President Obama delivered a speech Wednesday morning (21 September 2011) at the U.N. General Assembly as diplomatic efforts to try to dissuade the Palestinian Authority from submitting a bid for U.N. membership continue.
At the end of August 2011, the BBC reported that “[t]en years on from the attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people [on 11 September 2001], conspiracy theories have continued to evolve. They now question every aspect of the official account, despite the fact that every year has provided more witnesses and evidence to bolster the official explanation”. Serious commentators at reputable news providers the world over wonder aloud how it is that so many people persist in believing mumbo jumbo explanations of the terrorist attacks that have determined the course of the 21st century. On the other hand, looking at the available information, it seems to me that it is rather surprising that public opinion at large has been so docile in accepting the official line . . . arguably. The starting point of any conspiracy theory regarding 9/11, worth its salt, has to be the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and its prescriptions made in 2010. In particular, I am referring to the now infamous document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, published 2010. The PNAC, as a Neo-Con think tank, was trying to figure out how America could again become the primary power in the world, but deemed such a development unlikely “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor” . . . a phrase that has by now become emblematic of George Bush’s War on Terror and the doctrine of pre-emption in the minds of critics of the U.S. and its foreign policy under Bush and Obama.
We’re coming up on ten years since the attacks of 9/11. As a nation still spending billions of dollars and lives on a war on terror started in response, with the government still spying on citizens through provisions of the Patriot Act and with many questions about the attacks still unresolved, how far have we come a decade later? We’ll ask our guests that question tonight. Then, we’ll also talk about the economy as we get ready to hear President Obama’s jobs plan. And don’t miss our happy hour.
This news item is already some days old, but it is still a nice piece of propaganda spin in the War-on-Terror (2001-) that has now effectively replaced the Cold War (1946-91).
Unmanned drones killed Atiyah Abd al-Rahman in Pakistan . . . a ‘Libyan national who was considered Al Qaeda’s operational leader before rising to the No. 2 spot following Usama bin Laden’s death in May [2011]’, according to AP and Fox News.[1]
The above-quoted report quotes an U.S. ‘official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, [as saying that] al-Rahman was killed Aug. 22 in the Pakistani tribal region of Waziristan. That’s the same day a US drone strike in Waziristan’. The report continues that ‘[a]fter Navy SEALs killed bin Laden, they found evidence of al-Rahman’s role as operational chief, U.S. officials have said’.[2] This ephemeral evidence consisted of . . . In fact, the authorities have not revealed the actual contents of the raid on the Abbotabad house last May. The only credible reports regarding objects collected in Bin Laden’s house were to do with Bin Laden’s porn stash that had also been found.[3]
In the propaganda war that is now the War-on-Terror, the disclosure of this foruitous kill in Waziristan should be seen as another attempt to convince the global audience that the U.S. is still fighting the good fight and that the evil enemy is being slowly bled to death. Last month, the Defense Secretary Leon Panetta stated: “Now is the moment, following what happened with bin Laden, to put maximum pressure on [Al Qaeda] . . . because I do believe that if we continue this effort we can really cripple Al Qaeda as a major threat”.[4] In the absence of the Communist threat, Al Qaeda has now convincingly replaced the USSR as America’s apparent, if not necessarily de facto, opponent. But, this should not distract us into thinking that only the U.S. and American media promulgate propaganda dispatches. Here is the Asian News International, doing an admirable job as well: ‘Osama bin Laden’s long-time lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahri has taken command of Al-Qaeda after the killing of the group’s founder and leader, an Islamist website said on Thursday. Bin Laden was killed in a US commando raid in Pakistan last month. Al-Zawahri, who will turn 60 next week, had been bin Laden’s second in command. Zawahri is the son of an upper middle class Egyptian family of doctors and scholars. His father was a pharmacology professor at Cairo University’s medical school and his grandfather was the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, a premier center of religious study (16 June 2011)’.
