Then Maj. Gen. Hamid Gul, Director General of the ISI (far left), with William Webster, Director of Central Intelligence, Clair George, Deputy Director for Operations, and Milt Bearden, CIA station chief, at a training camp for the mujahedeen in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province in 1987 (RAWA.org)
In an exclusive interview with Foreign Policy Journal, retired Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul responds to charges that he supports terrorism, discusses 9/11 and ulterior motives for the war on Afghanistan, claims that the U.S., Israel, and India are behind efforts to destabilize Pakistan, and charges the U.S. and its allies with responsibility for the lucrative Afghan drug trade.
Retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul was the Director General of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) from 1987 to 1989, during which time he worked closely with the CIA to provide support for the mujahedeen fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Though once deemed a close ally of the United States, in more recent years his name has been the subject of considerable controversy. He has been outspoken with the claim that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were an “inside job”. He has been called “the most dangerous man in Pakistan”, and the U.S. government has accused him of supporting the Taliban, even recommending him to the United Nations Security Council for inclusion on the list of international terrorists.
In an exclusive interview with Foreign Policy Journal, I asked the former ISI chief what his response was to these allegations. He replied, “Well, it’s laughable I would say, because I’ve worked with the CIA and I know they were never so bad as they are now.” He said this was “a pity for the American people” since the CIA is supposed to act “as the eyes and ears” of the country. As for the charge of him supporting the Taliban, “it is utterly baseless. I have no contact with the Taliban, nor with Osama bin Laden and his colleagues.” He added, “I have no means, I have no way that I could support them, that I could help them.”
After the Clinton administration’s failed attempt to assassinate Osama bin Laden in 1998, some U.S. officials alleged that bin Laden had been tipped off by someone in Pakistan to the fact that the U.S. was able to track his movements through his satellite phone. Counter-terrorism advisor to the National Security Council Richard Clarke said, “I have reason to believe that a retired head of the ISI was able to pass information along to Al Qaeda that the attack was coming.” And some have speculated that this “retired head of the ISI” was none other than Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul.
When I put this charge to him, General Gul pointed out to me that he had retired from the ISI on June 1, 1989, and from the army in January, 1992. “Did you share this information with the ISI?” he asked. “And why haven’t you taken the ISI to task for parting this information to its ex-head?” The U.S. had not informed the Pakistan army chief, Jehangir Karamat, of its intentions, he said. So how could he have learned of the plan to be able to warn bin Laden? “Do I have a mole in the CIA? If that is the case, then they should look into the CIA to carry out a probe, find out the mole, rather than trying to charge me. I think these are all baseless charges, and there’s no truth in it…. And if they feel that their failures are to be rubbed off on somebody else, then I think they’re the ones who are guilty, not me.”
General Gul turned our conversation to the subject of 9/11 and the war on Afghanistan. “You know, my position is very clear,” he said. “It’s a moral position that I have taken. And I say that America has launched this aggression without sufficient reasons. They haven’t even proved the case that 9/11 was done by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.” He argued that “There are many unanswered questions about 9/11,” citing examples such as the failure to intercept any of the four planes after it had become clear that they had been hijacked. He questioned how Mohammed Atta, “who had had training on a light aircraft in Miami for six months” could have maneuvered a jumbo jet “so accurately” to hit his target (Atta was reportedly the hijacker in control of American Airlines Flight 11, which was the first plane to hit its target, striking the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 am). And he made reference to the flight that hit the Pentagon and the maneuver its pilot had performed, dropping thousands of feet while doing a near 360 degree turn before plowing into its target. “And then, above all,” he added, “why have no heads been rolled? The FBI, the CIA, the air traffic control — why have they not been put to question, put to task?” Describing the 9/11 Commission as a “cover up”, the general added, “I think the American people have been made fools of. I have my sympathies with them. I like Americans. I like America. I appreciate them. I’ve gone there several times.”
