#1 of 6 Reasons to Oppose the War in Afghanistan
by Brian Lenzo | Thursday, March 26th, 2009

1. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were merely a pre-text to launch an offensive with the aim of strengthening US dominance in Central Asia.

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are widely accepted as the justification for invading Afghanistan.  As the Boston Globe put it in March of 2005,

“Few could doubt that Afghanistan was a just war. Al Qaeda had the run of the country under the hyper-religious Taliban, and from what we know from hastily abandoned Al Qaeda documents and computers, Afghanistan had become even more of a dangerous haven for international terrorism than we had thought.” (Boston Globe, 2005)

This sentiment runs across the political spectrum from sanctimonious right-wing politicians like John McCain, to popular liberal icons like John Stewart on the Daily Show.  It took over 4 years to undo the Bush Administration lie that Saddam Hussein had connections to Al-Qaeda (a solid 3/4 majority of Americans now believe there is no connection), so its not surprising that people identify the war in Afghanistan with the 9/11 attacks.  After all, Al-Qaeda DID operate out of Afghanistan.

But even this acknowledgment begins to unravel the popular narrative of the Afghanistan War.  Al-Qaeda and its predecessor the Mujaheddin, have a long history in Afghanistan, no thanks to the US government who armed, trained and funded them to fight the Soviets in the 1980′s.  However, a wide river of American blood runs between the Bin-Laden of the 80′s and the Bin Laden of 9/11.  At the moment where Americans felt most vulnerable, most afraid, and most confused, the Bush administration and the willing media, beat the drums of war on Afghanistan, cementing the  connection deep in the American psyche.

This will, indeed, be a tough nut to crack.

For me, the key to unraveling this connection is not to ask about Al-Qaeda or Bin-Laden, but to ask about Afghanistan and its people.  Following 9/11, many Americans asked the same question about themselves….”What did WE, the American people, do to deserve this?”   We must ask ourselves now, “What did the Afghan people have to do with 9/11?”

The straight forward answer is NOTHING.  The Afghan people were not more prone to terrorism or extremism than any other post-colonial country.  Nor did you hear of American embassies and reporters being killed during the 1990′s.  The more nuanced answer to this question is that the connection of the Afghan people to 9/11 is not who they are or what they believe, but where they live.

Afghanistan, given its geography and strategic location around vital natural resources, is actually part of the post-cold war strategy outlined by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, “Scooter” Libby and Donald Rumsfeld in the infamous Project for a New American Century. As they put it in their Statement of Principles,

“As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?” — June 3, 1997, read the whole thing here

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have been widely discredited, and rightly so. Heck, Scooter Libby went to jail for a little bit (eventually being pardoned by Bush). But you would be wrong to think that their core strategy has also fallen from grace.

Have a look at the transcripts from a hearing before the House of Rep. Committee on International Relations on Feb 12th, 1998 (original transcript)

Mr. BEREUTER: Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in [Central Asia] include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia’s monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.

In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.

Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region.

It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.

Which businesses might you ask? Well read a little further in the transcript and you will read the following exchange between Rep. Doug Bereuter (Republican) from Nebraska and Robert W. Gee, Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Energy:

Mr. BEREUTER: Switching geography slightly, what is the status of proposals by Unocal and others to build a gas pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan?

Mr. GEE: Perhaps the Unocal witness can give you more detail. I do understand that they do have an agreement with the government of Turkmenistan. They have also been in discussions with the various factions within Afghanistan through which that proposed pipeline would be routed.  The U.S. Government’s position is that we support multiple pipelines with the exception of the southern pipeline that would transit Iran.

The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our support under that policy.  I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.

Mr. BEREUTER: Secretary Gee, could you briefly tell us what the formal Chinese involvement in the region is at this moment with respect to energy resources?

This last exchange wonderfully illustrates the dynamic between private profit and the overall goals of US “interests” (read Domination) of the region. As Major General Smedley Butler put it in 1933, “the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.” (link)

Sure, Unocal stands to make a killing (no pun intended) on a new pipeline project, but that’s not all. The ranking Rep. Bereuter finishes with, “What about China?” Afghanistan and its neighbor Pakistan sit in both Russia and China’s backyard. It flanks US enemies in Iran, with the occupation of Iraq surrounding Iran completely. It has strategic value on monitoring trade out of India. It doesn’t have a central government supported by the people to put up a fight.  It puts the US smack in the middle of a new scramble for influence, and puts it ahead of the game.  IT’S PERFECT!

Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan has played a crucial role in breaking the “Vietnam Syndrome” which was the hesitance of the American Military to directly intervene in other countries for fear of a popular backlash at home and among its ranks. It was a trial run for the next big prize, Iraq, and possibly Iran. As soon as the invasion of Afghanistan began, so did the drum beat of war against Iraq, and all the lies associated with it. Fortunately for the people of the Middle East, the resistance in Iraq and now the growing resistance in Afghanistan and Pakistan, have stopped the US in its tracks before going on to bigger and bloodier adventures.

Well, you might say, that was 1998, that thinking may have changed with a new administration.  However, just hours after the 9/11 attacks, during a 9:30 p.m. meeting with his key advisers, Bush declared:

“This is a great opportunity. We have to think of this as an opportunity.”
(Bob Woodward, Bush at War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002, pp. 31-32).

During the National Security Council meeting later that day, he said:

“This is a new world. … Start the clock. This is an opportunity. … I want Afghan options … I want decisions quick.” (Dan Balz, Bob Woodward and Jeff Himmelman, ‘Afghan Campaign’s Blueprint Emerges.’ Washington Post, January 29, 2002)

To conclude, terrorism and 9/11 had very little to do with the reasons for invading Afghanistan. 9/11 became an excuse, a pre-text, to launch the kind of sweeping political changes the ruling elite of the US desperately wanted, but could not pass off yet, on the American public. Again, the ruling elite themselves say it best (original transcript):

Mr. BEREUTER: One hundred years ago, Central Asia was the arena for a great game played by Czarist Russia, Colonial Britain, Napoleon’s France, and the Persian and the Ottoman Empires. Allegiances meant little during this struggle for empire building, where no single empire could gain the upper hand.

One hundred years later, the collapse of the Soviet Union has unleashed a new great game, where the interests of the East India Trading Company have been replaced by those of Unocal and Total, and many other organizations and firms.

Today the Subcommittee examines the interests of a new contestant in this new great game, the United States.

Tags: Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, Antiwar, Bush, Imperialism, obama, occupation, terrorism, war, war on terrorism

11:14 am. Activism, Politics.