I found the article “Did The Planned Oil Pipeline Through Afghanistan Influence America’s Decision To Invade And Install A New Government There?” on The Debate
This is a link to the original article
***The views and opinions expressed in the following work do not necessarily reflect my own***
With that in mind, please enjoy ❤
The Debate: Did oil influence America’s decision to invade Afghanistan? Were the true motives for war declared? Read our detailed report and sign the online petition for a public statement from the American government. TheDebate.org – Debating current affairs.
COINCIDENCE OR CORRUPTION?
[ PLEASE SIGN PETITION FOR STATEMENT FROM U.S. GOVERNMENT ]
There is some evidence that America could have had an economic motive for replacing the government in Afghanistan. Did this influence America’s decision to invade Afghanistan and replace the government? The evidence presented below may be sufficient to raise serious questions about the motivations behind U.S. President Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan, especially in light of Bush’s substantial links with the oil industry. Furthermore, recent reports indicate that the September the 11th disaster, which triggered the “war on terror” military campaign, could have been prevented. If there is enough public support, we will issue a formal request for a public statement from the American government. In the meantime, we invite you to consider the evidence below and form your own opinions.
IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE
America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government’s foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:
“The U.S. Government’s position is that we support multiple pipelines…
The Unocal pipeline is among those pipelines that would receive our
support under that policy. I would caution that while we do support the
project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any
governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries,
Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do
support the project.”
[ U.S. House of Reps., “U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics”, 12 Feb 1998 ]
“The only other possible route [for the desired oil pipeline] is across,
Afghanistan which has of course its own unique challenges.”
[ “U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics”, 12 Feb 1998 ]
“CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized
Afghanistan Government is in place.”
[ “U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics”, 12 Feb 1998 ]
The Afghanistan oil pipeline project was finally able to proceed in May 2002. This could not have happened if America had not taken military action to replace the government in Afghanistan.
The war on Afghanistan was sold to the public as a reaction to the attacks on 11 September 2001. However, the war was planned before the infamous 9/11 disaster, and the military action began long before the World Trade Center fell.
The conquest of Afghanistan had been planned since at least 12 February 1998, and 9/11 happened just in time to secure public support for the attacks.
3rd November 1998 – attacks stop US oil pipeline:
Up to 80 cruise missiles were fired at Afghanistan and Sudan in August An American-funded training project in Afghanistan has closed down as a result of the US cruise missile attack on the country in August. The programme was funded by the American oil company, Unocal, which was once hoping to be involved in building a gas pipeline across the country from Turkmenistan to Pakistan.
BBC News, “US attack closes US project”, 3 November 1998.
2nd January 1999 – US strikes targets in Afghanistan:
No sooner had the Taleban won a series of victories in the north, than the US launched an attack on camps in Afghanistan run by Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who had allegedly masterminded the bombing of US embassies in East Africa.
BBC News, “Afghanistan: Campaign of conflict”, 2 January 1999.
15th March 2001 – allies invade Afghanistan:
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance’s capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries’ collaborative effort.
Janes International Security News, “India joins anti-Taliban coalition”, 15 March 2001.
3rd September 2001 – allies deploy huge task-force for “fictional” conflict:
The aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious has sailed from Portsmouth to lead the biggest Royal Navy and Royal Marine deployment since the Falklands.
HMS Illustrious is the flagship of three groups of warships travelling to the Middle East to take part in exercise “Saif Sareea 2”.
More than 24 surface ships from Britain, plus two nuclear submarines, will be completing the 13,000 mile round trip.
The operation, costing nearly £100m, will end with a major excercise before Christmas that will also involve the Army, Royal Air Force and Armed Forces of Oman.
The strike force has been put together to take part in a conflict between the fictional forces of the so-called state of ‘Alawham’ and those of Oman.
BBC News, Carrier heads for the Middle East, 3 September 2001.
11th September 2001 – the war comes home to America:
*** 9/11 ***
16th March 2001 – Bush prepares America to wage war overseas:
“I want to remind the American people that the prime suspect’s [Osama Bin Laden] organisation is in a lot of countries,” Mr Bush told reporters on the White House lawn.
BBC News, “America widens ‘crusade’ on terror”, 16 September 2001.
18th September 2001 – diplomat reveals 9/11 “response” began before 9/11:
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin.
The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place – possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.
Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby.
Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
BBC News, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban'”, 18 September 2001.
THE “WAR ON TERROR”: AN EXCUSE TO ADVANCE US ENERGY INTERESTS?
