Why Washington Wants Afghanistan

Borba100 at aol.com Borba100 at aol.com
Mon Sep 17 16:50:12 MDT 2001


URL for this article: http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/afghan.htm

To join Emperor's Clothes email list, please go to
http://emperors-clothes.com/feedback.htm Receive about one article/day.

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 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 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 "ending states who sponsor
terrorism," in the words of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

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 against us: Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Although differing in most respects,
especially political ideology, they are alike 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
(documentation below) 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 orderto speed up the fulfillment of its
strategy of pulverizing the former Soviet Republics as Washington in the same
way that 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 on the far West. It borders Turkey and the Balkans on
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.

Despite talk of Russia and the U.S. working together, this remains the thrust
of US policy. (3)

Afghanistan is strategically placed, not only bordering Iran, India 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 oil, as we are often told, but more
important for 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 on its
periphery, could then initiate "low intensity wars" including the use of
tactical nuclear weapons, also officially endorsed by current NATO doctrine,
in 'response' to myriad 'humanitarian 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, rewriting history, 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 excerpts from two newspaper reports. First 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?'

"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)

Right up to the present, U.S. ally Saudi Arabia has been perhaps the key
force in maintaining the Taliban. BUt the U.S. has helped directly, as well.
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."

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 formerly 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 most regressive interpretation of Islam.

At the same time, Russia has been moving in the 'wrong' direction. 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. Worse, 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.

It is this unfavorable series of developments that has caused Washington to
increase its reliance on Washington's all-time favorite tactic: extreme
brinkmanship.

Thus, on the very eve of recent Belarussian presidential elections:

"[Ambassador to Belarus Michael 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 were a U.S.-financed terrorist outfit that
specialized in attacking farming villages and slaughtering supporters of the
left-wing nationalist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Just as a few weeks ago, U.S. Ambassador Kozak openly advocated a policy of
state terror against the former Soviet Republic of Belarus in the Baltic area
- for no phrase other than 'state terror' can describe the U.S. sponsorship
of the Contras in Nicaragua - Washington has decided to intervene directly in
strategic Afghanistan, set smack in the middle of Asia and positioned so as
to complete a three-pronged encirclement of Russia: Central Asia, the Balkans
and the Baltic.

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, with 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
presence.

Some argue that NATO would be crazy to try to pacify Afghanistan. They say
the British failed to do it in the 1800s, and the Russians failed in the
1980s.

But Washington does not need or intend to pacify Afghanistan. It needs to
create a military presence sufficient to organize and direct indigenous
forces to penetrate the Central Asian republics and instigate armed conflict,
to (as we shall hear groups like Human Rights Watch saying soon enough) "free
victims of humanitarian abuses from the oppressive hand of soviet style
governments," etc.

Rather than trying to defeat the Taliban, Washington will make the Taliban an
offer they cannot refuse: fight the U.S., and die, or join it, getting plenty
of money and guns, plus a free hand to handle the drug trade, just as the
U.S. has permitted the KLA to make a fortune from drugs in the Balkans. (5)

This would duplicate what Washington did in Kosovo, training and
consolidating a Kosovo Liberation Army-type terrorist force, in this case out
of elements of the Taliban and others, and directing this army against the
former Soviet Central Asian Republics, just as it has directed the KLA
against Macedonia. At the same time it could increase its offers of military
assistance to these same Republics, thus penetrating the region on both sides
of conflict in fact instigated by Washington, simultaneously attacking and
defending Central Asia - precisely as it has done in Macedonia. The goal:
decimated, NATO-dominated territories in place of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan
and Tajikistan. (6)

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 American covert forces, to create an
international hysteria in order 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 NATO's terror-bombing of Yugoslavia, look like minor
incidents. (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 in fact routinely using 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

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 Navy says official scenario couldn't have happened. See
'Russian Navy Chief Says Official 9-11 Story Impossible' at
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/navy.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

URGENT APPEAL!

TO THOSE WHO HAVE DONATED TO OUR FUNDRAISING DRIVE - THANK YOU!

BUT EMPEROR'S CLOTHES STILL NEEDS HELP!

The George Soros foundation does not fund Emperor's Clothes. Our only source
of money is people like you. All contributions help, big and small. Right
now, we're in serious need of financial help from our friends.

If everyone who cares about Emperor's Clothes chips in, we'll be out of
trouble in no time.

Any help you can send will be greatly appreciated! $20, $50, $100 or $1000 -
it will all help.

You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate

You can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)

Or make a donation over the phone. Call us at (U.S.) 617 916-1705 any time
and we will take your credit card information over the phone.

Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us know
by email at emperors1000 at aol.com, just to make sure we get it. Thanks!

Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes!

www.emperors-clothes.com or
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]


=======
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message



More information about the Marxism mailing list