Skip to content or view screen version

Pipelineistan and the end of Empire

Rory | 20.07.2009 11:49 | Anti-militarism | Terror War | World

Just as the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad marked the final folly of Hitler's attempt to dominate Eurasia it looks like Afghanistan will mark the end of the Anglo-American empires of evil.



As the number of deaths of British service-people mounts and the British MSM focuses on the mounting mortality rates the BBC's Question Time was bound to discuss the topic. Normally, Question Time is so tightly controlled by David Dimbleby's team that there is very little likelihood that either the panel or the audience might express a view challenging the right-wing establishment status quo. The panel speakers themselves are carefully picked in a way where anyone resembling a leftie has little or no chance of getting on.

But it's difficult to control everyone all the time and more so a bolshy audience. And on the subject of Afghanistan, last Thursday night's audience was bordering on the bolshy. The celebrity Trisha Goddard surprised me with saying some sensible things about Afghanistan and even going so far as to conclude that it had become our Vietnam. The Libdems' Lembit Opik cut in saying that maybe we shouldn't have trained Osama Bin Laden in the first place to which Dimbelby could only reply "That's hindsight for you."

As usual, the discussion was initiated by a question from the audience about whether British forces should be given more helicopters in order to reduce road-side casualties. The essential question about what Britain is doing there in the first place was studiously avoided. Along with our rulers the British MSM takes it as a given what it has been told about the threat to British security from ghostly Al Qaeda terrorists who would take over Afghanistan if 'our brave heroes' weren't out there. The real, geostrategic reasons about the need to safeguard Pipelineistan's oil and gas in the interests of the multinationals (ie "western security") is taboo. For that the reader needs to look around carefully on the Internet for articles by Tom Engelhardt and the like. Or read Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.

The idea of hegemonizing the European Heartlands came first from Halford Mackinder and was adopted as a key strategy in British imperial foreign policy in the early 1900's. US historian Guido Giacomo Preparata, in his eye-opener of a book, Conjuring Hitler, illustrates how the British used the Heartlands geostrategic blueprint as a diplomatic weapon to draw Germany into two wars against the Anglo-Americans. Brzezinski went on to develop the blueprint for the inheritors of the British Empire, the USA, in its misnamed 'Pax Americana' and it is clearly a key aspect of the Neocons' Project for the New American Century, total world domination.

The Project (or PNAC) is what Bush II and his sidekick, Tony Blair, enthused about so much. And through understanding how the Bush II regime was so influenced by the Neocons we can see how 911 was used to justify an entirely fake 'War on Terrorism' and the subsequent occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq. To be explicit: the fake War on Terror was never more than a cover for Anglo-American ambitions for global domination through military force.

Neither the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan were wars in the sense of two roughly equal nations fighting each other. Instead they were invasions which led to the massacre of what now amounts to millions of civilians. These were never intended as wars to be won. Their purpose, as we can see now eight years later, is to be long-term military occupations intended to keep both countries tightly under the control of the US. That is why we are constantly told to expect a rise in the death toll of military personnel in an endless war.

You'll never hear this version of events spoken of on the MSM and for obvious reasons. The prospect of an endless list of mortalities in a war that goes on forever is intolerable and would not be accepted to any public. Instead, the MSM dons a fake face of concern that the problem is really about a lack of helicopters!

As a result of the long-term Anglo-American relationship, both British governments and the military find themselves in an unhealthy symbiosis with the Americans. Britain is no longer a global power but its rulers hang on desperately to an imperialist past. A series of incompetent British governments have found it all too easy to hang onto the 'special relationship' because of the supposed advantages that this brings to Britain at the international top table. Only with disasters like Iraq and Afghanistan does it become clear that far from any advantages to be had that both the British people and their rulers are having to pay a high price for what is in effect a one-sided relationship where when the Americans say 'Jump' the British have no choice but to jump.