[1] “Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 Leader Killed in Pakistan. U.S. Official Says” AP and Fox News(27 August 2011). http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/27/al-qaedas-no-2-leader-killed-in-pakistan-us-official-says/.
[2] “Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 Leader Killed in Pakistan. U.S. Official Says”.
[3] “Bin Laden Porn Stash” A Pseudo-Ottoman Blog (18 May 2011). http://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/bin-laden-porn-stash/.
[4] “Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 Leader Killed in Pakistan. U.S. Official Says”.
The Afghan government says that it is confident that it can take control of the country’s security by the end of 2014, when US forces are set to leave. NATO handed over control of seven areas across the country last month, and is set to continue to do so in the coming days. Al Jazeera‘s Charles Stratford spoke to Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, the chief of Afghanistan’s Transition Coordination Commission, in Kabul.
Ahmadzai makes a persuasive case for linking the War-on-Terror with the continued pacification of Afghanistan, claiming that global stability will only be feasible once his country has been cleansed of terrorists and those who give them succour thereby hinting at the fact that the international community (or the U.S.) should continue to fund and support the Afghan government in his view. Ahmadzai stated literally that “[i]t is a question of vital national security interest of the United States. No other country but Afghanistan offers the possibilities for containment of terror . . . than Afghanistan”. But do terrorists really primarily emanate from the Hindu Kush??? Or, even more pertinent, do terrorists aiming to disrupt and destroy U.S. lives and property necessarily have an Afghan stamp or provenance??? Is Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai here simply parroting the Bush line in order to ensure that the international community not forget Afghanistan now that Bin Laden has been killed???
Why did the U.S. invade Afghanistan??? Why did it take ten years to track down Bin Laden??? What role did the 9/11 attacks really play??? As I have argued elsewhere, there is a case to be made for the argument that the TAPI pipeline project played an important role in the U.S. decision to enter Afghanistan.[1] Additionally, it turns out that the mountains of Afghanistan do seem to harbour some other treasures as well. Last year, The New York Times made an announcement based on an “internal Pentagon memo”, and now the world knows. The article’s author James Risen indicates that the Pentagon has referred to the ‘new’ Afghanistan as “the ‘Saudi Arabia of lithium’, [which is] a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys”.[2] In other words, now the time has come to say, move over Congo here come the Afghans . . . Congo’s hidden wealth has fuelled a long civil war which is far from over as we speak (more than 5 million dead between 1998 and 2008). So, now all’s well that ends well, as the Shakespearean saying goes. Risen explains that the “vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists . . . While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war”.[3] Alternatively, it could also give rise to renewed rivalries between opposing factions and a new impetus to oppose the foreign exploitation of the Afghan lands by foreign multinational companies intent on reaping the benefits. The timing of this “leak” seems highly suspect. Did The New York Times just happen to stumble across this “internal Pentagon memo” or was the leak strategically placed so as to give exposure to this story of hope and prospects. The memo optimistically hints at the fact that the U.S. presence in the country has led to the discovery of these hitherto unknown underground assets, in other words that the Americans on the ground have succeeded in unearthing a bright future for the population of Afghanistan. Gen. David H. Petraeus, then-commander of the United States Central Command, said that “There is stunning potential here. There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant”.[4] Petraeus’ message was that the Afghans better stop playing war and start acting seriously if they want their country to get ahead. Obama’s War has now brought the potential for a local Afghani version of the American Dream to the Hindu Kush, is what the General was telling the as yet hapless Taliban and other Afghans. The prospect of jobs and opportunities for local men and women to become involved in the global economy is what the American occupation of Afghanistan was all about. The Americans are now simply providing an armed helping hand so that the Afghans can finally pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Even James Risen admits that “the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact. Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country. The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources”.[5] But that eventuality is obviously not what the Americans had in mind.
