Meanwhile Back in Afghanistan

“Details Of US Victory In
Afghanistan Premature
By Eric Margolis
Contributing Foreign Editor
Toronto Sun
12-27-2

On the frigid night of Dec. 24, 1979, Soviet airborne forces seized Kabul airport. Elite Alpha Group commandos sped to the presidential palace, burst into the bedroom of Afghan President Hafizullah Amin and gunned him down. Columns of Soviet armour crossed the border and raced south toward Kabul. It took Soviet forces only a few days to occupy Afghanistan. They installed a puppet ruler, Babrak Karmal. Moscow proclaimed it had invaded Afghanistan to "liberate" it from "feudalism and Islamic extremism" and "nests of terrorists and bandits."
Soviet propaganda churned out films of Red Army soldiers playing with children, building schools, dispensing medical care. Afghan women were to be liberated from the veil and other backward Islamic customs. The Soviet Union and its local communist allies would bring Afghanistan into the 20th century.
Two years later, Afghans had risen against their Soviet "liberators" and were waging a low-intensity guerrilla war. Unable to control the countryside, Moscow poured more troops into Afghanistan. The Soviet-run Afghan Army had poor morale and less fighting zeal. The KGB-run Afghan secret police, KhAD, jailed and savagely tortured tens of thousands of "Islamic terrorists," then called "freedom fighters" in the West. Fast forward to December, 2002, and a disturbing sense of deja vu. A new foreign army has easily occupied Afghanistan, overthrown the "feudal" Taliban government and installed a puppet regime in Kabul. Western media churn out the same rosy, agitprop stories the Soviets did about liberating Afghanistan, freeing women, educating children. The only real difference is that kids in today's TV clips are waving American instead of Soviet flags. The invaders have changed; the propaganda remains the same. America's invasion of Afghanistan in October, 2001, was billed as an epic military victory and the model of future imperial expeditions to pacify Third World malefactors. Since then, news about this war-ravaged land has grown scarce. America's limited attention has turned elsewhere.
Afghanistan in chaos
In fact, America's Afghan adventure has gotten off to as poor a start as that of the Soviet Union. The U.S.-installed ruler of Kabul, veteran CIA asset Hamid Karzai, must be protected from his own people by up to 200 U.S. bodyguards. Much of Afghanistan is in chaos, fought over by feuding warlords and drug barons.
There are almost daily attacks on U.S. occupation forces. My old mujahedin sources say U.S. casualties and equipment losses in Afghanistan are far higher than Washington is reporting - and are rising.
American troops are operating from the old Soviet bases at Bagram and Shindand, retaliating, like the Soviets, against mujahedin attacks on U.S. forces by heavily bombing nearby villages. The CIA is trying to assassinate Afghan nationalist leaders opposed to the Karzai regime in Kabul, in particular my old acquaintance Gulbadin Hekmatyar.
North of the Hindu Kush mountains, America's Afghan ally, the Tajik-Uzbek Northern Alliance, has long been a proxy of the Russians. The chief of the Russian general staff and head of intelligence directed the Alliance in its final attack on the Taliban last fall. Russia then supplied Alliance forces with $100 million in arms, and is providing $85 million worth of helicopters, tanks, artillery and spare parts, as well as military advisors and technicians. Russia now dominates much of northern Afghanistan. The Taliban, according to the United Nations drug agency, had almost shut down opium-morphine-heroin production. America's ally, the Northern Alliance, has revived the illicit trade. Since the U.S. overthrew the Taliban, opium cultivation has soared from 185 tons a year to 2,700. The Northern Alliance, which dominates the Kabul regime, finances its arms-buying and field operations with drug money. President George Bush's war on drugs collided with his war on terrorism - and lost. The U.S. is now, in effect, colluding in the heroin trade.
Anti-American Afghan forces - the Taliban, al-Qaida, and others - have regrouped and are mounting ever larger attacks on U.S. troops and, reports the UN, even reopening training camps. Taliban mujahedin are using the same sophisticated early alert system they developed to monitor Soviet forces in the 1980s to warn of American search-and-destroy missions before they leave base. As a result, U.S. troops keep chasing shadows. Canadians fared no better.
In the sole major battle since the Taliban's overthrow, Operation Anaconda, U.S. forces were bested by veteran Afghan mujahedin, losing two helicopters. The ongoing cost of Afghan operations is a closely guarded secret. Earlier this year, the cost of stationing 8,000 American troops, backed by warplanes and naval units, was estimated at $5 billion US monthly! The CIA spends millions every month to bribe Pushtun warlords.
Costs will rise as the U.S. expands bases in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan - all placed along the planned U.S.-owned pipeline that will bring Central Asian oil south through Afghanistan.
The UN reports the Taliban and al-Qaida on the offensive, Afghan women remain veiled and the country is in a dangerous mess. Declaring victory in
Afghanistan may have been premature.
Eric can be reached by e-mail at margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com.
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_dec22.html”

