- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, February 01, 2011

John Key expands SAS in Afghanistan because they asked


SAS redeployed to Afghanistan
Prime Minister John Key has confirmed the New Zealand Special Air Service (SAS) deployment to Afghanistan will be extended for another year from April.

However, it will be a smaller deployment of about 35, compared to the current 70.

Mr Key said the deployment would work in partnership with the Afghanistan primary response unit, as at present.

It was likely to be the last deployment and was requested by the SAS itself which had wanted to bed in its work well before leaving.


Let me get this straight. John Key has decided to allow our SAS to stay in a war to prop up a corrupt regime where we actively pass prisoners along to torture units BECAUSE THE SAS ASKED HIM TO?

Since when the bloody hell did the military get to dictate to the NZ Government whether we stay inside a war or not?

The excuse is nonsense and gutless, Key is keeping the SAS there because we are now a lap dog to the US with no independent foreign policy (witness Key's incredible support of Egypt's dictator because a democratic Egypt may threaten our 'ally' Israel).

Blaming the SAS is weak, Key has made this decision and he has to be held responsible for a war that has nothing to do with freedom and democracy and everything to do with oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.

In 1996, the Wall Street Journal declared the Taliban, "are the players most capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history"., this was because they had just defeated the American armed Northern Alliance who had just ended their 4 year 50 000 dead rampage thanks to America walking away without disarming their most fervent anti-soviet fighters (hilariously Osama Bin Laden had been given $4 billion in which to fight the USSR).

This praise of the Taliban proceeded a massive attempt to win over the Taliban so that America could build a vast oil pipe line that enables them to tap into the huge oil fields of the Caspian Sea. Taliban were flown to Washington and wined and dined by George W Bush Snr and entertained in Housten by senior executives of Unocal who offered the Taliban fifteen cents for every thousand cubic feet of gas pumped through Afghanistan.

In 1998, Unocal's Vice-President for International Relations, John J Maresca told a Congressional inquiry that "by 2010, Western countries could increase oil production to 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500% in fifteen years". His appeal was for a regime that could guarantee that increase.

At first America did all they could to provide such a regime, Unocal signed a 'memorandum of understanding' to build the pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan, it did this on behalf of Enron, Amoco, BP, Chevron, Exxon and Mobil with the deal makers being none other than Dick Cheney and former Defence Secretary James Baker.

The deal went sour when two American Embassies were bombed in east Africa and Al Queda were blamed. The September 11 attacks provided the perfect pretense to invade Afghanistan under the flag blinded claim of 'freedom and democracy'.

This war in Afghanistan has nothing to do with freedom and democracy, it has to do with securing America's never ending belief that they and they alone have the god given right to take oil resources from any part of the world under whatever pretext they need.

A new left wing party would demand the immediate withdrawal from this fiasco.

15 Comments:

At 1/2/11 6:47 pm, Blogger franky said...

key thinks grinning and waving is the answer to all probs.franky says

 
At 1/2/11 7:50 pm, Blogger sdm said...

Given the substantial levels of oil reserves in the US - oil is not the motivation for this conflict.

 
At 1/2/11 8:43 pm, Blogger James George said...

Considering the invasion/occupation of Afghanistan has effectively been a business for the last few years, it's time we saw a revamped mission statement and a set of core strategies. Other than to keep the arms industry ticking over and the oil companies happy, what (in plain terms) are the occupation forces now looking to achieve? To stay in Afghanistan just to stay in Afghanistan doesn't seem to be a strategy of much worth.

 
At 1/2/11 10:24 pm, Blogger AAMC said...

sdm you're a troll. America has openly admitted it's desire to meet it's own energy requirements from Carter to Regan to Obama and everyone in between. Problem is it can't and so it's in it's strategic interests to control the places that do have plentiful energy with it's big guns. It will continue to hold the world at ransom like this as long as it's the only super power.

Oh, but all that's changing isn't it.

 
At 1/2/11 11:18 pm, Blogger Arto said...

Given the substantial levels of oil reserves in the US - oil is not the motivation for this conflict.

Hahaha Pull the other one!

 
At 2/2/11 2:17 am, Blogger Bomber said...

AAMC you raise valid points, however SDM isn't a troll, he may be trolling on this issue, but on the whole he has something to contribute.

Given the substantial levels of oil reserves in the US - oil is not the motivation for this conflict.

SDM - while you are correct, if we look at America's history, and I list some of that in the post, Washington were more than happy to cut a deal with the Taliban for pipeline access and prop up corrupt regimes around the world for cheap oil. While they have plenty of reserves, I think the past 100 years of US involvement in war has been heavily inspired by oil, and I can't see that ending anytime soon.

Yes they have reserves, but they want every one's else as well.

 
At 2/2/11 8:14 am, Blogger sdm said...

I am not a troll. I just think to suggest that their primary motivation is oil is bullshit. They have got plenty of oil.

Their historical motivation has been, and continues to be geopolitical. In the past it was to block the Soviets - now in Afghanistan it is largely to a) remove the hub for al Qaeda, and b) pressure the Pakistanis in so much as they are a nuclear armed state in which radical islamists are a problem.

