By Jamie York
During the Gulf War, there was no question that access to oil was a central issue, but after the WTC terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 and the Bush administration's rush to begin bombing Afghanistan, the present situation requires deeper analysis. Perhaps the war in Afghanistan has little to do with smoking suspected Taliban terrorists out of their caves and a lot to do with ending the Afghan civil war so Big Oil can safely build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea region, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Arabian Sea.
The United States has an oil-based economy and relies heavily on imported oil. The fuel shortages and OPEC price hikes during the summer of 2000 were grim reminders to Big Oil that the 15 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan must be brought to the market as quickly and cheaply as possible. According to the Department of Energy, the Caspian Sea region could yield another 235 billion barrels of oil beyond proven reserves. Senator Robert C. Byrd, speaking in Azerbaijan in 1997, said that the U.S. should give the Caspian Sea region a much higher priority on the international agenda. "The stakes at play in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and Turkey, as well as Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, are huge," Byrd said. "An historic opportunity exists today to change the face of this region dramatically. If it is true, that 2 to 3 million barrels [of oil], perhaps more, could flow daily from the Caspian region in the near future, then the development of the region compels the highest levels of attention."
The strategic value of Afghanistan to Big Oil is a matter of public record. While Afghanistan does have some oil and gas reserves of its own to be exploited, the country is most coveted as a pipeline route from central Asia to the Arabian Sea. In the mid 1990s, the U.S. oil company Unocal reached an agreement with the Taliban to build the pipeline, but the Afghan civil war has prevented this project from getting started. No matter who winds up in control of Afghanistan, Big Oil needs a stable political environment in the region in order to proceed with construction.
After the WTC attack, the U.S. public has generally accepted the bombing of Afghanistan because the administration said it was being done as a response to terrorism in order to defend our "liberty and freedom." But those who understand the strategic value of Afghanistan to Big Oil have good reason to be highly suspicious of both the WTC attack and the military response.
Maybe, like the Bush administration says, Osama Bin Laden financed, planned and executed the Sept. 11 attacks. In that case, from Big Oil's perspective, the attacks would have been a tragic, but lucky, coincidence that left the U.S. military in a position where it could once again have free reign to bomb a nation with strategic value to Big Oil. But this also brings to the fore some haunting questions: What if Osama Bin Laden had little or nothing to do with the attacks? What if the planning and financial backing came from elsewhere? After all, the 15 billion barrels of oil in central Asia alone are worth $3 trillion at today's prices. While it is certainly unthinkable, it is not inconceivable that some deranged person or group in the oil or intelligence business might consider a few thousand deaths in New York City and Washington, DC, to be nothing more than "collateral damage" in order to get the American public behind a military campaign to secure Afghanistan, Pakistan -- or any other country on the planet -- that might represent a military, economic or social threat to Big Oil. One could then speculate that there could be no better way to achieve this end than by staging an attack on U.S. soil.
To speculate further, this plan could be pulled off easily with the unwitting assistance of a mass media that -- in times of national crisis -- has grown accustomed to giving the administration unwavering support while ignoring or downplaying any dissident or opposing views. Then throw in a Congress willing to pass -- with little debate and no public input -- sweeping legislation giving the FBI new Cointelpro-like powers to spy on domestic groups. We are told that this is part of the "war on terrorism," but is it really? What if this legislation were designed to prevent the growth of an antiwar movement and to stifle any opposition to Big Oil's plans? How would we know for sure what the administration's true plans are until activists are labeled as "terrorists" and hauled off to jail? What if the "war on terrorism" is really a war to secure the world's oil reserves?
The perpetrators of the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon can safely be called terrorists regardless of whether or not they were affiliated with Osama Bin Laden or some other foreign or domestic group. Other than news reports regarding the arrests of "material witnesses" and widespread verbal repetition in the media presuming the guilt of Osama Bin Laden, no hard evidence has been publicly presented. If and when Osama Bin Laden is captured, he should be tried before an international tribunal so the United States Government can present its evidence in this international arena. Until some indisputable evidence comes to light, however, all we can do is speculate about who was involved in the massacre...and why.