Fwd: Give me pipeline or give me death

Ugh.  Would rather not have heard about this.  It turns out that while 
Afghanistan is mostly a barren wasteland to the naked eye, it could be a 
very valuable pawn in the US oil industry's interests (and thus in the US 
administration's geo-political interests).

The knee-jerk "lets go get em" military response makes a bit more sense 
now, unfortunately.  We're not just our for justice/vengeance, 
apparently...  :-(

I'd _really_ like to hear that this had nothing to do with any decisions 
recently made, but given the corporate pedigree of many Bush adminstration 
officials, it's somewhat hard to believe this wasn't...

-g


>Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:43:18 -0400
>Subject: Give me pipeline or give me death
>
>GIVE ME A PIPELINE OR GIVE ME DEATH
>The map below, uncovered in the files of the Council on Foreign Relations, 
>tells a part of the Afghanistan story that has attracted virtually no 
>attention. Note the proposed pipeline routes and that once the Persian 
>port of Gwendar is reached, the American oil industry is home free. See 
>below for details. Makes you almost regret that you have but one life to 
>give to Unocal.  <http://prorev.com/indexa.htm>
>
>COMMENTARY: From: Seth Ackerman <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: oil angle?
>Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:55:46 -0400
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>
><...>
>There are two angles here. One is Unocal's proposed Afghanistan pipeline,
>which requires a modicum of stability in the country as well as the
>installation of a cooperative government. Its main importance for the U.S.
>isn't profit, but the prospect of transporting Caspian oil and gas to the
>ocean without having to go through countries like Iran or Russia or
>countries dependent on Russia.
>
>The larger angle is Central Asia. It has a lot of oil and gas but countries
>like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are increasingly dependent on
>Russia for their security in fighting Islamic insurgencies. This trend was
>symbolized by the July signing of the Shanghai Pact among Russia, China and
>four Central Asian countries. Russia thereby threatens to establish
>U.S.-Saudi-style client regimes in Central Asian countries that potentially
>contain enough energy to fuel a lot of the European and Chinese economies.
>
>For the U.S., the root of the problem is twofold: a) the Islamic
>insurgencies forcing Central Asia to turn to Russia for security. These
>insurgencies are backed by bin Laden and the Taliban and use Afghan
>territory as bases; and b) the absence of a U.S. military presence in the
>region, one that could give these small countries some alternative to Russia
>as a source of security.
>
>These reasons probably account for the Bush administration's hardening
>policy against the Taliban, which began months before the WTC attacks. In
>May Bush installed Chistina Rocca as Assistant Secretary of State for South
>Asian affairs. Rocca was for 15 years a CIA covert operations official in
>Afghanistan in charge of aiding the Mujehaddin and later collecting stray
>Stinger missiles. Later she was Sen. Sam Brownback's foreign policy advisor.
>Brownback is an oil & gas man and leading proponent of inserting a U.S.
>presence in Central Asia and the Caspian.
>
>In July, U.S. envoys to a UN "track-two" meeting on Afghanistan in Berlin
>conveyed to the former Pakistani foreign minister U.S. military plans to
>overthrow the Taliban and replace it with a government led by former king
>Ziad. The same idea now appears to be at the core of Bush's planned response
>to the terrorist attacks.
>
>Seth