[SLP] Behind the War in Afghanistan

THE PEOPLE

NOVEMBER 2001

VOL. 111 NO. 8

WHAT ARE THE REAL REASONS

for the war in AFGHANISTAN?

By Diane Secor

The Bush administration has told the American public to prepare for a

long war on terrorism, ostensibly in response to the Sept. 11 attacks on

the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. There seems to be a general

consensus among the administration, most members of Congress and most of

the U.S. media that the U.S. role in this war is a clear-cut case of

self-defense and that violence is necessary to prevent more terrorist

strikes on U.S. soil. For all intents and purposes, however, the "war on

terrorism" is a war on Afghanistan, and there is substantial evidence

indicating that an Afghan war was planned several months ago and that,

in reality, this is another war over oil.

Last March, long before Sept. 11, Jane's International Security News

reported on an agreement that had all the earmarks of a multinational

coalition aimed at undermining the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. "India

is believed to have joined Russia, the U.S.A. and Iran in a concerted

front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime," Jane's reported. "India is

believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah

Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defense advisors,

including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing

tactical advice in operations against the Taliban....Military sources

indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to

launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia."

In short, something resembling the multinational coalition so much in

the news since Sept. 11 has been in place for at least six months.

Furthermore, this pre-September coalition also had a basic strategy in

place to throw out the Taliban. This certainly calls into question the

U.S. media's clear overall implication that it was only after Sept. 11

that a multinational force banded together and concluded that the

Taliban had to be replaced.

The following statement from Jane's March 15 report is even more

revealing: "Several recent meetings between the newly instituted

Indo-U.S. and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this

effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban. Intelligence

sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the

anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern

Alliance information and logistic support."

Why does the United States want to overthrow the Taliban and put another

Afghan regime in power? Why is Bush taking the risk of a larger regional

war and possibly igniting future terrorist attacks against Americans?

Zalmay Khalilzad may hold the key to unraveling this mystery.

According to a May 23 White House press release, Khalilzad was selected

for the post of "special assistant to the president and senior director

for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues, National Security

Council."

Khalilzad does have the political connections to get the job. Eli J.

Lake, United Press International, on Jan. 18 reported that Khalilzad

"who served under President Reagan's State Department and President

Bush's Pentagon and influenced the last American adventure in [the]

region when the CIA helped ship surface-to-air missiles to the

mujaheddin, the holy warriors who fought against the Soviets. Khalilzad

now finds himself in a position to influence the next administration's

policy for cleaning up the mess created by the mujaheddin's struggle in

the 1980s, as the man in charge of staffing the Pentagon for the

Bush-Cheney transition team."

Interestingly, according to the Center for Strategic International

Studies' Washington Quarterly, Winter 2000, Khalilzad's Afghan policy

seemed to fit right in with the scenario outlined in the Jane's report.

He "argue[d] in no uncertain terms for supporting the Pashtun majority

in Afghanistan to roll back the Taliban government and working

'discreetly' with Iran and Russia to destabilize the government in

Kabul."

However, as recently as 1999, Khalilzad favored some degree of

"engagement," as opposed to "destabilization" of the Taliban regime. In

a white paper for the House International Relations Committee, he said

that "U.S. policy toward Afghanistan should follow two parallel and

complementary tracks, one of which extends a hand to the Taliban and the

other of which prepares for a much tougher policy should the Taliban

reject U.S. overtures."

What accounts for Khalilzad's change of heart? UPI also reported that he

is "an analyst for the Rand Corp. and before that the chief consultant

for Unocal, the oil company that sought to build a pipeline through

Afghanistan."

The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA)

issued a September document on Afghanistan which noted the stormy

relationship between the Taliban and Unocal affecting two pipelines that

Unocal had planned to construct through Afghanistan:

A billion Central Asian Gas Pipeline would have transported natural

gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, then be "linked with Pakistan's

natural gas grid at Sui." In June 1998, the consortium consisted of

these firms: "Unocal and Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil held a combined 85

percent stake in Centgas, while Turkmenrusgas owned 5 percent. Other

participants in the proposed project besides Delta Oil include the

Crescent Group of Pakistan, Gazprom of Russia, Hyundai Engineering &

Construction Co. of South Korea, Inpex and Itochu of Japan."

