Had the trans-Afghan pipeline been of such great importance to Cheney and Unocal, an excuse for anti-Taliban action could have been spun months ago. Certainly, atrocities in Afghanistan vs. American missionaries, American aid workers, violations of basic human rights, etc. had been occurring for months, and Bush could have spun a reason for U.S. involvement based upon that.
And, of course, had the trans-Afghan pipeline been of such great importance that the Taliban had to be removed in order for to occur, why then did the Bush administration wait and give the Taliban time to hand bin Laden over rather than simply jumping in and bombing away? Hell, public opinion was practically begging Bush to lob some missles into Afghanistan on general principle, yet Bush delayed.
So, I’m really unconvinced that Bush or Cheney leapt at the chance to bomb Afghanistan into submission in order to set up a cozy little oil deal- which no one has yet proven is actually worth anything given the pipelines already in place. I see no proof, merely unsubstantiated cynicism.
I think, Olentzero, that you’re narrowing your historical-materialist focus overmuch. That is, I don’t think we can say with certainty what might have happened had ObL been captured in, say, Germany shortly after 9/11–and if the Taliban had ejected Al Qaeda forthwith. Perhaps in that case there would have been no perceived need–not to mention insufficient support in the world and amongst Americans–to wage war against Afghanistan. For me the materialist context (i.e., oil) applies, but not in the telescopic form you apply it. Oil is part of the big explanatory rationale–not the micro cause. Yes, the pipeline is a factor in determining Afghanistan’s strategic importance (as The Guardian article I posted makes clear). But terrorism isn’t just some propitious handmaiden (heaven forbid!) for this particular oil scenario. Rather terrorism is itself explained by oil and its history. Do you see what I mean?
I’m going to kiss Mr. Corrado’s ass by agreeing with him, and adding a few points to strengthen his argument.
“Get rid of the Taliban to build a pipeline” only makes sense if several preconditions were met, and those preconditions do not exist.
First, the Taliban must have refused to allow the pipeline to be built. I have never read anywhere that the Taliban had done so. Second, whoever replaces the Taliban must have firm control of the pipeline route. That is a risky proposition - note the difficulties being extensively discussed concerning a formation of a post-Taliban Afghani government. Indeed, the only Afghani government of the past 20-odd years who did control the pipeline route and had a reasonable chance to keep a pipeline secure was … the Taliban.
Indeed, the premise of the argument contradicts a long-standing assertion of the ISR and like-minded people - that the US will support repressive regimes if it is in its economic interest to do so.
It also contradicts the assertion that the US created/allowed Pakistan to create the Taliban. Why would we have done such a thing if they were going to prevent Unocal from building the pipeline?
As my first post will make clear, I’m not persuaded by O’s argument either. However I want to demur on two grounds. I don’t think the weakness in O’s argument is that the “worth” of the pipeline hasn’t been established. I think sources have been cited that make its potential worth quite clear. But it doesn’t follow that just b/c an Afghistan pipeline is of great potential value to certain oil companies that it in itself “caused” the war.
On the other hand, I see plenty of other reasons for people’s “cynicism” or–to use a term I prefer–skepticism about this war. The way it’s been used to push through tax giveaways and other so-called “economic stimuli” that never would have passed muster had people not been so diverted and concerned by war and terrorism is worthy of anyone’s cynicism IMO. It’s turned moderate economists like Paul Krugman into major critics of the Bush administration and their supports in the legislature. And did you notice William Safire, the Times’s chief conservative columnist lambasting Bush on the matter of military tribunals?
I feel pretty skeptical: not because I see the war on terrorism as pretext for profit-making opportunities, but because I see profit-making opportunities been exploited left and right in the name of the war-on-terrrorism. It’s vile to see huge corporations reaping profits while members of the military risk their lives.
