Pipe Dreams: The origin of the "bombing Afghanistan for oil pipelines" theory (Lefties Proved Liars)

Slate ^ | December 6, 2001 | Seth Stevenson

[Timesink]

tangled web
Pipe Dreams
The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory.
By Seth Stevenson
Posted Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 11:32 AM PT

A theory making the rounds on the Internet, on the airwaves, and in the press claims that the bombing of the Taliban has nothing to do with a "war on terrorism" but everything to do with the oil pipeline the West wants to build through Afghanistan. Where did this theory start, and how did it spread?

The California energy company Unocal seriously pursued building an Afghanistan pipeline in the 1990s, but back then the theorists, such as this Middle East specialist in 1998, argued that the West was propping up the Taliban in hopes that they would cooperate on building a pipeline. On March 8, 2001, a think-tanker and former CIA analyst noted in a New York Times op-ed that "[i]n 1996, it seemed possible that American-built gas and oil pipelines from Central Asia could run through an Afghanistan ruled by one leader. Cruelty to women aside, we did not condemn the Taliban juggernaut rolling across the country."

The beauty of conspiracy theories is that even the most contradictory evidence can be folded into a new conspiracy theory. For example, after the events of Sept. 11, the pipeline conspiracy theorists spun 180 degrees from …

We're supporting the Taliban so we can build a pipeline while we pretend we don't care about their links to terrorism (and, to a lesser degree, their cruelty to women).

to …

We're bombing the Taliban so we can build a pipeline while we pretend we care about their links to terrorism (and, to a lesser degree, their cruelty to women).

The turnaround can be tracked within a single news agency. On Oct. 7 of this year, right before the U.S. bombing began, Agence France-Presse wrote up the old theory: "Keen to see Afghanistan under strong central rule to allow a US-led group to build a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas pipeline, Washington urged key allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to back the militia's bid for power in 1996." Just four days later, AFP wrote that "experts say the end of the Islamic militia [the Taliban] could spell the start of more lucrative opportunities for Western oil companies."

Nearly all sites pushing the newer theory point to two pieces of evidence: 1) This U.S. Department of Energy information page on Afghanistan, updated September 2001, which espouses the pipeline idea but says Afghanistan is too chaotic for it to work. 2) This 1998 testimony by a Unocal vice president to the House Committee on International Relations, in which he states that a pipeline will never be built without a stable Afghan government in place.

How did the new theory spread? After the Sept. 11 attacks, no one says anything oil-related for a respectable mourning period. Then, in the cover story of its Sept. 21-27 issue, L.A. Weekly makes the case that "it's the oil, stupid." The piece doesn't mention the pipeline specifically, but soon after, someone else does. On Sept. 25, the Village Voice's James Ridgeway and Camila E. Fard write that the 9/11 terrorist attack "provides Washington with an extraordinary opportunity" to overthrow the Taliban and build a pipeline. Ridgeway fails to make the direct link to Unocal, though. On Oct. 1, we see the whole theory come together on the Web site of the Independent Media Center. This article links to both the Unocal testimony and the DOE page and says they "leave little doubt as to the reasons behind Washington's desire to replace the Taliban government." After this, the floodgates open. The theory never evolves much—it just gets passed around.

Oct. 5: An India-based writer for the Inter Press Service says Bush's "coalition against terrorism" is "the first opportunity that has any chance of making UNOCAL's wish come true." The story is reprinted the following day in the Asia Times.

Oct. 10: The Village Voice's Ridgeway makes his claim in stronger terms but still doesn't mention Unocal.

Oct. 11: A Russian TV commentator says oil is the real reason for the war. In a transcript from Russia’s Ren TV, the commentator refers to Unocal.

Oct. 12: An essay on TomPaine.com and another by cartoonist Ted Rall both join the chorus.

Oct. 13: The Hindu, an Indian national newspaper, asserts that the pipeline, not terrorism, is driving the U.S. bombing. The Hindu quotes the DOE page and adds the point that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney are "intimately connected with the U.S. oil industry."

Oct. 14: The Washington Times reports that a Taliban ambassador says the war is more oil than Osama. Also, the International Action Center (an anti-militarism site) runs the Unocal theory.

Oct. 15: An essay at the libertarian site LewRockwell.com makes the Unocal case. The following day it's reprinted by Russia's Pravda and posted in a Yahoo! newsgroup.

Oct. 19: Green Party USA gets in on the fun.

