Wow. This doesn't look good for the boys in charge. Looks like a new book is about to come out. Richard Butler will have an op-ed piece in the NY Times this weekend on the issue. He (Butler) said this on CNN by way of explanation:The most explosive charge, Paula, is that the Bush administration -- the present one, just shortly after assuming office slowed down FBI investigations of al Qaeda and terrorism in Afghanistan in order to do a deal with the Taliban on oil -- an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.
Now let's see. The White House has appointed National Security Council Advisor Zalmay Khalilzad to serve as Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan. Apparetnly he worked for Unocal. As did Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's interim Prez. (Although this thread has some arguments as to why this might not be as ridiculous as it sounds.)
Kind of makes this whole conspiracty theory thing I linked to on 9/24 (alas, on a private page, because I was actually chicken) seem not that crazy.
Kind of makes you wonder who was in attendance at the secret Cheney energy summit? They've gone to some crazy lengths to surpress that information.
i agree, that paula zahn is an "explosive charge."
I assume they're talking about the book by Dasquie and Brisard--I guess CNN doesn't want to bother its viewers with wacky French author names. The book was also mentioned in the New York piece on John O'Neill. My response to that particular line of conspiracy argument is that a Central Asian pipeline might be the result of a war against Afghanistan but I doubt it's the primary cause. Much as I distrust Bush & Co, I think it's more likely that they "slowed down the al-Qaeda investigation" to appease the devil they know--the Saudis with whom many in the Administration have longstanding business relationships--than the devil they don't (UNOCAL's relatively new Central Asian venture). That's not to say they won't try to profit from the "stabilization" of Afghanistan, now that it's happened. Unfortunately, the "primary cause" of the war is even stupider and sicker than the search for oil profits--it was to give Americans a cool TV war show (and try out some new weapons and stuff) after 9/11 embarrassed the shit out of the administration.
the US tilt towards the taliban is pretty well outlined in ahmed rashid's "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia"... not that surprising, though...not only did Saudi and Pakistan support them, but Iran hated them (so they couldn't be all bad), and by the way, they did stamp out poppy cultivation, doing more for the war on drugs than any other government on earth...and yeah, Unocal had a big battle against Bridas (argentines) for the pipeline deal, the point of which is that an Afghan pipeline seemed like the only way to get the central asian oil out without going through Iran...and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of other horses to back, right? I mean, Masoud had his shot, he blew it, alienated everyone else when he ran Kabul; Hekmatyar blew it too; Dostum's an obvious creep...and in fact, backed by massive amounts of saudi oil and trucks and pakistani weapons and fighters, the taliban did an amazing job of taking nearly the whole country over ...what exactly were the good options for us policy circa, say, 1996-7?
Even if our choices were limited, and we made the best of a bad situation back then, why not just say that now? As it's being handled it comes off looking like the US decision makers are hiding something. One day the Taliban and Bin Laden are brave freedom fighters, and the next they are unquestioned evil doers in serious need of having 5,000 lb bombs dropped on their heads. Something is not right. Either back then, now, or at both points.
Probably you are correct (if this is what you're saying) that this is just the result of the very complicated real world in which sometimes you have to choose, say, the lesser of two bad choices. Fine. But I wish we could be a little more upfront about it. A little less haughty. I think it would help our national character to engage in a little more self criticism. Or to just speak something a little closer to the truth. One result I'd hope for (if we could admit that things aren't so clearly divided into "good" and "evil") is that it would be harder to work up the head of steam required to lay complete waste to another country.
