It’s a war for oil, Benn tells protesters
Dear all.
Would any of you kindly do me a favour and refute this insidious claim that the current war is ultimately about oil, and that insofar as the purpose of eradicating terrorism is concerned, it is just a cloak for covering up the oil motive? Or if you could possible point me in the right direction, as this topic has probably been discussed in a thread elsewhere here, I would be exceptionally grateful.
Much appreciated. Thanks.
Well, since we didn’t go to war until the WTC events, then I think it can safely be said that that is the motivation.
Does Afghanistan even have any significant oil deposits?
Afghanistan does not have any oil. The current conspiracy theory is that the Illuminati wish to run a pipeline from the oil-rich Caspian countries through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, bypassing Russia and the Gulf states.
While a pipeline could be run across Afghanistan does it really make sense to declare a phony war on terrorism merely to secure a safe pipeline route when it would have been much easier just to pay off the Taliban for it? In fact the Taliban were not strongly opposed because they were at least bringing some sort of stability to Afghanistan after years of civil war. Remember back when everyone complained how we ignored the evil Taliban and weren’t working to overthrow them?
If the Illuminati really wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan they would have played ball with the Taliban, not destroyed them. Makes no sense. The “Oil” charge is merely left-wing spinal reflex. After all, EVERY war the US gets involved in MUST be about oil, right? It couldn’t be about the massacre of thousands of innocent people in a terrorist attack, since the Illuminati don’t care about that.
I don’t know. If somebody here could throw some light upon this burning issue, it would be particularly helpful. The lefties seem to say that this whole war is about the “West” establishing some oil pipeline access through Afghanistan, which they can’t do anywhere else in the neighbouring region (probably with reference to Iran).
Not that I know of, but the thing is that to transport the oil deposits that are in the Caspian Sea to the Asian markets through a pipeline (the cheapest way) they would need to go through Afghanistan, and so would want a friendly government.
But again, nothing happened until WTC so I don’t think that oil is the main reason for being there. It will just be a nice benefit.
Oh sorry Lemur866. I missed your post as I was replying at the same time.
From a purely practical point of view I doubt there’s much mileage in a pipeline. Pretty vulnerable wherever you lay it, and there still has to be someone friendly at the far end pumping the oil to you.
I’m increasingly concerned by Blair’s Thatcherite style of government, but in this case it sounds like Benn up to his usual ‘talks a good game’ tricks. I would be very surprised if any allied nation wants to establish a permanent presence in Afghanistan (beyond whatever peacekeeping is necessary) and no new government there could be seen as too chummy with the west without irritating an awful lot of hardliners at home and in neighbouring countries.
In a cause and effect sense it is about oil. Consider, do the Western industrial states have any real interest in the Middle East and in Central Asia except as a source of the essential raw material? As I understand the situation Bin Laden’s principal gripe with the West is not that Western women participate in society or that we have half naked women on TV (hello, Victoria’s Secret fashion show) or that our governments do not use the police to make people go to church, but that there are Western military forces in the area and the West tends to back Israel (although the present Israel government seems to be hell bent or fixing that). So why were Western military forces in the Middle East before September 11? To protect the oil seems like the rational answer. Therefore, the present military operations in Central Asia are conducting a war about oil.
Having said that, and assuming that it is accurate, the next question is: so what? The reason any state has military forces is to protect its national security and national commercial interests. The present unpleasantness is a national security matter. Those guys just killed 5000 or so of our people and they cannot be allowed to do it again. Maybe they attacked us because we have a presence in the Middle East and we have a presence in the Middle East because there is a whole lot of oil there. Either way, our interest is legitimate and our presence is (excepting Iraq) is with the consent of the people in charge. That oil (or the existence of Israel) may be the root cause of trouble in the Middle East does not make the present operation an illegitimate exercise of state power.
Would it matter if it was about oil? Since all of civilization requires oil to continue running, why would fighting a war over oil be any less moral than one fought over less tangible reasons like religion or ideology?
