The Folly of a U.S. War
of Retaliation Against Terrorism
By Teiichi Aoyama Version
1.2 2001.9.26
I first
learned of the attacks on the WTC while I was attending an international
academic meeting in Kyongju, South Korea from September 9th. I
happened to be watching ABC TV, one of the U.S. national networks, via NHK-BS2
in my room of the Concorde Hotel and saw the World Trade Center in New York
City spewing huge amounts of smoke. Immediately after this scene, the second
aircraft crashed into the other building and went into flames.
The
international meeting was being held in the Hyundai Hotel with senior officials
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and prominent researchers in the
field of dioxins from the U.S. and Europe. All the national flags at the
entrance of the conference hall were lowered to half-mast. The meeting ended on
the 14th, but the researchers, including my friend from Canada, could not go
back to North America.
After the
11th, the U.S. and UK TV networks seen in Korea – ABC, CNN, and the BBC – as well as NHK BS2,
were all about the WTC attacks all day long. The burning and collapsing of the
WTC buildings were shown repeatedly on the screen dozens, even hundreds of
times. And President Bush started to mention “a war of retaliation”.
My wife has
relatives who went to California from the poverty-stricken northern part of
Japan in the late Taisho Era (1912~1926). They have scattered across the U.S.
since then and are now living in Chicago, California and other regions on the
West Coast, as well as in Honolulu, Hawaii. I also have many friends in the
U.S. Army, in New York City as well as in Washington, DC. So to me it is not “someone else’s problem.” However, I believe we
should not overlook that there are very dangerous and important other aspects
to the war of retaliation that the Bush administration is attempting to begin
to wage, regardless of the excuses, such as “a new war of the 21st
century” or “battle of justice”, that try to justify
its war of retaliation against the terrorist attacks.
Where the U.S. War of Retaliation Against Afghanistan Is
Heading
Immediately
following the terrorist attacks involving airplanes crashing into and burning
the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon building in Washington
DC, the Bush administration stated, “This is a war.” Furthermore, the Bush
administration declared “a war of retaliation”. It is likely that this
declaration will lead to military action to control the entire Afghan region,
which harbors Bin Laden, the suspect in the terrorist attacks. In this case, it
is unlikely that the Bush administration will withdraw from the region with
only the head of Bin Laden. As President Bush himself has stated, the war of
retaliation will be a protracted war.
There is a
possibility that the U.S. will start with aerial bombing using fighter planes
and cruise missiles (Tomahawk) in the war of retaliation against terrorism in
Afghanistan. However, Mr. Gul, a former chief of intelligence for the Pakistani
military, stated as follows in the September 24 edition of the Mainichi Shimbun. He made these remarks
in the course of an interview with a Mainichi
reporter.
“There are no roads,
bridges or military facilities to destroy in Afghanistan. Even state-of-art stealth attack planes don’t work for
hidden soldiers. On the contrary, the U.S. military will be shot down by the
antiaircraft missiles given by the U.S. during the Afghan war, and the end
result will be the random killing of citizens.” (“The U.S. Will Repeat the Same Mistakes of the Soviet Union”, Mainichi Shimbun, Sep. 24, Morning
Edition)
What, then,
will happen if the Bush administration throws its ground forces into
Afghanistan? Mr. Gul said, with no hesitation,
“If the U.S.
throws in its ground forces, the Taliban will be expelled quickly and a puppet
government of the U.S. will be established in Kabul. But, then, a real war will
start. The Taliban will destroy communications and military facilities. The new
government will be able to control only isolated spots, not the entire region.
The civil war will not end.”
“After that, if the war gets bogged down, and more and more of the
populace is killed, anti-U.S. sentiment in the international community will be
raised higher and higher, leading to renewed terrorist attacks against the U.S.”.
Mr. Gul, a veteran of
many wars and conflicts, seemed to have a different viewpoint from the armchair
military commentators in the U.S. and Europe.
It is said
that, in any period of its history, the centerpiece of U.S. strategy in the
Middle East have been oil rights. Past Middle East wars, in particular the Gulf
War, are important cases in point. On the surface, the Gulf War was a battle
for justice and a war of retaliation by multinational forces with the then Bush
administration (the father of the current President Bush) at the center,
against “outlaw” and “villainous” Iraq which had invaded
Kuwait militarily. However, it can be inferred that this “battle of justice” was certainly for
securing the interests of the major American oil companies.
Needless to
say, the father of the current President waged the Gulf War in 1991. It is well
known all over the world that both Bush the father and Bush the son are from
Texas and they have relationships with American oil companies. The current
President Bush has been very negative in his dealing with the COP6 (the Sixth
Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change)
to tackle global warming. NGOs (non-governmental organizations), not only in
the U.S. but also in Europe and Japan, recognize that his negative attitude is
related to oil capital.
What, then,
is the biggest reason that Bin Laden hates the U.S.?
