"King on the Heap" Geopolitics
 - controlling / destabilising the Eurasian "heartland" 

My view at this point - for whatever it is worth.... 
- 21st Oct. 2001 -  With comments added, March 10th 2002
Arno Mong Daastøl - http://daastol.com

Media-politicians vs. Norwegians

Even here in the traditionally Anglo-Americanophile Norway, scepticism regarding the true motive for the "Western" war in Afghanistan is building, although politicians and all the dominating media are still following the CNN / Fox News-line. On Mid-October, less than half of the Norwegians support the war, and among the higher educated and women even less support it. People are now not as easily fooled after the Gulf War when they say the media-manipulation. This time, we have the internet to supply us with alternative information. 

Events have to be seen in a geopolitical perspective:

One might argue that the US was fooled into this by India, Russia and China etc. in order to have the US help the fight the Muslims, but to me that does not make sense with the recent co-operation between these nations and the interest they have in peace in Central Asia. But of course one might argue that they found the Taliban to be a source of unrest and therefore wanted to get rid of them. That makes sense, but it would be too risky for them to stage anything like a 9:11, if caught red-handed. 

That seems to leave two (?) options: 
The official story that bin Laden etc did it (the CIA connection turned sour), or that it was an job made by US etc. hawks with inside US help (another CIA etc. connection turned sour), or a mixture of those two. 
In any case a CIA connection "turned sour".

It is natural to be suspicious of the strongest boy in the ring, the US, especially when remembering for instance interviews like that of Brzezinsky in 1998, on how CIA fooled the Russians into Afghanistan. 

Added, March 10^th 2002: Brzezinsky has also written several books and articles with a content highly provocative to non-US patriots, concluding that the mission of the US is to lead the world establishing a Pax Americana, or as some would say an American Empire - whether the world likes it or not. Some articles may be found on the website of the Council for Foreign Relations : http://www.cfr.org/
- the early history of this organisation is tightly connected to the British Empire. See for instance the New Paradigms discussion list : http://a-albionic.com/prj.html or the Victoria list:  http://www.indiana.edu/~victoria/discussion.html

Being suspicious of the HAWKS of the US and Israel (as opposed to the people and the moderate politicians) does make some sense, in regard to their interests of power (not wealth ! - they have enough, making it of little interest) . Israel's interest was in winning the US. political and popular support back, after it had fallen to a disastrous low level (due to troubles in the occupied territories). Besides, the Mossad are probably the only foreign intelligence organisation capable of pulling such a thing off, due to their deep entrenchment within all areas of the US establishment.

The usual suspect would also be the factions within the US security forces, who now are awarded by their inability to prevent the 9:11 with a major rise in their income, at least some 40 billion dollars so far.

Added, March 10th 2002: A parallel case with today’s post Cold War situation may be seen in the case of the murder of JFK. It is often pondered upon the possibility that the US ‘military-industrial complex’ feared that President Kennedy would pull the US out of the Vietnam War, Since they could not entirely control him, and in order to guard their interest, they did away with him and then his brother. And, indeed, the outgoing President Eisenhower warned JFK against the power of the military-industrial complex. Today, the post Cold War situation has lead to very dramatic downsizing of the military machine and accordingly the military oriented section of industry. People kill for pennies. People also kill for thousands of billions….

How factions within the US could try to kill two flies in one stroke:

1) The US is 60% dependent on foreign oil, and Saudi is a key for stable and cheap oil. Bin Laden is a threat to this as the Saudi political system -  of the "Western" oriented Sudairi-faction  - is disintegrating. 
- Bin Laden is connected to the Crown Prince Abdallah faction that was pushed aside in a coup in 1995 (see the Saudi-connection paper, in this "archive"). Their return would threaten US interests. 
2) Attacking Afghanistan fuels Central Asian Islamic fundamentalism and destabilises Eurasian socio-economic cooperation. Afghanistan is exactly in the core of "The Great Game".

On the other hand the US commercial interest in oil exploration in Central Asia and bringing the oil to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan, make the US interested in a stable but controlled Central Asia. The US players are many and their goals do not necessarily harmonise. It is not unusual to have conflicting interests on the side of one player. This only makes policies and outcomes even more messy. 

Oil in the Middle East and Central Asia may soon loose out to other sources of energy, and the US could make itself independent from Eurasian oil - by for instance using American oil  (Athabasca, Canada  alone, now at $8-9 a barrel, has larger reserves than Saudi Arabia) - or by using alternative renewable energy. This makes the oil interests in Central Asia seem short term and less likely to be the goal of the intervention in Afghanistan. Long term geopolitical goals gain in likelihood.

