Posted on 01/14/2002 8:19:37 AM PST by tberry
January 13, 2002
Fighting for oil
The U.S. is determined to dominate the world's richest new source
By ERIC MARGOLIS
Contributing Foreign Editor
NEW YORK -- Partisans of President George Bush's jihad against Islamic opponents have been crowing that the quick military victory in Afghanistan showed that America's power is irresistible. War can indeed be waged with almost no U.S. casualties. The old Afghan hands who cautioned against plunging into Afghanistan were dead wrong, gleefully chorus right-wing hawks.
Hardly any of them have ever been to Afghanistan or neighboring regions. All past invaders, beginning with Alexander's Macedonians, found it extremely easy to get into Afghanistan - and exceptionally painful to get out. That is the point this column has been making since early October.
It took the Soviet Army exactly two days in late 1979 to occupy Afghanistan, and 10 years to extricate itself. It has taken the United States - admittedly much further away - five weeks to scatter a force of medieval tribesmen and occupy southern Afghanistan. This time around, Russia occupied the north through its proxy forces in two weeks.
Though most North Americans believe the Afghan war is over, in fact we are only seeing the beginning of what augurs to be a long, confused, murky struggle in this strategic but chaotic nation. The growing American military presence in Afghanistan means its garrison troops are likely to become embroiled in lethal Afghan tribal politics and face a low but persistent number of casualties from skirmish and accidents - just what happened to the Soviet garrison in the 1980s.
Right now, the U.S. has bought temporary loyalty from tribal chiefs, but this situation could quickly change as Afghans chafe under the growing American presence and resent being ordered about by foreigners. Canadian troops in Afghanistan will face the same threats.
One thing is clear: the United States is inexorably getting drawn deeper and deeper into South and Central Asia. Empires expand through war or trade. The American Empire - which this column has long called the American Raj - has in recent weeks made a decisive move to the east. Just as the U.S. used the 1991 Gulf War to force its Arab clients to permit stationing of permanent U.S. garrisons in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, so the U.S. is now using the so-called war on terrorism and the hunt for Osama bin Laden to expand its military influence into South/Central Asia.
The reason is both simple and complex: oil. Washington is determined to dominate the world's richest new source of oil, Central Asia's Caspian Basin, over which sit the former Soviet states of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Well before Sept. 11, the U.S. already had special forces operating in Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan. Last spring, Osama bin Laden advised the unworldly Taliban regime to turn down a low bid from the U.S. oil firm Unocal to build a pipeline to export Central Asian oil - awarding it instead to a rival Argentine firm. The U.S. cut off discreet financial aid to Taliban and began updating contingency plans to invade Afghanistan and install a compliant regime. Events of Sept. 11 facilitated this decision.
The U.S. is now establishing permanent military bases near Kandahar, where units of its elite 101st Airborne Div. will replace Marines as a semi-permanent garrison. Three other permanent U.S. bases are being prepared. Three more are operational in Pakistan. All these new bases will be linked to and supplied by much larger U.S. military bases in Arabia and the Gulf. Washington will use the same formula as in its Mideast oil Raj: keep friendly dictatorial regimes in power and crush their internal opponents in exchange for military bases, large arms purchases and cheap oil.
The Bush administration, egged on by the big oil lobby, is determined to dominate the Caspian Basin gold rush. However, U.S. military forces are already stretched extremely thin; involvement in Central Asia will strain them severely and require a higher defense budget. The U.S. already spends over $30 billion annually to base troops in Arabia and the Gulf - from which the U.S. gets only 7% of its oil.
Russia is already maneuvering against the U.S. in Central Asia and Afghanistan. China is watching the arrival of U.S. troops on its highly sensitive western borders and the new U.S./Indian strategic alliance with mounting concern. These are dangerous waters, in a part of the world the U.S. little knows.
The U.S. charge into remote Central Asia, led by a president who calls Pakistanis "Pakis," looks increasingly like a case of imperial overreach - a bridge too far even for the world's sole superpower.
What's wrong with America getting access to oil at good prices? Why is it that these damned stupid Liberals want to pay $9 a gallon for gas like Europe? Count me out- I want cheap gas for my SUV, and I don't care if any Liberal likes it!
We don't have to dominate them all just put ourselves in a position of influence and let them know how monetarily good for them it would be if they were our friend rather than making us buy expensive oil piped through Russia.
OH and remind them that we love them because they are not like those nasty Afghans or Yugoslavians that treated our friendship so poorly.
I wholeheartedly agree with the author in criticizing our administration's half-baked efforts and waste of resources in procuring 7% of our oil.
I also wholeheartedly agree that we should immediately double and trebel the amounts and troops, 'un-nationalize' our oil fields, dare these camel-humping sand-hobos to do anything about it, and get at least 70% of our oil from the million-hectare catbox known as the Middle East.
Oh, I see. I thought "domination" meant something else altogether.You mean we'd pay them for the oil they produce. How insidious.
You're right, that must be what this war is ALL about.
NO. I mean we would smile, slap them on the back call them friend and Offer them "protection". If they wouldn't be friendly and let us control the oil, how could we "protect" them from being caught up in a conflict with us and our gang...OPPS.. I mean coalition.
As to a pipeline via Afghanistan? Heard the same thing about Kosovo/Albania. Anyone that thinks it's all about oil is wacko. One drunk with a deer rifle took out the Alaska pipeline shortly after Sept.11. What could a well trained team do?
I suspect all these former Soviet Republics are looking for a way out of their morass. Poverty abounds over there. And what is wrong with that? They have oil. We need oil. $$$ makes the world go by.
When the USSR was the number one exporter of oil in the early 80s, did it trickle down to the masses?
What's next? Oh, I know, the Vietnam War was all about the Vung Tau Trench....
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.