In order to pass summary judgement by the Daily Kos community, please allow me to make a prima facie case for my position. This diary does not suggest anything falling out of the purview of our Dear Leader’s position vis-a-vis the events of 9.11. This diary does not intend to suggest that any other group, domestic or foreign, not associated with Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are ultimately responsible for the tragedies of that day. Instead, this diary suggests that the events of that day are more or less irrelevant to our invasion of Afgnanistan, and that the rationale for the invasion, although being added credence by the Taliban hiding Osama bin Laden, did not rely on the tragedy to bring the Coalition of the Willing to Afghanistan’s invasion five years ago.
This diary argues that there were other factors which fed the need to invade Afghanistan, and that it too is an illegitimate war. The consensus opinion of our Democratic leadership is that the war in Afghanistan is the ‘right war’ and that the Bush Crime Family ought to have remained in Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq. It is that hijacking of history that I wish to clear up with this diary.
When our own nation is at war with any other, we detest them under the character of cruel, perfidious, unjust and violent: But always esteem ourselves and allies equitable, moderate, and merciful. If the general of our enemies be successful, `tis with difficulty we allow him the figure and character of a man. He is a sorcerer: He has a communication with daemons; as is reported of Oliver Cromwell, and the Duke of Luxembourg: He is bloody-minded, and takes a pleasure in death and destruction. But if the success be on our side, our commander has all the opposite good qualities, and is a pattern of virtue, as well as of courage and conduct. His treachery we call policy: His cruelty is an evil inseparable from war. In short, every one of his faults we either endeavour to extenuate, or dignify it with the name of that virtue, which approaches it.
David Hume, 1740
Before we begin, allow to anticipate another attack of this diary that will surely come: It is not timely, this is old stuff, and it has nothing to do with this site's purpose. This diary was prompted by the highest-rated diary at Daily Kos this morning by Heathlander's excellent exposition of the MSNBC's re-writing of the history of Iran. In the comments to that diary, I began to think about my diary of last week which was a dialogue with Kos and about whether we are foreclosing the truth by defining too broadly when a theory becomes unspeakable. Second, this stuff may be old, but, it seems that it is esoterica and not as widely-known as it ought to be. Third, I say this because our Democratic leaders continue to perpetuate the fable that "Afghanistan is the good war" and, one can glean from this that even under the next Democratic Administration, our involvement in Afghanistan may continue because of our unwillingness to understand that it too is an illegal war, as is Iraq. It is related to electing Democrats who will tell us the truth because they know the truth and will not send more soldiers to Afghanistan to die for a fable.
I. The Lies of the Bush Crime Family
With each day the lies of the Bush Crime Family become more and more apparent. This week, the Pentagon cleared up any doubt on the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda and the attacks on 9.11. Yet, the criminal Cheney continues to claim as much, and, one can assume that a significant number of Americans still believe in the link. I leave aside for the moment the reasons why people choose to believe things that they know are wrong, and simply suggest that polling numbers suggest they do.
However, we here are made of stronger stuff than that. We are in ‘the reality-based community’ and are rightly sceptical of what we hear from the talking-heads and foul-mouthed beasts that bark at us from behind the White House podia. And, because we are, we must make an effort to stop perpetuating the fable that ‘Afghanistan is the right war’. It is not. It was as illegal as we know the war in Iraq is illegal.
It is time to let the souls of 9.11 rest. We cannot get them back by murdering Muslims, any more than we can get the souls that perished in Pearl Harbor back by killing the Japanese. They are dead and all that remains are the memories of their lives. We have already reached the level of ‘an eye for an eye’ dozens of times over. We must look to the future, and the Democratic leadership and whether they are continuing the fable that we were fed five years ago. It is time to set the record straight and be strong enough to say that Afghanistan is not the right war. As with Iraq, Afghanistan was attacked in order to install a puppet government that would allow American and Western interests access to oil.
As with Iraq, the facts about Afghanistan prove it. Perhaps it is the reality that part of the blame lies with the Clinton Administration and not solely with the Republicans. If that is the case, then I must say it would be a shameful excuse to ignore the truth.
All this will become apparent to the reader if he or she follows me along through the history of the involvement of Western interests in Afghanistan from the mid 1990s to 2001.
II. Afghanistan was already a target before 9.11
Allow me to start at the conclusion and then go back to make the case:
We threw the Taliban under the bus when we discovered that we could not control them. This happened before 9.11 was even a glimmer in Al-Qaeda's eye. We did it when we found they could not be bought by the West, but, already had a thriving relationship with the Russians regarding their oil, they were ‘dead to us’ as Michael Corleone so succinctly put it in The Godfather. If only we could get rid of the Taliban and install a government that would be play nice with the West... Well, we did that. And, within its first six months, the Karzai government allowed the pipeline to be constructed.