“And Pat Buchanan is a fat blowhard without a lick of personal dignity or common sense.


:)”

“Are you obssessed with Pat?”

“I just enjoy pushing your solitary buttons.

Forgive me.”

“WAR ON TERROR
Some see U.S. mired
in Afghan quagmire
While casualties low, attacks
constant as resistance continues

Posted: December 28, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – The stories don't make the front pages of U.S. newspapers:
 Unidentified attackers fire a rocket toward a U.S. base in central Afghanistan. No casualties or damage are reported. U.S. Special Forces are deployed, but don't find attackers in the Deh Rawood district in Uruzgan province.
 A soldier is wounded in a rocket attack on a U.S. base in Asadabad, in the eastern province of Kunar.
 A military helicopter crashes in the Afghan capital, killing all seven German peacekeepers aboard and two children on the ground. It's unclear what brought it down.
 In eastern Afghanistan, attackers kill a U.S. soldier in a gunfight in the town of Shkhin. The first U.S. combat death in Afghanistan since August, it brings to 16 the number of Americans killed in hostile situations since the war on terror began.
 In southern Kandahar, a remote-control bomb explodes, killing one Afghan soldier and wounding three others. The bomb goes off as a contingent of Afghan soldiers is marching toward a training ground on the eastern edge of the city. No one takes responsibility for the bombing.
Crude rockets, often connected to timers, are fired at U.S. forces almost daily in Afghanistan, but the attacks rarely cause casualties.
Nevertheless, the relentless hit-and-run attacks take their toll. At Bagram, a bleak air base 30 miles north of Kabul and home to about 8,000 coalition forces, U.S. troops are starting to feel a sense of psychological fatigue, if not battle weariness.
These are the front lines in the battle to hunt down al-Qaida terrorists and Taliban militiamen who have thus far eluded capture or death.
Some U.S. military sources fear the campaign in Afghanistan could bog down further – just as the U.S. is about to launch a war in Iraq. There are indications resistance could become more intense in the days to come.
One intelligence report indicates Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyr, who has urged a jihad against U.S. troops, commands as many as 50,000 militiamen. U.S. forces have been looking for Hekmatyr for some time, but he is often on the move. Hekmatyr's goals are clear – overthrowing President Hamid Karzai and chasing U.S. forces out of the country.
Even in relatively pacified areas of the country such as the Khost province, attacks occur every few days.
The attacks usually come from the direction of Pakistan, where remnants of al-Qaida and the Taliban movement have found refuge in the lawless tribal areas that hug the border.
Despite sweeps by U.S. combat troops through the frontier region, the number of rocket attacks on U.S. bases and outposts in Khost and the neighboring border provinces has remained consistently high – about 50 per month since the summer. Guerrillas inside Pakistan are beginning to sneak into Afghanistan for brief hits, according to U.S. military sources.
Both U.S. troops and Afghan government forces say they would like to chase the attackers into Pakistan and destroy their bases. But the U.S. alliance with Pakistan prohibits such cross-border raids. Thus, the torment continues.
"This reminds me of some of the problems we saw in Vietnam," said one U.S. officer.


Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily.com”

“I'll play Tarbaby and you can play Brer'Fox!.”

“Given that we can’t go back in time, what would you recommend?”

“Stay home and lower the price of cheap sweet wine.”

