This is a late addition to the Manifesto Tour. I’ll be on
Michael Ray Dresser, “Dresser After Dark”, 7:30-8 pm Eastern time tonight.
EXCLUSIVE: Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Still a Dream
Presidents and Bankers, But No Action on the Ground
KARA-TEPE, AFGHANISTAN—There is no pipeline. There probably won’t be one. Yet the pipeline-that-will-never-exist is one of the main reasons that hundreds of thousands of Afghans and two thousand American soldiers are dead.
Among my goals during my late-summer trip to Afghanistan was to find the construction site for the Trans-Afghanistan oil and gas pipeline (TAP). Also known as Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan, TAP would carry the world’s biggest new energy reserves, which are in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan’s sections of the landlocked Caspian Sea, across Afghanistan to a deep-sea port in Pakistan. (A modified version of the plan, TAPI, would add an extension to India.)
Some background:
The idea dates to the mid-1990s. Unocal, owner of the Union 76 gas station chain, led a consortium of oil companies that negotiated with the Taliban government. Among their consultants was Zalmay Khalilzad, who later served as Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations. (While in Kabul, Khalilzad engineered the U.S.-backed coup that installed Hamid Karzai—also a former Unocal consultant—over the wishes of the loya jirga.
As you’d expect, political instability has been the primary obstacle preventing a “New Silk Road” of oil and gas to flow across Central and South Asia. The planned route for TAP follows Afghanistan’s “ring road” from the northwestern city of Herat across soaring mountains and bleak deserts through Kandahar province, the heart of Taliban territory. Hundreds of warlords and regional commanders would have to be paid protection money.
[The most comprehensive history of TAP is my 2003 book “Gas War: The Truth Behind the U.S. Occupation of Afghanistan.”]
Unocal pulled out in 1998, citing the civil war between the Taliban and Northern Alliance. But logic can’t kill a dream.
In February 2001 the new Bush-Cheney Administration invited Taliban representatives to Texas for new talks. When the Afghans insisted upon higher transit fees than the White House oilmen were prepared to offer, things turned ugly. “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold,” a frustrated U.S. negotiator snapped at the Talibs on May 15, 2001, “or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”
The last Bush-Taliban pipeline discussions took place on August 2, 2001 in Islamabad between Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca, a former CIA employee, and Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. (By the way Zaeef’s memoir “My Life in the Taliban” is riveting.)
The 9/11 attacks, planned in Pakistan and carried out by Pakistani-trained Saudis and Egyptians, provided the pretext for invading Afghanistan. Was TAP the only motivation? Certainly not: Afghanistan also offered a “dry run” invasion of a defenseless Muslim nation pre-Iraq, as well as a chance to exert geopolitical muscle-flexing at the expense of regional rivals Russia and Iran. But TAP was part of the calculus.
Since 2002 the presidents of Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan have repeatedly met to talk about TAP(I). The Asian Development Bank has financed feasibility studies for the $8 billion deal.
“Of late, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov has spoken often of TAPI,” U.S. government-backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported September 14, 2010. “He has contacted the leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India since the start of September to arrange meetings in New York and Ashgabat. Berdymukhammedov is calling for a summit of TAPI leaders in Ashgabat in December.”
Politicians want the pipeline. Bankers want it too. But has ground been broken? A number of mainstream news accounts said yes, that the 52-inch pipe was already being laid along the highway that runs north from Herat to the Turkmen border.
I wanted confirmation. And photos. Something to shove in the faces of those neocons who dismiss TAP as a conspiracy theory.
Unfortunately, all the journalists in Afghanistan are embedded with soldiers, running around the mountains near the Pakistani border in a war that is irrelevant to the Afghan people but looks good on the nightly news. They’re too busy supporting the troops to do any real reporting. So, accompanied by fellow cartoonists Matt Bors and Steven Cloud, I set out up that road from Herat two weeks ago.
My goal: the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. Not on paper. In real life.
It’s a hot, dusty drive. There isn’t much to see: desert, scrub, goatherds, adobe-style mud-brick villages. The Koshk District, the region’s major population center, is so infested with Talibs that Afghan national policemen are afraid to drive through. I can tell you what you don’t see: the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. There’s no construction of any kind alongside that highway.
There was, however, fun to be had.
We stopped locals to ask them about TAP. Finally, one geezer brightened up. He had seen it! Our Afghan driver got excited. He turned to us: “It was here! But the local people stole it.”
“They stole the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline?”
“Yes! They used it to make a mosque. He is going to show us.”
