<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1254"> <META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001>Michael Pugliese sent me an article - which I've unfortunately deleted, mistakenly thinking that it had already been posted to the list - entitled something like "What's in that Pipe You're Smoking?", which hopes to debunk the "Oil War" thesis held forth by The Guardian and other European papers. The writer's arguments (from memory) and my replies: </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001><STRONG>Argument 1: </STRONG>The Turkmenistan-Pakistan route is impractical and costly, which is why western pipeline routes have been preferred, notably the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001><STRONG>Reply 1:</STRONG> It is true that the Baku-Ceyhan route got the go-ahead from the banks and oil companies only after Unocal's Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium collapsed when it became apparent that the Taliban could not be bought, only rented, as per Afghan tradition. However, as documented in my October 25 post RE: Note to the "ladder of force left", the Afghan pipeline is the ONLY possible route for selling Caucasian hydrocarbons to China and India's booming economies under Gulf prices. There are no alternatives. Even if the Shah were ruling Iran, he would be demented to allow a pipeline over his territory that would undercut his own product's price.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001>The US and EU markets are saturated and almost the entire output of Baku-Ceyhan will be absorbed by Turkey alone, so it's a very minor route. In fact, a second pipeline is being built under the Black Sea for Siberian natural gas, this again for Turkish domestic consumption.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001><STRONG>Argument 2: </STRONG>The Afghan pipeline project is unfeasible because of inherent political stability in Afghanistan.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001><STRONG>Reply 2: </STRONG>The problem with the Taliban is not the question of whether they can hold on to power or not. Even the Pentagon and Rumsfeld are expressing doubts as to whether they can be made to let go of it. They are as invincible as it gets. The problem is they won't do business. Contractual agreements and capitalist greed are not part of their medieval world. They have the money they need thanks to ObL, as evidenced by their readiness to ban the opium trade. This war is meant to fix that by removing the Taliban and replacing them with something more pliant to financial incentive. Getting rid of ObL, who represents the core of the Taliban's doctrinal obduracy and their main source of sympathetic (i.e. pro-shariat) income is therefore imperative.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001>Is the project to supplant the Taliban simplistic? Sure, but Cheney is politically simplistic when it comes to oil. To paraphrase him, "the good lord hasn't put the oil fields under pro-western countries, but I don't worry about it". Meaning: Dictators are only interested in cash, so we get along just fine. And if they need some military backup, that's what the U.S. Army's for. Cheney may have a subtler strategy not voiced publicly but I doubt it. Republican minds are generally obverse to deep social and political thinking, as this may distract them from the all-important bottom line. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001><STRONG>Argument 3: </STRONG>(Which is really a corollary) The Afghan pipeline has never been seriously contemplated.</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001><STRONG>Reply 3:</STRONG> I would simply refer to the abundant references in my post mentioned above. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001></SPAN></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=331271207-26102001>Besides, why else would an Afghan invasion by Britain and the US have been planned BEFORE 9-11? The tenuous ObL connection to the embassy bombings? Please, give me a break. </SPAN></FONT></DIV> <P align=left><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hakki Alacakaptan<SPAN class=331271207-26102001>, who only smokes an occasional cigarette.</SPAN><BR></FONT></P> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>