“I'd do the same thing we did in Viet Nam. Just leave but way before
we'd suffered 58,000+ KIA and blown a couple of trillion dollars.
>
And not only that. I'd leave
Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Kosovo, Macedonia, Haiti, Columbia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, the Phillipines, Japan, and South Korea and all of the rest of the 100+ countries we have troops in.
>
I'm a Jeffersonian isolationist. I think with a nuclear powered navy, ICBMs, Star Wars, and a long range Air Force we can project all the power we need to. Bring the troops home and spend that part of the defense budget on the infrastructure of this country and alternative fuels development.”

“SH-I totally agree,but most think that would be total boredom.What worked on the Cherokee should work on the rest of the world-Ya think?”

“It's funny how a person can search the internet and pretty much find an article supporting any viewpoint...Both articles in this thread are loaded with assumption..factual liberties..and rhetoric...which imo does nothing to prove any sort of point”

“It's funny how a person can dismiss an entire point of view by employing a few buzzwords without giving any specific criticism at all.”

“Should we go back to an agrarian economy before or after our isolation?”

“As the bow hits the strings,so would our homeland slip into the dark ages.Bombs that are guided down roof vents are far more important than being able to make hiking shoes that fit Americans-Ya think?”

“Isolationism: the belief that the US can stand alone by swapping all political and economical uses of military presence for bluster and threat.

By the way, economic isolationism would do away with all those good Nike shoes and cheap electronic parts that America is currently built on...”

“Sorry, violin, I should have read your post first.”

“Advocating isolationism is not about rejecting technology. But of course you knew that. You just wanted to use the "brush-off" tactic of all the other lazy asses who really don't have any real arguments to present.
>
Now tell me that it's not worth wasting your time. I'm expecting that.
>
OR tell me some good reasons we need our military to be in these countries (even Korea!). We're bankrupting our country.
>
We have the natural resources and the technological know-how to manufacture and grow everything we need. We are the Saudia Arabia of coal. We already have the technology to use it cleanly. If we don't want to utilize the coal, nuclear energy is relatively clean and the wastes can be stored safely. Then there is solar and wind. What strategic metals we need, we can buy.
>
I'm not advocating turning our back on the world. I'm talking about rethinking the idea that we can solve all the world's problems by sending in the calvary.
>
And if we don't quit importing more than we export there is not going to be any military because there's not going to be any money to pay for it.”

“Advocating isolationism is not about rejecting technology. But of course you knew that. You just wanted to use the "brush-off" tactic of all the other lazy asses who really don't have any real arguments to present.

Taking the fact that the US cannot support its own weight without the labor, resources and cheap manufacturing of other countries as something other than obvious is insane.

If people say it's not worth their time to argue with you, it's only because it ISN'T. It's plain tedious. I'd rather go argue a scientologist into seeing L Ron Hubbard as a fraud. It would take less time and produce a more worthwhile result.

By the way:

If we don't want to utilize the coal, nuclear energy is relatively clean and the wastes can be stored safely.

That's a priceless quote!”

“"Taking the fact that the US cannot support its own weight without the labor, resources and cheap manufacturing of other countries as something other than obvious is insane."
>
What is insane is that we cannot support our own weight! It used to not be that way. And therein lies the problem Phaed. And if you remember your old ECON 101 course you know that this cannot go on forever. Shall we run a trade deficit until the US dollar is worthless? Shall all the methods (jobs that manufacture goods to sell) by which this country produces wealth be exported overseas?
>
Everything I said about the nuclear industry is true. You anti-nuke people are so delusional.
>
And BTW if you find arguing with me tedious go away. This is my thread. No one said you had to stay. No one asked you to start your little Buchanan diatribe.
Be gone with you!”

“I have been to the stream by its' spring thaw roar
and I've
been on the stream at its' fall parched dry shore
now I've
moved under an overpass of a freeway of my friends
so I've
a calendar of calendars till the roar it finally ends”

“I agree with you S.H. in regard to nuclear power...people hear the word nuclear think of 3 mile island/cherynobyl and freak...The technology has come a long ways, and is much safer than it has been in the past...Plus we have 10,000 nukes floating around the country..what are a few power plants here and there...I'll take a nuclear power plant in my neighborhood over the outrageous power prices I pay in Ca...”

“I agree with Viol man. Wsdavies retort was totally uninteresting and unconstructive. It was very interesting that he avoided the challenge to back up his attack.

