Posted on 12/10/2001 9:04:18 AM PST by 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.
You can even copy them into this thd (that will prove you at least went to the site.)
You posted a map, and I checked it to see if it was from a reputable source.
End of story.
Does the "Yawn" mean you are still asleep or is it just sarcasum(sp?)?
World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Gulf War
You're right, Im sure it's not only about the oil.
Its called Geopolitics, and power projection of influence.
Everything else is a cover story to motivate the foot soldiers and rally round the flag.
Then you must also remember that a few freepers in those days were saying that we were only in there to secure the area for a pipeline because the only other way to get the oil through would be to build the pipeline through Afghanistan.
I think there is a good chance that the above statement is true. Commercial interests, and the pressure that they may have exerted on some politicians, may, in fact, have led the U.S. to misread the situation in Afghanistan.
This however, does not lead to the conclusion that we are currently bombing Afghanistan to build a pipeline. Nothing in the article above disproves that the U.S. may have been seeking to prop up the Taliban, either.
"five months since BBC heard about the planned invasion of Afghanistan,"
Nope. A Pakistani official claimed (in September, after the WTC bombing) that he was told in July (5 months ago) that the US planned to invade Afghanistan -- so the BBC didn't hear about it 5 months ago, but only after 9-11.
And, funny, but it was supposedly about handing over bin Laden even then. Guess we knew he was a bad guy, even before 9-11 (might have had something to do with his blowing up two of our embassies and one of our Navy ships -- I don't think the Bush team was as willing to let bin Laden continue his terrorist ways as the Clinton team was.)
Why are you sending folks on errands again? Aren't you embarassed enough?
"ten months since Jane's Defense got word of the planned invasion of Afghanistan, "
This link says nothing about a planned invasion of Afghanistan, just that India, Russia, the US and Iran were covertly supporting the Northern Alliance as part of anti-terror (not oil pipeline) initiatives.
There's a million valid reasons to be against our "incursion" there, but some lefties (and folks at this site, like the Cooperites) are quite lazy when it comes to reasoning, so a bogeyman must be created to front for their emotions.
Goes on the lists!
To find all articles tagged or indexed using taliban_list
Click here: taliban_list
To find all articles tagged or indexed using above index words
Go here: OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST
and then click the topic to initiate the search! !
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.