I was happy. What a story! I took out my camera, ready to document the amazing tale of the Our Lady of TAP mosque, indirectly financed by American hubris. We followed the man down an alley and across a small garden. He walked us into what can only be described as a modest building. Less charitably, as a dump.
I am not charitable.
He gestured. There it is! Said his gesture. There, indeed it was: a dumpy little building, which I’ll call a mosque though there was no way to identify it as a house of God, with pipes holding up the corners and serving as rafters. Small pipes. Very small pipes.
Nine-inch pipes. Maybe eight.
“That’s not an oil pipeline,” I told my driver. “What we’re looking for is big. I made a big circle with my arms. “BIIIGG.”
He pointed again. He smiled as if to say: Look harder.
“This pipeline came from Turkmenistan,” said my driver. “I was a boy when the Soviets built it. For oil.”
“No. This is a water pipe,” I said. “Or maybe sewage. Besides, we’re looking for something new. Not Soviet.”
Because it seemed rude not to, I snapped a few photos and tipped the old guy. It was like that scene in “Spinal Tap” when the mini-Stonehenge drops from the ceiling. I stifled a laugh as we got back into our car.
An hour later, we were under arrest. But that’s another story.
(Ted Rall has recently returned from Afghanistan to cover the war and research a book. He is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto,” out this week from Seven Stories Press. His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL
This Week’s Anti-American Book Tour Schedule
This week features three radio interviews, all available via livestreaming, plus a solo live appearance in New York City, at the Brecht Forum. The focus will be my new “Anti-American Manifesto.”
I’m kind of surprised this book hasn’t become a big national story, but whatever. It’s also kind of a relief.
It’s also kind of nice. It’s OK to talk about revolution now!
Wednesday, September 22
Radio Interview
KGNU Morning Show, Colorado
10:35am-11:30am East Coast time
Thursday, September 23
Radio Interview No. 1
“News Dissector” Radio Show with Danny Schecter
10-11 am Eastern time
Radio Interview No. 2
KOPN Chautauqua, Columbia, MO
6-7 pm Central time
Friday, September 24
LIVE APPEARANCE
Brecht Forum
451 West Street
New York, NY 10014-2041
(212) 242-4201
Event begins 7:30pm
Audio File of KPFA Audio Interview
Listen here to my interview yesterday with Eric Klein on KPFA Berkeley:
Anything But the Obvious
I’m on the mailing list for Adbusters, an anti-consumerism magazine that began promisingly but has become a dead end, a monthly exercise in design fetishism that embodies the advertising it pretends to critique.
They sent out an email today that concluded with the following very sad paragraph:
“It strikes us that this is the same personal dilemma that each of us struggle with: deep down in our guts we know that the world demands a radical transformation of the global system. And yet, it seems impossible, perhaps even foolhardy, to topple consumerism and corporate capitalism by confronting it head on. Is there a way out of this impasse? What should we do this November?”
Behold the liberal mentality: we need revolution. Can we do something besides revolution?
Like chemotherapy, revolution is hard. It doesn’t usually work. Sometimes it makes things worse. But if you have certain kinds of cancer, there’s no way around it.
The U.S. has a cancer. So does the planet. That cancer is capitalism. It’s killing us. It has to go.
Whether impossible or foolhardy, there is no way to destroy the capitalist system without attacking it directly, by revolution. Those who are tired of trying to think their way around the obvious truth should read my Anti-American Manifesto, which came out a few days ago.
What should we “do” this November? Certainly we should not vote. Voting isn’t doing anything. We should revolt. But why wait until November?
Ted Rall
On the Air Friday
I’ll be doing my first on air interview about the Manifesto tomorrow/Friday on
KPFA, Berkeley CA. Time is 12:20-1pm West Coast time. I will be taking calls. Livestream through their website.
I, Robot
If there’s anything more amusingly pathetic than Obama’s “feel your pain” tour, I don’t know what it is.
Live Radio with Matt Bors and I
Check out our live interview for one hour starting at noon Pacific time/3 pm Eastern on KPFK. It’s live-streamable at http://www.kpfk.org. We’re taking calls too.
SYNDICATED COLUMN: Afghan War Lies
Support for Occupation Relies on Lies and Spin
There’s an exception. It is a limited set of circumstances. If the armies of another nation invade your country, there is no need to resort to lies to sell war. The battle is already joined. The threat is palpable. Anyone with a smidgen of patriotism and/or the instinct of self-preservation will rush to enlist.