I have no idea who this Tony Benn is but he sounds like a total idiot. Looking at his photo he looks old enough to remember the 1930s when a strong pacifist opinion in the UK led to almost being defeated by Germany. Unilateral, unconditional pacifism is utter stupidity. This guy sounds like he’s gaga. I’d send him to Afghanistan so he can better ascertain the situation.
Tony Benn was born in 1925, so that makes him about 75 years old. Probably too young to remember the 30s. However he was a Labour Party minister, and I know very little about UK political parties, but ASFAIK Labour is the more liberal leaning party, sort of like the US Democratic party.
Probably like a lot of pols the world over, Jes wanna keep my hand in, so a little bashing of the party in power is normal response.
Note: sort of hard putting the u in Labour. 
Tony Benn is a senile old loon. But that doesn’t mean his opinions aren’t grounded in fact.
There’s no conspiracy theory. Ex-USSR has a third of the world’s oil reserves, but no way of getting it to market. The long dreamed-of pipeline from Russia to the Indian Ocean via Afghanistan finally looks achievable. It is of monumental economic and political significance.
If you look at Putin and Bush getting on together so well, and you assume that they install an Afghan regime that Pakistan is happy with, it makes perfect sense. Everyone wins.
Well, nearly everyone… Such a pipeline will also, it goes without saying, hugely reduce the world’s dependence on Arab oil.
So you are telling me the primary objective of this war is to build that pipeline through Afghanistan? Sorry but I find that very hard to believe. There are cheaper ways to transport the oil than this. So if Ben Laden had not attacked first America would have attacked anyway? America really only cares about the oil pipe and not about Al Qaeda’s terrorists? It makes no sense to me.
Sailor - No, obviously the war is a direct result of the terrorist attacks (unless you’re paranoid like Tony Benn). But it has opened up a golden opportunity to do something people have dreamed about for years. If you look at a map, you’ll see the attraction of a Soviet Central Asia-Indian Ocean link. There are not cheaper ways of transporting the oil.
Of course the US wants to destroy Al-Qaeda, but it has been known to be concerned about oil as well. Cheap oil supplies from a non-OPEC source? Too good to pass up.
Oil is Russia’s #1 export. How can it have “no way of getting it to market”? Surely some of it’s getting out.
I would just say that, maybe, if Afghanistan can be stabilised, then the chances that the oilpipe can be built grow somewhat. It is not like the USA is going to occupy the country, and the pipe has to go through other countries too. In other words, in the long run a stable government in Afghanistan would yield some nice things, one of which may or may not be the oil pipe. Other things would be diminished terrorist threats, increased commerce, etc. I just think that to say the reason of the war is the oil pipe just makes no sense. The guy is a loonie, that’s for sure.
So we’re all agreed that this isn’t a war about oil, but about WTC?
It matters a lot actually…For example, it would make it clearer what the full costs of our use of oil are, which is necessary to understand in order to have this resource priced correctly rather than grotesquely subsidized. It informs such arguments as taxation of gasoline, raising of the CAFE standards for cars and trucks, … to name just a few that jump to mind. (Although the basic policy choices here should be obvious even in the complete absence of any relation between the Afghanistan situation and oil whatsoever!)
BTW, I agree with those who argue that this war is not primarily about oil, although I am also willing to believe that there could be some truth in what Hemlock is saying in terms of the pipeline issue weighing into some of the strategic considerations.
I think it is certainly true that the war in Iraq was to a large extent about oil, and oil is at the root of much of the whole geopolitics of the Middle East in general.
Here, in the spirit of jshore’s and Spavined Gelding’s remarks, is this excerpt from an editorial well-worth reading.
“If ever there were a moment to connect the dots and lay the foundation for a rational long-term energy policy that lessens our dependence on oil, it is now, when bombs are falling in Afghanistan and Americans are bracing for the arrival of body bags from a foreign killing field.”
And,
“In the effort to assure access to oil, the United States has entered into unsavory alliances, most notably in the Middle East. Each day, for example, this country imports 700,000 barrels of oil from Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. To get oil, we defile holy places in Saudi Arabia by stationing our troops in them, enraging the inhabitants.”
The editorial, by the way, was published in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. Hardly Tony Benn’s favorite reading material ;).