At this point in our discussion, General Gul explained how both the U.S. and United Kingdom stopped granting him an entry visa. He said after he was banned from the U.K., “I wrote a letter to the British government, through the High Commissioner here in Islamabad, asking ‘Why do you think that — if I’m a security risk, then it is paradoxical that you should exclude me from your jurisdiction. You should rather nab me, interrogate me, haul me up, take me to the court, whatever you like. I mean, why are you excluding me from the U.K., it’s not understandable.’ I did not receive a reply to that.” He says he sent a second letter inviting the U.K. to send someone to question him in Pakistan, if they had questions about him they wanted to know. If the U.S. wants to include him on the list of international terrorists, Gul reasons, “I am still prepared to let them grant me the visa. And I will go…. If they think that there is something very seriously wrong with me, why don’t you give me the visa and catch me then?”
‘They lack character’
I turned to the war in Afghanistan, observing that the ostensible purpose for the war was to bring the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden, to justice. And yet there were plans to overthrow the Taliban regime that predated 9/11. The FBI does not include the 9/11 attacks among the crimes for which bin Laden is wanted. After the war began, General Tommy Franks responded to a question about capturing him by saying, “We have not said that Osama bin Laden is a target of this effort.” The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, similarly said afterward, “Our goal has never been to get bin Laden.” And President George W. Bush himself said, “I truly am not that concerned about him.” These are self-serving statements, obviously, considering the failure to capture bin Laden. But what, I asked General Gul, in his view, were the true reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan, and why the U.S. is still there?
“A very good question,” he responded. “I think you have reached the point precisely.” It is a “principle of war,” he said, “that you never mix objectives. Because when you mix objectives then you end up with egg on your face. You face defeat. And here was a case where the objectives were mixed up. Ostensibly, it was to disperse al Qaeda, to get Osama bin Laden. But latently, the reasons for the offensive, for the attack on Afghanistan, were quite different.”
First, he says, the U.S. wanted to “reach out to the Central Asian oilfields” and “open the door there”, which “was a requirement of corporate America, because the Taliban had not complied with their desire to allow an oil and gas pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in point. They wanted to keep the Chinese out. They wanted to give a wider security shield to the state of Israel, and they wanted to include this region into that shield. And that’s why they were talking at that time very hotly about ‘greater Middle East’. They were redrawing the map.”
Second, the war “was to undo the Taliban regime because they had enforced Shariah”, or Islamic law, which, “in the spirit of that system, if it is implemented anywhere, would mean an alternative socio-monetary system. And that they would never approve.”
Third, it was “to go for Pakistan’s nuclear capability”, something that used to be talked about “under their lip”, “but now they are openly talking about”. This was the reason the U.S. “signed this strategic deal with India, and this was brokered by Israel. So there is a nexus now between Washington, Tel Aviv, and New Delhi.”
While achieving some of these aims, “there are many things which are still left undone,” he continued, “because they are not winning on the battlefield. And no matter what maps you draw in your mind, no matter what plans you make, if you cannot win on the battlefield, then it comes to naught. And that is what is happening to America.”
“Besides, the American generals, I have a professional cudgel with them,” Gul added. “They lack character. They know that a job cannot be done, because they know —I cannot believe that they didn’t realize that the objectives are being mixed up here — they could not stand up to men like Rumsfeld and to Dick Cheney. They could not tell them. I think they cheated the American nation, the American people. This is where I have a problem with the American generals, because a general must show character. He must say that his job cannot be done. He must stand up to the politicians. But these generals did not stand up to them.”
As a further example of the lack of character in the U.S. military leadership, the General Gul cited the “victory” in Iraq. “George Bush said that it was a victory. That means the generals must have told him ‘We have won!’ They had never won. This was all bunkum, this was all bullshit.”
Segueing back to Afghanistan, he continued: “And if they are now saying that with 17,000 more troops they can win in Afghanistan — or even double that figure if you like — they cannot. Now this is a professional opinion I am giving. And I will give this sound opinion for the good of the American people, because I am a friend of the American people and that is why I always say that your policies are flawed. This is not the way to go.” Furthermore, the war is “widely perceived as a war against Islam. And George Bush even used the word ‘Crusade.’” This is an incorrect view, he insisted. “You talk about clash of civilizations. We say the civilizations should meet.”
Alluding once more to the U.S. charges against him, he added, “And if they think that my criticism is tantamount to opposition to America, this is totally wrong, because there are lots of Americans themselves who are not in line with the American policies.” He had warned early on, he informed me, including in an interview with Rod Nordland in Newsweek immediately following the 9/11 attacks, that the U.S. would be making a mistake to go to war. “So, if you tell somebody, ‘Don’t jump into the well!’ and that somebody thinks you are his enemy, then what is it that you can say about him?”
