I am under the belief that all wars are caused by something economic (I am not trying to prove this, it is simply my belief).
But, in that spirit, I’d like to pass along some information I came across from the various anti-war organizations I consistently read.
-The Caspian Sea region has potentially the world’s largest oil reserves. At any rate it has enough “potential” oil to warrant US interest in the region. Furthermore, Afghanistan occupies a strategic position between the Caspian and markets of the Indian subcontinent and east Asia. Which is partly why Unocal welcomed the Taliban’s rise to power in 1996 as a promising source of stability.
-Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan has a potenital value in oil and natural gas of over $5 trillion. All of these countries share a border with Afghanistan, and after 9/11 the US has established bases in many of these countries.
Cites? Unocal spokesperson John J. Maresca testified to the House Committee on International Relations on Feb. 12, 1998. he said, “the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves…proven natural gas reserves…equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet…[oil reserves] estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels.”
Madeline Albright concluded (upon hearing this report and a CIA report based on “well-trained petroleum sniffers”) said that “working to mold the area’s future is one of the most exciting things we can do.” (Time Magazine, May 1998).
I don’t necessarily believe this, but I lean towards believing this. I am posting this precisely so you can all rip this apart (or concede that it is more or less factual).
Based on the evidence (if it can be proven true), one cannot prove America’s intentions in Afghanistan, but can at the least show that America was interested in the area years before Al Qaeda’s attacks. If this were to be true, one can argue that the WTC bombings provided the excuse to occupy the area, just as the domino theory provided the excuse to occupy Vietnam.
The sources I am getting this from don’t cite as much as I’d like (not as much as Young and Zinn for you readers of the communist thread). Furthermore, the quotes are a bit choppy.
Despite this, I will probably not be convinced by an article in the New York Times, for example. If something is to disprove this information, I’d think it would be from a source that is willing to go against American ideology when it is convinced as such.
proceed to tear it apart!