URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm.
Receive about one article/day.
Click here
to send this email to a friend.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
=======================================
Why Washington Wants
Afghanistan
by Jared Israel, Rick
Rozoff & Nico Varkevisser [posted 18 September 2001]
=======================================
"Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And
if this attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it means there is a long,
long war ahead." (Thomas Friedman, 'New York Times,' September 13, 2001)
Key U.S. government representatives and media figures have used the bombing of the World
Trade Center (WTC) and Pentagon to create an international state of fear.
This has swept Washington's closest allies (notably Germany and England,
though not Italy) into agreeing carte blanche to participate in U.S. reprisals.
It has also served
to obscure a most important question: does Washington have a hidden agenda here, a
strategy other than hurling bombs? If so, what is it, and what does it mean for
the world?
***
Amid the increasingly implausible and frequently
contradictory explanations (2) offered by U.S. government
officials for their inability or unwillingness to intervene effectively before
and during this past Tuesday's aerial attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.
- and as the cries for war drown out the voices of reason - a deadly scenario
is unfolding.
Columns in major mainstream
newspapers have borne such titles as:
·
"World War III" ('New York
Times,' 9/13)
·
"Give War A Chance"
('Philadelphia Inquirer,' 9/13)
·
"Time To Use The Nuclear
Option" ('Washington Times,' 9/14).
A government that
claims it had no knowledge of or was at a loss knowing how to deal with
painstakingly organized terrorist attacks now calls for
"exterminating" previously unseen assailants by, in the words of
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, "ending states who sponsor terrorism,"
Henry Kissinger argues ('Los
Angeles Times,' 9/14) that alleged terrorist networks must be uprooted wherever
they exist. Former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu writes an article entitled
"Dismantle Terrorist Supporting Regimes" ('Jerusalem Post,' 9/14).
And to raise the level of international intimidation a notch, we have R.W.
Apple, Jr. in the 'Washington Post' (9/14):
"In this new
kind [of] war...there are no
neutral states or geographical confines. Us or them. You are either with us or
against us."
Initially, a mix of countries was threatened as so-called 'states supporting terrorism,' who are
not with us and therefore must be against us: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North
Korea, Sudan and Syria. Although differing in most respects, especially
political ideology, they are indeed alike in three ways: They all bear decades
of U.S. government hostility; they all have secular governments; they all have
no connection to Osama bin Laden.
In, "Give
War A Chance" ('Philadelphia Inquirer') David Perlmutter warns that if
these states do not do Washington's bidding, they must:
"Prepare for
the systematic destruction of every power plant, every oil refinery, every
pipeline, every military base, every government office in the entire
country...the complete
collapse of their economy and government for a generation."
Meanwhile, the countries which collaborated
to create
the Taliban, training and financing the
forces of Osama bin Laden,
and which have never stopped pouring money into the Taliban - namely Pakistan, close U.S.
allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and the United States itself - have not been placed on the
"we've got to get them" list. Instead these states are touted
as core allies in the New World War against terrorism.
Raising the
pitch, yesterday:
"Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the US would engage in a 'multi-headed effort'
to target terrorist organizations and up to 60 countries believed to be supporting them.
"The US, Mr.
Rumsfeld told American TV, "had no choice" other than to pursue
terrorists and countries giving them refuge."
The threats to
bomb up to a third of the world's countries has scared many people, worldwide.
This, we think, is the intention. It serves two functions.
First, it means
that if Washington limits its aggressive action mainly to attacking
Afghanistan, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
And we think Washington
will mainly attack
Afghanistan - at first. Other immediate violations of sovereignty, such
as the forced use of Pakistan, will be backup action to support the attack on
Afghanistan. There may also be some state terror, such as increased, unprovoked
bombing of Iraq, as a diversion. But the main immediate focus will, we think,
be Afghanistan.
Second, this scare
tactic is meant to divert
attention from Washington's real strategy, far more dangerous than the
threat to bomb many states. Washington wants to take over Afghanistan in order
to speed up the fulfillment of its strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet Republics in the
same way Washington has been pulverizing the former Yugoslavia. This poses the
gravest risks to mankind.
WHAT
DOES WASHINGTON WANT WITH IMPOVERISHED AFGHANISTAN?
To answer this
question, look at any map
of Europe and Asia. Consider the immense spread of the former Soviet
Union, particularly Russia.
European Russia is
1,747,112 square miles. That's between a third and half the landmass of all
Europe. Add the Asian part
of Russia and you get 6,592,800 sq. mi. That's equal to most of the US and China combined.
More than half of Africa.
Russia borders
Finland in the far West. It borders Turkey and the Balkans in the south. It
extends to the edge of Asia in the Far East. It is the rooftop of Mongolia and
China.