Oct. 23: Britain's Guardian quotes the Unocal testimony and says that while the United States is in part fighting terrorism, it "would be naive to believe that this is all it is doing." Pakistan's Dawn reprints the essay two days later.

Oct. 24: The Guardian strikes again, writing that any pipeline would require the creation of a stable government and that "[t]his, it can be argued, is precisely what Washington is now trying to do."

Oct. 25: Britain's Channel 4 says the pipeline is "an important subtext" to the war.

Oct. 29: The cover story of the Britain's Daily Mirror screams, "This War Is a Fraud." Meanwhile, the BBC says the pipeline theory is in the air and recaps its basic points, but then dismantles it.

The pipeline theory has continued to bounce around, showing up on every "progressive" Web site out there. It ran in the Syrian daily Tishrin on Nov. 29, from which it was picked up on Dec. 2 by Pakistan's Frontier Post. It may never die.

Why does the bombing-for-pipelines theory hold such appeal? For the same reason the supporting-the-Taliban-for-pipelines theory attracted so many: There's evidence that points in that direction. Unocal did want to build a pipeline through Afghanistan and did cozy up to the Taliban. Bush and Cheney do have ties to big oil. But theories like these are ridiculously reductionist. Their authors don't try to argue conclusions from evidence—they decide on conclusions first, then hunt for justification. Also, many thinkers are comfortable with the conditioned response that dates back to Ida Tarbell vs. Standard Oil: When in Doubt, Blame Oil First.

What's absurd about the pipeline theory is how thoroughly it discounts the obvious reason the United States set the bombers loose on Afghanistan: Terrorists headquartered in Afghanistan attacked America's financial and military centers, killing 4,000 people, and then took credit for it. Nope—must be the pipeline.

[DugwayDuke]

"These lines about "left loonies," "right loonies," "vast right wing conspiracy," "vast left wing conspiracy," et.al. are used by those who have exhausted their short supply of rational arguments. I find it very interesting that, on many of these pipeline threads, those who dispute that this Afghan war is over petroleum resort to this tactic very quickly.:

I guess that means you fall into the "looney right" category.

[nopardons]

Just " looney " is fine, for the tinfoil hatters here. LOL

Do we REALLY want to claim them as our own ?

[DugwayDuke]

There is a distinct difference dividing the "loonies" into a left and a right. We can usually agree economically with the looney right, after all they share a deep desire to protect individual liberties, lower taxes, reduce the size of government, and other good things. While I disagree vehemently over Israel and the middle-east, they really are members of the right.

[Stultis]

Do we REALLY want to claim them as our own ?

Black Jade tells me I "can't have it both ways". The war can't be both about terrorism and about "petroleum". But it sure as hell can be, in due proportion, about the fact that, after spending American lives and treasure defeating terrorism in a region, we are going to do anything and everything we reasonably can to leave that region less dysfunctional -- politically, economically and socially -- than it was before. Sure we will have failures, but in many cases our influence and our efforts will be able to achieve significant improvements. In central Asia we already have materially improved the prospects of the Afghan people, and there is every reason for us to continue acting in the rational hope that these gains can be consolidated and preserved.

The "loonies" injecting their populist venom into this thread are, more to the point, CYNICS who suggest that we shouldn't even try, or that all our attempts are, de facto, illegitimate. Fortunately they are irrelevant. America is recovering some of its old confidence. We really are better than "them". We truly have discovered, and realized in the development of Western culture, a core set of principles concerning the way that humans should live, how they can best govern themselves, and how they can best provide for their sustenance. By doing what we reasonably can to inseminate, inculcate or encourage these principals elsewhere in the world, and helping to provide the economic conditions under which they can germinate and grow, we really can make the world a better place. This is the course Reagan set us on 20 years ago. Despite the fitful nature of the progress, it IS working. We are making a difference, and should certainly not back off now. Let the cynics stew.

[TomB]

"...and he also intimated that the Bush administration would be receptive to the inclusion of some Taliban elements in a new government."

So now we have gone from "DEMANDED", to "intimated"? Isn't it amazing how the spin changes when we look at it more closely?

Two months ago isn't exactly ancient history. There has been no change anounced by the Bush administration saying that they have ruled out inclusion of the Taliban.

With as quickly as things are moving, 2 months is a LIFETIME. The trial balloon concerning "moderate" Taliban, didn't seem to go anywhere, so it was likely dropped. I say that because none of your vaunted "news sources" have been screaming about it recently.

That doesn't mean that the make up of the new regime has been finalized.

Actually, the Bonn agreement "finalized" the makeup of the transitional government, and not one member of the Taliban was included.