But it is not just Lithium either, as AFP’s Waheedullah Massoud adds that “iron and copper deposits are also large enough to make Afghanistan one of the world’s top producers, U.S. officials said”.[6] The really interesting aspect of the AFP report is that Massoud relies primarily on the New York Times article, adding ammunition to suggestions that the “internal Pentagon memo” was strategically leaked by the American occupiers of Afghanistan. In his piece, Risen remarks further that the “mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency”.[7] The southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan are also the area through which the profitable TAPI pipeline will be carrying its cargo of natural gas towards the Arabian Sea on the Indian coastline. The American occupiers of the country have already started mobilizing the locals, as worded by Risen, a “Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said”.[8] Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business, and significantly leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits, keeps a brave face: “The [Afghan] Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this. We are trying to help them get ready”.[9] In contrast, the political analyst Janan Mosazai pessimistically remarks the following: “I highly doubt [Afghanistan] will be able to either properly manage these resources or use the riches to build a more peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan for all Afghans. We have living examples of other countries where natural riches have actually turned into a curse for peace and prosperity for people”, referring to Nigeria and the mess that is the Niger Delta.[14] In other words, it turns out now that not only was the leak pre-conceived and deliberate but that the whole scoop of Afghanistan as the place where future consumers will get the minerals to fuel their gadgets was not quite an “unknown unknown”, but rather a “known unknown”,
to use a Rumsfeldian phraseology. A few weeks ago, the ever-insightful Pepe Escobar remarked that “the Russians have known about [these deposits] since at least the 1970s, when they mapped out all the uranium riches of northern Afghanistan”.[11] In fact, the way Escobar put it, one should rather talk about a “known known” when dealing with Afghanistan’s mineral and other wealth . . . The war in Afghanistan is part of the “New Great Game”, element of the struggle for Pipelineistan, and now also a new Congo in the making???
But, as hinted at earlier, The New York Times’ piece appeared at a right time to boost U.S. morale, even though nowadays nobody seems to care much about Afghanistan’s newly re-discovered underground mineral and other wealth. The Pentagon report’s mention of Afghanistan as the “Saudi Arabia of lithium” coincidentally replicates the wording of a piece written by Ran McDougal in 2009. McDougal talked about the lithium deposits in Bolivia’s “Salar De Uyuni, or more specifically [about] the vast quantities of lithium beneath its Northern Ireland-sized salt table”. In this piece, McDougal refers to Bolivia as “the next Saudi Arabia”.[12] But, before we get carried away by this sudden lithium wealth in the Hindu Kush, let us once again consider the TAPI pipeline. Now, the ball has really been set rolling. Last year, Kulpash Konyrova opined that after “20 years, the idea of a transnational gas pipeline Turkmenistan – Afghanistan – Pakistan – India (TAPI) is back in the centre of attention. After 20 years of oblivion, this project is back on the table in the wake of an international conference in Kabul [in June 2010] that talked seriously about an economic revival of Afghanistan. Recently, the project’s working group representing the four countries – Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India – met for a regular meeting in the Turkmen capital Ashgabat. No doubt, the TAPI gas pipeline project is of interest not just to the participating countries but to the world community as well. The security of the entire Central-Asian region will depend on the concrete steps that will be taken to recover the economy of Afghanistan, a country that is currently associated in the minds of the humanity with a centre of terrorism and drug trafficking”.[13]
The United States are ostensibly battling the Taliban (and their Al Qaeda ghost allies) on the ground in Afghanistan, but are in fact engaged in a game of chess with other potential buyers and consumers of Central Asia’s wealth of resources. In a way, this sounds eerily like Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Grand Chessboard that proclaimed the primacy of Eurasia in determining the identity of the global force to dominate lesser players and the rest of the world. As a result of TAPI, China will lose out on a substantial part of Turkmen gas holdings. But, the Chinese have already been planning for the long term. Their hold on Xinjiang (or East Turkestan) has gotten all but firmer since last year’s unrest, in view of that region’s substantial underground wealth and its function as the gateway to inner China for energy pipelines originating in Central Asia.[14] And now, the known known of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth has also been thrown into the ring. Escobar rather knowingly adds this sour note: “Tragedy aside, the US/NATO war in Afghanistan is now seriously flirting with surrealism – witness the Taliban’s accusation that the West hacked their website, their phones, their emails and spread false rumours of Mullah Omar’s death. Forget about “medieval towelheads on hash”; these are iPhone-friendly Taliban who tweet and post on Facebook – and command quite a following. Unsurprisingly, gloomy war-machine NATO ‘declines to comment’. It will be fascinating to watch . . . Russian, Chinese and Indian companies [making] a killing off of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth while the Atlanticist West bomb themselves to irrelevancy”.
