Tuesday, September 09, 2003
Subservient Press and the No blood for Oil Crowd Worthy of Each Other
Following the arrest of an Al Jazzera journalist on suspicions that he was tied to Al Qaeda, CNN invited terrorism expert and Toronto Sun Foreign Affairs columnist, Eric Margolis to discuss the issue. Eric Margolis, who frequently appears on CBC, wasted no time in getting to what he perceived to be the heart of the matter. CNN was wrong. The reason for the journalist’s arrest had nothing to do with a publicity hungry government prosecutor, with supposed political ambitions. The US administration was behind it and if the prosecutor had anything to do with it, he was just a pawn. For Margolis this point was as clear as day and if given more time I am sure he would have trotted out more evidence than he did. He mentioned the bombing of Al Jazzera offices in Baghdad, Basra, and Kabul.
However, what he said spooked the guy conducting the interview. There was a spilt screen showing both men. He fiddled with his notes, looked a times aghast and he frequently interrupted. After Margolis claimed that Peter Arnett was objective and fair during the first Gulf War and that he was treated badly by US authorities then, the guy saw his opening asked the following question: “Don’t you think that Peter Arnett crossed the line back in March?” Margolis paused to think of the right words and said “what he said was foolish”. Concession in hand, the CNN guy ended the interview there.
Not knowing what to make of the interview, I went to see what I could found out about Margolis.
He might very well be right about the arrest of the Al Jazzera journalist, but his Sept 7th column was less than impressive.
"Afghanistan's Taliban regime, until four months before 9/11 a recipient of U.S. aid, had nothing to do with the attacks, but did provide a base for al-Qaida, which numbered only 300 members. Most of the "terrorists" in Afghanistan cited by the U.S. were actually independence fighters from neighbouring Central Asia. Taliban refused to hand bin Laden, a national hero of the 1980s anti-Soviet war, to the U.S. without proof of his guilt in 9/11, which the U.S. declined to provide."
To suggest the Taliban was somehow out of the loop is bad enough. To imply that all they wanted was proof of Al Qaeda’s involvement is outrageous.
Bin Laden and gang were far more than mere guests. For the Taliban, Al Qaeda was an important source of revenue and in recent years Mullah Mohammad Omar had grown increasing attached to political views of Al Qaeda figures such as Ayman Zawahiri. The connection between the two groups continues to this day. A written message from Omar was intercepted early this year. In the letter Omar notes that he is traveling with Bin Laden.
"This allowed far right neo-conservatives to seize control of U.S. national security policy. They immediately launched the invasion of Afghanistan and began preparing war against Iraq. There's now evidence both invasions, intended to seize major oil regions, were being planned long before 9/11."
The notion that the US went into Afghanistan to secure a pipeline through the country is complete and utter nonsense. For one, the pipeline is not needed and for another, if it were, the security situation in Afghanistan is such that no company would ever invest in such a pipeline. (Ken Silverstein’s essay on the subject is quite good. http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html )
As for the invasion being planned well in advance, how was the US planning to do it? The key to the operation in Afghanistan was gaining concessions, in the wake of 911, from other regional players, in particular Pakistan. If there is no 911, it is doubtful, for one, as to whether Musharraf would have been politically able to broker a deal with Washington. If that was not bad enough, the administration would have the near impossible task of convincing the public, congress and the senate that Afghanistan was worth occupying.
What tops things off though, is the willingness of the administration to give financial aid to the Taliban regime even after it allegedly nixed the idea of a pipe line. Why help solidify a regime you plan to topple? Why not help the Northern Alliance do then what you ended up doing later?
Now, to be sure the US had wet dreams of invading Iraq dating back to the time that Clinton was in office. In fact some of the Washington deep enders wanted to first attack Iraq and only after that Afghanistan, if at all. However, to imply that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil is just plain wrong. The first Gulf War was about oil. The second one was not and, even leaving aside the great diplomatic and political costs, it does not take much reflection to figure out why.