Not only is Russia spectacularly large, with
incalculable wealth, mostly untapped, but it is the only world-class nuclear
power besides the U.S. Contrary to popular opinion, Russia's military might has not been destroyed;
indeed, it is arguably stronger,
in relation to the US, than during the early period of the Cold War. It
has the most sophisticated submarine technology in the world.
If the U.S. can break-up Russia and the
other former Soviet Republics into weak territories, dominated by NATO,
Washington would have a free
hand to exploit Russia's great wealth and do whatever it wanted elsewhere without fear of
Russian power.
Despite talk of
Russia and the U.S. working together, and despite the great harm that has been
done to Russia by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this remains the
thrust of US policy. (3)
Afghanistan is strategically placed, not only bordering Iran, Pakistan, and even, for a
small stretch, China (!) but, most important, sharing borders and a common religion with the
Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union (SU): Uzbekistan,
Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. These in turn border Kazakhstan, which borders
Russia.
Central Asia is strategic not only for its vast deposits of oil, as we are often told, but more important for
its strategic position.
Were Washington to take control of these Republics, NATO would have military
bases in the following key areas: the Baltic region; the Balkans and Turkey;
and these Republics. This would constitute a noose around Russia's neck.
Add to that Washington's effective domination of the
former Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, in the south, and the US would be positioned to launch externally
instigated 'rebellions' all over Russia.
NATO, whose
current doctrine allows it to intervene in states bordering NATO members, could
then initiate "low intensity wars" including the use of tactical
nuclear weapons, also officially endorsed by current NATO doctrine, in
'response' to myriad 'human rights abuses.'
It is ironic that Washington
claims it must return to Afghanistan to fight Islamist terrorism, because it
was precisely in its effort to destroy Russian power that Washington first created the
Islamist terrorist apparatus in Afghanistan, during the '80s.
This was not, as
some say, a matter of aiding rebels against Russian expansionism. Whatever one
thinks about the Soviet
intervention in Afghanistan, it was in fact conceived as a defensive action to preserve, not
alter, the world balance of power. It was the United States which took
covert action to 'encourage' Russian intervention, with the goal of turning the
conservative rural Afghan tribesmen into a force to drain the Soviet Union.
This is admitted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the key National Security chief at the
time.
Consider the
following excerpts from two newspaper reports.
First, from the 'N.Y. Times':
"The Afghan
resistance was backed by the intelligence services of the United States and
Saudi Arabia with nearly $6
billion worth of weapons. And the territory targeted last week [this was
published after the August, 1998 U.S. missile attack on Afghanistan], a set of
six encampments around Khost, where the Saudi exile Osama bin Laden has
financed a kind of 'terrorist university,' in the words of a senior United
States intelligence official, is well known to the Central Intelligence Agency.
"... some of
the same warriors who fought the Soviets with the C.I.A.'s help are now
fighting under Mr. bin Laden's banner.... ('NY Times,' 24 August 1998 pages A1
& A7 )
And this from the
London 'Independent':
"The Afghan
Civil War was under way, and America
was in it from the start - or even before the start, if [former National
Security Adviser, and currently top foreign policy strategist Zbigniew] Brzezinski himself is to
be believed.
'"We didn't
push the Russians to intervene,' he told an interviewer in 1998, 'but we consciously increased
the probability that they would do so. This secret operation was an excellent
idea. Its effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap. You want me to regret that?'
[said Brzezinski]
"The
long-term effect of the American intervention from cold-warrior Brzezinski's
perspective was 10 years later to bring the Soviet Union to its knees. But there were other
effects, too.
"To keep the
war going, the CIA, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's military
intelligence agency ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate), funneled
millions and millions of dollars to the Mujahedeen. It was the remotest and the safest form of
warfare: the US (and Saudi Arabia) provided funds, and America also a
very limited amount of training. They also provided the Stinger missiles that
ultimately changed the face of the war.
"Pakistan's
ISI did everything else: training, equipping, motivating, and advising. And they
did the job with panache: Pakistan's military ruler at the time, General Zia ul
Haq, who himself held strong fundamentalist leanings, threw himself into the
task with a passion." ('The Independent' (London) 17 September 2001. Our
emphasis.)
Right up to the present, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia has been
perhaps the key force in financing the Taliban. But the U.S. itself has provided direct support despite the Taliban's monstrous
record of humanitarian abuse:
"The Bush
administration has not been deterred. Last week it pledged another $ 43 million
in assistance to Afghanistan, raising total aid this year to $ 124 million and making
the United States the
largest humanitarian donor to the country." ('The Washington Post,'
25 May 2001)
Why have the US
and its allies continued - up to now - to fund the Taliban? And why
nevertheless is the US now moving to attack its monstrous creation?