I ain't got a dog in this fight, but an argument without resort to evidence or logic is just a fancy form of name calling.”

“"It's funny how a person can dismiss an entire point of view by employing a few buzzwords without giving any specific criticism at all."
Violin


wow.... uhhm... wow.
i'm speechless.
i can't even believe you said that outloud.... there could never be, no matter how many eons may pass, a more hypocritical statement uttered by any human...

phaedrus you contradict yourself for the sake of arguing with someone who you don't like.....


violin does to outright mislead.




you both, therefore, bore me”

“ped, you just criticized someone for not stating his stance while simultaniously avoiding one of your own.....


since eveybodies gonna wuss out, i'll give you all the correct answer to solitary hiker's initial 2 posts, which , by the way, contradicted each other ......



they attacked us and killed 3,000 civilians and have sworn to do it again.



IRONY; they hate you for being weak, yet you think that your gonna make them like you for being weak. you are proud that you have become the infidels....




i guess all those american civilians had it coming for living in such an evil country.......”

“Strat: I didn't criticize anyone for not taking a stance, I criticized ws for taking a strong and very dismissive stance without giving any evidence or reasons.

Personally, I think the US had a right to invade Afghanistan. The government there knew they were protecting people who launched terrorist activities against the US. Furthermore, the government wasn't a particularly kind or humanistic one. Third, there wasn't peace there before the US came anyway.

That leaves the pragmatics: what can we accomplish in Afghanistan and are we willing to do what it takes? Will we be better off because of what we did in Afghanistan? Will the world be better off? Will Afghanistan be better off? I can't say that I know. That's what I mean when I say I don't have a dog in this fight.

If we can leave a better more stable Afghanistan, that will do wonders for our reputatation world-wide. It will have eliminated a launching pad for operations against us. If we end up with more motivated, well-armed fanatical enemies than we started with, then we haven't gained a thing we've lost ground.

Anyway, I worry that we are screwing up in Afghanistan. I worry about the parallels to the USSR, but I think the jury is out. If we stick around, we are going to need a lot of military might and determination, and we are going to need a lot of aid and diplomacy. I'm open to the idea that something very positive can be accomplished, and that we can preserve what we have gained by invading.

Not long after 9/11, I described what I thought was the emerging US plan for Afghanistan and I thought it was a probably a reasonably good plan. Taking over Afghanistan was the easy part... and it was done pretty well.

I worry that the Bush and his boys are too focused on a broader military agenda - and a global strategic chess game - and that they will end up either leaving Afghanistan in a mess that will slide back to where it was before and which will disgrace and embarass the US, or that we will sink into a deep Afghani quagmire.

Anyway, I'm still watching, thinking and learning on this one. If someone wants to rebut Sol's posts, I'm listening - but just calling them BS (in effect) without any evidence or analysis is a waste of time.”

“Hey anybody want to help me start a rumour?

Violin is also Stratdewd. Stratdewd is actually short for Stradivarius dude, so the Viol man even gave us a clue.”

“I was thinking peds post was almost identical to mine(like Strat stated) so I guess I'll leave it alone..The funny thing is that SH original post is just a cut and paste piece...Why should I point by point rebutt someone else's borrowed opinion...my point was that a person can easily find support for practically any argument(regardless of fact) So, settle down fellers...this messageboard is full of opinions and asssholes...and for the most part they all stink eheheh”

“just fall back on the standard cop-out i.e. "It's Just a Cut-n-Paste job. Why should I answer that?"

"since eveybodies gonna wuss out, i'll give you all the correct answer to solitary hiker's initial 2 posts, which , by the way, contradicted each other ......"

The two articles contradicted each other? What two articles were you reading!!? Go back and read them again, S-L-O-W-L-Y! They compliment each other. And the main point is that we are getting bogged down in another land-war in Asia. Furthermore the implied intent of the articles is that your government is not going to tell you the truth about it. Sound familiar or are you old enough to remember Viet Nam?”

“"they attacked us and killed 3,000 civilians and have sworn to do it again."

'They' didn't include one Afghani, not one!

Get your facts straight before you start making up stories.”

“I'm not advocating turning our back on the world. I'm talking about rethinking the idea that we can solve all the world's problems by sending in the calvary.