But I guess that's exactly the reason why we spin the story the way we do.
a dose of realpolitik on the tree? why are you trying to cloud my opinions with facts? lets see? where to begin?
hmmm. how about an easy one? poppies? are you kidding me? is that really a big concern of yours even if it were true?
heres an overview of the various options for gas and oil pipelines out of central asia. the afghan option is the best option for us corporations because it was the shortest cheapest corridor (if you subtract the billions we are spending to "secure" the country) and because we believe we can exert the most influence there (for now). but it certainly isnt necessary, its just desired.
as for which dog to place our bets on in the 90's, i will plead a certain degree of ignorance. but certainly we were looking for someone to further our interests and were not overly concerned with afghanistan or the plight of its people. i would be interested to know where were our concerns in '89 after we helped topple the soviet backed regime. if afghanistan was so important to halt the spread of communism dont you think we would have put more effort into securing it then? only once the iron curtain fell and afghanistan became a useful conduit did we take an interest and it seems what we were interested in was security (for our assets) above all else. this might be ok with you but it does not set well with me.
i know you have spent time in the region so perhaps you could tell me where my conjecture is implausible.
The good options for u.s. policy circa, say, 1996-7?
1. Pay reparations for tearing up the country during our proxy war with the Soviets (to be administered primarily as food aid through Oxfam, the U.N., and other established relief channels). Lend assistance in removing mines. Thomas Friedman would probably say establish a Hamburger University in Kabul and give each tribal chieftain McDonald's franchises, under the theory that "no nation with a McDonald's has ever declared war on another nation with a McDonald's."
2. Massive "tough love" austerity program in the U.S. to make dependence on foreign oil moot. Close military bases around the world and use the money to build mass transit in major U.S. cities. Melt down tanks and build more rail infrastructure to reduce dependence on trucking industry.
3. Anything but what we did.
Gee, guess what? Unocal is going to get their pipeline. I don't like it when I'm right about stuff like this.
George W. Bush was not voted into office. Remember that situation not too long ago? Ever since he became president, the entire world became...different. Why? Let us all back up and dig deeper into the how and why from the beginning of Bush in office.
Why didn`t anything like this happen when Bill Clinton was in office?
Sort of looks like when Bush became president...all hell let loose.
|
Now let's see. The White House has appointed National Security Council Advisor Zalmay Khalilzad to serve as Special Presidential Envoy for Afghanistan. Apparetnly he worked for Unocal. As did Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's interim Prez. (Although this thread has some arguments as to why this might not be as ridiculous as it sounds.)
Kind of makes this whole conspiracty theory thing I linked to on 9/24 (alas, on a private page, because I was actually chicken) seem not that crazy.
Kind of makes you wonder who was in attendance at the secret Cheney energy summit? They've gone to some crazy lengths to surpress that information.
- jim 1-09-2002 3:32 pm
i agree, that paula zahn is an "explosive charge."
- dave 1-09-2002 4:00 pm [add a comment]
I assume they're talking about the book by Dasquie and Brisard--I guess CNN doesn't want to bother its viewers with wacky French author names. The book was also mentioned in the New York piece on John O'Neill. My response to that particular line of conspiracy argument is that a Central Asian pipeline might be the result of a war against Afghanistan but I doubt it's the primary cause. Much as I distrust Bush & Co, I think it's more likely that they "slowed down the al-Qaeda investigation" to appease the devil they know--the Saudis with whom many in the Administration have longstanding business relationships--than the devil they don't (UNOCAL's relatively new Central Asian venture). That's not to say they won't try to profit from the "stabilization" of Afghanistan, now that it's happened. Unfortunately, the "primary cause" of the war is even stupider and sicker than the search for oil profits--it was to give Americans a cool TV war show (and try out some new weapons and stuff) after 9/11 embarrassed the shit out of the administration.
- tom moody 1-09-2002 8:24 pm [add a comment]
heres a good article i dug up which would seem to support your pov.
- dave 1-09-2002 8:49 pm [add a comment]
the US tilt towards the taliban is pretty well outlined in ahmed rashid's "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia"... not that surprising, though...not only did Saudi and Pakistan support them, but Iran hated them (so they couldn't be all bad), and by the way, they did stamp out poppy cultivation, doing more for the war on drugs than any other government on earth...and yeah, Unocal had a big battle against Bridas (argentines) for the pipeline deal, the point of which is that an Afghan pipeline seemed like the only way to get the central asian oil out without going through Iran...and there didn't seem to be a whole lot of other horses to back, right? I mean, Masoud had his shot, he blew it, alienated everyone else when he ran Kabul; Hekmatyar blew it too; Dostum's an obvious creep...and in fact, backed by massive amounts of saudi oil and trucks and pakistani weapons and fighters, the taliban did an amazing job of taking nearly the whole country over ...what exactly were the good options for us policy circa, say, 1996-7?