"Besides the gas pipeline," the EIA added, "Unocal also had considered

building a 1,000-mile, 1-million barrel-per-day...capacity oil pipeline

that would link Chardzou, Turkmenistan to Pakistan's Arabian Sea Coast

via Afghanistan. Since the Chardzou refinery is already linked to

Russia's Western Siberian oil fields, this line could provide a possible

alternative export route for regional oil production from the Caspian

Sea. The .5 billion pipeline is known as the Central Asian Oil

Pipeline Project. For a variety of reasons, including high political

risk and security concerns, however, financing for this project remains

highly uncertain."

In January 1998, Unocal and the Taliban hammered out the gas pipeline

agreement. But by the end of 1998, both of the pipeline deals collapsed

and the Unocal consortium gave up on working with the Taliban regime. It

then became increasingly clear that the Taliban were an obstacle to gas

and oil flowing through Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, Khalilzad took a

more "hard line" position on the Taliban.

If this story of another war over oil and natural gas deposits begins to

sound like a "broken record," it is because the history of capitalism is

filled with these cases. In the pursuit of new markets and raw

materials, the risks of war and terrorist acts are the rule, not the

exception. Nationalistic fervor and an understandable tendency to panic

when the trauma of terrorism hits so close to home often obscure these

basic realities. But workers who are aware of the real causes of this

war will not be hoodwinked.

Receive The People, the official journal of the Socialist Labor Party, via e-mail every month. It's free and you can subscribe here:

http://www.slp.org/tp.htm#anchor183008

Just looked at Unocal's website, where they infatically claim that they don't support theTaliban-well, OF COURSE NOT! Because Unocal is a major reason why Afghanistan is being bombed right now! The Bush regime wants the Taliban out so a corporate friendly regime can be installed in its place and Unocal, etc. can go back and build their oil and gas pipelines.

By the way, I see Unocal is also doing business in another "bastion of Democracy" in Asia-Myanmar.

THAT country has a REAL IMMACULATE human rights record-NOT!!!!! We need to determine where this company's headquarters is located(the website is not real reveiling about that), but the impression is it's in El Segundo. If anyone can confirm that, then we can get to the serious business of organizing a PROTEST there!

Like a fool, I took a month to type "central asia oil" into the Google search engine.

Go ahead and try it yourself. Read for a couple hours, and it'll become pretty obvious what's up.

Tensions in the region have been high for years, but they only recently escalated due to a number of factors, including (but not limited to):

- Turkey being difficult about putting a pipeline through from the Caspian Sea through Turkey.

- Russia making moves to build a pipeline from the Caspian, through Russia.

- The Taliban government possibly gaining total control over Afghanistan, meaning they can move north into Central Asia. (Not through invasion, but through anti-American organizing.)

- The discovery of what are believed to be significant oil reserves in the Caspian Sea region.

- And general escalation of tensions in the region due to the sense that war is impending in Central Asia because of its new economic importance.

Given these conditions, it makes sense to engage Afghanistan as a first-mover into the region. By moving as the victim of attacks, it becomes a lot easier to choose alliances. With international support to boot!

I'm sorry I haven't memorized the little details -- I'll prepare a more useful page later. I honestly don't think that there's any "losing the war" even if Bush doesn't get bin Laden. The real issue is to get oil out of the Caspian, in US controlled pipes, either through Afghanistan and Pakistan, or through Turkey.

The oil matters, because our Alaskan reserves dry out in 15 years. (According to Ted Rall's article.) Even if it was 25 years, that's too close for comfort.

That's my theory so far, based on a few hours of reading what Google turned up.

A theory being advanced these days is that the

Taliban, perhaps having held out too long for a

better deal with Unocal, knew they were on the

outs with the US regime. (How could they not have,

with articles in Jane's about it months ago?)

Hence the recent terror attacks. What can you

expect when you back fanatics into a corner?

Speculation, but perhaps the most plausible

I've heard.

It's also worth noting the obvious: the current

regime is run practically entirely by high-level

oil industry tycoons and hangers-on, Cheney being

former CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton being

subcontractor to Unocal's slave labor-built

Yadana gas pipeline in Burma. Etc.