Since when has America tried to solve a world problem? Bush is focusing on Pax Americana - not solving the world's problems. The war on terrorism, while a legitimate pursuit in its own right, is also a very handy moral club which has served this admin. well into forcing American influence - military and economic - into areas of the world previously dominated by Russia and China (namely, the 'stans and Mongolia). Consider - China is completely surrounded by American forces now. Bush could have conquered Afghanistan with a large occupying army, and we wouldn't have analysts wringing their hands, claiming we're in a Soviet-style quagmire. But the act of war on Afghanistan was a political act as much as it was an act against terrorism. Bush needed a quick victory. But beyond a very public victory, what interest does Bush have in spending all it would take for a huge occupying force in an irrelevant country like Afgh.? If anything, keeping the country lawless helps our strategic interests more. There's been reports for quite a while now about the re-emergence of the Taliban and Al Qaida in Afgh. Good - our ability to act conspicuously in Iran and Pakistan is very limited. Let them come back. Also, the ongoing conflict in Afgh. helps to justify our forces there which in turn serves to apply pressure to both Iran and Pakistan. So these doom-and-gloom reports of America failing in Afgh. is hogwash. Bush is doing exactly what he intended to do.”

“Not long after 9/11, I described what I thought was the emerging US plan for Afghanistan and I thought it was a probably a reasonably good plan. Taking over Afghanistan was the easy part... and it was done pretty well.

Make no mistake - Bush lucked out in Afghanistan. There was no a priori way Bush could have known the Taliban would have chosen to *immediately* abandon the cities. Before the emergence of this strategy, the best analysis I read predicted a much costlier war. So this was no great U.S. military victory. The Taliban chose to let the U.S. invade. They're just biding their time - performing guerilla strikes and waiting for the U.S. to pull out - which it will. They will then swoop back to power.”

“The LA Times ran a very good story detailing the frustration our forces are experiencing by trying to track down an enemy that won't fight.”

“"Bush is focusing on Pax Americana - not solving the world's problems."
>
Are you for real? The concept of Pax Americana IS the policy of solving the world's problems through interdiction by the United States. This interdiction can be economy. It can be diplomatic. And it can be in the form of military intervention such as in Haiti, Kosovo, Macedonia, Afghanistan, and Korea.
For the record, the Pax Romana started by Augustus Caesar lasted for about 100 years after his death. Roman troops were stretched from Hadrian's Wall all the way to Turkey. And they did hold back the barbarians for awhile. Then the empire imploded because the Romans overextended themselves.
>
"But the act of war on Afghanistan was a political act as much as it was an act against terrorism. Bush needed a quick victory."
>
So you agree that Bush didn't invade Afghanistan to fight terror?
That's been my gut feeling all along. Afterall if he had wanted to go after the people who pulled off 911 he would have invaded Saudia Arabia since fifteen of the nineteen terrorist were citizens of that country. Now as you say it could have been a political move. That could be true. I wouldn't put it past Bush to put Americans soldiers at risk so that he might look good at the polls. Johnson got us into Viet Nam because Bobby Kennedy was a hawk at that time and LBJ thought he would lose a nomination if he didn't look tough.
But really, IMO (and the opinion of a lot of other people) Bush invaded Afghanistan because the people at Conoco were going to back out of an oil pipeline deal if the US didn't back a regime change in Afghanistan. Always follow the money Phaedrus/Mutt. In the end it's always about the money. American soldiers will be hunkered down guarding that pipeline until the 2nd Coming.”

“I'm pretty sure the U.S. military will continue to be stationed in, and deployed to, all sorts of foreign nations. I don't know if it is the responsibility of the U.S. to be there but we are there so the people in the U.S. need to accept that as a continuing fact.”

“that way. Here let me bend over. Can anyone hand me the Conoco Vasoline? I need to lube myself up. Don't have any? ... That's okay, just hand me the 90 weight British Petroleum axle grease. Or Texaco, Amoco, Phillips whatever!”

“Are you for real? The concept of Pax Americana IS the policy of solving the world's problems through interdiction by the United States.

You are sadly misinformed on this. Pax Americana is peace through American force, no argument. However, it is first and foremost focused on solving problems of the U.S. - not necessarily for the world's best interests, but for our own.