‘This state of anger is being fueled’
I turned the conversation towards the consequences of the war in Afghanistan on Pakistan, and the increased extremist militant activities within his own country’s borders, where the Pakistani government has been at war with the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP, or Pakistan Taliban). I observed that the TTP seemed well funded and supplied and asked Gul how the group obtains financing and arms.
He responded without hesitation. “Yeah, of course they are getting it from across the Durand line, from Afghanistan. And the Mossad is sitting there, RAW is sitting there — the Indian intelligence agency — they have the umbrella of the U.S. And now they have created another organization which is called RAMA. It may be news to you that very soon this intelligence agency — of course, they have decided to keep it covert — but it is Research and Analysis Milli Afghanistan. That’s the name. The Indians have helped create this organization, and its job is mainly to destabilize Pakistan.”
General Bismillah Khan Mohammadi, former Deputy Minister of Defense of the Northern Alliance under Ahmad Shah Massoud and the Chief of Staff of the Afghan National Army since 2002 — “whom I know very well”, General Gul told me — “had gone to India a few days back, and he has offered bases to India, five of them: three on the border, the eastern border with Pakistan, from Asadabad, Jalalabad, and Kandhar; one in Shindand, which is near Herat; and the fifth one is near Mazar-e Sharif. So these bases are being offered for a new game unfolding there.” This is why, he asserted, the Indians, despite a shrinking economy, have continued to raise their defense budget, by 20 percent last year and an additional 34 percent this year.
He also cited as evidence of these designs to destabilize Pakistan the U.S. Predator drone attacks in Waziristan, which have “angered the Pathan people of that tribal belt. And this state of anger is being fueled. It is that fire that has been lit, is being fueled, by the Indian intelligence from across the border. Of course, Mossad is right behind them. They have no reason to be sitting there, and there’s a lot of evidence. I hope the Pakistan government will soon be providing some of the evidence against the Indians.”
Several days after I had first spoken with General Gul, the news hit the headlines that the leader of the TTP, Baitullah Mehsud, had been killed by a CIA drone strike. So I followed up with him and asked him to comment about this development. “When Baitullah Mehsud and his suicide bombers were attacking Pakistan armed forces and various institutions,” he said, “at that time, Pakistan intelligence were telling the Americans that Baitullah Mehsud was here, there. Three times, it has been written by the Western press, by the American press — three times the Pakistan intelligence tipped off America, but they did not attack him. Why have they now announced — they had money on him — and now attacked and killed him, supposedly? Because there were some secret talks going on between Baitullah Mehsud and the Pakistani military establishment. They wanted to reach a peace agreement, and if you recall there is a long history of our tribal areas, whenever a tribal militant has reached a peace agreement with the government of Pakistan, Americans have without any hesitation struck that target.” Among other examples, the former ISI chief said “an agreement in Bajaur was about to take place” when, on October 30, 2006, a drone struck a madrassa in the area, an attack “in which 82 children were killed”.
“So in my opinion,” General Gul continued, “there was some kind of a deal which was about to be arrived at — they may have already cut a deal. I don’t know. I don’t have enough information on that. But this is my hunch, that Baitullah was killed because now he was trying to reach an agreement with the Pakistan army. And that’s why there were no suicide attacks inside Pakistan for the past six or seven months.”
‘Very, very disturbing indeed’
Turning the focus of our discussion to the Afghan drug problem, I noted that the U.S. mainstream corporate media routinely suggest that the Taliban is in control of the opium trade. However, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Anti-Government Elements (or AGEs), which include but are not limited to the Taliban, account for a relatively small percentage of the profits from the drug trade. Two of the U.S.’s own intelligence agencies, the CIA and the DIA, estimate that the Taliban receives about $70 million a year from the drugs trade. That may seem at first glance like a significant amount of money, but it’s only about two percent of the total estimated profits from the drug trade, a figure placed at $3.4 billion by the UNODC last year.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has just announced its new strategy for combating the drug problem: placing drug traffickers with ties to insurgents —and only drug lords with ties to insurgents — on a list to be eliminated. The vast majority of drug lords, in other words, are explicitly excluded as targets under the new strategy. Or, to put it yet another way, the U.S. will be assisting to eliminate the competition for drug lords allied with occupying forces or the Afghan government and helping them to further corner the market.