In 1998 US Vice-President Dick Cheney said in a speech to oil industrialists:
“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as
suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian”
Within four years the US military had overthrown the government of Afghanistan, and the construction of the Caspian Sea oil pipeline by US oil corporations had begun.
The ‘war on terror’ is being used as an excuse to further US energy interests in the Caspian.
BBC News, “Race to unlock Central Asia’s energy riches”, 29 December 1997.
“American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi.”
The Guardian, The new Great Game, 20 October 2003.
Lutz Kleveman (2003), The New Great Game, Atlantic Monthly Press.
AMERICA DEPLOYED MILITARY FORCE TO INSTALL AN “INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED” (I.E. PRO-AMERICAN) AFGHAN GOVERNMENT
The American-driven invasion of Afghanistan swiftly captured of the country’s capital Kabul, enabling the removal of the former Afghanistan government and the establishment of a new government.
Afghan capital, Kabul, conquered by U.S.-led invasion force, November 2001.
U.N. Conference discusses future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.S. Congress in Washington debates future of Afghanistan, November 2001.
U.N. appoints leader of new Afghanistan government, December 2001
U.S. Government, State Department website documents installation of new Afghan government.
United Nations website documents installation of new Afghan government.
WAS THERE A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE FOR BUSH’S U.S. GOVERNMENT DECISION TO INVADE AFGHANISTAN?
There have been suggestions that Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan could have been influenced by oil money. This is the unlimate reason why we are now offering everyone this opportunity to sign the petition calling for George Bush (Junior) to make a public statement confirming that his decision was not influenced by the oil pipeline issue.
HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DOES THE OIL INDUSTRY HAVE ON BUSH AND THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT?
George W. Bush’s connections with the oil industry are well established. There is evidence of surprisingly close ties between Bush’s U.S. Government and big oil companies, partly brought to light through recent high-profile cases of alleged corruption involving U.S. government officials and major oil companies.
“During the 2000 elections, oil, gas and other energy interests donated
more than $40 million to Republicans, including the Bush presidential
campaign…” [ League of Conservation Voters website ]
“Condoleezza Rice, the [U.S.] National Security Adviser, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her.”
[ BBC News, “Bush and big business”, 1 May 2001 ]
“The White House has acknowledged that US President George W. Bush
failed to follow the law and disclose details of shares [in a Texas oil
company] he sold when he was a company director.”
[ BBC News, “Bush in shares embarrassment”, 3 July 2003 ]
“US oil services and engineering firm Halliburton is being investigated for
its accounting practices when US Vice President Dick Cheney was at the
helm.” [ BBC News, “Accounts probe at Cheney firm”, 30 May 2002 ]
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE CONTROVERSIAL AFGHANISTAN PIPELINE PROJECT?
The CentGas consortium was formed in 1997 to build the controversial Caspian Sea oil pipeline. The American oil company, Unocal, had the largest stake (46.5%) in CentGas’s Afghanistan pipeline project. Unocal, currently an ex-member of the CentGas pipeline consortium, is now trying to distance itself from the pipe-line controversy and perceived conflict of interest.
Dr Rice, a director of Unocal, served as Secretary of the Air Force in the Bush Administration. He earlier served in the U.S. Defence Department as deputy assistant secretary for resource analysis and director of cost analysis. Ties between the Whitehouse and the oil industry are so close that winners of a competition organised by Unocal won a prestigious visit to the Whitehouse to receive an award from President Bush himself.
THE TALIBAN GOES SHOPPING IN AMERICA WITH AMERICAN OIL COMPANY BOSSES!
Did you know that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan were offered more than $100 million a year by the American oil industry to submit to the pipeline project without a fight?
“On at least one occasion, in December 1997, Unocal officials played host to
high-ranking Taliban leaders in Texas. The American oil executives reportedly
wined and dined them and took them on a shopping spree.”
[ Boston Herald, “U.S. ties to Saudi elite may be hurting war on terrorism”, 10 December 2001 ]
If a secret deal was struck between the Americans and Taliban officials, might this explain why the troops invading Afghanistan never seemed to find the enemy?
There were only a handful of casualties among the Coalition troops invading Afghanistan. A BBC News report on 27 July 2002 said: “About 40 American soldiers have been killed in combat and non-combat incidents and more than 340 have been wounded in the US operation in Afghanistan that began last October.” It is not clear where these figures come from but, if correct, they include “non-combat” casualties, such as the helicopter accidents which killed U.S. soldiers near Bagram or the crash at the Bande Sardeh dam, or accidental explosions, or one of the “friendly-fire” incidents. Overall losses seem small considering that a whole country was conquered in this campaign, especially in view of current opinions that the enemy are supposedly so willing to die fighting the west.