Always follow the money Phaedrus/Mutt. In the end it's always about the money

No, this is too reductionist. Certainly money is a big player in foreign policy, but there are many other factors influencing Bush. To summarily dismiss relevant factors in favor of a conspiracy-laden theory of monetary determinism is foolish in the extreme.

BTW, I've been around as Mutt for years now. I don't know who Phaedrus is.”

“As OSAMA said himself, we are a government of the people...and therefore responsible for our governments policies...and so are the Afgani's...any Afgani who did not hold a weapon in the fight against Osama and the Taliban is guilty by default,for providing, through their own inaction, the support that Osama and the Taliban needed to plan and execute the terrorist attack on New York.

Poor Afgani's you say, THEY didn't have a chance against the Big Bad Taliban?, Perfect reason to invade and do it for them....and in our own best intrest. Rebuild the country? not a chance. Burn them out and leave, when they get back on their feet and come at us again, burn them out again....make a mans first priority basic survival, and he will concentrate on that instead of attacking you.

SuperTrolls version of teach a man to fish:

Give a man a fish and he will want your bread to compliment the meal.

Teach a man to fish and he will plot your downfall for not giving him a house to eat it in.

Strip a man naked, beat him senseless and abandon him in a desert and if he survives, he will be busy raising goats to CONTINUE to survive.”

“'Much of Afghanistan is in chaos, fought over by feuding warlords and drug barons.'

And we are better how? Oh yes, our warlords and drug barons wear nice suits”

“Ha! I was trying to fathom living in a society controlled by warlords until I realized they were just gangsters with another name.”

“And we are better how?

There is no doubt that disrupting Al Qaida impeded their operations. Recall, there were no terrorist attacks for, what, 9 months after our operations.

There is little doubt that a strong military presence in Afghanistan provides leverage against Pakistan and to a lesser extent Iran.

We now have a better intelligence picture of Al Qaida's operations.

The 'war' delivered a symbolic message to the world that Bush is on a unilateralist path. There is little doubt that this message and the decisive 'victory' helped the U.S. strong-arm reluctant countries into helping on the war on terrorism.

What else am I leaving out?”

“Burn them out and leave, when they get back on their feet and come at us again, burn them out again

This is insane, not to mention completely unrealistic.”

“Pax Americana is peace through "American force, no argument. However, it is first and foremost focused on solving problems of the U.S. - not necessarily for the world's best interests, but for our own."

Ahhh ... now we're getting somewhere. I'm glad you said that. I'm enjoying quoting you as much as you do me.
>
Considering that our invasion of Afghanistan did virtually nothing to solve our terrorism problem could it be that Dubya had another reason to go in? I mean since Pax Americana is as you say, about solving America's problems through the application of force, was there a specific problem Bush was trying to solve. I think I've already outlined that American problem numerous times.
>
It's that lack of oil problem. It's that I'm going to do my oil friends at Halliburton/BP/Shell/Conoco/etc a favor and help them get that gas pipeline across Afghanistan so they can make some mega-dollars problem.
>
It's why we'll go into Iraq even though we're backpedaling like hell on North Korea (the honest-to-goodness dangerous country with real weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems to boot). Bush is such a lying hypocrite!

BTW Augustus Caesar was trying to solve all of Rome's problems with the Pax Romana. In the long run it didn't work too good.”

“In the long run we're all dead.”

“davies, i agree.

ped, well said



sh hiker, move somewhere you like and quit whining.



violin, should we let the cat out of the bag?”

“stratdewd stfu... the Republicans have virtually all the power right now and all they do is whine!

Stop being so myopic, just because you are registered doesn't mean you can stop questioning what's going on! I think Bush has handled racism towards Muslims beautifully... other than that the majority of what he's done is hand our tax money over to big energy... yes I spent my $300, he's getting much more than that for all of the favors he's done, and Enron is still in business. This New Conservative craze is making me sick! He's building the biggest government ever, using the armed forces for personal reasons, and planning to turn millions of illegal aliens into citizens WITHOUT running a background check (not to mention the tax hike that's probably in the works)

PS. None of this is Clintons fault... get over it”

“Powell Says The US Will
Develop Iraq's Oil
By Cameron Simpson
The Herald - UK
12-30-2

THE US said yesterday that it plans to secure Iraqi oilfields if it invades the country and it is looking at the possibility of using oil production to pay for post-war reconstruction.