- big jimmy 1-15-2002 5:23 am [add a comment]
Even if our choices were limited, and we made the best of a bad situation back then, why not just say that now? As it's being handled it comes off looking like the US decision makers are hiding something. One day the Taliban and Bin Laden are brave freedom fighters, and the next they are unquestioned evil doers in serious need of having 5,000 lb bombs dropped on their heads. Something is not right. Either back then, now, or at both points.
Probably you are correct (if this is what you're saying) that this is just the result of the very complicated real world in which sometimes you have to choose, say, the lesser of two bad choices. Fine. But I wish we could be a little more upfront about it. A little less haughty. I think it would help our national character to engage in a little more self criticism. Or to just speak something a little closer to the truth. One result I'd hope for (if we could admit that things aren't so clearly divided into "good" and "evil") is that it would be harder to work up the head of steam required to lay complete waste to another country.
But I guess that's exactly the reason why we spin the story the way we do.
- jim 1-15-2002 5:24 pm [add a comment]
a dose of realpolitik on the tree? why are you trying to cloud my opinions with facts? lets see? where to begin?
hmmm. how about an easy one? poppies? are you kidding me? is that really a big concern of yours even if it were true?
heres an overview of the various options for gas and oil pipelines out of central asia. the afghan option is the best option for us corporations because it was the shortest cheapest corridor (if you subtract the billions we are spending to "secure" the country) and because we believe we can exert the most influence there (for now). but it certainly isnt necessary, its just desired.
as for which dog to place our bets on in the 90's, i will plead a certain degree of ignorance. but certainly we were looking for someone to further our interests and were not overly concerned with afghanistan or the plight of its people. i would be interested to know where were our concerns in '89 after we helped topple the soviet backed regime. if afghanistan was so important to halt the spread of communism dont you think we would have put more effort into securing it then? only once the iron curtain fell and afghanistan became a useful conduit did we take an interest and it seems what we were interested in was security (for our assets) above all else. this might be ok with you but it does not set well with me.
i know you have spent time in the region so perhaps you could tell me where my conjecture is implausible.
- dave 1-15-2002 6:15 pm [add a comment]
The good options for u.s. policy circa, say, 1996-7?
1. Pay reparations for tearing up the country during our proxy war with the Soviets (to be administered primarily as food aid through Oxfam, the U.N., and other established relief channels). Lend assistance in removing mines. Thomas Friedman would probably say establish a Hamburger University in Kabul and give each tribal chieftain McDonald's franchises, under the theory that "no nation with a McDonald's has ever declared war on another nation with a McDonald's."
2. Massive "tough love" austerity program in the U.S. to make dependence on foreign oil moot. Close military bases around the world and use the money to build mass transit in major U.S. cities. Melt down tanks and build more rail infrastructure to reduce dependence on trucking industry.
3. Anything but what we did.
- tom moody 1-15-2002 8:34 pm [add a comment]
franchise opportunities
- dave 1-17-2002 9:00 am [add a comment]
Gee, guess what? Unocal is going to get their pipeline. I don't like it when I'm right about stuff like this.
- jim 5-17-2002 8:34 pm [add a comment]
George W. Bush was not voted into office. Remember that situation not too long ago? Ever since he became president, the entire world became...different. Why? Let us all back up and dig deeper into the how and why from the beginning of Bush in office.
Why didn`t anything like this happen when Bill Clinton was in office?
Sort of looks like when Bush became president...all hell let loose.
- George W. Bush was NOT voted i (guest) 11-04-2003 10:12 am [add a comment]