REPORTS SUGGEST U.S. GOVERNMENT COULD HAVE DONE MORE TO PREVENT SEPTEMBER 11TH TRADGEDY
If undeclared economic factors were involved in America’s decision to invade Afghanistan and install a new government, this would invite a closer investigation of reports that more could have been done to prevent the disastrous attack on the World Trade Center, which was declared to be the reason for invading Afghanistan.
Why are both the FBI and the CIA suspected of hindering the investigations that might have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe? How much did the CIA know about the al-Qaida hijackers operating in the U.S. who allegedly orchestrated the 11 September attack?
The most serious reports claim that senior U.S. intelligence officials “hindered enquiries”. An official investigation was launched but “the hearings are secret in order to protect sources.” Many people are also concerned about the well-documented evidence suggesting that Osamir Bin Ladin and the al-Qaida network were set-up and funded by the U.S. intelligence agency, the CIA.
“The White House says it received intelligence reports in the months before
the 11 September attacks that Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda network was
plotting to hijack US passenger planes.”
[ BBC News, “Q&A: US terror intelligence”, 11 June 2002 ]
“The national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, says the President [Bush]
was briefed in August last year that Osama bin Laden planned to hijack
[ BBC News, “World Trade Centre: Could the attacks have been prevented?”, 22 May 2002 ]
“FBI agent … expected to publicly tell a Senate committee … bosses hindered
enquiries into the man now suspected of being the would-be 20th
“The United States Congress has begun hearings into possible US intelligence
failures in the run-up to the attacks of 11 September.
“The hearings are secret in order to protect sources.”
[ BBC News, “Congress probes US intelligence failures”, 5 June 2002.
“Ms Rowley, an FBI agent for 22 years, said senior personnel put ‘roadblocks’
in the way of Minneapolis staff trying to investigate Zacarias Moussaoui,
now alleged to be the ’20th hijacker’.”
[ BBC News, “Bush overhauls domestic security”, 7 June 2002 ]
The US government trained, armed, funded and supported Osama bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan during the cold war. With a huge investment of $300,000,000 (three billion US dollars), the CIA effectively created and nurtured bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network using American tax-payers money. Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest countries, where such an enormous sum sum of money would have had extraordinary value.
“In the 1980s, bin Laden left his comfortable Saudi home for Afghanistan to participate
in the Afghan jihad, or holy war, against the invading forces of the Soviet Union – a
cause that, ironically, the United States funded, pouring $3 billion into the Afghan
resistance via the CIA.”
[ ABC News, “Osama Bin Laden: Profile of a Terror Leader”, 12 February 2002 ]
“…Bin Laden left Saudi Arabia in 1979 to fight against the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. The Afghan jihad was backed with American dollars and had the blessing
of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. He received security training from the
[ BBC News, “Who is Osama Bin Laden?”, 18 September 2001 ]
“…[Osama bin Laden] received military and financial assistance from the intelligence
services of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United States.”
[ Forbes bsuiness news, “Who Is Osama Bin Laden?”, 14 September 2001 ]
WHAT IS THE FUTURE THE NEW WEST-FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN?
The United Nations indicated that the ‘temporary’ administration, which they established in Afghanistan following the American-led NATO conquest, will soon be replaced by a permanent democratic government. But when the new head of state for Afghanistan was announced it was simply the Chairman of the existing United Nations ‘provisional’ administration.
“The loya jirga is expected to elect the current interim leader, Hamid Karzai, as head
“This is not a democracy; it is a rubber stamp – everything has already been decided
by the powerful ones.” Seema Samar, Women’s Affairs Minister, Afghanistan
[ BBC News, “Tempers flare at loya jirga”, 12 June 2002 ]
AFGHAN PUPPET GOVERNMENT LED BY FORMER OIL COMPANY ADVISOR
The leader of the new US-controlled interim government in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, was a key collaborator in the conspiracy to construct the major gas and oil pipe-line in the region, which was the hidden agenda of the US-led invasion. Mr Karzai was involved with the American oil company that planned to build the pipeline through Afghanistan, and now he holds the highest job in the country.
“The interim chief, Hamid Karzai has been an advisor to UNOCAL. He has been involved in negotiations of UNOCAL with Taliban.”
Mr Karzai was installed as the leader of Afghanistan by the US government.
“Mr Karzai had strong American backing and was clearly being groomed for leadership.”
The US government is now moving on to a new conflict against Iraq, but the latest news reports show that the war in Afghanistan has not yet been won.[4-9]