Bin Laden was
born as the second son of a very rich family in Saudi Arabia. It is said that
his anti-American feeling began to increase when the U.S. kept its military
bases in Saudi Arabia, his home country, even after the Gulf War ended in 1991.
The ostensible reason for retaining the U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia is to
observe the Iraqi forces. However, it can be certainly said that their true
purpose is to have military bases ready to protect the oil interests of the
U.S. and Europe in the countries of the Gulf and in the Gulf region when future
conflicts arise in the Middle East.
Prof. Miyata,
an assistant professor at Shizuoka Prefectural University knowledgeable about
the Taliban and Afghan affairs, made the following remarks on a live NHK TV
program.
Since
the end of the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan that spanned many
years, the U.S. had been promoting a major project to transport crude oil
extracted from the large oil fields in the region of the former Soviet Union
north of Afghanistan to ports in the Indian Ocean via northern Afghanistan and
Pakistan. During the cold war, it was the U.S. that provided a large quantity
of weapons to the Afghans to counter the Soviet Union. The U.S. didn’t expect,
however, that the Taliban, a group of extreme Islamic fundamentalists, would
control 90% of Afghan land. The Taliban has had strong anti-American sentiments
and has strengthened its alliance with Bin Laden, a son of the head of the
largest general contracting firm in Saudi Arabia, who was offended by the
remaining U.S. military forces. In this process, the U.S. project to transport
crude oil from the former Soviet region to the Indian Ocean got stalled. And if
Afghanistan and Pakistan remain under the influence of the Taliban and Bin
Laden, it is almost impossible for the American major oil companies to bring
crude oil to the Indian Ocean.
As was the
case when the Iraqi army attacked Kuwait, it is conceivable that the U.S., in
particular the administration of Bush the father, insisted on a military
invasion of this region because those Islamic CIS (Commonwealth of Independent
States) republics north of Afghanistan that were part of the former Soviet
Union and whose names end with “–stan,” such as Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, have many
high quality oil wells. In fact, although oil fields bordering the Caspian Sea,
such as Baku, are well known, a map illustrating the resources and energy
sources of the world also shows many well symbols, which is to say oil wells,
in Samarkand and Tashkent as well. The southern part of Samarkand borders on
Afghanistan.
Representative
Matsunami, a member of the House of Representatives (Conservative Party), also
mentioned the Afghan issue and the oil issue on a Japanese TV program on the
night of the 23rd. He is one of a small number of Japanese who have
extensive knowledge of Afghanistan.
The obvious reason the
Bush Administration is stubbornly insisting on invading Afghanistan is to
retaliate against the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. But it is
also possible that they will take advantage of the situation to secure their
oil interests by establishing a U.S. puppet government in Kabul, as mentioned
above.
Was there a close connection between the family of oil
company president Bush and the Bin Laden family?
The evening
edition of the Asahi Shimbun on
September 25th carried an interesting article that supports my
reasoning in my “The Folly of a U.S. War of Retaliation Against Terrorism (2).”
What the article says is incredible, especially since the world is still in
mourning.
The article
is entitled “The Close
Connection Between the Bin Laden Family and the Bush Family,” It’s like a scare or
black humor, since it says that the two families are connected though the oil
business. Please refer to the newspaper for the details, but it says that Bin
Laden’s oldest brother in the Bin Laden family invested in an oil company
established by the current President Bush (Arbust Energy Co.) (This was also
initially reported in American and British newspapers.)
This
indicates strongly that the Bush administration’s insistence on taking
the war of retaliation against terrorism into Afghanistan is not unrelated to
the oil fields in the rear regions of Afghanistan, to the protection of oil
interests, and to securing rights.
If a puppet government
of Bush administration is established in Kabul, Afghanistan, and an oil
transport route is constructed from those Islamic republics of the former
Soviet Union whose names end in “–stan,” to Pakistan via the
Afghan Northern Alliance, President Bush, president of a oil company, will get
the best of both worlds. Without doubt, the WTC attacks are heart-rending
incidents and I would like to pray for the repose of the victims’ souls. But with such “facts” in our hands, can
people in the world still support a war of retaliation against terrorism? I
have great doubts.
On the other
hand, President Putin of the current CIS, the former Soviet Union, with the
support of the U.S. and European nations, has begun referring to the guerrillas
in the Republic of Chechnya, whom Russia has not been able to control since the
Afghan war, as “Islamic
extremists” and “terrorists.” President
Putin also began to lay the groundwork with the U.S. and European nations for
future wars of retaliation. If this really happens, Chechnya will be disposed
of very easily.
The true
strategy, then, of the superpowers, the U.S. and the former Soviet Union,
begins to surface. The hideous history of past imperialism could be repeated in
the 21st century in order to secure their interests and positions, under the
pretext of eradicating Islamic extremists and large-scale terrorism. President
Bush and the military commentators are saying “ a new 21st century war”. However, we may have
to recognize that the reality has not changed and the two superpowers, the U.S.
and CIS, are in the process of military, political and economic control of the
world.