It is our
conviction, and that of many observers from the region in question, that
Washington ordered Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to fund the Taliban so the Taliban could do a job:
consolidate control over Afghanistan and from there move to destabilize the
former Soviet Central Asian Republics on its borders.
But the Taliban has failed. It has not defeated the
Russian-backed Northern Alliance.
Instead of subverting Central Asia in businesslike fashion, it has indulged in
blowing up statues of Buddha and terrorizing people who deviate from the
Taliban's super-repressive interpretation of Islam.
At the same time, Russia has also been
moving in the 'wrong' direction, from Washington's perspective. The
completely controllable Yeltsin has been replaced with President Putin, who partially
resists the U.S. - for example, putting down the CIA-backed takeover of Chechnya by Islamist
terrorists linked to Afghanistan. Further, China and Russia have signed a mutual defense pact.
And despite immense European/U.S. pressure, Russian President Putin refused to
condemn Belarussian President Lukashenko who, like the jailed but unbroken Yugoslav
President Milosevic, calls for standing up to NATO. (3a)
It is this
unfavorable series of developments that has caused Washington to increase its reliance on its
all-time favorite tactic: extreme
brinkmanship.
An early sign of
this brinkmanship appeared two weeks ago, just before the Presidential
elections in the former Soviet Republic of Belarus. Belarus borders Lithuania,
that is, the Baltic region. Washington
and the European Union loathe Belarussian President Lukashenko because he has
refused to turn his small country over to the International Monetary Fund
and dismantle all the social guarantees of the Soviet era. Moreover he called
for defending Yugoslavia from NATO attack. He even wants Belarus, Ukraine and Russia to reunite.
This desire to have former Soviet Republics get back together puts him square
in the path of Washington's policy, which is to break these Republics up into
even smaller pieces.
For months,
Washington and the Europeans have been meddling in the Belarussian elections. Washington
admits to funding some 300 'Non-Governmental Organizations' in Belarus. This in
a country of some 10 million souls.
As if this wasn't
sufficient, just before the elections, U.S. Ambassador to Belarus Michael Kozak
issued a truly startling statement:
"[Ambassador
Kozak wrote to a British newspaper that] America's 'objective and to some degree methodology are the same' in
Belarus as in Nicaragua, where the US backed the Contras against the
left-wing Sandinista Government in a war that claimed at least 30,000
lives." ("The
Times" (UK), 3 September 2001.) (4)
As you may
recall, the Contras
was a terrorist outfit that Washington financed during the 1980s to destroy the
Left-wing Nationalist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. the Contras
specialized in raiding farming villages where they slaughtered the inhabitants;
that when they were not smuggling drugs. This all came out during the Iran-Contra scandal.
Now Washington has cynically used the
mass slaughter at the World
Trade Center and the lesser attack on the Pentagon to rally its NATO forces,
invoking Article Five of NATO's charter, under which all members of NATO must
respond to an attack on any one. This has the goal of a) putting together a "peacekeeping force"
for Afghanistan b) launching air and possibly ground attacks c) eliminating the obstinate and incompetent
leadership of the Taliban
and d) taking direct
control through the creation of a U.S.-dominated NATO military
occupation.
Some argue that
NATO would be crazy to try to pacify Afghanistan. They say the British failed
to do it in the 1800's, and the Russians failed in the 1980's.
But Washington does not need or
intend to pacify Afghanistan. It needs a military presence sufficient to
organize and direct indigenous forces to penetrate the Central Asian republics and instigate armed
conflict.
Rather than
trying to defeat the Taliban, Washington will make the Taliban an offer they cannot refuse:
work with the U.S.; get plenty of money and guns plus a free hand to direct the
drug trade, just as the U.S. has permitted
the KLA to make a fortune from drugs in the Balkans. (5)
Or oppose the
U.S., and die.
In this way, Washington hopes to duplicate
what it did in Kosovo where NATO took drug-dealing gangsters and
violently anti-Serbian secessionists and out of that raw material fashioned the terrorist Kosovo
Liberation Army.
In this case the
raw material would mainly be members of the Taliban. Reorganized and under
strict direction, reborn as Liberation Fighters, they would be directed against the Central
Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union. This would duplicate what
NATO has done in the Balkans. There it has sent the KLA, beefed up by Islamist reinforcements
and 'advised' by U.S. specialists, against neighboring Macedonia.
As the Central Asian Republics battle the intruders, NATO
could offer them military assistance, thus penetrating the region on both sides by means of a conflict instigated by Washington.
This tactic of simultaneously attacking and defending Central Asia - has been employed to great
effect against Macedonia. The goal is to produce decimated, NATO-dominated
territories. No more Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. (6)
Then on to Kazakhstan, and then Russia.
This strategy cannot be sold to the American people. We repeat: it cannot be sold.