And I agree whole heartedly bomber, that the US has proped up corrupt regimes around the world (Mubarak), not for oil so much, but more for its own geo-political ends. And now as the streets burn, the US has a big problem.

 
At 2/2/11 9:06 am, Blogger AAMC said...

I agree Bomber, I was referring to sdm's comment in this instance, I generally enjoy the debate that ensues around sdm's posts. America has oil, but not enough to satisfy it's requirements, and as we both know, it is in it's interests to control the energy supply.

Some recent incidents in Afghanistan to make our dear leaders decision even less palatable;
'January 10th.... a “team” (whether American or NATO we don’t know) “conducting a patrol” in the village of Baladas in central Afghanistan "spotted 'nine armed individuals setting up what appeared to be an ambush position.'" That team called in a helicopter strike, killing three Afghans and wounding three others. According to a statement from “a coalition spokesman,” the six casualties turned out to be “innocent people... mistakenly targeted.” According to local Afghan figures, they were members of “a local police team... on their way to meet a unit of the American Special Forces for a joint patrol.”'

'December 8th in Logar Province, two missiles from a U.S. air strike “mistakenly killed” two Afghan National Army soldiers and wounded five as they were moving to help NATO troops under attack.'

'December 16th in Helmand Province, another air strike killed four Afghan soldiers as they were leaving their base'

'December 23rd, “in an attempt to intercept suspected insurgents,” a “NATO helicopter” reportedly strafed a car in a convoy heading for “an event hosted by the head of a local council in [Faryab Province in] northern Afghanistan.” A policeman and the brother of former parliament member Sarajuddin Mozafari, a local politician, were killed'

'December 24th, there was a “night raid” in Kabul.... Evidently thanks to mistaken intelligence, two private guards were killed and three wounded when commandos from coalition forces raided the headquarters of the Afghan Tiger Group'

'January 5th in Ghazni province, another night raid resulted in the deaths of three Afghans whose bodies were paraded through Ghazni City by angry fellow tribesmen shouting “Death to America.”'

Sounds like something we should be very proud to be a part of.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175343/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_alien_visitations/

 
At 2/2/11 9:44 am, Blogger AAMC said...

Ok sdm, I agree, Geopolitics and the control of energy/oil/gas. The Caspian Basin in addition to Pakistan and bases positioned either side of Iran. Al Qaeda is a justification to be in Afghanistan, not a motivation. You should read this article, it might help tame your fear.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/01/osama-bin-laden-201101

Also, Carter on US Energy..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA

 
At 2/2/11 10:12 am, Blogger AAMC said...

And sorry to go on but Sdm I'm havin trouble with this statement "They have got plenty of oil. ".

Why then do they import so much of it, take risks in the Gulf of Mexico and why have the military proclaimed we have reached peak oil?

 
At 2/2/11 10:42 am, Blogger Arto said...

What a joke, oil is definitely a main cause for the USA's murdering across the globe, that's why they're in Iraq isn't it? Just look at the rising price of oil, once again thats a great motivator coupled with the fact that the US dollar has gone to shit. And its getting worse.

 
At 2/2/11 12:10 pm, Blogger sdm said...

The inference that the sole reason that the US went into Afghanistan was for Oil, in the weeks after 9/11, is to me a fallacy.

The US has apparently 21 Billiom barrels of oil in reserve. With the changes in technology making oil shale extraction economical, it is estimated that the US would gain an extra 1.5 trillion barrels of oil.

If it were about Oil, I would suggest to you that the US would take the money it was spending on importing oil and use it for exploration.

 
At 2/2/11 12:15 pm, Blogger lehrbuch said...

sdm:

You are right.

It is about geo-politics. However, the geo-political issue is the independent access to energy in the form of oil.

The US doesn't technically need Afghanistan to supply its own energy needs (yet). However, they don't want anyone else becoming powerful by controlling access to energy via an Afghanistan pipeline.

Which is also why the existing instability in the region is OK from the US perspective (apart from the risk of the situation escalating out of hand). The instability stops anybody else converting control over an Afganistan pipe line into regional/global power.

 
At 2/2/11 12:27 pm, Blogger Morgan said...

Since when the bloody hell did the military get to dictate to the NZ Government whether we stay inside a war or not?

I don't see a problem with listening to the troops on the ground when they say they need to stay on a bit longer to finish their work.

Of course it's easier to accept if the work is building bridges and schools than when the work sometimes seems to be assassination. But hopefully the point stands.

Blaming the SAS is weak, Key has made this decision and he has to be held responsible

No question.

 
At 2/2/11 12:57 pm, Blogger AAMC said...

Pepe Escobar writes an interesting article here on those pipelines and who is winning that game.

http://warincontext.org/2010/10/12/pepe-escobar-pipelineistans-new-silk-road/

The reserves won't last forever, they are lagging on renewable energy development and China is negotiating those pipelines while America plays with it's new Stealth Drones. It may be geo-political sdm, but the currency of those geo-politics is the control of energy implimented with it's 1700 odd military bases around the place.

'The Pentagon's planet of bases'-
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175338/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_the_pentagon%27s_planet_of_bases__/

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174789/the_mother_ship_lands_in_iraq

 

Post a Comment

<< Home