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.
I agree. But so was the Middle East until vast deposits of oil were found there. Afghanistan may be next.
Of course there is no pipeline currently in Afghanistan. However the proposed pipeline goes right through the middle of Afghanistan with a branch veering off to the east toward Pakistan, India and China. The other branch continues on down to the Indian Ocean.
You do undertand the difference between existing and proposed don't you?
Of course. It's you who seems to have difficulty with the concept. You see, "proposals" can be changed, killed, or otherwise altered in any manner conceivable LONG before they reach the "under construction" phase. Pointing to a "proposed" pipeline (which has been "proposed" off and on for over 25 years) proves absolutely nothing about the War on Terror and it's supposed link to the Oil industry.
(Besides, if we were smart, we'd dump OPEC and begin importing oil from the Russian Federation, anyway. Therefore we would not NEED an Afghani pipeline... but that's my bonus 2 quid.)
;) ttt
Oh, Bull Cr*p. We are not fighting this war over oil, and I never said we were. Are you channeling Noam Chompsky? If you can't understand the real reason we are fighting, I'm not going to bother belaboring the bloody obvious.
What I AM saying is that bringing development, and thereby some measure of prosperity and economic opportunity, to this region will make it that much less likely that we will have to fight another war there. I am also saying that bringing more Central Asian oil to the world market will provide more security and economic stability and resilience to the world if things ever go totally to sh!t in the Middle East.
I repeat the question you ignored. How is this a BAD thing? Aside, that is, from the fact that class baiting populists think it's simply wrong for big corporations to make a profit, or for world leaders to push a few buttons or remove a few obstacles to lift populations out of mideval degradation and provide jobs and opportunities.
S, The "Public Private Partnerships" between godgov{s} and "big corporations" to run everything to "lift populations out of mideval degradation and provide jobs and opportunities." is a VERY "BAD thing'. Corporations of today are owned by investors that INSIST on a GOOD return on their investment.
Unlike the Henry Fords of yesteryear who brought back their companies in able to be able to sell their wares to the populace. There is NO incentive for BIG corporations to "lift populations out of mideval degradation", and any government that thinks so is living in a dream world of Hitler's "Third Way". Peace and love, George.
Yeah. And your point? (Or are you being sarcastic?)
That article is from 10/22, almost 2 months ago. The "moderate" Taliban trail baloon was burst a long time ago.
See also: The Powell Fix is in - "Moderate" Taliban to be part of New Afghan Government
Another article from ancient history (10/16. Do you have anything more current?
There is nothing in that Wash. Post article that refutes the fact that "moderate" Taliban will be in the new regime. The make-up of the new regime is far from complete.
Then perhaps you can identify the members of the Taliban that have signed the new peace accord in Germany last week. Every ethnic minority was there, I guess the missed the Taliban.
"Logistic support" is not simply "providing intelligence." Clearly US military involvement went far beyond simply "providing intelligence."
Yes, but it is hardly "US military intervention".
I find you implication that our government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks troubling. Perhaps you should post any proof you have of that instead of nibbling around the edges.
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.