British governments are terrified of upsetting their American bosses. Recently, on a BBC News 24 interview, Paul Rogers from the Bradford University Department of Peace Studies said as much. The live interview was not repeated in later BBC newscasts!

Significantly, on a recent Radio 4 interview, military chief Sir Richard Dannatt confirmed that fear:

"say what would happen if the United Kingdom was to leave this operation unilaterally or indeed if the coalition, if the alliance was to leave this operation. Then we would face, in the circumstances of the UK leaving, I think any relationship we have with the United States – special, interesting or otherwise, I think we would sever. I think we would severely prejudice the future structure and well-being, even existence of Nato. And if the coalition was to leave, or the alliance was to leave precipitately then I think we'd be handing an um enormous, um, propaganda information victory if you like to... well, how do we want to describe it? Al qaeda, islamist extremists, those who were behind the attacks that were manifested in 9-11 and perhaps even in the UK in.. in 7-7. So when we say we must succeed, we will succeed, actually the possibility of failure here is really unthinkable"

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ljmmn/Today_17_07_2009/

It was a long time coming but most accept that Britain has become a puppet of the Americans. More than any other leaders' it has been the servility of Blair and Brown that has brought this about. Why is it that when the vast majority of Brits opposed their government's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan that British service-people have continued to fight and die in those countries? Typically, serving the interests of a foreign power vastly eclipse the need to serve those of their people. Are they not traitors?

It appears that the public continues to be at a loss to why we are in Afghanistan at all. A few, just a few, seem to have sniffed the rotting carcass of British imperialism beneath it. Instead the focus has been on an incompetent government that has let down its soldiers and we see British generals running to Downing Street with a shopping list of weaponry as if that is going to solve the dilemma.

The dilemma will never be solved outside of the total withdrawal of British forces. But even that would be only the first step, the second being a fundamental re-drawing of British foreign policy which looks to the reality of a multipolar world beyond the mirage of the neocons' desire for global domination.

Just as the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad marked the final folly of Hitler's attempt to dominate Eurasia it looks like Afghanistan will mark the end of the Anglo-American empires of evil.

 http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/afghanistan-and-end-of-empire-as-number.html

Rory
- e-mail: serendib47@hotmail.com
- Homepage: http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com

Comments

Hide the following 7 comments

not about oil

20.07.2009 16:03

the war in afghanistan tho brutal and pointless is NOT about oil , to put pipelines through territories where they can be easily hold to ransom, damaged or destroyed would be pretty stupid even for the *coalition* . ALSO as history shows the war is unwinnable - lots try and none suceed so to say Afghanistan would ever be so under anglo- american control as to run pipelines through it is a bit thoughtless ( look at the map if you dont beleive me -- pipelines to where ? ) . i can only think of 2 other reason , strategic nuke bases or more likely.. OPIUM

skuzz


facts or opinion?

20.07.2009 17:03

> Just as the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad marked the final folly of Hitler's attempt to dominate Eurasia it looks like Afghanistan will mark the end of the Anglo-American empires of evil.

In your opinion - based on no facts at all. I can just as easily say:
--> Afghanistan will not mark the end of the Anglo-American empires of evil.

rinser


Gas not oil.

20.07.2009 17:37

"the war in afghanistan tho brutal and pointless is NOT about oil , to put pipelines through territories where they can be easily hold to ransom, damaged or destroyed would be pretty stupid even for the *coalition* . ALSO as history shows the war is unwinnable - lots try and none suceed so to say Afghanistan would ever be so under anglo- american control as to run pipelines through it is a bit thoughtless ( look at the map if you dont beleive me -- pipelines to where ? ) . i can only think of 2 other reason , strategic nuke bases or more likely.. OPIUM"

The pipeline is gas, not oil.

The pipeline runs from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan through Pakistan and into India. Look at the map!

There is a gas pipeline running from Russia and into Europe. It doesn't generally get vandalised...even by terrorists!

