Posted on 11/18/2001 8:39:15 AM PST by Interious
[The book "Bin Laden, la verite interdite" ("Bin Laden, the forbidden truth"), is getting a lot of attention on the left. The following review captures the essence of it. I'm searching for the rightist assessment and hopeful refutation of this book and the implications included therein.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE OIL CONNECTION
*** JULIO GODOY, INTER PRESS SERVICE - In the book "Bin Laden, la verite interdite" ("Bin Laden, the forbidden truth"), the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over obstruction. Brisard claim O'Neill told them that "the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it".
The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime "as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia", from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean . . . Confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one", the authors claim. "At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'," Brisard said in an interview in Paris.
According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad. To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The last meeting between U.S. and Taliban representatives took place in August, five weeks before the attacks on New York and Washington, the analysts maintain. MORE
*** BEN ARIS & AHMED RASHID, TELEGRAPH, LONDON - For all the talk of international alliances and the future of Afghanistan, the real game in Central Asia is control of the region's lucrative oil supply. .......Rest of Article
Tin foil hat alert.
IT's the big bad capitalist. Paper money and cigars kill. Beware. It has nothing to do with Islam's repressions, undemocratic government and extortion abilities.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html
The Historical Record by Ivan Eland
Ivan Eland is director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
According to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, terrorism is the most important threat the United States and the world face as the 21st century begins. High-level U.S. officials have acknowledged that terrorists are now more likely to be able to obtain and use nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons than ever before.
Yet most attention has been focused on combating terrorism by deterring and disrupting it beforehand and retaliating against it after the fact. Less attention has been paid to what motivates terrorists to launch attacks.
According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. President Clinton has also acknowledged that link. The board, however, has provided no empirical data to support its conclusion. This paper fills that gap by citing many examples of terrorist attacks on the United States in retaliation for U.S. intervention overseas.
The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas.
Before we got in direct conflict with them, the Taliban was thought of as a source of stability in the region, that managed to unify a country consisting primarily of warring factions. It's not hard to find earlier quotes, such as "Before the Taliban, we had no working schools and women would be raped if they went out; now we have at least some working schools (albiet not for women) and women are kept at home for their own profection". Before the Taliban, there was brutality and terror; during the Taliban, there was continued brutality and terror, albiet of a different sort. I think it took the people of Afghanistan time to figure out how vile the Taliban really were; it's clear that for a while they looked pretty good. In other words, saying the Taliban is better than the chaos that proceeded it was common, accepted wisdom before September 11th. Was it wrong? Yes. But it was what the world thought, and on that basis we negotiated with them.
Would it be good for us to have the pipeline mentioned in the article? Yes. Did we negotiate to get it? Quite possibly. Is there anything wrong with that? As far as I can tell, no; it would be good for both us and Afghanistan.
Would we, at the behest of the oil companies, arrange a war in Afghanistan just for this oil pipeline? No. It would be nice to have, yes, but it's not worth spilling American blood over. Heck, we don't even know if the new government of Afghanistan will be any friendlier to us than the old.
Can the attacks on the World Trade Center fully explain the activities of our President and Military, without any resort to conspiracy theories? Of course. It's absurd to say that if there had been no pipeline project, we wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan; we would have.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of the things they've come up are true, especially about the Saudi/American relationship. But no, we're not sufficiently vile to start a war in Afghanistan just to get an oil pipeline.
D
"I put it this way. They got a President of the United States that came out of the oil and gas industry, that knows it and knows it well."
You mean like in Kosovo? If anything, clinton spent 8 years developing that which finally culminated in the WTC tragedy. Did he plan it? Oh, of course not. Did he do anything to prevent it? No. It must have truly come as a crushing blow to Clinton to see the fruits of his non-labor drop into the outstretched arms of W.
We don't as a rule have presidents willing to just start a war, at least not Republican ones. We do have a lot of folks keenly aware of the advantages to be gained in certains parts of the world from a war.
The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas."
We cannot have the threat of terrorism affect our foreign policy.
Care to expand upon this?
Our government didn't do this and it wasn't done by a handful of religious fanatics and losers either.
Yes, agreed.
How should we characterize those responsible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.