However, this brings up an intersting point. Following your logic, we must criticize MacArthur for allowing Hirohito to retain the Japanese throne, along with Patton for allowing Nazi party memeber to retain leadership posts in post-war Germany. Of course, that criticism would be very week indeed, considering the success that was acheived.

If the US military is not providing this logistical support, then just who is doing it? It is the US military intervening in military operations in another country and aiding one side against the other.

I never said we weren't providing logistical support, I am saying that providing logistics is a far cry from direct US military intervention.

Considering we knew before 9/11 that OBL was in Afghanistan, and that he was directly involved in numerous terrorist operations againt the US, it would be a bigger suprise if we weren't involved in some way over there.

It IS very troubling and it has been discussed on many threads.

Many threads posted and discussed by the same dozen or so people.

And I must say the rest of your "article dump" that you are so inclined to do seems to have little or nothing to do with the current subject. But, of course, that isn't why you dump them, is it?

[nopardons]

Oh really ? Like continually posting ( AGAINST JIM ROBINSONS EXPRESS WISHES THAT IT IS NOT POSTED ON THIS SITE ) that crap about the Carlyle Group, which YOU have done repeatedly ? That's " LOONY " , in EVERYONE'S book. So is yotr posting EVERY vile, unsubstanciated anti-Bush article, filled with inuendo,rumor, and 1/2 baked conspiracy theory. Refutation isn't even called for, when outrageous / silly, cobbled together muck is presented as fact.

I do hope that you own stock in Reynolds Wrap ; you certainly use enough of it.

[Stultis]

Step back and look at the big picture, conspiracy boy. Who's trying to block pipelines to bring greater quantities of Central Asian oil to the world market? The Arabs, and their terrorist proxies, of course. Their reasons are obvious, to maintain the viability of their odious, repressive, wealth-hoarding regimes. The terrorists have an obvious interest in maintaining the crushing poverty in the region which keeps up their supply of recruits, and the black market economies that facilitate their logistical operations.

What's the reason for your apparent opposition to bringing quantities of Asian oil to market adequate to break the OPEC cartel, and increase the stability of the world's oil supply (and therefore the world's economic and political stability)?

You still haven't answered directly why in the hell it would be in any sense a bad thing for goverments and business to be trying to get pipelines built in this region. Are you just a knee jerk anti-capitalist, or do you have some reason for denouncing efforts to build pipelines?

[TomB]

Now do you want to explain why the administration would want the "totally evil" in the new regime? Obvious the administration was lying when they said that they wanted to eliminate the Taliban.

Assuming that there will be members of the Taliban in the new government, and you have yet to prove that with one of your"doc dumps", it is obvious to anyone that isn't completely paralyzed with an irrational paranoia of our government that eliminating the Taliban, which is a quasi-political group is entirely different from eliminating each and every member of that party.

I noticed you completely skirted the point concerning Imperial Japanese and Nazi party members participating in the new governemts after WWII. Did we not set out to destroy Nazism? Did we not call it evil? Was Patton wrong to include Nazi Party members in the provisional goverment?

When the US military provides logistical support to one side in a war, that is intervening.

NO. You didn't say "intervening", you said "MILITARY INTERVENTION". You used a specifically inflammatory term to imply a situation that didn't exist. I notice you do that a lot.

But obviously before 9-11, there is no way that the American public would have accepted the bombing and use of US ground troops in Afghanistan.

You know, if you are going to imply that the US government is complicit in the attacks on 9/11, at least have the courage to come out and say it.

But when the US military is sent to guarantee this investment, and they get subsidies from the OPIC and the US Export-Import Bank, that is another matter. Why? Because they are expecting the American taxpayer to foot the bill for protecting these pipelines, not to mention our men and women who will die in wars to safeguard these investments.

I posted this earlier an nobody answered so I'll ask it again:

"But while we're discussing total fantasy, I find the idea of our government somehow involved in the 9/11 attack fascinating. If I follow the "logic" correctly, Bush is helping his oil buddies by ousting the Taliban and installing a "stable afghan government", an oxymoron if there ever was one. What guarantee do they have that the new government will be any more stable than the old?

Also, the tenuous argument has it that Bush's oil buddies need a "stable" Afghanistan in order to run a pipeline from the Central Asian countries to Pakistan to the coast, so that they have access to the oil.