I pointed out to the former ISI chief that Afghan opium finds its way into Europe via Pakistan, via Iran and Turkey, and via the former Soviet republics. According to the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, convoys under General Rashid Dostum — who was reappointed last month to his government position as Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Afghan National Army by President Hamid Karzai — would truck the drugs over the border. And President Karzai’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has been accused of being a major drug lord. So I asked General Gul who was really responsible for the Afghan drug trade.
“Now, let me give you the history of the drug trade in Afghanistan,” his answer began. “Before the Taliban stepped into it, in 1994 — in fact, before they captured Kabul in September 1996 — the drugs, the opium production volume was 4,500 tons a year. Then gradually the Taliban came down hard upon the poppy growing. It was reduced to around 50 tons in the last year of the Taliban. That was the year 2001. Nearly 50 tons of opium produced. 50. Five-zero tons. Now last year the volume was at 6,200 tons. That means it has really gone one and a half times more than it used to be before the Taliban era.” He pointed out, correctly, that the U.S. had actually awarded the Taliban for its effective reduction of the drug trade. On top of $125 million the U.S. gave to the Taliban ostensibly as humanitarian aid, the State Department awarded the Taliban $43 million for its anti-drug efforts. “Of course, they made their mistakes,” General Gul continued. “But on the whole, they were doing fairly good. If they had been engaged in meaningful, fruitful, constructive talks, I think it would have been very good for Afghanistan.”
Referring to the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, General Gul told me in a later conversation that Taliban leader “Mullah Omar was all the time telling that, look, I am prepared to hand over Osama bin Laden to a third country for a trial under Shariah. Now that is where — he said [it] twice — and they rejected this. Because the Taliban ambassador here in Islamabad, he came to me, and I asked him, ‘Why don’t you study this issue, because America is threatening to attack you. So you should do something.’ He said, ‘We have done everything possible.’ He said, ‘I was summoned by the American ambassador in Islamabad’ — I think Milam was the ambassador at that time — and he told me that ‘I said, “Look, produce the evidence.” But he did not show me anything other than cuttings from the newspapers.’ He said, ‘Look, we can’t accept this as evidence, because it has to stand in a court of law. You are prepared to put him on trial. You can try him in the United Nations compound in Kabul, but it has to be a Shariah court because he’s a citizen under Shariah law. Therefore, we will not accept that he should be immediately handed over to America, because George Bush has already said that he wants him “dead or alive”, so he’s passed the punishment, literally, against him.” Referring to the U.S. rejection of the Taliban offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan or hand him over to a third country, General Gul added, “I think this is a great opportunity that they missed.”
Returning to the drug trade, General Gul named the brother of President Karzai, Abdul Wali Karzai. “Abdul Wali Karzai is the biggest drug baron of Afghanistan,” he stated bluntly. He added that the drug lords are also involved in arms trafficking, which is “a flourishing trade” in Afghanistan. “But what is most disturbing from my point of view is that the military aircraft, American military aircraft are also being used. You said very rightly that the drug routes are northward through the Central Asia republics and through some of the Russian territory, and then into Europe and beyond. But some of it is going directly. That is by the military aircraft. I have so many times in my interviews said, ‘Please listen to this information, because I am an aware person.’ We have Afghans still in Pakistan, and they sometimes contact and pass on the stories to me. And some of them are very authentic. I can judge that. So they are saying that the American military aircraft are being used for this purpose. So, if that is true, it is very, very disturbing indeed.”
Loading ...
General Gul sounds like he’s nut job.
He has the art of conspiracy theories and propaganda down to a politikal science.
He believes his own hype
instead of the facts and that’s a real problem.
Steve Real sounds like the typical brainwashed American.
Well Steve I’d like to know what you think are “the facts?” Just like well trained sheeple to point out that the conspiracy theorists are just plain ol’ nut jobs. I would agree that he sounds like he is spouting some propaganda, and well versed indeed, but just because it doesn’t come for the “main-stream media” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have some truth behind it.