Contrary to popular belief, the world’s oil supplies are more plentiful than the “no blood for oil” group would have us believe and the two countries (i.e., Venezuela and Canada) with the world’s largest reserves are not in the Middle East. The advantage the Middle Eastern countries have, say, over Canada is that cost of procuring and processing the oil is significantly less expensive, the oil there is relatively clean and political barriers are fewer. That said, the cost of extracting, for example, Canadian heavy oil is much less than it once was and the high price of oil makes it even more economically viable. Indeed, it for this reason that those in the Oil world upgraded the amount of extractable reserves in Canada from 4 billion barrels to 180 billion barrels. (Sometimes a high end figure of 275 billion barrels is mentioned. Iraq, by contrast, has 113 billion barrels of extractable oil and Saudi Arabia around 250.) As technology improves that number should continue to grow. (Estimates of Canada’s total oil holdings range from between 1.6 trillion to 2.5 trillion barrels of bitumen. Whatever the figure, Canada reserves are considered to be the largest.)
Granted it is going to take significant capital investment, to dramatically increase production in many parts of the world. For instance, it is estimated that it would take about $100 billion to move Venezuela’s daily productive capacity to 9 million barrels a day. However, the current price tag for the war in Iraq is around $65 billion, an additional $87 billion (this includes Afghanistan as well) is being requested and according to White House an additional $75 billion will likely be needed. What is more, while the US will have pumped over $200 billion into Iraq by the end of next year, oil production there is likely to remain well below pre war levels. Iraq was producing about 3 million barrels per day before the war began and by the beginning of August it was producing only 650,000 thousand barrels a day. Now, although the situation is worse than what the administration hopped for, or believed likely to happen, even this administration would have had to have built something like the current reality into their long term planning before the commencement of hostiles.
Incidentally, the first Gulf war cost the US very little. The bill for the first gulf war was paid for by Saudis, the smaller Gulf States and countries such as Japan.
(0) comments
Following the arrest of an Al Jazzera journalist on suspicions that he was tied to Al Qaeda, CNN invited terrorism expert and Toronto Sun Foreign Affairs columnist, Eric Margolis to discuss the issue. Eric Margolis, who frequently appears on CBC, wasted no time in getting to what he perceived to be the heart of the matter. CNN was wrong. The reason for the journalist’s arrest had nothing to do with a publicity hungry government prosecutor, with supposed political ambitions. The US administration was behind it and if the prosecutor had anything to do with it, he was just a pawn. For Margolis this point was as clear as day and if given more time I am sure he would have trotted out more evidence than he did. He mentioned the bombing of Al Jazzera offices in Baghdad, Basra, and Kabul.
However, what he said spooked the guy conducting the interview. There was a spilt screen showing both men. He fiddled with his notes, looked a times aghast and he frequently interrupted. After Margolis claimed that Peter Arnett was objective and fair during the first Gulf War and that he was treated badly by US authorities then, the guy saw his opening asked the following question: “Don’t you think that Peter Arnett crossed the line back in March?” Margolis paused to think of the right words and said “what he said was foolish”. Concession in hand, the CNN guy ended the interview there.
Not knowing what to make of the interview, I went to see what I could found out about Margolis.
He might very well be right about the arrest of the Al Jazzera journalist, but his Sept 7th column was less than impressive.
"Afghanistan's Taliban regime, until four months before 9/11 a recipient of U.S. aid, had nothing to do with the attacks, but did provide a base for al-Qaida, which numbered only 300 members. Most of the "terrorists" in Afghanistan cited by the U.S. were actually independence fighters from neighbouring Central Asia. Taliban refused to hand bin Laden, a national hero of the 1980s anti-Soviet war, to the U.S. without proof of his guilt in 9/11, which the U.S. declined to provide."