[1] C. Erimtan, “9/11 and the occupation of Afghanistan:” Today’s Zaman (13 September 2010). http://tiny.cc/81shu.
[2] James Risen “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan” The New York Times (13 June 2010). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html.
[3] James Risen “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan”.
[4] James Risen “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan”.
[5] James Risen “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan”.
[6] Waheedullah Massoud, “Afghanistan: The Saudi Arabia of Lithium?” AFP (14 June 2010). http://news.discovery.com/earth/afghanistan-minerals-lithium.html.
[7] James Risen “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan”.
[8] James Risen “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan -
2”. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=2.
[9] James Risen “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan -
2”.
[10] Waheedullah Massoud, “Afghanistan: The Saudi Arabia of Lithium?”.
[11] Pepe Escobar, “The allure of Afghanistan” Al Jazeera (29 July 2011). http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011725135937812465.html#.TjQw9Pgw4Mc.facebook.
[12] Ran McDougal, “In Search of Lithium: The battle for the 3rd element” The Daily Mail (05 April 2009). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1166387/In-search-Lithium-The-battle-3rd-element.html.
[13] Kulpash Konyrova, “TAPI pipeline across Afghanistan gains momentum” New Europe, 895 (22 August 2010). http://www.neurope.eu/articles/TAPI-pipeline-across–Afghanistan-gains-momentum-/102112.php.
[14] Cfr. C. Erimtan, “The War in Afghanistan: The legacy of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Volatile Situation in Pakistan” Today’s
Zaman (07 October 2010). http://tiny.cc/7gsi2.
Cynthia McKinney tells RT America that the US needs to take care of domestic issues. The financial debt debate has many wondering what is going on with the US financial situation. Many are demanding that the US stop spending on the wars and bring that revenue home to help with domestic issues. Does it make senses to spend billions of dollars on our defense when we are so close to default? Cynthia McKinney, former US Representative and target of O’ Reilly, tells us what’s really going on.
Bagram Air Field is a major American hub for the war in Afghanistan, for everything from supplies to emergency medical care. The AP’s Sagar Meghani got a closer look at the massive base earlier this year (21 July 2011).
Some time ago President Obama announced the end of the Afghan Surge, as a kind of preamble to the allied occupation of the Hindu Kush – the removal of “10,000 American forces . . . by the end of this year and another 20,000 would be withdrawn by the end of next year”, which would still leave 70,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.[1] But the reality on the ground appears to present a somewhat different picture, in spite of the recent talk of “transition process” and “Afghan responsibility”. The above AP report on the Bagram Air Field indicates the extent of the American commitment to maintaining a credible albeit somewhat reduced military presence in the country. The wars in Afghanistan have been raging for the past thirty-odd years and it seems that now the country is heading back to more civil strife following the eventual withdrawal of the foreign occupation. In the New Statesman, Michael Semple, currently at the Carr Centre for Human Rights Policy at Harvard Kennedy School but previously a political officer for the UN mission from 2001-2002 and deputy to the EU’s special representative for Afghanistan from 2004-2008, states that the “Taliban are careful to market their military campaign as anything but a civil war. A wild commander in the south of the country recently remarked how thankful he was for the presence of US troops. His reasoning was that, as long as the Americans were there, the Taliban could focus on fighting them and win support for resisting the infidel. If the Americans and British left, the Taliban would be obliged to restart their war against the Northern Alliance, which had formed in opposition to their rule in the late 1990s”.[2] Matthew Hoh insightfully remarked in 2009 that the Taleban represent the nationalist opposition to foreign occupation.