instrumental in ending
the Vietnam War was the home crowd hostility and questioning
of their military. Nothing tarnished morale more than the hostile
reception soldiers received during their home leave. Soldiers
found that it was best not to wear their uniforms to avoid being
spit at. During the US-Iraq war one of the most hideous and
effective propaganda ploys has been to push the message: "support
our troops", and to downplay the alternative slogan "support
the war." The longer the occupation drags on and the larger
the number of body bags the more this distinction will be emphasized.
The military is an arm of government used to implement policy
--it is odd to state that one is called to support one, but not
the other.
As Michael Moore said, if you support
the troops then this must mean bringing them home--alive.
If one supports the troops--and most are decent well-meaning
folks--then the best thing one can do is to clamor for a substitution
of US troops by UN troops with a wide mandate. This is the only
measure in the short term that will stop the misery of the Iraqi
people. All the other options under consideration by the Americans
are bloody dead ends enforced by mercenaries.
During the Vietnam War, the US army was
made up primarily of conscripts, and many soldiers went to war
without much choice. The slogan "support our troops"
made sense then. Today the US army is a professional army, and
the reasons for serving are varied. When troops are quoted as
saying: "this is just a job, and now I want overtime pay"
or (July 19th) "I signed up for fighting and killing"
then one should reevaluate one's support. When American soldiers,
erstwhile liberators, state (July 21st): "God, how I hate
these people [Iraqis]" or "I hope this war doesn't
end before I get my first kill" then decency dictates a
revaluation of this war. Michael Guerrin paints a similarly
depressing image of the US military as mixture of trophy hunters
and mercenaries [13]. It is incongruous to "support our
troops" now in a democratic society opposed to wars of aggression.
It is your body on
the line too
Ask yourself this: has the war against
Iraq improved your security? The security staff at the major
London airports is working under the assumption that there is
an increased threat, and this is as good an indicator as any.
There is a distinct trend of Israelization of our societies--the
creeping introduction of fences, spy cameras, walls, and distrust.
Deep injustices perpetrated in far corners of the world have
a tendency to engender violence no matter how high the "security
fences" are built. For very selfish reasons--one's own
safety--there are grounds to reevaluate the American occupation
of Iraq, and its policy in the region.
Americans will certainly understand this
argument: the safety of their pocketbook (shriek!) is
at stake too. Take 145,000 American troops, 12,000 UK troops,
a 12,000 strong Iraqi gendarme, and multiply these by the requisite
wages [14]. Multiply this figure by three to reflect the backup
personnel needed to support front line troops. Estimate the
number of casualties and multiply by the number of your choice
for each body bag. Add this up, and under a favorable scenario,
this will cost US$15bn for this year alone. This is just the
"labor" cost; it doesn't include other things like
the air conditioning system for Proconsul Paul Bremer's palace.
Now start adding the equipment and transport costs. Congress
estimates the occupation cost is in the US$ 4bn/month orbit.
Iraqi oil revenues will be partly absorbed to cover these costs,
but eventually it may come out of Americans' pockets too. If
the scenario isn't so rosy, then it will be time to sell the
SUV.
Facile bravado
A few weeks ago, Bush Junior issued a
challenge to the Iraqi resistance: "Bring them on".
Consider this: the president misrepresented the war to everyone
including the soldiers, the war was one of aggression, and now
he's challenging the Iraqi guerrillas for a shoot-out at the
OK corral. Bush's posteriors are not on the line, and his family
will reap rich oily rewards. Never mind the ensuing flag-draped
coffins; these provide a useful backdrop for Bush's patriotic
posturing.
While governor of Texas, Bush approved
a record number of death penalty executions, and he is quoted
as saying that he didn't lose sleep over it. The grotesque part
of his current stance is that he's so blasé about expending
the lives American soldiers, and chances are he isn't losing
sleep over them either. To catch his attention, our Liberian
friends have devised a pointed form of protest; they are piling
the dead bodies around the American embassy in Monrovia. This
would be a fitting protest in Washington too. Perhaps a long
pile of body bags around the White House will catch the warmongering
president's attention.
Paul de Rooij
can be contacted at: proox@hotmail.com
(attachments automatically deleted).
