The true reason for going to war in Afghanistan
by Peter Eyre on 10 Oct 2009 0 Comment

Troops and Civilians are dying for oil – sound familiar?
The powers that be tell us this is all about the 9/11 attack on the WTC, but do you believe them. If the incident at the Pentagon is anything to go by, it certainly was not a Boeing 757 that crashed into it. So if one has doubts about this and the fact that they all lied to us over Iraq, why should we believe that this is the true reason for going into Afghanistan.

Maybe there are a few grey areas that we could cover that may give you a better insight into what is really going on in the White House. Was there some other hidden agenda? Was an attack pre-planned before 9/11 even happened? The answer as you would expect is yes on both counts.

America had 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 US Government’s foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11:
The US 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 US 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.”

Representatives of the Taliban were invited as guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal in 1997 to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush was Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appeared to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime.

A report in the British Telegraph on 17 December 1997 read as follows: “Oil barons court Taliban in Texas,” the Taliban was about to sign a “£2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country. ... The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. ... Dressed in traditional salwar khameez, Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay.” At the same time, US government documents reveal that the Taliban were harbouring Osama bin Laden as their “guest” since June 1996.

Back in March 2001 India joined a US backed plan to address the Taliban issue. The following appeared in the UK’s Jane’s Security on 15 March 2001. Jane’s is a highly respectable magazine. The article had the following headline “India joins anti-Taliban coalition” by Rahul Bedi: It stated that India was believed to have joined Russia, the US and Iran in a front against the Taliban. It said that the Northern Alliance had captured the strategic town of Bamiyan on 13 February 2001.

The article stated that after several days of heavy fighting they would cut off the only land route from Kabul to the Taliban troops in Northern Afghanistan. Media reports later indicated that the Taliban had recaptured the town on 17 February as we have seen so many times before.

The report indicated that India played a major role in this US brainchild and was believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with military assistance. Like in any conflict there were casualties and India provided doctors and medical teams to treat the Northern Alliance troops at a 20 bed hospital at Farkhor. All this was being financed from Delhi.

Then came a second headline in another Indian article: India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion in June 2001 - India in anti-Taliban military plan: It stated that India and Iran will “facilitate” the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban. This is an extract from that article: 26 June 2001: India and Iran will “facilitate” US and Russian plans for “limited military action” against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime. The Taliban controls 90 percent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.

Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban’s military activity near the Tajikistan border. And Russia’s Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban’s military build-up.

Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of “facilitator” while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

As we can see 9/11 whether conspiracy or not gave the US the justification to go and invade Afghanistan, but could there be more to this story? Could it have some connection to the oil and gas industry? Yes, my friends, yet again we see American Imperialism at its best and perhaps the true reason for this long war.

Let’s now look into these sinister motives and also ask the question “why so urgent”? Could the reason be to build a vast pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to a port close to Karachi in Pakistan? Back in 1995 the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) (a consortium for the construction of a pipeline) led by Unocal, a US company, was formed on 27 October 1997. The signing ceremony was held in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan.

In January 1998, the Taliban selected CentGas over Argentinian competitor Bridas Corporation. An agreement was signed that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquished its 10% stake in the project and Unocal withdrew from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

A new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the meantime the United States military overthrew the Taliban government and put in its place its own puppet government under the control of Hamid Karzai. What makes this story more interesting was the fact that it was claimed that he had been a consultant for the US Oil Company Unocal. Now the scene was set to create the pipeline known as TAP or TAPI pipeline.

The project did not get off to a good start owing to the hostilities in the southern region as well as uncertainties on who was going to sign up for the project. Pakistan had grave doubts on the expected completion date and the final price and India could not make up its mind. To this day we still cannot see any progress in this pipeline basically because the Taliban control the region. Maybe we can now understand why the focus of NATO forces are centered along the pipelines intended route passing through Herat, Helmand and Kandahar and not up in the area where Al Qaeda operates.

Once again we see oil and gas as being the main reason for going into Iraq and now Afghanistan. However, this is not an easy option as the Taliban are very much in control of the pipeline route and also we now see that Pakistan favours the alternative pipeline from Iran that will bypass Afghanistan.

The US has been trying to pressure Pakistan into not signing with Iran for obvious reasons, and now there is also the danger that India may follow track. What is extremely sad is that US, UK & NATO forces have again been pulled into another conflict for economic reasons that has nothing to do with the democracy and freedom of the Afghan people.

NATO forces are loosing many troops over this very long drawn out conflict with no end in sight. We listen to the US President and then the British Prime Minister who keep telling us that we are in this till the end. We are in this to keep the streets of the US and UK safe from terrorism, but is this really true and can we win this war?

I say we are sending our troops to Afghanistan like sheep to the slaughter. The US, UK and NATO forces are also being subjected to weapons containing uranium components. This terrible contamination of NATO soldiers will leave us with a legacy of pain and suffering with a much higher long term death rate as a result of the so called “Syndrome”. It is obvious that the Taliban have firm control of their country in much the same way as the Vietcong controlled Vietnam and will fail in much the same way.