[3] But in the absence of a clearly defined foreign aggressor, opposing Afghan factions will necessarily turn on one another once more in a bit to rule the country and impose their authority over the hapless Afghan population. But, as it stands, that day seems far away. The year 2014 is being put forward as the point in time when NATO troops will vacate the Hindu Kush, but . . . will this use-by date be adhered to??? At the moment, the Afghans are bearing the brunt of the various blows being dealt. Also in the New Statesman, Mehdi Hasan quotes the AP: a “recent UN report found that May was the deadliest month for civilians since it began keeping track in 2007 and it said insurgents were to blame for 82 percent of the 368 deaths recorded. The UN does not usually release monthly civilian casualty figures but said it was compelled to do so in May because of the high number”. And then adds the following proviso: “[b]efore you get too excited: if the Taliban and their allies are responsible for four out of five innocent deaths in Afghanistan, that means “our side” is responsible for one in five of those deaths (18 per cent)”.[4]
Talking about the future of Afghanistan, the Center for American Progress’ Caroline Wadhams and Colin Cookman point out that the “most important aspect of the American relationship with Afghanistan today is the strategic partnership agreement currently under negotiation with Kabul. Despite the fact that this agreement will determine our military and economic assistance for years to come in Afghanistan, it remains out of the public debate. The administration hopes to sign this agreement before U.S. troops begin withdrawing next month, but the urge to sign a deal before then means the United States risks prematurely ceding what bargaining power it has with Kabul without receiving meaningful commitments in return”.[5] The Afghan TV station TOLOnews issued this declaration on its website recently: a ‘senior official in Karzai’s Office said on Tuesday that talks on details of a strategic agreement between the US and Afghan government have come to an end. Leaders of the two nations, the United States and Afghanistan will still hold talks on major constituents of US-Afghan strategic partnership agreement, including the remaining US troops beyond 2014 and the establishments the troops will use in the country. Strategic agreement between the United States and Afghanistan has long been the dominant discourse among Afghan officials and parliamentarians. Karzai’s Spokesperson told TOLOnews : “There have been some agreements over some small elements, but talks are still on the way focusing on big parts of the agreement.” Mr Omar said Afghans and the House of Representatives would be the ones to make the final decision after talks on strategic partnership. The remarks came as Afghan security forces have begun to take security responsibilities in some regions in the country’.[6] In other words, the likelihood of a revived intra-Afghan civil war appears to have been thwarted for now . . . and the U.S. appears set to strengthen its foothold in the Hindu Kush. This resolve could indicate that the as yet elusive TAPI project[7] could still be on the cards . . .
[1] “President Obama Announces Afghanistan Troop Reduction” A Pseudo-Ottoman Blog (23 June 2011). http://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/president-obama-announces-afghanistan-troop-reduction/.
[2] Michael Semple , “Afghanistan: fault lines in the sand” New Statesman (07 July 2011). http://www.newstatesman.com/asia/2011/07/civil-war-taliban-afghanistan.
[3] “White House Report on Afghanistan” A Pseudo-Ottoman Blog (18 December 2010). http://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/white-house-report-on-afghanistan/.
[4] Mehdi Hasan, “In Afghanistan, the death toll continues to rise” New Statesman (03 July 2011). http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2011/07/afghanistan-number-obama.
[5] Caroline Wadhams and Colin Cookman, “Negotiating Afghanistan’s future” Foreign Policy (June 2011). http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/02/negotiating_afghanistans_future.
[6] “Talks on Details of US-Afghan Strategic Deal Ended” TOLOnews (19 July 2011). http://tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/3409-talks-on-details-of-us-afghan-strategic-deal-ended.