Well it’s true that SA had a relationship of sorts with the British from at least 1915, when the British were supporting any anti-Ottoman Arab forces they could find ( the Saudis had begun expelling the Ottoman presense from the territories they claimed beginning in 1913 ). Money and arms were supplied, but the Saudis for the most part were independant actors ( their state, after a period of weakness, had begun actively expanding again in 1880, long before the British took an interest in them ) and used those resources not to fight the already expelled Ottomans, but to break their rivals to the north, the Rashidis of Ha’il. The British recognized them as Sultans of Najd after 1922, but I’m sure they weren’t pleased with the conquest of the Hijaz in 1924-1925, not too mention raids into surrounding British protectorates throughout the 1920’s. Then when oil was discovered in 1933, SA quite deliberately short-circuited British dominance in the region by turning to Standard Oil to develop their assets ( the beginning of U.S. involvement ), because they regarded the British as more of a direct threat than the distant Americans.
So while it is true that British were involved in SA from mid-WW I, I wouldn’t call SA British clients in the same way that, say, the Kuwaiti or Iraqi regimes were.
This is correct. SA was part of the anti-Soviet triumvurate ( the other two being Pakistan and the U.S. ) that were principally responsible for funneling aid to the mujahadeen. Both deliberately, and later independantly ( i.e. outside governement sanction or funding ) Wahabi clerics from SA established the “schools” that taught Wahabi theology to displaced Pashtuns in Pakistan and gave birth to the Taliban. Wahabism, the most rigid and puritannical of the large Muslim subsects, is the underpinning of Taliban theology. I’ll note that it appears that is not identical to the SA version, having morphed a bit and acquired some cultural accretions.
Sorry to push this so far off topic, but I find this a curious statement. I think even under Marxist definitions the events in Iran count as a revolution. It was a genuinely broad-based, popular, mass uprising, waged by the middle-class on down to the lumpen proletariat, against the upper-class ( the Shah, plus the “100 Families” ). Now as it turned out the socialist groups of various stripes lost out in the post-revolution power struggle to the theocrats. But I would consider the revolution itself, to be about as revolutionary as you get. Just MHO .
As to oil and its relations to the current conflict - Well, I have no doubt it is on the radar of some in government whose job it is to think about such possibilities. But I pretty much reject the idea that it is the primary motive, or even a significant one, for much the same reason John Corrado does. The logistic and political difficulties even post-Taliban are going to be so profound as too make this a very long-term and dicey project. Bush et al may very well be intrigued with those long-term possibilities, but the cost-benefit analysis of intervention in Afghanistan doesn’t really justify the expense of invasion. Again, IMHO .
I know Saudi Arabia isn’t poor–I was speaking of the Middle East generally. But I think even Saudi Arabia would be poor if it couldn’t sell its oil. And I don’t see how the distinction you’re making in your second sentence would actually matter in the real world. We’re “plugged in” now, so for us to stop buying oil from them would be taking something away. And taking away a country’s economic mainstay is not going to make its citizens happy.
Tamerlane, thanks for the info. You rock as usual.
domina, I think you’re misunderstanding what I’d said in the first place. I never suggested a complete and lasting boycott on Saudi oil or anyone else’s oil for that matter. What I said (vis a vis the Seattle editorial I posted) is that US oil dependence leads to cozy relations with repressive regimes and, therefore, resentment from their disaffected and disgruntled citizens. This leads to much anti-American sentiment and sometimes direct involvement in terrorism. I take the latter statements to be well-nigh irrefutable.
There are many reasons why the US should reduce its oil consumption but this one’s on the table for obvious reasons. But nowhere did I say that once the need for Saudi oil were reduced that the appropriate response would be for the US or any other country to boycott them permanently and entirely. There are all kinds of ways that diplomatic pressure can be put on countries that are repressive. At the very least, the US could cease to be an active political supporter of the regime–without necessary preventing trade. We do not, on other words, have to be hand in glove with governments whose own records are in conflict with our own professed ideals; and if we had no economic incentive to do so, we wouldn’t be.
I think this is a pretty simple point–made best by the editorial itself–and, to be honest, I’m surprised it’s met so much resistance. Don’t you think the US has any obligation to practice what it preaches?
Hahaha…I think that last question might be more appropriate for a whole different thread (but in my mind, no, but please, let’s start another thread).
Mandelstam, how does the United States actively support the Saudi regime? Do you mean by trading with it? Well, you said that we could cease to be an active supporter without cutting off trade so, no. Do you mean by selling it weapons and security equipment? You might have a point there, although I would argue that the only states we pretty much DON’T sell that equipment to are states that are actively hostile towards us. I would argue that that is passive support, rather than active.