To suggest the Taliban was somehow out of the loop is bad enough. To imply that all they wanted was proof of Al Qaeda’s involvement is outrageous.
Bin Laden and gang were far more than mere guests. For the Taliban, Al Qaeda was an important source of revenue and in recent years Mullah Mohammad Omar had grown increasing attached to political views of Al Qaeda figures such as Ayman Zawahiri. The connection between the two groups continues to this day. A written message from Omar was intercepted early this year. In the letter Omar notes that he is traveling with Bin Laden.
"This allowed far right neo-conservatives to seize control of U.S. national security policy. They immediately launched the invasion of Afghanistan and began preparing war against Iraq. There's now evidence both invasions, intended to seize major oil regions, were being planned long before 9/11."
The notion that the US went into Afghanistan to secure a pipeline through the country is complete and utter nonsense. For one, the pipeline is not needed and for another, if it were, the security situation in Afghanistan is such that no company would ever invest in such a pipeline. (Ken Silverstein’s essay on the subject is quite good. http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html )
As for the invasion being planned well in advance, how was the US planning to do it? The key to the operation in Afghanistan was gaining concessions, in the wake of 911, from other regional players, in particular Pakistan. If there is no 911, it is doubtful, for one, as to whether Musharraf would have been politically able to broker a deal with Washington. If that was not bad enough, the administration would have the near impossible task of convincing the public, congress and the senate that Afghanistan was worth occupying.
What tops things off though, is the willingness of the administration to give financial aid to the Taliban regime even after it allegedly nixed the idea of a pipe line. Why help solidify a regime you plan to topple? Why not help the Northern Alliance do then what you ended up doing later?
Now, to be sure the US had wet dreams of invading Iraq dating back to the time that Clinton was in office. In fact some of the Washington deep enders wanted to first attack Iraq and only after that Afghanistan, if at all. However, to imply that the invasion of Iraq was all about oil is just plain wrong. The first Gulf War was about oil. The second one was not and, even leaving aside the great diplomatic and political costs, it does not take much reflection to figure out why.
Contrary to popular belief, the world’s oil supplies are more plentiful than the “no blood for oil” group would have us believe and the two countries (i.e., Venezuela and Canada) with the world’s largest reserves are not in the Middle East. The advantage the Middle Eastern countries have, say, over Canada is that cost of procuring and processing the oil is significantly less expensive, the oil there is relatively clean and political barriers are fewer. That said, the cost of extracting, for example, Canadian heavy oil is much less than it once was and the high price of oil makes it even more economically viable. Indeed, it for this reason that those in the Oil world upgraded the amount of extractable reserves in Canada from 4 billion barrels to 180 billion barrels. (Sometimes a high end figure of 275 billion barrels is mentioned. Iraq, by contrast, has 113 billion barrels of extractable oil and Saudi Arabia around 250.) As technology improves that number should continue to grow. (Estimates of Canada’s total oil holdings range from between 1.6 trillion to 2.5 trillion barrels of bitumen. Whatever the figure, Canada reserves are considered to be the largest.)
Granted it is going to take significant capital investment, to dramatically increase production in many parts of the world. For instance, it is estimated that it would take about $100 billion to move Venezuela’s daily productive capacity to 9 million barrels a day. However, the current price tag for the war in Iraq is around $65 billion, an additional $87 billion (this includes Afghanistan as well) is being requested and according to White House an additional $75 billion will likely be needed. What is more, while the US will have pumped over $200 billion into Iraq by the end of next year, oil production there is likely to remain well below pre war levels. Iraq was producing about 3 million barrels per day before the war began and by the beginning of August it was producing only 650,000 thousand barrels a day. Now, although the situation is worse than what the administration hopped for, or believed likely to happen, even this administration would have had to have built something like the current reality into their long term planning before the commencement of hostiles.
Incidentally, the first Gulf war cost the US very little. The bill for the first gulf war was paid for by Saudis, the smaller Gulf States and countries such as Japan.