Yeremie, this is an excellent story that is sure to open up some eyes, mine included. Great job!
Interesting replies from Gen Gul. Till this date FBI not dare to indict OBL for 9/11 and no one answers why. Because they have not got any evidence for the purpose and there are serious circumstantial evidence coming out that this was inside job indeed.
I would encourage readers, rather than dismissing Gul as a “nut job,” to check Patriots Question 9/11 (patriotsquestion911.com), where they can find that Gul’s views about 9/11 are shared not only by many other political leaders but also by numerous architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, firefighters, and former military and intelligence officers. Perhaps “the facts” were somewhat different from what the Bush-Cheney administration claimed they were.
The TAPI pipeline motive suggested by Gul along with his statement that the aggressors sought to keep the Chinese away fails to be confirmed by the facts. Haliburton and G.E. are presently working for China building alternate pipelines and pumping stations from Central Asia directly to China. That conflicts with Gul’s position. He should stick to the facts or at least develop a theory that makes sense.
Too bad, because he does have some interesting things to say. His credibility is undermined by his adoption of a baseless meme.
So, what, atheo, the U.S. isn’t competing with China for the world’s energy resources? Really? And the suggestion that they are doesn’t square with “the facts”? Really? That’s a bit hard to swallow, I must confess.
General Gul is actually point on about UNOCAL. They led an American consortium that was competing with an Argentine company in wooing the Taliban. The U.S. had no problem with the Taliban until two things happened: 1) a women’s rights movement arose pressuring the Clinton administration to get tough with them, a cause Madeleine Albright took up, and 2) UNOCAL informed the Congress that no pipeline deal could go forward unless the Taliban regime was replaced.
Pretty interesting. What he says is plausible because there are always underlying circumstances beside those that are ostensibly stated that lead a country into a war. From my research into the negative impacts of IMF and World Bank policies in poor countries I realise what he is saying could be true. His insights deserve some investigation.
I agree with David Ray Griffin. When it comes to 9/11/01, cui bono? The US military industrial complex and the transnational oil and gas companies were the big winners in both illegal wars. 911 was an inside job. The evidence is overwhelming.
Thanks for providing Guls viewpoint.
As to UNOCAL one could have added the fact that Karzai (as well as Khalizad) worked for them.
In regard to the drug trade it´s interesting to note that UNODCs Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa claims to have evidence that some banks have been bailed out by drug money. Unfortunately he does not say which, but a August 14, 2001 article on AIG/Government Sachs by M. Ruppert claims that those institutions are part of the CIA´s laundering of Drug Money.
RAMA is realy a news for me.
Sorry Jerry but your world view seems to fail at explaining a few things such as the facts that Sinopec is not only the fastest growing energy producer in North America, but it is also publicly traded in New York. One would also have to wonder why China has been financing the US militarism. Perhaps you should try to answer those questions before becoming to attached to the ’struggle with China for resources’ meme. If the US were out to stymie Chinese participation in energy production and distribution they could easily start right at home where many of the big new projects are relying not only on Chinese corporations but Chinese engineers also. Who gives them the visas? How do they get the leases? Licenses and Permits? No, America is not in an existential struggle with China for energy. That’s bogus disinformation.
UNOCAL actually stole the Bridas project from the Argentinians in a complex scheme (you can study the court records). But as it has turned out it’s just a loss all the way around. It would be interesting to see your claimed proof that UNOCAL demanded the Taliban’s ouster, but that would fail to explain the situation anyhow. The new pipelines that have since been built would make any resurrection of the TAPI pipeline uneconomic.
The best explanation for the NATO presence in the Middle East is that they are securing Israel’s regional dominance by threatening Iran and destabilising Pakistan with its ‘Islamic bomb’. This theory actually comports with reality, the big new military bases in Afghanistan are built closer to Iran than to the Pashtun areas of resistance.
atheo, I don’t know how you deduced my “world view” out of a few sentences. More to the point, the fact that there is cooperation between the U.S. and China in some regards doesn’t mean they aren’t also in competition for the world’s energy supplies. It’s absurd to say it’s “bogus disinformation” that the U.S. competes with China for resources. But this is only one motive for the war. You’ve given others, equally valid.