Stuff aplenty here. I’ll take this post by post, I guess.
sailor - No, I’m not saying there’s no doubt the pipe will be built now. I am saying, however, that the US is still casting about for a government that will play ball according to its rules, and thereby provide a stable enough situation for it to be built. I don’t think all the allies are fighting for the pipe, but then again AFAIK the only two countries that have really provided any material assistance for the war are US and Britain. What have Germany and Italy provided?
John Corrado - Human rights abuses aren’t enough of a concern to the US. I mean, look at its own record - funding the contras in Nicaragua and the death squads in Guatemala and El Salvador. Propping up dictators like the Shah and Saddam Hussein, and then (in Hussein’s case) slapping his country with sanctions that devastate the population mightily but leave the purported target untouched. Violations of human rights had been occurring in Afghanistan for years both before and after the Taliban came to power and the US simply didn’t give a rat’s ass.
Even after September, the US probably wanted to see if the Taliban was going to play ball. If they had complied and turned over bin Laden and expelled Al Qa’eda, then there’s no need for the military intervention. The US gets its man, the Taliban essentially rolls over on its back, and everybody goes home happy. No messy war, and the green light for the pipeline, no fuss no muss. The Taliban didn’t come through, and thus the war.
Mandelstam, you’re saying exactly what I’m trying to say. We’re on the same page here. Oil is the background to the “big picture” of the situation in the Middle East. Terror is a response by some to the general anger felt towards the US for the way it’s conducted itself in its quest for oil. Yes, the immediate cause of the present war in Afghanistan is the terrorist attacks of September, but the US has a larger interest in the territory than just eradicating one terrorist network.
This is probably going to sound like paranoiac whining, but I am puzzled at how you and I can be saying the same thing but I seem to draw the most challenges. Is it more a reaction to my professed political perspective?
SuaSponte, the US does support repressive regimes if it is in its interests to do so. They backed Saddam Hussein for almost 40 years until he overstepped his boundaries and made a grab for Kuwait. They backed the ante-Taliban government in Afghanistan and then the Taliban - which fell from grace because it refused to repudiate bin Laden. As I said, if they had publicly repudiated him and expelled Al Qa’eda, they probably would not be on the run now. Even if bin Laden escaped and they refused to repudiate him, Bush would probably have gone in under the pretext that they had helped him escape to wreak havoc another day. Supporting the Taliban when it appeared to support a man accused of masterminding horrific acts is not in the US’ interests.
Your other question smacks of conspiracy theory, I might add. If the US knew the Taliban was going to refuse the pipeline project, then there must have been some other reason for allowing them to take power and oppress the general population. A conspiracy!
The US didn’t know Saddam was going to invade Kuwait some forty years after they put the Ba’ath Party in power. They had no idea the Taliban would continue to support bin Laden after the attacks. Those sort of possibilities didn’t enter into their heads. The only question was, “Will these guys do what we ask them to, namely guarantee us our needs as regards oil and gas?”
I’ve looked carefully over my previous arguments and I can’t see anyplace where I’ve stated that the desire to install a pipeline “caused” the war. Although it’s been a long day and I’m rather tired; I may have missed something. If any of you can pull a quote I’d appreciate it.
Neurotik:"[H]ow does the United States actively support the Saudi regime?"
I’m not a Middle East policy expert by any means, but this article is typical of the kind of thing I’ve been reading about the region since the Gulf War (when I became interested in the subject). This particular article is fascinating since it was written back in 1999, yet it’s entitled “The Cost of an Afghan ‘Victory.’” It’s almost heartbreaking to read it in light of what’s happened.
Here’s the most direct reply to your question (although you’d probably find the whole article really interesting). The author is explaining why there are thousands of troops permanently stationed in Saudi Arabia, much to the disgust of bin Laden and others.
“In case there’s an antiroyalist coup [in Saudi Arabia], [defense policy experts] say, the United States would need seventy-two hours to marshal its full military might to reverse the coup. For many years the Saudi defense ministry has been purchasing sophisticated weapons systems, chiefly from the United States. But the Pentagon was reportedly alarmed by the account of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, the commander of the US-led coalition in the Gulf War, that suggested the Saudi military, especially the air force, was incapable of operating the sophisticated weaponry it possessed. Thus the presence of US military officials at key Saudi military facilities is considered indispensable in order to insure swift coordination and secure communications in case of an emergency.”