[7] Cfr. C. Erimtan, “9/11 and the occupation of Afghanistan:” Today’s Zaman (13 September 2010). http://tiny.cc/81shu
Are Afghans ready to secure their own nation??? But, is this the right question to ask and is America really leaving the Afghan scene???
General John Allen takes over from General David Petraeus as commander of US-led international forces in Afghanistan. Hours after the handover, NATO reported that three service members were killed by a bomb in the country’s east. Al Jazeera‘s Rosiland Jordan at the Pentagon in Washington D.C., profiles the new man in charge.
But, the American Forces Press Service’s Donna Miles remarks, ‘[a]s much of the nation focuses on drawdown plans in Afghanistan, Army Reservists from the 425th Civil Affairs Battalion are preparing to deploy there this week to ensure security progress made has the opportunity to stick. The unit, with headquarters in Encino, Calif., will deploy to Kandahar province to help Afghanistan extend the reach of its national and provincial governments to provide infrastructure and services to the Afghan people. With almost a month of mobilization preparations and pre-deployment training now under their belts, the Soldiers say they’re ready to get on with the mission so they can make a difference’.[1]
[1] Donna Miles, “Reservists deploy to help build Afghanistan” U.S. Army (15 July 2011). http://www.army.mil/article/61592/Reservists_deploy_to_help_build_Afghanistan/.
Ten Years in Afghanistan: Central Asia Blues or Building Bases
Last week marked the tenth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and the NATO occupation of the landlocked country in the Hindu Kush. Ostensibly, the 9/11 attacks provided the reason for the invasion. As I have pointed out recently the whole 9/11 discourse is awash with conspiracy and other conundrums which do not make it easy to determine the reality. It would stand to reason to look at the PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century (2010) as a pivotal text in 21st-century U.S. foreign policy thinking. The Project for the New American Century or “PNAC, as a Neo-Con think tank, was trying to figure out how America could again become the primary power in the world, but deemed such a development unlikely ‘absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor’ . . . a phrase that has by now become emblematic of George Bush’s War on Terror and the doctrine of pre-emption in the minds of critics of the U.S. and its foreign policy under Bush and Obama. There are those who say that it was no coincidence that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were hit, suspecting that the PNAC and the Bush administration had previous knowledge of the plot, or were even involved in the planning and execution of the attacks”.[1] Quite apart from any kind of involvement of the Bush administration, the fact that the 9/11 attacks have functioned as “a new Pearl Harbor” for the 21st century seems incontrovertible and now at the outset of the second decade of the century, the War-on-Terror is still being waged as enthusiastically as ten years ago. President Obama campaigned on the premise of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to then re-engage in the Af-Pak Theatre where the real war was being fought, hinting at a menacing Al Qaeda presence and its supposed kingpin Usamah bin Laden. Now that the U.S. has all but “dismantled” Al Qaeda in the Hindu Kush and executed Usamah bin Laden, it would seem that President Obama has made good on his promise . . . alas, U.S. troops still do not seem ready to leave Afghanistan.