Now, those sceptics among us might say that the two are not related. That because two things happened, the link between the two has not been proven.
Great! I welcome sceptics and hope that you will see why I am no longer one, and why I hope that the reader, and more importantly, the Democratic leadership who are perpetuating the fable that the war was begun for more noble goals, allow me to suggest otherwise.
III. Cheney and the Caspian Reserves
In 1999, while Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, he was invited by a group in Washington, D.C. to deliver an address regarding the Caspian Reserves and Azerbaijan. I cannot tell you which group because the Lexis transcript does not identify it. The speech occurred on February 18, 1997, and is provided by FDCH Political Transcripts. Richard Perle is in the audience, so it could be AEI or one of the other radical right-wing groups where these two degenerates might get together.
As I have previously diaried, when the Bush Crime Family smells oil, people have to die. I will leave it the reader to decide whether the Caspian was on Cheney's radar screen in 1999:
My time here in Washington as secretary of defense and on the Hill and at the White House gave me some perspective on issues in that part of the world. But more recently, my service now at Halliburton -- I've been closely following issues in the Middle East and the Caspian region as well, and wanted to share some thoughts with all of you today.
First and foremost, obviously -- and your very presence here today for all of you shows that you agree with me that there's one thing that stands out very clearly and that is that Azerbaijan is of great significance, not only for the future of the region but to the future of a diversified and balanced global oil market.
In the coming years as oil demand grows, the world clearly is going to need new resources. The Caspian may be the first world-class oil province to open up since the North Sea.
But the realization of this potential depends not only on commercial considerations, but also on politics as the struggle to get these resources to market involves a number of countries with competing interests.
What does this have to do with Afghanistan?
If you look at this map
you will see that there is a proposed pipeline in the Caspian from Baku in Azerbijan to Turministan. And, we know now that since Karzai has come to power we have a link from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan.
A larger map of the area shows the reason for this round-about way: It is merely designed to take Iran out of the equation, and to remove the pressure Russia can put on both countries as the sole market for their product. With the Trans-Afghan pipeline, the Americans get access to Azerbijian and Turkmenistan and successfully lock out Russia and Iran from consideration.
Cheney's concern over Iran has another component that disquiets him:
And as you know, Iran has already made swap arrangements with Kazakhstan for oil supply in the northern part of Iran.
For Azerbaijan, Iran's proximity provides the most direct export route for oil -- if pipelines could be constructed across that territory. Iran has shown support for the Russian and Turkmeni position on a 45-mile limit in the Caspian.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union and the creation of the newly independent states, it's fair to say that Iran's potential influence has, in fact, increased. Iran's long history in the region and the large number of Azeris living in Iran gives Iran a powerful social and political interest in Azerbaijan, in particular.
Iran also has concerns about the number of refugees it hosts, and about the consequences of any political instability in Azerbaijan.
Therefore, America--in 1999, the Clinton Administration--has to allow American investment in Azerbijian. Or, to put it more exactly, lift Section 907 sanctions against Azerabijan:
I must also say that I believe that our current policy prohibiting U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan is seriously misguided. In my experience, this kind of unilateral sanction, based primarily on U.S. domestic political considerations, is unwise.
Such a policy limits U.S. influence in any given situation, and in this case, it reduces rather than enhances the prospects for ultimately resolving a very complex and important set of regional issues.
And that means infrastructure, and that means HALLIBURTON. Cheney gets a quick advertisement in for his company, just in case he can't get the fix in 2000--a man has to eat, after all:
As the last panel discussed, infrastructure is another crucial component to economic growth and this goes beyond just oil pipelines. I've come to understand the importance of infrastructure as U.S. defense secretary, as well as in my current role as Halliburton, where our subsidiary Brown & Root, engages in largescale infrastructure projects all over the world.
IV. Conclusion
Where are we then? Well, we know that from the mid-90s up until mid-2001, Afghanistan was on the list of 'things-to-do' of the oil industry, the Clinton Administration, the Bush Crime Family, and especially Dick Cheney who gets paid double upon completion. He benefits in going in and he benefits in getting out and rebuilding the things he broke in the first place.
We know that the Bush Crime Family lied this country into a war in Iraq under false pretenses to serve their ideological, economic, and imperialistic goals; likewise, a case can be made that we were lied to about the sudden urgency of attacking Afghanistan.
The lesson, I hope, is that we will think twice about saying the Afghanistan is the 'good war' and that 'Bush should have stayed there' and when Democrats are elected in 2008, that we will not continue the charade of the Bush Crime Family.
Tags: Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Unocal, 9.11