The article also explains why bin Laden et.al. consider the area where troops were stationed during the Gulf War to be holy lands.
Here’s how it ends…
“A decade after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the mood among US and Saudi decision makers has turned from quiet satisfaction to perplexed handwringing. In the words of Richard Murphy, the Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East and South Asia during the two Reagan administrations, “We did spawn a monster in Afghanistan.” The “monster” of violent Islamic fundamentalism has now grown tentacles that extend from western China to Algeria to the east coast of America, and its reach is not likely to diminish without a great deal of the United States’ money, time and patience, along with the full cooperation of foreign governments.”
That was written in February 1999. Pretty freaky huh.
>> AFAIK the only two countries that have really provided any material assistance for the war are US and Britain. What have Germany and Italy provided?
Um, soldiers, equipment, ships. Spain has also offered 2000 soldiers for Afghanistan but I believe they are being sent to Kosovo instead where Spanish troops have had a heavy presence peacekeeping and seem to be doing a good job. This would free troops from other countries for Afghanistan. Europe is heavily committed in this war. You think they also want the pipeline? Or they’re just fools.
Your explanations make absolutely no sense to me. That’s about all I can say so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
The desire to build such a pipeline can’t have been the reason why the US supported the Afghan warlords during the Russian invasion. For a simple reason : the pipe-line is supposed to ship gas from the central asian republics. And these republics were sovietic. So, no pipe-line project could have been planned at this time.
The only other possible project of pipe-line through Afghanistan would have been the west-east pipe-line from Iran to Pakistan. And for obvious reasons, the US companies couldn’t plan to ship Iranian gas at this time, either.
So, the US support to the Afghan fighters can’t have been motivated by such considerations. The US choose to support more specificaly the muslim extremists amongst the Afghan warlords because it expected that it could destabilize the majoritary muslim sovietic republics in central asia. It can be argued that it was playing with fire, but not that it was motivated by oil.
Only after the collapse of the Soviet Union, gas can become a motivation for the continued US support to the extremist muslim groups or the Talibans. But there are other possible (and not mutually exclusive, actually) explanations : for instance an extension of the US support to Pakistan, the Pashtun fighters being the major card of the Pakistan in its regional geo-political game. Also the fact that one of the main group opposed to these sunni extremists were the Afghan Shiia supported by Iran. By helping the Pashtouns, the US were containing the Iranian influence (or indirectly fighting Iran…call this as you want).
Washington Post ROME, Nov. 7 – Italian lawmakers voted today to go to war, confirming the government’s pledge to supply an aircraft carrier and up to 2,700 troops to the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan. Parliament gave overwhelming support to the government’s plans, …
German and French NATO planes are deployed in the US and flying missions protecting the US coast so that American planes can be sent to the Afghan theater.
NATO ships from several countries, including Canada have been deployed to the Mediterranean, freeing American ships for the Afghan operations. Italy has sent a plane carrier to join in the Afghan operations.
I guess those foolish Europeans and Canadians swallowed the line about this war being about fighting terrorism. Either that or they want the pipeline too.
OK, sailor, so Europe’s aiding the war effort. The war is in response to the attack of September 11th. How does that cover over the decades of US intervention in the Middle East over its interests in the oil located there?
I’ve already said that I’m not arguing the pipeline is the immediate cause of the war. (Maybe this time you’ll see it.) But if it takes a war to ensure there’s a friendly enough government in place to make that pipeline a possibility, the US is not going to shrink from taking that step.
And on the subject of Britain and the history of Saudi Arabia… a lengthy quote from an article in an earlier issue of the International Socialist Review.
It seems to me that Britain had a much greater hand in the creation of Saudi Arabia than is being argued in this thread. The borders were created by British fiat and ibn Saud clearly knew which side his bread was buttered on. The whole history of the Middle East in the 20th century, IMO, is underlined in oil.
Mandelstam, that was indeed an interesting link and I enjoyed the article. I just have some minor objections.
