We stand nearly seven years in the shadow of the greatest act of terrorism in American history. The events of September 11, 2001 have forever altered the psyche of the American people and been used as an excuse for a reckless and dangerous foreign policy. Once Al Qaeda was identified as the source of the attack we embarked upon an invasion of Afghanistan with the stated goal of capturing the perpetrators. This goal was quickly replaced with a nation building exercise which had more to do with the interests the oil and gas industry than it did to capturing terrorists. It is clear from congressional records that instilling a government compliant to U.S Oil and Gas companies was an important consideration in the execution hostilities with in Afghanistan. On February 12, 1998 John J. Maresca gave the following testimony before Congress.
The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. The question then is what will be the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and what would be the netback which the producers would receive.
For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it's the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.
The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.
Now, that testimony does not prove that our government's foreign policy decisions three years after the 9/11 tragedy were directed by a desire to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. I do however believe it gives us a context within which we can evaluate the way the Bush administration executed the war. Almost from day one the goal of capturing Bin Laden was put on the back burner. The primary focus became building a new nation at the expense of actually capturing the people responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. Rather than pressing the advantage in Tora Bora we allowed him to slip away into Pakistan, where we relied upon the dubious support of Perez Musharraf. We showered his government with money to no avail. But then again, it seems that capturing Bin Laden was really not a priority with those who create American foreign policy. Once we had a modicum of stability within Afghanistan we turned our attention to invading Iraq. A country which had been the focus of one of the most intense weapons inspection regimes of all times. Fortunately for those directing American foreign policy Saddam Hussein was the perfect kind of mad man. A man who loved big talk and pretend he had a program for building weapons of mass destruction. According to a publication from 2002, What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations Scott Ritter had the following to say.
There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited... We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.
It is fashionable these days to bash the current administration for what has become an ever more unpopular war. The Democratic party is very happy to demonize the Republican candidates running for president. But this glosses over the fact that they had their own hand in the formulation and execution of our foreign policy in the years since 9/11. They provided their approval for the invasion of Iraq. As much as they would like the American people to think that they are the party of change they are really the party of more of the same. Obama has made references to wanting to use American forces in Pakistan. Hillary Clinton, who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq, says she is willing to continue the policy of isolating Iran by refusing to even talk to that regime. How can we hope to have diplomacy if we won't even talk? Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who is advocating a new direction for American foreign policy. In an MTV question and answer session Ron Paul put forward the notion that a foreign policy which truly favored diplomacy would require us to talk with Iran. It would require that we not isolate the regime through sanctions, sanctions that only hurt the people of Iran and provide that repressive regime with an external enemy against which the oppressed can focus their anger.
It is a shame that the loss of life on that tragic day in September seven years ago has become a the American Reichstag. The events of September 11th were sparked by the intrusive foreign policy decisions made over the course of many decades in an effort to build and maintain an empire. Our government has twisted that horrific day into a rallying point to distract the focus of the people and gain their consent to send their young men and women to fight and die in foreign lands. To gain their consent to continue policies which led to the hatred that allowed 19 men from Saudi Arabia to board planes with the intent to kill as many civilians as possible. Nothing we have done in the last 7 years has made us any safer from the threat of terrorism. In my opinion Ron Paul is the only candidate who offers us a fresh option for a humble and sane foreign policy which will make us safer.