It is for that
reason that the Bush administration is using the tragic nightmare of murder in New York,
which itself occurred under circumstances suggesting the
complicity of Washington's covert forces, to create international hysteria sufficient to
drag NATO into the strategic occupation of Afghanistan and an intensified
assault on the former Soviet Union. (7)
Before anyone
sighs with relief, thinking, "Thank God this is all that's
happening," consider that apart form the violation of national sovereignty
and many other very negative aspects of Washington's plans, the attack on Afghanistan brings
NATO to Russia's Central Asian doorstep. This is a strategic escalation
of conflict, moving us all much closer - nobody knows how much closer and
nobody knows how fast things will escalate - to worldwide nuclear war.
Will Washington get away with it? Washington, and the giant capitalists who control
it, obviously think Russia will let itself be destroyed. But then, as the
Greeks say, "Pride is followed by self-destruction."
The Russians are
very deceptive. They try to avoid a fight. But as Mr. Hitler discovered, when
they are pushed to the
wall, they fight
with the ferocity of lions. And they have tens of thousands of nuclear
weapons.
Thus Washington is playing with
the possibility of a war which would make the horror that occurred last Tuesday
at the World Trade Center, or even the much larger-scale
horror of the U.S. terror-bombing of Yugoslavia, look like previews of hell. (8)
- Emperor's
Clothes
***
Further
Reading:
1) Like a man
with a guilty conscience, the U.S. government and its NATO allies constantly
denounce terror while routinely employing it in international affairs. See for
example:
· 'WASHINGTON: PARENT OF
THE TALIBAN AND COLOMBIAN 'DEATH SQUADS' at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm
· 'WHAT NATO OCCUPATION WOULD MEAN FOR MACEDONIANS'
First-hand report of the state of terror
instituted when NATO took over Kosovo. Can be read at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/savethe-a.htm
· ''Five Years On
& the Lies Continue.' Discussion of the use by the U.S.-sponsored
Islamist regime in Sarajevo of systematic terror against Serbian villagers in
Bosnia. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/texts.htm
· 'Meet Mr. Massacre'
- Concerning U.S. Balkans envoy William Walker's death squad activities in
Latin American. Can be read at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/meetmr.htm
2) 'Criminal
Negligence or Treason' Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm
3) 'Why is NATO Decimating
the Balkans and Trying to Force Milosevic to Surrender?' by Jared Israel
and Nico Varkevisser. Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/whyisn.htm
3A) 'What The Hague Tribunal [sic!]
Wouldn't Let Milosevic Say' This is the statement which Milosevic tried to
give. To prevent it 'Judge' May cut off his mike. It can be read at http://www.icdsm.org/more/aug30.htm
4) 'Tough Measures Justified in
Belarus' by Jared Israel at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/tough.htm
5) 'WASHINGTON:
PARENT OF THE TALIBAN AND COLOMBIAN DEATH SQUADS' by Jared Israel. Can be read
at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm#a
6) 'SORRY VIRGINIA BUT THEY ARE
NATO TROOPS, NOT 'REBELS' Can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/mac/times.htm
7) - Click
here please.
8) 'Yugoslav Auto Workers
Appealed to NATO's Humanity...' Can be read at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/misc/car.htm
9) Rick Rozoff
takes a critical look at Washington's response to Tuesday's tragedies in 'Bush's Press
Conference: Into the Abyss' at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/rozoff/abyss.htm
10) While
Washington points to Osama bin Laden as "suspect # 1" in yesterday's
horrific violence, the truth is not being told to the American people: 'Washington Created
Osama bin Laden' by Jared Israel can be read at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/sudan.html#w
11) If one looks
carefully, one can find in the Western media evidence that bin Laden has been involved -
on the U.S.-backed side - in Kosovo, Bosnia and now Macedonia. Can be read
at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/mis.htm
12) Bin Laden was
propelled into power as part of the U.S. drive to create an Islamist terrorist
movement to crush the former Soviet Union. See, the truly amazing account from
the 'Washington Post,' 'Washington's
Backing of Afghan Terrorists: Deliberate Policy.' at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/anatomy.htm
13) Head of
Russian Airforce says official scenario couldn't have happened. See 'Russian Airforce Chief Says
Official 9-11 Story Impossible' at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/airf.htm
14) Emperor's
Clothes has interviewed Rudi Dekkers from the Huffman Aviation facility, at
which two of the hijack suspects were students a year ago. Though Mr. Dekkers'
told the interviewer he had received many calls, the media has not published
his comments. The interview was taped and the text on Emperor's Clothes is a
verbatim transcript, including the grammatical errors common in daily speech.
See "Interview
With Huffman Aviation Casts Doubt on Official Story" at http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/dekkers.htm
Join
our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm. Receive about one article/day.
Click
here to send this email to a friend.
=======================================
Emperor's
Clothes Needs Your Help!
=======================================