While the article makes an interesting argument, I think it ignores some precedent for this sort of behavior. The United States military does not like to give up established bases. Especially in trouble regions. And especially in the post-WWII world. We still have bases in Germany and Britain operating that were originally there for the purpose of repelling Communist attack. Given question posed in the article of why the military didn’t leave its bases in the Saudi area, that is the answer that would come first for me, not the purely speculative theory of propping up the Saudis. The Pentagon likes to have as many staging points available as possible in as many areas of the world as possible, and doesn’t close bases that often.
The closing line of the paragraph you quoted says it best: “in case of an emergency.” Now, it is quite likely that the US would consider an armed uprising an emergency and take action against it, especially if the uprising targetted the US military there (which I’m sure it would). But I have a feeling the Pentagon was thinking more along the lines of Iraq, Iran, Israel when keeping a base there.
I am going to have to reject your International Socialist quotes, Olentzero. They say that oil played a major part in the 1919 peace conferences when dividing up the Ottoman Empire. Except that oil wasn’t discovered until the 1930s. There goes the first quote.
The second quote is accurate, but it shouldn’t be taken to mean that the UK set up the Saudi royal family. Saudi Arabia was never a part of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, the two had been having several border disputes, which continued into the British occupation after WWI. The point of that conference was to decide where the British controlled zones were and where the Saudi controlled zones were. In the face of superior British military power, the Saudis agreed to the borders that Britain wanted. That didn’t stop them from conquering other non-British controlled kingdoms on the peninsula after the conference, however. Saudi Arabia wasn’t created by British fiat, it was territorially constrained by British fiat.
Also, I’m going to question the bias of your source. Not that I think that they hate the US or anything (I have no evidence of that), but socialists tend to be materialists, in that they think that economics and resources drives every decision. I disagree with that. Although, economics and resources certainly have played their part.
I also am going to take issue with your logice here:
You said that if they had complied and turned over bin Laden then there’s no need for military intervention. Correct. Then you go on to say that suddenly a green light has come on for the pipeline. How does that figure? Just because the Taliban agree to hand over bin Laden doesn’t mean they become cooperative on the pipeline issue. There’s nothing to suggest that that would be the case.
First, the pipeline; the pipeline already has competition in other, more stable routes. This whole thing as an “explanation” for Afghan policy is a crack. A BP lead consortium (including American partners) has already secured a monster financial facility for a Caucas route with Caspian transhipments.
The US hardly “propped up” Sadaam. Strategic aid against Iran during the bloody war when Iran was engaging in the tanker war especially, but Sadaam was never “propped up” by the US. The Shah, yes, him no.
Get your bloody history straight.
This mirage of a pipeline has nothing to do with Central Asian policy in re Afghanistan and the current conflict. It is likely to be some time before any semblance of stability returns to Afghanistan, until routes are demined etc. Meanwhile other alternatives are going ahead with construction as we speak. Giving up ObL has no necessary connection at all with it.
In a way, perhaps. In many other ways, no. The roots of the radical Islamist movement go into the 19th century radical Salafist movements, the violent side was clearly already emmerging in the 1970s in response to the repression and corruption of Arab Socialist goverments, actually quite anti-American. American support of Israel clearly also feeds into this – support which is hardly driven by oil or energy politics, in fact which runs directly counter to oil and energy political concerns. Even more reaction comes from the inevitable encounter with Western culture in a setting which does not allow very healthy means of negotiating social stresses.
You need to learn some real history. The US most certainly did not back Sadaam for 40 years.
The US hardly “backed” the Taleban. We, and most everyone else were initially somewhat relieved at least one force had finally put together enough cohesion to bring peace to Afghanistan. Pakistan certainly backed the Taleban, for a number of reasons including the high Islamist quotient in the Paki Sec. Services, which is rather more explanatory of where US aid during the Soviet-Afghan war went then supposed American promotion of Islamic extremism in Central Asia as policy.
The Taleban began to fall from a position of “tolerated cause they seemed better than grinding civil war” as they proved to be more and more extreme, even for conservative Muslims.
Your reading of this is distorted at best.