So here we have it. Bush must find, instigate or create an incident that will allow him to invade Afghanistan. He must convince the Pakistani leaders (bribe) to completely reverse their standing policy and move against the Taliban. He must also negotiate deals with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in order to use their countries as forward bases (this is in their oun interest, it should be rather easy). He must also, and this is the tricky part, negotiate some kind of deal with Putin, since this completely removes Russia as a player in the Central Asia oil deal. Vlad will NOT be happy with this. A:ong with all this, Bush has to hope the evidence he can manufacture is good enough to convince such well known war-mongering nations as France to contribute arms to the conflict. He must also give enough of the pie to each and every faction within Afghanistan to keep them quiet and not spill the beans.

Bush must accomplish all that for the single purpose of getting an oil pipeline from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. Which brings up the question, if he can accomplish all that, why can't he just drop sanctions against Iran? If he does that the oil companies could start building a pipeline through Iran tomorrow, in a country with a rather stable, if somewhat maniacal, government, much better infrastructure, and immeasurably better terrain.

[DugwayDuke]

"You haven't come up with any substantive arguments. I'm not surprised. Just labeling someone as a "tin foil hat" or a "loony" is a dead give away that you have none."

Substantive arguments? You've categoriezed my comments in just the same way you accused others of doing. Do you disagree that there are "loonies" on the right as well as the left? That was my point. Would you care to comment on my assertion that the "loonies" on the left see big business as evil while those on the right see big government as evil?

[TomB]

The point of the administration's original statement about eliminating terrorism was that the Taliban would be thrown out of power and would be eliminated as a military and political organization.

And you deny that hasn't happened?

Once again you (purposely?) confuse the Taliban as a political party, and individual members of that party. Can you point to any policy statement that says we intend to kill each and every member of the Taliban?

I don't think that Nazi and Japanese war criminals should have become part of the post-war power structure.

I don't understand why you have to go out of your way to confuse the issue. Where did I say ANYTHING about Nazi and Japanese war criminals? I am speaking about those people living in Japan and Germany during the war who were members of a political party, and who, at the end of the war, became useful as government functionaries. They did nothing wrong during the war other than join the (only) political party.

When the US military is "intervening,"

But you still have yet to prove the "military" did anything in country prior to 9/11 of a military nature, which is, of course, your implication.

Don't put words in my mouth to suit your convenience. I do think that the US government had foreknowledge of 9-11 and they did not stop it.

I don't have to put words in your mouth, you just said it yourself, that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Which of course, further marginalizes your already tenuous footing here.

It may not be very stable, even with US military force at hand to back up the new regime. That's why US troops are going to be there for a long, long time.

Considering we don't have enought troops in country to control a city, let alone an entire country, that statement is complete fantasy. Unless you can tell us exactly how the US military is going to secure a pipeline route through Afghanistan with a few thousand men.

Russia has been fighting the Taliban and aiding the Northern Alliance for years. They certainly don't object to the overthrow of the Taliban......

Huh? The rest of your post does not even come close to answering any of the questions asked. What are you thinking? That I'm going to see all that writing and think you have a good point? I ask about oil pipelines and you post a screed about opium.

Now that Iran is a "coalition partner," I think that the sanctions against Iran will be eased and eventually dropped. There will be some pipelines running through Iran to India, which may connect to some other regional pipelines. But the policy is "multiple pipeline routes."

Based on what? And you never said (other than droning on about opium) why we would blow up the WTC in order to put a pipeline to access a place that could be as easily accessed through Iran.

Why don't you give it up? I don't believe your paranoid rantings, and you've proven that you have no desire to answer any of my questions truthfully.

You've more than adequately proven your agenda.

[DugwayDuke]

"Stating that this is a war over petroleum does not make one a "loony." This is simply facing the facts."

When you make the claim that this is a "war over petroleum" and ignoring the facts of 9-11 make one a "looney". In fact, by my definition, blaming this on big business, ie, big oil, makes one a "left wing looney". If one wishes to see a government conspiracy, ie, the war was planned in advance of 9-11, makes one a "right wing looney".

[TomB]

In fact, by my definition, blaming this on big business, ie, big oil, makes one a "left wing looney". If one wishes to see a government conspiracy, ie, the war was planned in advance of 9-11, makes one a "right wing looney".

So, since BJ claims this is a result of a government conspiracy in conjunction with their buddies in "big oil", what does that make him?

[Righty1]

The fundamentalist arabs and their sycophants have already claimed that the CIA did it so we could get at Caspian oil and reduce the influence of the Gulf States. This same crowd also says that we have robbed and debased arabs by using their oil. Pick one!