I caught this post by Eric Margolis at Huffington Post via Hot Air. The Truth About Afghanistan. The problem is that Mr. Margolis, for all his purported expertise, started spouting long debunked myths about the importance of a concept oil pipeline through Afghanistan. Until then, he was noting some important points about Afghanistan's tribal nature and its impact on fighting "the war on terror". The same idea expounded on by Strategy Page about the Real Enemy Stays in the Shadows (h/t Canoneer).
Starting with Margolis's myth that the US only dumped Afghani Taliban after it refused to dance over an oil pipeline while the Taliban chose a new partner: Bridas Argentina.
Margolis' timeline is so mangled in one paragraph it can't be considered anything but trying to make the facts fit Margolis' already established beliefs. Just reading his other points about the tribes was interesting enough to think about reading his book, but this little jaunt into historical inaccuracy gave me complete pause.
Margolis should try reading a little more history and imbibing less of Rall's conspiracy theories. It's the whole "blood for oil" argument, all be it, muted by such a distance, many years of cruel war and not one oil pipeline in sight.
For instance, Margolis seems to imply that the oil pipeline was still in play in 2001 only a few months before 9/11 and the invasion. In fact, the oil pipeline has been in play since 1984 and had its closest potential in 1996. However, there was a very big problem. Namely, the Afghan civil war was still in full swing. Unocol was already expressing doubts about the pipeline's viability with this violence going on. In August of 1996, bin Laden announced his Fatwa against Crusaders and Jews.also putting a crimp in any plans as Unocol had to bow to political realities at home and in Afghanistan.
It was late 1997, so many years earlier, that Afghanistan under the Taliban signed a deal with Argentina Bridas and created a regional consortium, effectively shutting Unocol out who had been asking for at least two different extensions of the "option" while war continued. Unocol still attempted to negotiate a deal, but it was looking less and less likely.
A funny thing happened in 1998 (so many years before Bush was even elected or the year 2001). In March of that year, sighting economic and security concerns, Unocol declares the pipeline "unfeasible" due to continuing instability. August 1998, the embassy twin bombings were linked to bin Laden, a "guest" of the Taliban. The US drops a single bomb on an AQ compound. Unocol withdraws completely from the Afghan pipeline and just about goes bankrupt in 1999.
The real tragedy isn't some nebulous "war for oil" by the US, it is that attempts to gain an oil pipeline in Afghanistan throughout the 90's, including gifts to Afghanistan (Taliban/Islamist) "charities" probably funded Al Qaeda's war against the US. Now THAT's a war brought on by oil.
So contrary to Margolis' claims, the US did not turn against the Taliban in 2001 because of some failed oil pipeline. The US was already "turning against" the Taliban as early as 1998. But, not enough, because it was during this period of negotiations over the oil pipeline, post bin Laden Fatwa, and the Taliban seeking official recognition by the US as the government of Afghanistan that had them offering bin Laden up. You can read the details here.
Margolis is partially correct. The US did give the Taliban $43 million in aid. The reason the US ended their relationship with the Taliban had little to do with an oil pipeline or lack of a deal. That was done nearly three years before. It ended because the UN Security Council had passed a resolution against the Taliban for harboring bin Laden, supporting terrorism and being a repressive regime. The US had asked the Taliban to leave the US in 2000 in response to this resolution. Aid was cut off shortly after that in 2001. Only a few short months after Bush was inaugurated and several months before September 11.
While it's true that there were intermixed issues of oil, foreign relations, terrorism and ultimately war, for some reason, the involvement of the Clinton Administration from oil deals to foreign aid to turning down bin Laden, seems to always be missed. Of course, that is probably why Mr. Margolis used such unsubtle subterfuge in a single paragraph with a mangled timeline. "The truth about Afghanistan" simply didn't fit his narrative.
The war in Afghanistan was started for one reason and one reason only: 3,000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001 by Al Qaeda terrorists, ordered, trained and directed by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, "guests" of the Taliban; a government who refused to give these men up.
How's that for "the truth?"
Starting with Margolis's myth that the US only dumped Afghani Taliban after it refused to dance over an oil pipeline while the Taliban chose a new partner: Bridas Argentina.