On the occasion of last year’s 9/11 anniversary I wrote the following in Today’s Zaman: “According to former Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik, approximately two months prior to 9/11,the Bush administration had already decided to topple the Taliban regime and install a more amenable transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. In July 2001 a four-day meeting was held in Berlin under the portentous heading of “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” . . . Literally one week after the attacks, the BBC’s former Pakistan correspondent George Arney related that Naik had “no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.” And Niaz Naik proved right. Was he therefore really a man who knew too much? In early August 2009, Naik was tortured and murdered in his residence in Sector F-7/3 of Pakistan’s capital of Islamabad”.[2] In the piece I connected Naik’s assertions with the plans for a pipeline project that was supposed to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea, through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI). I maintained that the “TAPI project was undoubtedly high on the [Berlin] session’s agenda”, adding that “[i]n meetings held in the Turkmen capitol of Ashgabat April 17-18 [,2010], the go-ahead was given and work on the lucrative project started in May [2010], with 2015 as the provisional completion date when Turkmenistan’s liquid gas will start flowing southward”.[3] As a result, my Today’s Zaman piece presented an ulterior motive for the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, a motive that also happened to be congruous with the reasoning of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the architect of the U.S. support of the Afghan Mujahideen in the eighties.[4] This realisation then led to recognising the importance of China as the new rival of the U.S., not just in Central Asia but across the wider world.[5] And thus, I concluded that “[i]n spite of the very real TAPI project and the American backing for the pipeline in the US pursuit of a fossil fuel policy, President Obama is keen to continue the Bush rhetoric as well as policy. In his address to the nation from the Oval Office on Aug. 31 to mark the end of the combat mission in Iraq, he made the following remarks: ‘And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al-Qaeda. … Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. … As we speak, al-Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists’”.[6]
But today Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda no longer a viable presence in the Af-Pak Theatre. Still, the American soldiers are staying put on the ground. The U.S. has over the years taken over and improved the former Soviet base of Bagram, now known as Bagram Airfield or Bagram Air Base. The informative website Global Security provides this introduction: ‘Bagram Airbase is located in the Parvan Province approximately 11 kilometers (7 miles) southeast of the city of Charikar and 47 Kilometers (27 miles) north of Kabul. It is served by a 10,000 foot runway built in 1976 capable of landing large cargo and bomber aircraft. Bagram Airbase has three large hangars, a control tower, and numerous support buildings. There are over 32 acres of ramp space. There are five aircraft dispersal areas with a total of over 110 revettments. Many support buildings and base housing built by the Soviets, have been destroyed by years of fighting between the various warring Afghan factions. Bagram Airbase played a key role during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, serving as a base of operations for troops and supplies and Aircraft based at Bagram provided close air support for Soviet and Afghan troops in the field. Some of the Soviet forces based out of Bagram included the elite 105th Guards Airborne Division’.[7] And the base has now become a small city, including bowling rinks, fastfood outlets and other diversions. Earlier this year, the Louisville, Kentucky-based Yum Brands franchise Pizza Hut opened up a branch at Bagram, and its spokesman said that the company is “proud to be serving the men and women who serve in Afghanistan”.[8] Additionally, Miami-based Burger King also opened its doors in Bagram. In other words, the U.S. service men and women are made to feel home away from home . . . arguably in an effort to boost morale and to ease ever-lengthening deployments in the Hindu Kush. Recently, Retired USAF Lt Col Karen Kwiatkowski appeared on RT where she outlined her contention that the U.S. had achieved its objectives in Afghanistan: to build permanent bases. Talking about the U.S. leadership, she said that “[t]here is a good reason in their minds why they are there, and they plan to stay. We like these military bases too well, we like the minerals, and we like the geographic positioning Afghanistan provides our military”.[9] Kwiatkowski openly refers to the recently rediscovered mineral wealth in the Afghan mountains,[10] and also insinuates that China is another reason the U.S. is positioning itself in a comfortable and secure base to keep an eye on Beijing’s designs. She further asserts that the occupation of Afghanistan “is not a success for the
American people, who are very tired of this. But the real reasons that we are in Afghanistan have never been put forward”.[11]
In addition to Bagram in Afghanistan, there is also the Manas Air Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan, a country bordering China’s important Xinjiang region where all of China’s Central Asian pipelines converge and other underground wealth is also available. Even more poignant is the fact that last year, the U.S. was also planning to build a second base in the land of the Kyrgyz – namely a $10 million military training base in the southern city of Osh called Osh Polygon. Osh was also the scene of ethnic clashes that led to many deaths last year.[12] Not being content with the size of its military footprint in Central Asia, the small non-Turkic nation of Tajikistan was also included in the U.S. strategy of encircling China in 2009.[13] Late last year, WikiLeaks released a cable that even indicated that the Tajiks were actively seeking a U.S. base on its soil: “The Tajik government presses us for greater benefits in return for support on Afghanistan . . . They see U.S. involvement in the region as a bulwark against Afghan instability, and as a cashcow they want a piece of”.[14]
And lest we forget, Uncle Sam’s Central Asian adventures do cost a lot of money. According to Reuters, President Obama ‘referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America’s wars’. The Reuters’ report then adds that ‘[s]taggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released Wednesday [, 29 June 2011]. The final bill will reach at least $3.7 trillion and could be as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project “Costs of War” by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies’.[15] For Dow Jones Newswires, Corey Boles now writes that the “federal government recorded a $1.3 trillion budget deficit in fiscal 2011, the same level recorded in fiscal 2010, the Congressional Budget Office said Friday [, 7 October 2011]. In its monthly assessment of the government’s finances, the nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper said the $1.3 trillion deficit was equivalent to 8.6% of U.S. gross domestic product, down from 8.9% in fiscal 2010 but still the third-highest percentage of GDP recorded since 1945”.[16]
[1] C. Erimtan, “9/11 as a Conspiracy Conundrum” IRCNL. http://tiny.cc/0guhu.