© 2003 Paul de Rooij
Endnotes
[1] Gabriel Kolko, Anatomy of War,
Pantheon Books 1985, page 196. Robert Fisk relates a curious
parallel: during the Iraq-Iran war Iraqi papers published many
photos of dead Iranians, but soon it became clear that Iraqis
felt sympathy for the dead soldiers. Consequently, the Iranian
body count and statistics were phased out of the Iraqi media.
It is easier to hate your enemy if you don't see the consequences
of the war.
[2] The data for this graph was obtained
from Lunaville,
CentCom,
DefenseLink,
MOD
and CNN
(the first one is the best). If soldiers died of their wounds
after an attack, the event date is the date when the soldier
died because the attack dates are not always available. The
"hostile" category is derived from the DOD and MOD
reports of the fatalities. Race was determined from the photograph
of the victim; this is imperfect, but it is an attempt to record
this important statistic. There are civilians working for the
military are also counted as victims of this war. There has
been one British civilian casualty thus far. Military personnel
based in the Gulf were also included here if they were support
staff for the war effort.
[3] There are disturbing implications
about this practice to obtain troops. The whole basis of international
relations is being undermined. Instead of obtaining consensus
via the UN, the US now favors individual deals. Thus, Japan
will get preferential trade in return for 1,000 troops.
[4] Greg LaMotte, Arab Media Prominently
Feature Attacks on US Soldiers in Iraq, VOA News, July
14, 2003.
[5] Robert Fisk, No film rights. No
heroic tales. Just a bloody death in the afternoon, The
Independent, July 23, 2003.
[6] Democracy Now, July 18, 2003
addressed this issue. An important account is Matthew Riemer,
U.S. media misleading public on Iraq casualties, YellowTimes.com,
July 23, 2003.
[7] For a long list of odd causes of
death see: Greg Mitchell's, Soldiers Dead Since May Is 3 Times
Official Count, CommonDreams, July 17, 2003
[8] One can't obtain an accurate number
because there is no clear match between the CentCom and DefenseLink
communiqués. There are some CentCom reports that don't
have a clear DefenseLink follow-up, and there are DefenseLink
listed fatalities without a CentCom pairing. The 15 clear discrepancies
are obtained from a one-to-one comparison and where the victim
is the same.
[9]Robert Fisk, Americans fail to disclose
all attacks on troops in Iraq, The Independent, July 21,
2003.
[10] As an example, on July 15th a landmine
killed at least one soldier. The DOD reports usually list the
circumstances of death, but here is no report matching the casualty
found in the
Independent.
[11] This is very easy to verify. PowNet lists
the date of the announcement and the date of the fatality. Suffice
it to say that the divergence between the two is increasing.
[12] Out of 92 deaths 41 were combat
related (seven British soldiers). There were exactly 34 US soldiers
killed in combat up to this date. Sure, this is "more than
30". NB: the folks killed in mine clearing are not part
of the 41 combat deaths.
[13] Michel Guerrin, Embedded Photographer:
"I Saw Marines Kill Civilians",
CounterPunch, April 16, 2003.
[14] To find out how much US soldiers
earn see: US
soldiers' conditions in Iraq. British soldiers earn less.
The payments made to the families of killed soldiers are pitiful.
Weekend
Edition Features for August 2/3, 2003
Tamara
R. Piety
Nike's Full Court Press Breaks Down
Francis
Boyle
My Alma Mater, the University of Chicago, is a Moral Cesspool
David
Vest
Sons of Paleface: Pictures from Death's Other Side
Neve Gordon
Nightlife in Jerusalem
Uri
Avnery
Their Master's Voice:
Bush, Blair and Intelligence Snafus
Robert
Fisk
Paternalistic Democracy for Iraq
Jerry
Kroth
Israel, Yellowcake and the Media
Noah Leavitt
What's Driving the Liberian Bloodbath: Is the US Obligated to
Intervene?
Saul
Landau
The Film Industry: Business and Ideology
Ron Jacobs
One Big Prison Yard: the Meaning of George Jackson
Thomas
Croft
In the Deep, Deep Rough: Reflections on Augusta
Amadi Ajamu
Def Sham: Russell Simmons New Black Leader?
Poets'
Basement
Vega, Witherup, Albert and Fleming
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
|