Added, March 10th 2002: So, what is interesting for the US concerning the Central Asian oil is more the control over it, as that would give crucial control over Asia as well. India and China would become the strongest nations on earth if their manpower was developed. But as long as they are dependent on energy imports, control over Central Asian oil would give the US control over India and China etc. as well. And a further point would be to somehow deny these nations access to nationally controlled energy e.g. through the use of new technology, such as fusion power or more advanced methods....

The US is going down in every sense of the word, due to the disastrous economic policies etc, after the 1960s. For instance, the US is now the world's greatest debtor by FAR. Instead of trying to reform constructively, the hawks of the US seem intent on "bringing others down with her", like the EU, China, India, Russia etc, by obstructing and hindering co-operation among these, instead of joining this constructive "happy company". 

Added, March 10th 2002: The recent US protectionist initiatives on behalf of the steel industry, is totally parallel to the same situation in Britain one hundred years ago, and for the same reasons, to save a declining industry starved for domestic investments and more over to save an empire. However, then protectionism was turned down and so was British industry. By 1908 the liberal imperial factions had won Britain for the explicit goal of turning Britain into the financial and logistic hub of the world, knowing very well what this meant for Britain's industry. 

The British Foreign minister Earl Grey proclaimed at the same time that "we will suffocate Germany in the cradle", meaning that Germany had to be stopped before it became 'too late'. This was, indeed, what was the Empire had done with the independent South African Republic ('Transvaal') in 1902 after a long period of encirclement, and it had been accepted by Germany who was about to receive the same treatment. - 8 years later, the same Imperial groups threw the world into a gigantic Ragnarok (Armageddon) that paused for some 20 years and then continued. The parallel with China today is obvious, as the (permanent) US bases in Central Asia makes for another encirclement, also of Russia and India.

Today, these words from the most outstanding strategist of the British Empire (speaking of the year 1907), remind us of the situation with China today, 

"In three years the growth of German power by land and sea had thrown England into the arms of France and Russia, her two traditional rivals. Had peace been maintained for the first third of the twentieth century, as it was for the last third of the nineteenth, Germany by now would be rivalled in wealth only by the United States, so high is the vigour and intelligence of her people and their natural capacity for production." (Lionel Curtis, Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God. London, Macmillan, 1939, p.700) 
(Thanks to Peter Myers for supplying this quote: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/curtis2.html )

The war seems to be about a "children's game which we in Norway call "King on the Heap".
The point is to be on top and push everybody else down. Only one can be there at a time. 

It may also be called "beggar thy neighbour" or a zero-sum game, all about power and geopolitics. 
The fight to change this policy must be fought by Americans in the US itself. But one may doubt their interest in doing so and their insight into the necessity of this, since the role of the US media has not exactly been that of a self-critical eye. So, the most likely outcome is a clash unless the Eurasian land-powers can somehow "neutralise" the Sea-powers.

Added, March 10th 2002: e.g. promoting a policy of  'harmony of interests'. This would obviously be in the interests of all who care about welfare and the common good. However, the problem is that national welfare and power goes hand in hand, meaning that the welfare of e.g. the peoples of India and China would ultimately increase the power of these nations, and potentially and relatively decrease the power of the US. This provokes those US Hawks who care about winning the power game, so their agenda is different than increasing welfare for all people. 

These Hawks must be neutralised, to prevent another Ragnarok worse than ever. 

Prospects:

Nevertheless, the 9:11 event has been used in the US Congress etc. to legitimate MAJOR investments / tax cuts (now approaching 200 billion dollars) and a dramatic slashing of the interest rate, that MAY get the US economy back in shape. 

Unfortunately most of the spending will be in arms and not in public services, making hyper-inflation a very likely outcome (like in Germany in 1923). Besides much of the accumulated debt must be liquidated before many corporations again will be profitable. For viewpoints on related matters see ICE - Institute for Creditary Economics.
 

- Have a look at Dick Eastman's hypotheses (on this website ) to see how drug, gold, and oil barons may be intercepting the foreign policy of the big powers. And Wendell Solomon's ideas on how it all may be a effort to stop Europe (the Euro) from overtaking the US (dollar as the international currency), as part of the dethroning of the US. See also his "frameup" archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/messages

- It is certainly a complicated and messy world..... 
- How on earth can anybody write the ultimate world history when individuals cannot even agree on who is to blame in a minor car crash.

Warm regards and good luck to everyone ! 

Arno