The U.S. quietly backed Taliban for possible use in Central Asia, against China in the event of war, and against Iran, a bitter foe of the Sunni Taliban. U.S. energy giants Chevron and Unocal negotiated gas and oil pipeline deals with Taliban. In 2001, Washington gave $40 million in aid to Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. only turned against Taliban when, at Osama bin Laden's advice, it gave a major pipeline deal to an Argentine consortium rather than an American one.
Margolis' timeline is so mangled in one paragraph it can't be considered anything but trying to make the facts fit Margolis' already established beliefs. Just reading his other points about the tribes was interesting enough to think about reading his book, but this little jaunt into historical inaccuracy gave me complete pause.
Margolis should try reading a little more history and imbibing less of Rall's conspiracy theories. It's the whole "blood for oil" argument, all be it, muted by such a distance, many years of cruel war and not one oil pipeline in sight.
For instance, Margolis seems to imply that the oil pipeline was still in play in 2001 only a few months before 9/11 and the invasion. In fact, the oil pipeline has been in play since 1984 and had its closest potential in 1996. However, there was a very big problem. Namely, the Afghan civil war was still in full swing. Unocol was already expressing doubts about the pipeline's viability with this violence going on. In August of 1996, bin Laden announced his Fatwa against Crusaders and Jews.also putting a crimp in any plans as Unocol had to bow to political realities at home and in Afghanistan.
It was late 1997, so many years earlier, that Afghanistan under the Taliban signed a deal with Argentina Bridas and created a regional consortium, effectively shutting Unocol out who had been asking for at least two different extensions of the "option" while war continued. Unocol still attempted to negotiate a deal, but it was looking less and less likely.
A funny thing happened in 1998 (so many years before Bush was even elected or the year 2001). In March of that year, sighting economic and security concerns, Unocol declares the pipeline "unfeasible" due to continuing instability. August 1998, the embassy twin bombings were linked to bin Laden, a "guest" of the Taliban. The US drops a single bomb on an AQ compound. Unocol withdraws completely from the Afghan pipeline and just about goes bankrupt in 1999.
The real tragedy isn't some nebulous "war for oil" by the US, it is that attempts to gain an oil pipeline in Afghanistan throughout the 90's, including gifts to Afghanistan (Taliban/Islamist) "charities" probably funded Al Qaeda's war against the US. Now THAT's a war brought on by oil.
So contrary to Margolis' claims, the US did not turn against the Taliban in 2001 because of some failed oil pipeline. The US was already "turning against" the Taliban as early as 1998. But, not enough, because it was during this period of negotiations over the oil pipeline, post bin Laden Fatwa, and the Taliban seeking official recognition by the US as the government of Afghanistan that had them offering bin Laden up. You can read the details here.
Margolis is partially correct. The US did give the Taliban $43 million in aid. The reason the US ended their relationship with the Taliban had little to do with an oil pipeline or lack of a deal. That was done nearly three years before. It ended because the UN Security Council had passed a resolution against the Taliban for harboring bin Laden, supporting terrorism and being a repressive regime. The US had asked the Taliban to leave the US in 2000 in response to this resolution. Aid was cut off shortly after that in 2001. Only a few short months after Bush was inaugurated and several months before September 11.
While it's true that there were intermixed issues of oil, foreign relations, terrorism and ultimately war, for some reason, the involvement of the Clinton Administration from oil deals to foreign aid to turning down bin Laden, seems to always be missed. Of course, that is probably why Mr. Margolis used such unsubtle subterfuge in a single paragraph with a mangled timeline. "The truth about Afghanistan" simply didn't fit his narrative.
The war in Afghanistan was started for one reason and one reason only: 3,000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001 by Al Qaeda terrorists, ordered, trained and directed by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, "guests" of the Taliban; a government who refused to give these men up.
How's that for "the truth?"
I'd still like to know what was so damning in those documents that Sandy "Pants" Burglar was compelled to steal from the National Archives. Did they jeopardize just him, or did they also implicate Clinton and other high officials in his administration?
I find it useful to avoid his columns in the Toronto SUN; the Page Three girls are generally more informative.
Cheers