We are told so many stories as to why we are there and that our respective strategies are working. If this is correct then why do we keep changing the commanders, changing our tactics and then this year (2009) being told that the war will be lost if we do not send in more troops? Again we see this urgency to clear the pipeline route with as many troops as possible in order to get the pipeline construction underway in 2010. The construction of this US led project and its associated contracts is worth trillions of dollars once complete.

Do respective governments really care about what sacrifice is required to achieve their economic greed? Do the troops of NATO really understand the high level of contamination or what they are fighting for? We again see deceit creeping in on a grand scale.

It is ironic that before this event the Taliban were considered to be a good ally for the US to work with as they controlled the intended route for the TAPI pipeline. As one would expect the Americans and a US oil company called UNOCAL put forward a proposal to the Taliban, but things didn’t work out the way the US had hoped. The proposal was rejected by the Taliban and suddenly this so called ally became the enemy. We see this time and time again whereby if you do not do what the US wants you to do, you are given the label of terrorist… sound familiar?

As one would expect, to have a US backed pipeline pass through Taliban country would be a prime target. It is for this reason alone that NATO forces are focusing their operations in and around Helmand. The other issue is that they had projected for work on the pipeline to commence in 2010, but as we can see the Taliban are digging in and the NATO forces are incurring heavy losses. This is why the strategy keeps getting changed as they have to clear this area prior to starting this very urgent commercial project. 

The Canadian Government is also deeply involved in this US-backed pipeline which would run directly through Kandahar where the Canadians have lost many troops. They are currently committed to stay there until 2011.

Let’s recap this economic madness that was born decades ago in the US. Afghanistan and three other countries agreed to build a US$7.6-billion natural gas pipeline starting in 2010, that would deliver gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India.

The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline is an American initiative with the intention to try and block a competing pipeline from Iran that would bring oil to India and Pakistan. This project would also challenge Russia’s firm grip on energy in Central Asia.

An article in by Energy Economist John Foster drew attention to the Canadian Government’s policy on the pipeline: The Canadian government has spent billions on Afghanistan and spent massive political capital convincing the public of the need to stay in the war-torn country. So why no mention of the pipeline? “What I see in the future is that Canada could be trapped, and drawn into defending a pipeline.” 

The Afghan government has made assurances that the gas route would be clear of landmines and Taliban within two years. The article also talked about the huge transit fees that Afghanistan would gain in allowing this pipeline to transit their country. This is estimated to be around $160 million per annum.

It is my opinion that we again come down to the fact that at some stage US, UK and NATO have to sit down with the Taliban and strike some peace accord. Without this the pipeline will always remain a major target.

So now we start to see the true reason behind this war; but do our readers still have some doubt? Listen to what John Foster had to say: “Does Canada support (US objectives) or what?” he asked. “The US has a measure of control over or access to about 50 percent of the world’s oil reserves. It has backed the TAPI proposal for over a decade. Two US administrations - Bill Clinton’s and George W. Bush’s - negotiated with the Taliban on the project.”

So again we can clearly see that when talks broke down with the Taliban, the US had to justify an attack on Afghanistan to fulfil their economic greed. All this before 9/11. Isn’t it also ironic that exactly the same situation occurred in Iraq and the US had to wait for the right moment and excuse to carryout an invasion?

The article went on to say that at the  2006 NATO summit meeting, the US proposed that NATO start guarding oil pipelines and sea lanes. We again see the US “Iron Fist” policy at work and how it manipulates NATO countries so as not to be singled out as the “bad guys.” 

The article also explained that the US also proposed to amend NATO article V commitment (an attack on one nation is an attack on all) to include energy resources. That illustrates how seriously the US takes its commitment to securing its energy supply. I should also add that this again shows America’s abuse of NATO in the same way it abuses its authority in the United Nations.

Now that we have clarified the true reason behind the war in Afghanistan, let’s take a look at the farce associated with our strategies and why our respective governments keep changing their minds when their economic plans are delayed by the actions of the Taliban.

We have to clearly understand that these are local Afghans who fight for a totally different reason. They fight a conventional war without the sophistication of air cover and high technology, vehicles and weapons. They fight in defence of their own country like any other freedom fighter would do. They fight using simple technology and by using some techniques taught to them by the US when they were friends! The Taliban know their country extremely well (much better than those that invade it) and more importantly they have the drive and spirit to fight on, no matter what the odds.

We have seen this before in Vietnam. We have seen this with the PKK in Kurdistan, who despite the power of NATO and high tech support from US spy satellites, still soldier on. In Gaza we saw Hamas and the people of Gaza survive a most overpowering onslaught by the Israelis, and yet continue on despite their weakness of absolute poverty. This is the traditional way freedom fighters always manage to survive and bounce back.