[2] C. Erimtan, “9/11 and the occupation of Afghanistan” Today’s Zaman (13 September 2010). http://tiny.cc/81shu.
[3] C. Erimtan, “9/11 and the occupation of Afghanistan”.
[4] C. Erimtan, “The War in Afghanistan: The legacy of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Volatile Situation in Pakistan” Today’s Zaman (07 October 2010). http://tiny.cc/7gsi2.
[5] C. Erimtan, “A frontline in the war against Islamic Extremism or A Crucial Part of the Eurasian chessboard?” Today’s Zaman (25 January 2011). http://tiny.cc/h3b5g.
[6] C. Erimtan, “9/11 and the occupation of Afghanistan”.
[7] “Afghanistan – Bagram Airbase” Global Security. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/bagram.htm.
[8] Matthew Rosenberg, “Afghan Forces Eat Up Return of Fast Food .” The Wall Street Journal (February 2011). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703610604576158610111737164.html.
[9] “’Afghans cannot kick US out, so we stay’” RT (07 October 2011). http://rt.com/news/us-military-mission-afghanistan-259/.
[10] Cfr. “Pleading the Afghan Case” A Pseudo-Ottoman Blog (13 August 2011). http://sitanbul.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/afghanistan-ashraf-ghani-ahmadzai-pleading-his-case-the-%e2%80%98saudi-arabia-of-lithium%e2%80%99/.
[11] “’Afghans cannot kick US out, so we stay’”.
[12] Walter Pincus, “U.S. base in Kyrgyzstan remains on track despite tensions” The Washington Post (07 August 2010). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080606148.html.
[13] “U.S. Envoy: Tajik Base Not Alternative To Manas” RFE/RL (22 April 2009). ttp://www.rferl.org/content/US_Envoy_Tajik_Base_Not_Alternative_To_Manas/1613530.html.
[14] Joshua Kucera, “U.S.: Tajikistan Wants to Host an American Air Base” The Bug Pit (14 December 2010). http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62570.
[15] “Cost of US wars since 9/11? At least $3.7 trillion, study finds” Reuters (29 June 2011). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43573008/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/cost-us-wars-least-trillion-study-finds/.
[16] Corey Boles, “US Had $1.3 Trillion Budget Deficit In Fiscal 2011” Dow Jones Newswires, (07 October 2011). http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201110071435dowjonesdjonline000517&title=us-had-13-trillion-budget-deficit-in-fiscal-2011.
Category:
9/11, Af-Pak Theatre, Afghanistan, Americana, Brzezinski, Bush, Capitalism, Central Asia, China, Current Affairs, Current History, Democracy, Interwebz, Iraq, Islam, Islamophobia, Middle East, Military-Industrial Complex, NATO, Obama, Oil and Gas, Pakistan, Peak Oil, Pipelineistan, Political Commentary, Propaganda, Regime Change, Taliban, Terrorism, Uncategorized, War on Terror, WikiLeaks