“In recent years, China and Russia have forged a strategic alliance, as part of a group called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to squeeze the United States out of Central Asia, after the U.S. established military bases here. They have largely succeeded.” – AP http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004077633_chinagame17.html
Looks like AP fell for this “bogus disinformation”. I guess nobody warned them about the “meme” pitfall. This one example suffices. There’s much more, of course. Take this study: “Managing China-U.S. Energy Competition in the Middle East” http://www.cfr.org/publication/9569/
“China will not stop its drive for energy resources in the Middle East, and Middle Eastern energy producers will not follow exhortations from Washington to cut off China. The smarter and potentially more successful U.S. policy would be to try to work with China to give it both a sense of energy security and a shared interest in a stable Middle East.” – Managing China-U.S. Energy Competition in the Middle East
This has been an evolving policy.
GOOD INTERVIEW
9/11 Truth
Yes sir, investigate 9/11!
The purpose is to ultimately dismember Pakistan and split the occupation between India and the U.S. This will keep India on the side of the ‘West’ in the upcoming war with China and Russia. The U.S. has been de-stabilizing the entire region for a long time–supporting Muslim extremists and various other intrigues.
Purpose is not bad. Let American do now some right thing now.
Jeremy, the world view I refer to is quite clear in your first riposte; “U.S. … competing with China for the world’s energy resources”.
This view tends to willfully ignore the most basic facts of our contemporary globalized economy:
Joint ventures between Western and Chinese corporations are innumerable.
China could rein in U.S. military spending in a flash. Simply by investing their dollars outside the U.S.
Alaskan as well as Canadian oil is shipped to China.
Nobody has ever suggested sanctions on shipping to China.
China buys oil on all the same bourses that everyone else uses. There are no separate special bidding restrictions on the Chinese.
To claim that the U.S. is acting as a belligerent toward Chinese capital or management is contrary to every relevant data point that one could imagine.
Jeremy, while it is useful to study the geopolitics behind developments such as the SCO, it is not useful to superimpose a prejudgment that the SCO is significantly oriented toward energy issues.
As to your final point, I have no doubt that memes are disseminated by main stream media. Fear mongering is a basic element of selling militarism. That’s what makes the ‘peak oil’ hoax such a powerful stealth tool for warmongering.
An article that you may benefit from reading on the issue is:
Taking stock of ‘Peak Oil’
By Dave McGowan
Excerpt:
…the notion of ‘Peak Oil’ is being specifically marketed to the anti-war crowd — because, as we all know, the pro-war crowd doesn’t need to be fed any additional justifications for going to war; any of the old lies will do just fine. And I never said that the necessity of war was being overtly sold. What I said, if I remember correctly, is that it is being sold with a wink and a nudge.
The point that I was trying to make is that it would be difficult to imagine a better way to implicitly sell the necessity of war, even while appearing to stake out a position against war, than through the promotion of the concept of ‘Peak Oil.’ After September 11, 2001, someone famously said that if Osama bin Laden didn’t exist, the US would have had to invent him. I think the same could be said for ‘Peak Oil.’
I also need to mention here that those who are selling ‘Peak Oil’ hysteria aren’t offering much in the way of alternatives, or solutions. Ruppert, for example, has stated flatly that “there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today.” )
The message is quite clear: “we’re running out of oil soon; there is no alternative; we’re all screwed.” And this isn’t, mind you, just an energy problem; as Ruppert has correctly noted, “Almost every current human endeavor from transportation, to manufacturing, to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies.” )
If we run out of oil, in other words, our entire way of life will come crashing down. One of Ruppert’s “unimpeachable sources,” Colin Campbell, describes an apocalyptic future, just around the corner, that will be characterized by “war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens.”
My question is: if Ruppert is not selling the necessity of war, then exactly what is the message that he is sending to readers with such doomsday forecasts?
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-michael-rupperts-peak-oil-pile-is.html
By the way, new research has proven that oil can be produced from common elements under the conditions present in the Earth’s upper mantle:
Hydrocarbons In The Deep Earth?
Science Daily
Tue, 28 Jul 2009
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/07/hydrocarbons-in-deep-earth.html
It appears that oil and gas are not necessarily scarce after all. Wars have historically been fought for territory and dominance. A safe bet would be that the current wars in the M.E. are no different.
