Community | December 02, 2009 | 22 comments

A "necessary war"- for a gas pipeline

source: http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11302009.html

Image
JanforGore
The U.S. intervened indirectly in Afghanistan in the ‘80s, with no thought for the welfare of the Afghan people and with tragic consequences for them, in order to fight the Soviets and the imagined menace of “communism.” To do that it nurtured a ferocious Islamist extremist trend. There’s never been any acknowledgement of error or apology and don’t expect one. It all made sense at the time from a U.S. imperialist point of view.

What makes sense now, from a U.S. imperialist point of view? Just look at the map. Realize that Afghanistan has no products the U.S. corporate world wants or needs. During the Cold War, Iran, Iraq, Turkey sometimes played crucial roles in U.S. geostrategic thinking but Afghanistan was practically conceded to the Soviet camp even before 1978. It only acquired significance as a Cold War battleground when U.S. strategists realized (in Brzezinski’s words) that they could “bleed the Soviets…the way they did us in Vietnam.” More recently, it has acquired significance as U.S. energy corporations do global battle with the Russians over access to Caspian Sea natural gas.

At present Europe is dependent on the supply of gas via Russia from the Caspian Sea, principally from Turkmenistan. This gives Moscow enormous political leverage when it comes to such matters as NATO’s decision to admit Georgia or Ukraine. U.S. policy has been to build pipelines from the Caspian avoiding Russia or Iran. Construction of the TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline which will pump the gas straight to the Indian Ocean and on to world markets has been long delayed due to the fighting in Afghanistan.

The pipeline will run through Helmand province, then into Pakistan’s Balochistan. If it all works out, this will represent a highly significant improvement in the geostrategic position of the U.S. in the region, including in the event of another world war (such as might be provoked by a U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and unpredictable repercussions of such action).

But Obama will not be talking about the history of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, or the feelings of the Afghan people about occupation, or the reactions of the Pakistanis to the unmitigated disaster on their doorstep, or the real geopolitical reasons for U.S. interest in this backward impoverished Central Asian nation that has been “the graveyard of empires” since the time of Alexander the Great.

He will say it’s still a necessary war to defend Americans from terrorist attack. We should recall, once again, the observation of Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering during the Nuremburg trial that while “naturally the common people don’t want war … the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

We should respond: No it’s not necessary! in the streets that day and those following---until we force Obama to end what are now unmistakably his criminal imperialist wars.

end of excerpt.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Human Rights,   3 more
  2. tags:
    War,  Iran,  Afghanistan,  Oil,  9 more
  3.     
    |

22 comments // A "necessary war"- for a gas pipeline

  • ShroomDuke
    • 0
      ShroomDuke  

    • question:
      What is an American job worth? ... anyone?
      $7.25/hr min-wage $678,600
      $50k/yr $2,250,000
      $150K/yr $6,750,000
      if it is as Bhagwati's findings with estimates that 400,000 U.S. jobs had moved abroad by 2003 shows
      so... 400K x $2 million = $800,000,000,000

      Corporations are not only taking hundreds of billions of dollars our of the American Economy and the U.S. Government is encouraging them! but they are GIVING this wealth away, they may as well take the GOLD out of fort knox and give it to our enemies...!

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
  • ShroomDuke
    • 0
      ShroomDuke  

    • Liberals and Conservatives alike want America to be a Strong, Secure, Educated, Prosparous country with a Healthy Economy, Environment, and Future for our children.

      It's time to START ON COMMON GROUND! stop bickering like children about petty differences. Lets work on our conflict resolution instead of perfecting whineing and bickering!

      It's time to ignore our petty differences and find our common ground. Liberals & Conservatives alike do not want American jobs given away to forign countries, each job is worth around $1 to $5 million and we are GIVING THEM TO COMMUNIST CHINA! WHY?

      Please work on building common ground and make America strong again!

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  

    • ---------" I don't doubt the pipeline is involved in LONG term geopolitical equations."-------

      Do you mean like, how LONG we have to keep troops in Afghanistan? And keep buying weapons to supply them with? Think about it, as long as you have troops, you need weapons, and supplying those weapons generates huge profits.

