Afghanistan/oil?

[kelley]

At 06:39 PM 10/14/01 -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
>Angelita Manzano wrote:
>
>>I have a question for you. Some of the things I've
>>read say that Afghanistan is one of most "mineral
>>rich" countries, others say that there's not much of
>>monetary value (besides opium) . . . and a some
>>activists say this all boils down to oil . . .
>
>Partisans of the oil angle, I have a question. The U.S. was attacked, and 
>it's not implausible that it was planned by ObL, who is based in 
>Afghanistan, and that his operatives were trained there. So it's not 
>outlandish that any response be directed there, whatever it may be. So 
>how's the oil angle fit into that? Did the CIA concoct the attack to 
>justify a war on Afghanistan? Is it just a happy coincidence? Or are 
>people just in the habit of invoking oil as the Real Secret Reason for 
>everything that happens?
>
>Doug

an analogy:  there are observable differences between females and males, 
but what we end up doing about those differences is what makes for women 
and men.

so too, this mess. there is a real event and the perceived need for a real 
response. We chose war on an entire country; we didn't have to. we haven't 
declared war in the past because of terrorist attacks--although we have 
retaliated. And I would argue, further, that the response that we had most 
planned out--the wonks who deal in assymetrical warfare--would have advised 
something quite different from the response we have pursued. So, that's 
where oil interests fit in.

a link for angie: http://www.tompaine.com/print.php3?id=2460

note: my recent arguments that the motivations of the terrorists were 
tantamount to a declaration of war were about what we can expect in the 
future from this group.