Bruce Richardson
Pipeline Politics…A Mercantile War
At the end of December 1979, the world’s greatest land army claiming falsely that they “had been invited by the Afghan Government” invaded Afghanistan. The invasion set in motion a stage of the Soviet program: the conquest and absorption of Afghanistan into the Soviet Bloc. To that end, Moscow assassinated the sitting President Amin and installed their puppet Babrak Karmal, long-time KGB agent as president. That army, the Soviet 40th remained in occupation for ten years. Citing similarities, there has been much speculation in academia and amongst those and others engaged in Afghanistan research as to Moscow’s motivations for a fateful decision that ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet (USSR) State.
Today, in recognition of that dark day in history, scholars, students, and historians alike are drawing parallels between the decision made by Moscow to intervene militarily in Afghanistan and that of Washington in 2001. (See: Notes)
It is said the Moscow’s decision was based on acquiring forward bases of operation from which to expand its empire and thereby extend control over scarce, energy-related sources in the vast Asian hinterland. Numerous quotes by Soviet principals of the time claimed that “Afghanistan is not costing us a cent”, a reference to their theft of enormous quantities of Afghanistan’s natural gas. In addition, Moscow’s client-government in Kabul was faltering, under siege from an indigenous based-resistance who ascribed to the inviolable-premise that Islam and Communism were not at all compatible.
Moscow’s approach was to launch a devastating war under which the civilian, mostly Pashtun infrastructure was purposely attacked. Using the brutal “divide-and-conquer” tactic from the Tsarist nineteenth century, the intelligence services (KGB-GRU) recruited from the minority ranks of the population while focusing their assault on the majority Pashtuns. Massive scorched-earth tactics were employed, destroying literally many thousands of homes. Over the ten-years, the war claimed the lives of nearly two million Afghans.
The minority militias and fifth columnists (spies) aided the Soviet occupation through launching attacks against those Mujahideen who were defending Afghanistan against the invaders and as a result interrupted vital re-supply efforts which denied the 40th Army total control of the country. In addition, the collaborators provided timely intelligence for Soviet air and artillery attacks against the Resistance.
Notwithstanding the fact that Moscow had offset a significant portion of the costs of fielding a large army by resource requisition and or pilferage, the cost became untenable. The end result was the dissolution of their empire and hence their state. Presently, again aided by the collaborators and as an ally of the U.S. in their so-called war on terror, the Soviets, reverting back to their former moniker…Russia, are again engaged in the political landscape of Afghanistan.
Washington’s decision to attack Afghanistan was forged long before the horrific attack on the Twin Towers during September 11, 2001. At a conference in Berlin during the summer of 2001, American officials told Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik that “we will attack Afghanistan before the snow flies in October.” Presently unimpeachable testimony, this expose is thoroughly documented and has served to unambiguously undermine the U.S. oft-stated justification for attacking Afghanistan…vengeance against those who attacked America. Washington, like Moscow, saw with the occupation of Afghanistan strategic advantage (encirclement) vis-à-vis Iran and China and extensive, exclusive commercial opportunity.
And, as with Moscow, the energy deficient West, led by Washington, sought an open route to the spoils of the energy-rich Caspian Basin, long considered as a vast and untapped energy resource, perhaps unequaled in the world. (See: Notes)
Again, as with Moscow, Washington’s approach has been to launch a devastating scorched earth war, claiming the lives of many innocent civilians. Like the Soviets, the U.S. has pressed into service a contingent of collaborators (Northern Alliance) who are taking advantage of U.S. air power to defeat their political enemies (Pashtuns) by providing false intelligence to U.S. authorities and who are then subject to massive aerial and or drone assault.
One cannot be struck by the encyclopedic in scope similarities between that of Moscow and Washington’s modality of waging war. But like Moscow, the American war machine is feeling the drain of scarce resources, spending sixteen million dollars per hour waging their ‘war of choice’. Notwithstanding assault by the world’s greatest land powers, the courageous Afghan people have and continue to resist foreign aggression in a manner unparalleled in the history of warfare. Would those who covet another’s resources and terra firma, just pause for a moment to benefit from the lessons of history? And on this auspicious point, let us today join together and call for an end to an illegal and unjust war based on falsehoods, commercial interests, innuendo and outright propaganda.
Notes:
Building a case for military intervention:
February 12, 1998. John J. Maresca, VP International Relations for UNOCAL Oil Co., testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how this might shape US foreign policy. The American concern UNOCAL’s problem was how to get the regions vast energy resources to the market. The oil reserves are located in the northern environs of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Proposed routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil through a 42-inch pipeline South through Afghanistan for 1040 miles to Pakistan’s port city of Gwadar on the Arabian Sea. Such a pipeline would cost approximately 2.5-billion dollars and transport approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day. Maresca informed congress that “It’s not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government…that’s the simple answer”.
California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, with regime change uppermost in mind, cited what he termed an “abysmal human rights record compiled over the treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban and that in addition they were opium producers.” Women’s rights and opium production were therefore introduced into congressional testimony by Congressman Rohrabacher as a wedge and hence call for US military intervention to enact regime change under humanitarian and drug eradication cover with which to facilitate UNOCAL’s plan to construct a pipeline through Afghanistan. Many jurists world-wide, based on investigative research, have concluded that the humanitarian aspect was all a cover story that only needed a triggering event to justify an American intervention to secure what congressional representatives saw as UNOCAL’s exclusive right and unique opportunity for building the Trans-Afghan-Pipeline (TAP). Journalist Bill Sardi, writing for “Lew Rockwell” wrote an article on point titled: Is an Oil Pipeline behind the War in Afghanistan.
In yet another expose, journalist David Lee Griffin writes: One part of the Bush Administrations’ pre-9/11 plan to reshape the world was to replace the Taliban so that a pipeline to bring oil from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan could be built by the American concern, UNOCAL.
It is well-known that neither Afghanistan nor any Afghan citizen played any role whatsoever in the 9/11 attack on America. Yet, it was and continues to be insinuated and alleged by official Washington that there had been an Afghan role and that “Afghanistan is the Hub of terrorism” which therefore constitutes justification for America’s attack.
What has shown America’s inferences and allegations to be without foundation was a UN sponsored conference on Afghanistan in Berlin during the summer of 2001, months prior to 9/11, whereupon US officials advised Pakistan Secretary Niaz Naik that “America would attack Afghanistan before the snow flies in October. “ Taliban pipeline negotiators were warned by American officials in Berlin during that conference that “either you accept our (UNOCAL) carpet of gold or we will bury you in a carpet of bombs.” Threats issued months before 9/11, America’s oft-stated justification for war in Afghanistan. Regime change was sought due to faltering negotiations between Taliban and representatives from UNOCAL for exclusive construction rights for the pipeline project. This day, around the globe, America’s war in Afghanistan is seen by an ever-increasing number of the world’s citizenry as “pipeline politics”, a mercantile war.
3/25/13: Today, retired General John Allen stated that US troops will remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014 no matter what. The “zero-troop option was never under consideration”, he said. (Source: anti-war.com, Jason Ditz) Given the recognized, genuine security concerns for the US, even the blind can easily see or fathom the commercial overtones present in the general’s statement. As an added dimension, American troop presence would likely forestall, limit, and or eliminate competition from energy-hungry giants Russia and China for exclusive pipeline transport rights and access to the energy riches of the Caspian Basin.