The other reasons you guess at are narrative. The narrative of those who plan to profit from it all.

The war was not originally seen as being unwinnable. Those who promised us to it originally thought it could be won. They were wrong and continue to be wrong.

If India does not get this pipeline we will be faced with a situation in which almost 800million people will be looking to buy gas from Europe and its Russian supplier. The Russians will want to supply them...why wouldn't they?

As a result, the price of our gas goes up due to the extra Indian demand and becomes more expensive than oil so Europe then begins to seek oil supplies from an already dwindling world oil market. That then impacts on the US, who are struggling to secure its own oil supplies in tandem with a belligerent Venezuela who hold some of the largest supplies in that region and who choose not to supply the US for largely political reasons.

The game is geo-strategic and global in nature. The cost is public. And always has been.

In perfect synchronicity, an environmental 'green' movement has sprung up in the west...just in case it all goes wrong.

Any questions?

La la la


Ridiculous comparison

20.07.2009 20:25

This post must be one of the silliest I have seen.

At Stalingrad Germany suffered 750 000 killed and injured, 90 000 captured and 900 aircraft destroyed. Their whole Sixth Army was surrounded and wiped out in a crushing defeat, the losses of both men and weapons being irreplaceable.

In Afghanistan the Coalition forces have had about 1 250 soldiers killed in eight years between them with minimal loss of weapons and equipment. The two things are so different that they are not even worth comparing.

As for pipelines, the idea that anyone would invest billions of dollars in a pipeline across Afghanistan is ludicous when minimal standards of security are necessary to build and operate one. The pipelines from Russia to Europe do not pass through any war zones.

There are far better routes to transport fuels out of Central Asia than traditionally turbulent Afghanistan. Already oil from the Caspian Sea is piped to Ceyhan on the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. There are plans to lay a pipeline under the Caspian Sea in order to access Central Asian fuels by this route too.

Occam


La la la

21.07.2009 11:56

"As for pipelines, the idea that anyone would invest billions of dollars in a pipeline across Afghanistan is ludicous when minimal standards of security are necessary to build and operate one. The pipelines from Russia to Europe do not pass through any war zones."

Then why did the Asian Development Bank put up close to $3.3Billion dollars for it?

Perhaps you should send them an email and point out their folly!

The Russian to Europe pipeline doesn't pass through any war-zones. Does that make it any more secure in an age of apparent global terrorism?

I say again. Initially the money-brokers thought this was a good idea. They just didn't bank on the Taliban being as resilient as they have been.

Our presense in Afghanistan is to provide the security needed to complete the project.

Gas not oil.


La la la (fingers in ears, eyes firmly closed?)

21.07.2009 12:47

> The Russian to Europe pipeline doesn't pass through any war-zones. Does that make it any more secure in an age of apparent global terrorism?

Silly point. It does indeed. An isolated terrorist attack could happen anywhere, but it would cause little more than brief disruption. How many attacks on energy infrastructure have there been in Europe? I can't think of a single one. What is a danger to a pipeline is not the small possibility of an isolated attack, but a sustained campaign of attacks that can only be waged by a well-established guerrilla force.

For examples of the latter there was the sabotage campaign again Occidental's Caño Limón-Coveñas oil pipeline in Colombia that reached more than 200 attracks per year and caused oil exports to be suspended for long periods. Also the campaign waged by RENAMO in the Mozambican civil war that brought electricity exports from the Cahora Bassa dam to a halt because so many of the electricity pylons were damaged or destroyed.

It's like saying one could be hit by a stray bullet anywhere so there would be no difference between taking a stroll in Tunbridge Wells or in Mogadishu.

Occam


earholes nice and clean.

21.07.2009 13:59

"What is a danger to a pipeline is not the small possibility of an isolated attack, but a sustained campaign of attacks that can only be waged by a well-established guerrilla force."

Not so. The biggest danger to a pipeline is those who are determined to stop it being built in the first place.

La la la.