Low Tech v High Tech

Now look at how this war is progressing and how our illustrious leader manipulates the media in an attempt to makes us all feel patriotic. Gordon Brown instigated the welcome home parades for returning troops in the same way returning troops from WW2 were welcomed. The difference was that in WW2 the soldiers believed they were fighting for their country, but one cannot say the same for the troops that went to Iraq and Afghanistan.

These wars have nothing to do with democracy; only for economic greed. They use weapons containing DU/EU to not only contaminate their own forces, but to cause immeasurable pain and suffering to thousands of innocent civilians. I repeat that this can only lead to slow mass genocide of populations.

They first make announcements in Parliament to say how sorry they are to learn of the death of one of our brave soldiers. They then add that the courage of our troops is helping to keep the streets of Britain safe and that their thoughts are with their loved ones. Our leaders then add that famous saying that is used by both the President and the Prime Minister…that this loss only strengthens our resolve in fighting terrorism. This is then followed by the media showing the sad return of fallen soldiers who have made the eternal sacrifice.

This well orchestrated façade made up by our respective governments does not mention that this sacrifice is really all about oil and economic greed. They say nothing about the pipeline or why they have troops strategically placed in the Southern Provinces of Afghanistan. As we can see this problem is not only here in the UK, but also in Canada, where both countries have lost many troops and are also now asking why and for what reason. 

This last fortnight saw Italy asking the same question after six of its troops were killed and returned home to a state funeral and a day of remembrance. We do not offer our troops the same privilege, probably because this may well result into a weekly event. I think it is so sad to see an 18 year old soldier, who had just arrived in Afghanistan and on his first patrol, die. Or a 19 year old soldiers return to the UK with the loss of two legs and one arm. I continue to ask the same question: why?

So is our strategy working? Earlier this year Gordon Brown stated that the major threat now appeared to come from Pakistan where most of the terrorist attacks are planned, he also discussed this whilst on a visit to Pakistan.

In July 2009 Gordon Brown defended the government’s Afghanistan strategy, saying it is the right one despite a “dangerous battle” ahead. This was in response to the death of 15 British soldiers in 10 days, most of whom were in the Southern Provinces. Why so much attention in the South when he had previously told us that Al Qaeda had been pushed over the border into Pakistan? Is the Taliban (once favoured by the US and British Governments) now the new enemy, and if so why? They have never attacked Britain or the US.

The US in the meantime had replaced the previous US commander with a new hard line commander who announced that the US needed to carry out another surge type tactic like the one carried out in Iraq. Obama met his demands and sent several thousand more troops to Afghanistan. Again the casualties started to climb and it became clear that both the US and UK strategy was again failing. This week started off with another surprise when the US Commander announced that if he didn’t get more troops the war would be lost. As an ex-military man this certainly does not sound like our strategy is right!

At the end of a disastrous summer Prime Minister Gordon Brown again said the UK’s aims in Afghanistan are “realistic and achievable” in a speech defending the government’s strategy. This was after more than 50 British troops had lost their lives. He went on to say that he believed they were doing the “right thing” by Britain and for the people of Afghanistan. It was also around this time he told the media that “Terrorism recognises no borders;”  “All members of our coalition must play our proper part.” Mr Brown was put on the defensive after an aide to the defence secretary resigned in protest at the government strategy.

This again was an indication by Brown that more troops were required from the UK and his statement above indicated that other NATO countries should also increase their commitment. 

But have we got it right and should we be in Afghanistan? Could there be some hidden agenda behind this war that is totally different to the spin coming out of the US and UK? I sincerely believe that we have established another Vietnam type war which had no purpose and had no end. It would appear that yet again our respective leaders are fighting a war that has nothing to do with the reasons given. We were all misled very badly over Iraq and indications are that we are going down the same path, but with much more tragic results.

Behind this false façade are lies and deceit at the highest level The Taliban are not a threat to the streets of Britain and most of today’s terrorism could be avoided if we in the West pulled out their countries and paid more attention to our own economic crisis. Isn’t it strange that our government has struck up such a huge debt in supporting the banks, and yet many smaller companies have closed their doors, small businesses could not get loans to keep afloat, and millions have lost their jobs and homes. Those same people will now be heavily taxed in one way or the other for some years to come.

They are now talking about government sector cuts, health sector cuts, education cuts, but somehow there is always money available for their own selfish wars. We have lost so many lives and trillions of dollars in order to fund the deeply flawed foreign policy of the US and UK Governments,

These same ruthless authorities continue to tell lies that they have not and will not use Depleted Uranium Weapons in Afghanistan when the truth reveals totally the opposite. I again ask the question - why are thousand of dedicated troops and innocent civilians being contaminated on a massive scale and why isn’t the media reporting the horrors of this action?

Peter Eyre, a former British Naval officer, worked at NATO headquarters in cryptology, and spent a lot of time in the Middle East and South East Asia as a petroleum consultant; he lives in the UK and writes regularly for the Palestine Telegraph

User Comments Post a Comment
Comments are free. However, comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate material will be removed from the site. Readers may report abuse at
Post a Comment

Back to Top