Atheo,you’re pointing to areas of cooperation to say no competition exists. This is a fallacy. I defer to my previous comments on that.
Cheap oil and gas are scarce, are being exhausted, and there is no
comparably priced alternative to them. It is the low relative price
of oil energy that is the basis of our way of life.
There is not a lot the US could do about China as about half of US imports from China consists of the offshored production of US firms.
A move against “Chinese imports” is a move against US corporations.
China is also America’s biggest creditor and main banker. Without China, the US dollar would lose its reserve currency basis, the
immediate effect of which would be a diminution of US power.
The interview with Gen. Gul is very informative. It is not the kind of information that is available from the print and TV media.
I agree with Professor Griffin that Gul is no nut job. (How cool is it that David Ray Griffin reads Foreign Policy Journal?
Fairly astonishing interview, in fact. Gul echoes what many in the U.S. say about our policies and about 9/11. But his perspective from inside the chief intelligence agency of our frenemy Pakistan is priceless.
Some of the passages that jumped out at me. . .
“First, he says, the U.S. wanted to “reach out to the Central Asian oilfields” and “open the door there”, which “was a requirement of corporate America, because the Taliban had not complied with their desire to allow an oil and gas pipeline to pass through Afghanistan. UNOCAL is a case in point. They wanted to keep the Chinese out. They wanted to give a wider security shield to the state of Israel, and they wanted to include this region into that shield. And that’s why they were talking at that time very hotly about ‘greater Middle East’. They were redrawing the map.”
“Second, the war “was to undo the Taliban regime because they had enforced Shariah”, or Islamic law, which, “in the spirit of that system, if it is implemented anywhere, would mean an alternative socio-monetary system. And that they would never approve.”
Has anyone see through us more clearly?
Then I just loved this part. . .
“Besides, the American generals, I have a professional cudgel with them,” Gul added. “They lack character. They know that a job cannot be done, because they know — I cannot believe that they didn’t realize that the objectives are being mixed up here — they could not stand up to men like Rumsfeld and to Dick Cheney. They could not tell them. I think they cheated the American nation, the American people. This is where I have a problem with the American generals, because a general must show character. He must say that his job cannot be done. He must stand up to the politicians. But these generals did not stand up to them.”
Finally, have to admit it cracked me up when he said of 9/ll, “why have no heads been rolled?”
Great work, Jeremy!
Jeremy, the ‘competition’ from the Chinese would in one way or other serve the interests of global capitalism, whether the Chinese products become exports into the global marketplace or if the organizations themselves are publicly traded globally and simply Chinese managed. Chinese capitalism is thoroughly integrated with the global system.
To manufacture an outlook that sees a struggle against Chinese economic expansion is simply ludicrous. AIG for one has been a major player in Chinese finance and insurance across the board for decades already. Any assault on Chinese access to trade or materials would be a direct attack on the New York moguls that dominate US politics.
These types of redirection or distraction serve only to foster acquiescence to aggressive wars. Gul was simply repeating a harmful and baseless meme that he had not given much consideration to.
What is ludicrous, atheo, is to keep arguing that the U.S. and China haven’t been in competition for energy resources. I again defer to my previous comments.
So Jeremy, do you truly think that the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan so that one day perhaps it could impede the Southward transit of Central Asian gas? Gas that is presently being piped directly east to China as it is? That’s ludicrous.
“So Jeremy, do you truly think that the U.S. is occupying Afghanistan so that one day perhaps it could impede the Southward transit of Central Asian gas? Gas that is presently being piped directly east to China as it is? That’s ludicrous.”
atheo, you’re arguing a strawman. None of this follows what I actually said.
atheo,
It’s too early in the game (re: U.S. vs. China) for the U.S. to start leaning on China and undermining it.
The CIA has been funneling money to the Tibetan government in exile since the 1970s.
The clashes between China’s Han and Uighur populations this year are directly related to U.S./China relations. How? The U.S. was behind the Uighur ‘uprising’.
In geopolitics, things move at a slow pace. Analysts and governments think in terms of decades.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the trend has been to divide and conquer the Middle East, mainly for oil and gas. Then came Iraq, and now Pakistan and Afghanistan are the “playing ground” for the time being. Iran is on the target list, too.