      If we don't use petroleum to fuel our vehicles, we don't need petroleum. If we use biofuels and compressed natural gas---we do not need petroleum. If we do not need petroleum, there is no need for us to even be in the Middle East at all.

      We have vehicles now that run on natural gas and biofuels and do everything that petroleum powered vehicles do, and at less cost to the consumer. So why do you suppose the government does not mandate that all vehicles sold be either diesel/natural gas or flex fuel/natural gas capable? That does not force anyone to do anything---if you still want to use petroleum, you can----if you do not want to use petroleum, you can run your vehicle all you want and never need a drop of petroleum. It is the consumers choice. And it would cost virtually nothing to consumers to do this. And, it would save them a pile of money to be able to use a cheaper fuel, less taxes, laws, regulations and beauracracy for environmental issues.

      Power. So long as consumers have no choice, power remains in the hands of coporate and government decision makers. Watch what they do, not what they say. Watch where the money goes.

    • 2 years ago
  • remanns
    • -1
      remanns  

    • I'm sure there is a correlation,...but is the pipeline 'causal'? I have my doubts. It probably does have the effect of feeding fuel to the engine of war, as it were, but I don't think it is a sufficient motivator in and of itself. I don't doubt the pipeline is involved in LONG term geopolitical equations.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ares
    • -1
      Ares  

    • Kennedy really got shot, that doesn't mean there was a malevolent government sponsored agenda behind the shooting.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Ares
    • -1
      Ares  

    • Impressive theory, though I'm surprised you aren't tying this into the Kennedy assassination, September 11th, and the 2012 apocalypse theory.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • I agree. Resource wars including wars for water are what will make up the 21st century. Nothing has changed except the players. How sad for us collectively to still not be able to connect the dots. We won't have real change until we do. Here we should be aggressively pushing solar energy and other alternatives, and still we are sunk into the mire pushing this world ever closer to making it unsustainable to live on..

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • Thank you for the post Jan.

      Go back to before the intervention in Iraq and Afganistan, and though it was no peaceful place, if we look at India, Pakistan, Iran or even Iraq, it was a far quieter place.

      It has also been clear from almost any intelligence agency that you deal with terrorism through intelligence. If you want to fuel terrorism you make them heros by occupying their country. Finally if you want peace with the muslim world make aid to Israel conditional on dismantling their settlements, and start criticizing nuclear proliferation breaches by your allies in Israel and India, as well as your enemies in Iran (treat others as you want to be treated)

      What we are doing is creating terrorism? We have dropped so many bombs that kill so many civilians for a couple thousand terrorists... How would we respond if there were a couple thousand terrorists in the US, and another country intervened militarily, and their offensive resulted in casualties that were 95% civilian?

      Karzai (especially his brother) and his regime are dependent on drugs. We are propping up warlords b/c we need to, to have any sort of stability (forgetting that years ago it was Ben Laden, the taliban, Saddam or Al quaeda that we were propping up). We are not creating peace but tommorrows terrorists.

      Their was almost no talk of economic development and a marshall plan to Afganistan which aside changing our drug policies is the only way towards taking the power out of the drug lords. And Obama acted as a puppet supporter of the past century of US imperialism.

      Finally you are absolutely right about the pipeline. It is fairly clear from US involvement everywhere whether in Venezuela, Aghanistan, Iraq, Iran, or even increasingly in Africa it is always about oil and energy (or shutting out any experiments how ever popular with governments that aren't free market capitalists), and anyone who can not see that, is absolutely ignorant of history.

      this is complete bull shit. Obama is not 'change we can believe in'.

    • 2 years ago
  • AmericanStandard
    • 0
      AmericanStandard  

    • its not that the war is for the pipeline but the pipeline is for the war. Hmmm we are in Iraq, we are in Afghanistan, and we are trying to prevent nuclear proliferation Iran which happens to be right in between. Coincidence? I think not.