Or rather a more ordinary read of reality, that the USA is not all controlling, that we have little to no independent intelligence assets in Central Asia and indeed in the Middle East, that initially the Taleban seemed to be bringing a degree of peace and while quite conservative, the hope was once settled in they would mellow under moderating Paki influences. No one counted on Mullah Umar and his coterie being quite what as extreme as they turned out to be.
The US hardly put the Baath party in power. The Soviets rather helped more in keeping the Baath and later Sadaam there.
My only question is how little do you know about the Middle East? You think the Ibna Saud take marching orders from the USA? Or the other oil producers? Excepting perhaps Kuwait, now.
In any case, stable oil markets, production and exporting are part of the oil exporters interests. They learned that in the aftermath of the failed 1970s program of ever higher oil prices (of course this was largely driven by idiotic command economy measures in the consumer countries) when they found out that indeed, oil is price elastic.
As for the concept promoted in the Nation that the USA created an Islamic monster, that simply betrays a whole lot of navel gazing and a fundamental ignorance of the history of Islamic movements. The Afghan war certainly contributed to the development of the multi-country connections, but the CIA did not create the Islamic response, did not create the conditions from which it emmerged and did not create its overarching ideology. At worse, it gave an added push to something already emmerging, already present.
The failure of secular, socialist Pan-Arabism and local leaders (Soviet backed ones at that) attempted use of salafist origin radical Islamist extremists against secular radicals (ironically often CP or other Arabist radical secular movements) did not depend on US policy.
“As for the concept promoted in the Nation that the USA created an Islamic monster, that simply betrays a whole lot of navel gazing and a fundamental ignorance of the history of Islamic movements. The Afghan war certainly contributed to the development of the multi-country connections, but the CIA did not create the Islamic response, did not create the conditions from which it emmerged and did not create its overarching ideology. At worse, it gave an added push to something already emmerging, already present”
Sorry, Collounsbury, but the navel in question is your own. The Nation article does not argue that “the USA created an Islamic monster” although it does quote a Reagan official who makes that claim. Never judge a four-page-long Nation article by a single quotation–particularly from a Reagan staffer ;). The author of the article, who has written several books on the subject of the Middle East, is most certainly not igorant of the history of Islamic movements and it’s rather absurd for you to suggest it. The Nation can be relied upon for casting issues from within a liberal framework–and that might often create space for reasonable debate between liberals, conservatives or what have you. But you only succeed in making yourself look unusually pompous when you dismiss a serious and well-constructed article as though it were a casual post by a high school student.
That said, I agree with a lot of your post.
Olentzero, I am sympathetic to your materialist arguments but I think you’ve gotten too caught up in the pipeline issue. (Though I’d like to hear what Collounsbury has to say about the Guardian article I posted which seemed to be offering a plausible and moderate version of your argument.) We are, as you say on the same page, but perhaps reading a different paragraph ;). Oil is the context for the entire region since it’s a vital resource. We can be certain that if there were nothing but sheep in the Middle East, we wouldn’t be having this debate right now. And we do indeed have an administration right now that is incredibly tight with oil interests. Still, I think the Cold War involvement wasn’t, first and foremost about oil but about the Cold War. And, as you well know (and as Collounsbury’s post implies)there is also a colonial history at play here. If you take a look at the Nation article I posted, I think you’ll see why, for me at any rate, the pipeline is in itself something more than a footnote but less than a main thesis.
Neurotik, I think you’re wrong about the discovery of oil which, if memory serves, (I’m thinking back to a great multi-part documentary on oil that I saw a few years back) was discovered first in Russia long prior to the 1930s–prior to WW I I believe. But someone can surely answer this question more authoritatively than I.
As to your point about the precedent for US troops remaining after wars, and the example of Germany. Well, in a sense you’ve really shown how serious the error of the policy in the Middle East. First, the analogy doesn’t really hold since Germany was the aggressor in WWII, while Saudi Arabia was an ally during the Gulf War. More important, the US Marshall Plan policy after WWII was, to my mind, one of the best things the US has ever done in its history. Most unlike what was done in Afghanistan after the Soviet pull-out (as many others have said). More important, if Germany were a repressive monarchy rather than one of the most liberal democracies on the planet, who’s to say that there wouldn’t be serious anti-American hostility amongst Germans today?
.