But, the funding of the Dalai Lama’s government and the connection with the Uighurs, shows that the U.S. plans to eventually use minorities within China to bring about regime change there. The U.S. is merely keeping these small groups around as clients, or as junkies, if you will. Keep them hooked on the money and aid and when the right time comes, use them for your own interests.
As for your skepticism regarding China’s investments in the US and vice versa, the simple explanation is that it’s like a grand chess game. It’s played slowly, thoughtfully while treating your opponent with respect. On the surface things seem civil, polite and cordial, but each of these powers (U.S./China) is on constant alert, watching the other side’s every move.
Why? Because for the time being, the U.S. needs China’s financing, and China needs the U.S. market. It’s win-win for both parties.
One last thing, try to think in terms of grand strategies, not specific tactics. One country may acquiescence to another’s demands and that may seem like a weakness in the eyes of an outside observer, but if you consider the grand strategy, that “loser”, can very well be the end winner if he plays his pieces right. Two steps backward, one step forward.
That’s geopolitics. And the General is actually very credible. The only point he seems weak on was the flight maneuvers of the so-called hijackers. He clearly read that information from secondary sources and did not have the inside information or even experience which he presented regarding the Af-Pak India subject.
Some people tend to dismiss things they don’t understand as “conspiracy theories”. I’m referring to criticism by some posters who do not believe the information presented here by the General, namely regarding the drug trade and U.S. involvement.
If they learned history and political science, these things would make sense – or better yet – seem obvious.
China is mother of all evils, despite of their prosperity. North Korea, Pakistan, Mayanmar, Sudan, their role is negative everywhere.
atheo,
From your response to Jeremy, you seem to have overlooked the fact that the U.S. has been in the process of empire building for about two decades now.
The reasoning was that with the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States was the only remaining – and perhaps last – superpower. Advocates on both sides (Democrats and Republicans) as well as key figures within the CIA and Pentagon rationalize this as an opportunity that is too good to miss.
Obama has recently requested and was granted close to $1 Billion for the construction of another embassy in the region, this time in Islamabad, Pakistan. It is said to be bigger than the super-embassy in Baghdad.
The same has been taking place in Latin American over the last 10 years. The U.S. has been supporting Colombia’s government and anti-Venezuelan guerrillas. The recent coup in Honduras where Zelaya was ousted was carried out by the same military force that the U.S. trained. Meanwhile, the U.S. through its spokespeople (Hillary) pretends as if it prefers to stay out of other nation’s internal affairs.
That is occupation and empire building. The evidence is there. To pretend otherwise, is to aid and abet the perpetrators.
In other words, what is your personal stake in all this?
Webber
whom you wish to have led new Empire after demise of USA? India would support, if she can to help USA maintain it pre-eminant role in world politics. Others would, even collectively, mean disater for humanity.
Weber,
Overlooked empire building? Not at all. Just trying to accurately track it.
The meme that is widely disseminated is simple and plain:
“The US occupied Afghanistan to secure the TAPI pipeline.”
Jeremy obviously bought into it or he would not have written what he did or responded to my first comment as he did.
The meme is flat out preposterous on any of many levels and has no merit whatsoever. Weber, do you truly think that the US is just hanging out in Afghanistan waiting for an opportunity to deny energy transit to China? If you can’t support such a ridiculous claim then why keep promulgating it?
The article clearly buys into the nonsensical distraction:
…the U.S. wanted to “reach out to the Central Asian oilfields” and “open the door there”, which “was a requirement of corporate America”… They wanted to keep the Chinese out.
As an explanation for the US occupation of Afghanistan this is simply risible. Perhaps the intent is to make a laughing stock out of the anti-war movement.
The meme that is widely disseminated is simple and plain: “The US occupied Afghanistan to secure the TAPI pipeline.” Jeremy obviously bought into it or he would not have written what he did or responded to my first comment as he did. The meme is flat out preposterous on any of many levels and has no merit whatsoever.
1) There are a number of reasons for the war. Energy is only one of them.
2) Your argument for why this is “preposterous” rests on the assertion that the U.S. is not competing with China for energy resources, which is what is preposterous. I defer once again to my previous comments and the study I linked to.