"Drawing the Enemy in Deep" A Speculation

[Hakki Alacakaptan]

To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
Subject: RE: "Drawing the Enemy in Deep" A Speculation

 || -----Original Message-----
 || From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
 || [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Greg Schofield
(...)
 || There are a couple a smal misunderstandings (granted that this
 || is based on a good deal of agreement) so if you forgive me I
 || would like to pick these details up.

And thanks for participating in this discussion which will allow us to
collectively get to the bottom of whatever the hell the ruling classes are
pulling on us this time.

(...)
 || There are other interests in oil, the archaic proped-up regimes
 || which act as agents for the old US oil gaints, is not
 || necessarily the way that modern international capitalism would
 || like it made available. Good as it may be for some sections of
 || capital it is not necessarily what capital in general requires.

It sounds like you’re saying modern capitalism doesn't like to do business
with banana republics, proxy regimes, dictatorships, etc. Since when? What
is Saudi Arabia? What is Zaire, Indonesia, Nigeria, Myanmar? Why have 11 US
and 24 other Western conglomerates splashed out over $100 billion for oil
and gas projects in the dinky dictatorships of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and
Turkmenistan?

During the Clinton years, US conglomerates encountered moderate resistance
from NGO’s, the government, and congress when taking advantage of the
lawlessness in the periphery of the global politico-economy. During this
period, Dick Cheney became the flag-bearer and chief architect of
USA*Engage[1], a coalition of over 300 companies of which 30 are active
members, the principal being Halliburton (Dick Cheney, CEO). This lobby was
successful in obtaining congressional and government support for  lifting
sanctions against delinquent regimes that its members had business dealings
with, and in obtaining federal and World Bank funds that would further their
business interests to the detriment of competing (non-US) companies and
opposing governments (such as Russia and Iran). The lobbying power of this
coalition suggests that it enlisted the government’s support at every level,
such as the effort to bolster and win over the Taliban for the Unocal
pipeline deal, the cessation of Syrian support for PKK guerillas (which
allowed the construction of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline), the support
for Chechen guerillas via Saudi Arabia to subvert Russia’s control over
Caspian oil distribution, the promotion of Azerbaidjan to de facto NATO
membership through the “Partnership for Peace” arrangement, and the
Centrasbat military exercises as a demonstration of US support for Central
Asian dictatorships. There is every reason to think that it was this
coalition that was brought to power by last November’s vote rigging.

Bill Clinton is a multilateralist of the Zbig school. Zbig’s bigness is due,
let’s remember, to his setting the Afghan trap for the Soviets. The master
gameplayer who brought down the USSR then went on to formulate the thesis of
a lopsided “Grand Chessboard” with only one king, where the game consists in
keeping it that way: A “benign American hegemony” [2]. Zbig’s preferred
strategy is to form regional or bilateral alliances that will give the
non-US parties the feeling that their interests ar being looked after, and
that they are the US’s “partner”. However, if the US plays well, all
regional alliances including the EU will ultimately “expand the range of
American influence” [3]. This is a game that the Great Conciliator Clinton
excelled at.

Today’s GOP, however, hampered by a latent racist, Darwinist, and
anti-intellectual (in a word: fascist) ideology, still practices old-style
imperialism, or tries to. It commands and coerces, and frequently ends up
backtracking with pie on it face. Its current Afghanistan campaign is based
on the illusion that the dominance over this strategic area that Clinton’s
“soft power” (a Zbigism) failed to achieve, can be had by brute force.
Cheney made his personal fortune by turning Halliburton into a mini-state
and using US federal money, US intelligence, and the US military to get what
he wanted from weak states at the outer edges of the global system. He
described the big prize he covets to some executives in 1998: “I can't think
of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as
strategically significant as the Caspian”.

The Cheney-led coalition has been led to believe by its high priest that oil
politics doesn’t have to be complicated. Speaking to the Cato Institute [4],
Cheney said “The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where
there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States.
Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one
would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is”. As for
the political instability in those regions, Cheney said that he doesn’t
“worry too much about it”.


 || I am not sure what is at play here, nor its ultimate direction,
 || I am sure that the post-war oil compromise is under pressure
 || from a variety of forces - the very thing that Bush wishes to
 || pepetuate may have avery limited sell-by-date.

The game is:

1.       US dominance over Central Asia to prevent the formation of an
anti-US coalition involving any combination of Russia, Iran, and China. This
is Zbig’s widely accepted game plan. This involves, among many other things,
setting up one or more large US military bases.
2.       Protection of upstream US oil investments in Azerbadijan,
Khazakstan, and Turkmenistan from Wahhabite fundamentalist "blowback" (the
international guerilla terrorists trained by the CIA in
Pakistan&Afghanistan, indoctrinated in Saudi Wahhabism and funded by Saudi
oil money). These guys have their rear bases in Afghanistan and get their
money through Qaeda.
3.       Control of China’s and India’s oil supply, and making max bucks via
the Afghan pipeline.

All of the above - not necessarily exhaustive list - require a stable,
friendly government in Afghanistan.

 || What is striking about everything to do with Bush Jnr's war is
 || the inepitude, the lack of any decisive aims - it seems a case
 || of strategy following rhetoric. If the whole thing is viewed
 || ala Vietnam style intervention then we are looking at the
 || supreme capitalist state in action, the unity of national
 || financial capital, vast imperial monopolies and the US state in
 || a territorial acquistion - this is not the case. Nor are we
 || even looking at a desperate attempt to preserve the status quo
 || in the Middle East (the established territories) ala Bush Snr.
 ||

We are looking at a latent fascist mind-set trying to play the global game,
and fucking up miserably. Cowboys trying to play Clinton's game, thinking
they can do a lot better by just shooting the place up and grabbing the
loot.

That’s it for now, more to come.

Hakki




[1] Kenny Bruno and Jim Valette, Cheney & Halliburton: Go Where the Oil Is,
http://www.essential.org/monitor/mm2001/01may/may01corp10.html
[2] Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Geostrategy for Eurasia”, Foreign Affairs,
Sept/Oct 1997.
[3] ibid. Brzezinski advocated US support for EU expansion, which would
prevent Europe from becoming so politically integrated that it could act as
a bloc against US interests, while plugging in even more countries on a
network already controlled by the US.
[4] The occasion was a conference on the theme of “current and potential
conflicts between US foreign policy and the liberty and well-being of
American citizens”. Cato clarified what it meant by “liberty and well-being”
and _which_ US citizens it had in mind: “the freedom of Americans to trade,
invest and communicate with the rest of the world”. Jon Flanders, “Gas, Oil,
and Afghanistan”, http://members.localnet.com/~jeflan/jfafghanpipe.htm