    • 2 years ago
  • pjacobs51
  • samthesixth
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • While I don't put it past our government, the argument doesn't seem that logical. Russia and Iran have the largest proven reserves by a long shot. Turkmenistan ranks #11, so why go through all the trouble when we (US) rank #6? Wouldn't it be more direct to pump the gas through turkey/Azerbaijan if the end goal is getting it to Europe? Why not go for Qatar since they are tiny, on the ocean, and have 15% of the worlds gas

      Here's the list:

      Rank Country Proved natural gas reserves
      (millions of cu m)
      1 Russia 47,570,000
      2 Iran 26,370,000
      3 Qatar 25,790,000
      4 Saudi Arabia 6,568,000
      5 United Arab Emirates 5,823,000
      6 United States 5,551,000
      7 Nigeria 5,015,000
      8 Algeria 4,359,000
      9 Venezuela 4,112,000
      10 Iraq 3,170,000
      11 Turkmenistan 2,860,000
      12 Indonesia 2,630,000
      13 China 2,450,000
      14 Norway 2,288,000
      15 Malaysia 2,037,000
      16 Uzbekistan 1,798,000
      17 Kazakhstan 1,765,000
      18 Netherlands 1,684,000
      19 Egypt 1,589,000
      20 Canada 1,537,000
      21 Kuwait 1,521,000
      22 Libya 1,430,000
      23 Ukraine

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • I actually think this is a big part of their geopolitical strategy,, especially regarding that we are now supposedly in 'Peak Oil.'

    • 2 years ago
  • drewsuf721
    • 0
      drewsuf721  

    • Oh wow. I was arguing with my brother and republican Uncle about Af-Pak troop increases and brought up this pipeline, they said I was talking conspiracy theory, damn liberal. But in all seriousness, do you think this is a large reason for escalating the war? Does this outweigh the supposed future haven for Al-Qaeda reasoning? Finishing what we started, etc.

      I thought it was interesting Obama brought up Somalia in the speech, which is where the larger concentration of Al-Qaeda is now. Pirates just took an oil tanker, maybe that is why... maybe it is all about oil.

    • 2 years ago
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • drewsuf721:

      Yes, oil and drugs.

      US $s are not backed by anything, not gold, not silver---they are just IOUs printed on little green pieces of paper.

      Drugs and petroleum are the new commodities backing the value of the US dollar.

      Afghanistan is the largest producer of opium poppies in the world(morphine, heroin and other opiates). The US has been in Afghanistan for over 8 years virtually unopposed----and yet Afghanistan is producing more opium now that when we went in.

      The US has spent over 30 years and hundreds of billions of $$$ fighting a "War On Drugs"------and yet drugs are more prevalent and available now than they were when the "War On Drugs" started.

      We are told that we have to have electric vehicles to get off of the need for petroleum, when electric vehicles are very limited in range, and even with battery improvements, are no where NEAR a replacement for petroleum, now, or even in the foreseeable future. When in fact, using bi-fuel engine vehicles that use both liquid and natural gas, we can drive completely petroleum free, using off the shelf technology we've had for over 50 years. Bi-fuel diesel/compressed natural gas or flex fuel/compressed natural gas vehicles can do anything and everything that petroleum only vehicles do, produce FAR less pollution(up to about 90% less) and cost about 1/2 the amount to drive comparred to petroleum. AND, with a home compressor, you could fuel your compressed natural gas vehicle at home from your utility hook up. Bi-fuel liquid/gas vehicles would give you complete freedom to chose which fuel best suits your needs, and cost roughly the same as conventional petroleum only vehicles.

      Do you see a pattern emerging here?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • Wetdog
    • 0
      Wetdog  
    • JanforGore:

      ----------"How naive do they think we all are?"------------

      Very.

      So far, they have never been proven anything but right. For the last 5 years, the only thing we've heard about Al Quida has been from the US government, and those who want to continue warfare. Yet, Americans still fall for the old bogeyman under the bed.

      The real purpose of the Afghan war is two fold, control of drugs and petroleum.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos