On Sun, 14 Oct 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
> 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?
The simplest defense is that an overthrow of the Taliban already existed as a Pentagon scenario before the September 11th attacks, and 9-11 was seized on as the perfect opportunity to put it in to action. I think that's true. Seizing an opportunity is what strategy is all about. And its beyond doubt that part of the reason the US (as well as every other bordering country) cares about what goes on Afghanistan is oil. Although personally I think that at this stage it is playing a secondary role to military political-considerations, namely the dangers posed by Afghanistan's formenting insurrection in neighboring countries and serving as the staging ground for terrorist attacks against US positions around the globe.
On the other hand, I fail to see how an interest in building oil pipelines is necessarily at odds with the interests of the people of Afghanistan. As in Macedonia, the main interest the big powers have is in peace, produced with a minimum of resources. If that can best be obtained through a broad-based, tolerant government, then that's what they have an interest in. And Afghanistan could certainly use the transit fees. It seems more likely at this point that it's the people of Turkmenistan who will be sacrificed to dictatorship.
I think the real role of oil in Afghanistan will come later, as an obstacle that has to be overcome if long term stability is to be achieved. On the military issue, of keeping the Taliban and its guests from exporting instability, the surrounding countries all finally have the same interest. When it comes to the laying of oil pipelines, their interests diverge. They could theoretically be squared. But the stakes will be high.
BTW, while I think it is true that oil always plays a role in military strategic thinking, I think that it is wrong to assert that military and diplomatic objectives are always subordinate to the interests of the oil companies. Sometimes there reverse is true -- the interests of the oil companies are forcibly subordinated to military/diplomatic interests precisely because oil is considered to be so important. The Baku to Ceyhan pipeline is a case in point. If oil companies had their way, it'd run through Iran. The Iran sanctions are another case in point. They not only hurt oil companies in general, but US ones in particular.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com