However, last night it was warned that it would "reap a terrible whirlwind" if it went ahead with this strategy in a second Gulf war.

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state,told NBC's Meet the Press: "The oilfields are the property of the Iraqi people. And if the coalition of forces goes into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure they are used to benefit the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on the way out the door."

Mr Powell said that revenue generated from the oilfields would be used "in accordance with international law and to benefit the people of Iraq".

Administration officials also say they planned to keep the United Nations oil-for-food programme running, at least temporarily, to ensure that post-invasion oil dollars are spent on the country's basic needs.

International oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell would want to take part in any rehabilitation of the country's oil industry, analysts said.

However, as the Bush administration neared a decision on whether to take military action to eliminate Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Mr Powell said it was seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis with North Korea.

The apparent inconsistency in US foreign policy towards Iraq was seized upon by George Galloway, Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin. He said: "The point of the invasion is to steal Iraq's oil. This is naked confirmation that they intend to seize it, ramp up production, and thus cut the price of oil.

"They are no longer hiding the purpose of aggression, and they are fooling themselves if they think they are fooling the Arab population. I am speaking from Egypt, where a US state department poll has just revealed that only 6% of Egyptians have a favourable view of the United States. They are going to reap a terrible whirlwind from all of this."

Iraq sits on top of the world's second largest oil reserves, but war and a decade of sanctions has withered its oil infrastructure and official exports. The Bush administration is carefully weighing how oil policy in a post-Saddam Iraq might affect oil prices, officials say. Its decision could have implications for the fragile global economy.

Increasing Iraqi oil production may help Western nations that consume oil, including the US, by lowering oil prices. However, it could hurt key US oil-producing allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, by reducing their revenues from oil sales.

As UN arms experts searched four suspect sites in Iraq, Washington signalled it was increasing the pressure on Baghdad by sending more troops, aircraft. and ships to the Gulf.

US officials said Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, had signed an order to move thousands of troops, dozens of strike aircraft and probably two more aircraft carrier battle groups to the Gulf, starting early next month.

The deployment would at least double the 50,000 US military personnel already near Iraq, and more might be sent in February, US officials said.

US and British warplanes yesterday attacked two Iraqi radar sites after Iraqi forces moved them into the southern "no-fly" zone, the US central command said, adding that the radar system posed a threat to allied patrols over the zone.

More than 100 UN weapons inspectors are now in Iraq, but the 200 searches they have carried out since November 27 have apparently uncovered no trace of the chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programmes Washington insists Iraq is pursuing.

Mr Powell, indicating frustration with the inspectors' slow progress, said: "I think that this can't go on indefinitely. The president has not made a decision yet with respect to the use of military force or with respect to going back to the United Nations.

"Of course we're positioning ourselves - positioning our military forces for whatever might be required."


http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/30-12-19102-1-15-53.html”

“if you'll promise to revisit this subject in one year. That will be late December 2003. That's assuming the good Lord is willing.
And you haven't been called up by your local draft board.”

“Considering that our invasion of Afghanistan did virtually nothing to solve our terrorism problem could it be that Dubya had another reason to go in?

Of course our actions in Afghanistan were beneficial for the reasons I listed above. Until you refute them, you look silly making this comment.

It's that lack of oil problem

I already told you that is too reductionist. Until you refute the relevance of other geopolitical factors (terrorism, islamofascism, WMD, military hegemony, et al), you (again) look silly trying to isolate oil as the only relevant factor in foreign policy.

Or are you the type who has a bag full of canned talking points and are completely out of your league to discuss anything else?”

“Cavalry, send in the cavalry.

Calvary was a hill used for crucifixions.”

“Actually the goal of Pax Americana is a more peaceful and prosperous world where democratic rule is allowed to flourish. The Bush Doctrine is highly ideological. It assumes that our society should be a model for the world. The rest of the world is expected to accept our dominance because it will lead to a better world for everyone, not just the US.

The goals of this policy are noble. If it works, it would a wonderful thing. My fear is that by relying so heavily on military power, we will make ourselves the enemy of much of the world and end up in a worse position than if we were more isolationist.”