Mostly, this does not happen. It sort of happened in 1941, with Pearl Harbor. But Hawaii, itself recently seized by U.S. marines without the thinnest veneer of legality, was merely a distant possession. It sort of happened in 1848 when Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande (after being deliberately provoked by the Americans). It definitely happened in 1812. But you see the point: every war the United States has fought, at least since 1945 (really since 1814), has been just for fun.
Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq—the U.S. didn’t have to fight any of them. They were optional. At minimum, they were wars of imperialism. Mostly, they were wars of aggression: undeclared, immoral, violations of international law.
Lies and spin are essential tools of “leaders” who want to convince the public to support wars for fun and profit.
The war against Afghanistan is no exception. I have previously discussed the Big Lies about Afghanistan: 9/11 came out of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda’s training camps were there, bin Laden was there, oil has nothing to do with it, etc. Now let’s talk about the little lies.
Lie #1: The war could have been won.
You know the narrative: the Bush Administration never sent in enough troops, then “took their eye off the ball” by invading Iraq and transferring military resources there from Afghanistan.
The truth: More troops would merely have postponed the inevitable defeat, while costing more Afghan and American lives. Remember General Shinseki, fired for telling Congress that Iraq needed at least 300,000 to 400,000 U.S. troops to establish command and control? Afghanistan is about the same population and area as Iraq, but with much tougher terrain: some of the biggest, baddest mountains on the planet. U.S. forces would have had to permanently station at least 500,000 to 600,000 soldiers there. We didn’t have them. Still don’t.
Sure, we could run up the deficit even higher, hire and train more troops, and pack them off to the Hindu Kush. But Afghan resistance forces would wait us out. Even the U.S. military colossus can’t bleed forever. We would have to pare down. Then we’d be back where we are now: humiliated, defeated, broke, morally bankrupt.
Lie #2: Karzai isn’t perfect, but he’s the best of a bunch of bad alternatives.
The mainstream media began questioning America’s backing of the corrupt, incompetent and unpopular Karzai regime after he brazenly stole the most recent presidential election. But they refuse to call for the end of U.S. aid, or for fair elections. Mainly this is because they don’t know squat about Afghanistan. But there were always better alternatives.
The best option for a nation that pretends to promote democracy would have been to actually promote democracy. Let the Afghan people choose between any candidates they want—yes, including the Taliban—and pledge to work with the winner no matter what. (This is what the U.S. ought to have done after Hamas won the election in Gaza.) The definition of integrity is doing the right thing even when it hurts; that’s also what’s required of the U.S. when it’s playing Captain Democracy.
Moreover, there were always more palatable choices than Karzai. The exiled king, for example, was far more popular in 2001 than the dapper ex-Talib who fled the country after being accused of embezzlement.
Lie #3: We’ve got the right strategy/general now.
Now it’s Petraeus. Every time the White House shuffles the military brass, they claim that this time it’s different. The old strategy that didn’t work in 2004, or 2006, or whatever, is dead. We’ll use more drones. No, fewer drones. Wait, more.
No general, no matter how brilliant, can save a doomed military campaign. Anyway, neither Petraeus nor the other stuffed uniforms who’ve paraded in and out of Bagram in recent years are geniuses. Where are the Eisenhowers and Pattons of 2010? They’re hedge fund managers.
Lie #4: Nation-building wouldn’t have helped.
Bush promised a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Now Vice President Biden admits what Afghans have known all along: we’re not there to nation-build. We are there to nation break.
Nine years into America’s longest war, it’s painful to contemplate how the billions poured into Afghanistan—much of which has been siphoned off by Halliburton and other contractors, not to mention flown out of the country by the Karzai clan, might have been better spent.
In 2001 Afghans didn’t need much to lay the foundations for a viable nation-state. I asked them. The answers were always the same: they involved infrastructure. Good roads. Electricity. Running water. Government offices. Connect the country’s far-flung provinces to the capital, and Afghans would resume their historical role as traders. Security would necessarily follow commerce.
If we were determined to occupy Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks, it ought to have been with construction equipment, not tanks. Even if the Taliban had come to power, it would have been hard for them to talk smack about the U.S. in a nation covered with road signs that read: “Unconditional Gift of the People of the United States to the People of Afghanistan.”
(Ted Rall has recently returned from Afghanistan to cover the war and research a book. He is the author of “The Anti-American Manifesto,” which will be published in September by Seven Stories Press. His website is tedrall.com.)
COPYRIGHT 2010 TED RALL
Interview: Ted Rall Returns From Afghanistan, Ready to Draw Upon His Up-Close Encounters
Interview: Ted Rall Returns From Afghanistan, Ready to Draw Upon His Up-Close Encounters
by Michael Cavna
The Washington Post
September 13, 2010