On June 13, the New York Times reported that America "just discovered" a trillion dollars worth of mineral resources in Afghanistan (HT to Katie Drummond over at Danger Room for offering some enlightened skepticism on the topic).
Of course, the U.S. Geological Survey has known about Afghanistan's "large quantities of iron and copper" since 2007. The Los Angeles Times reported that geologist Bonita Chamberlain, who has spent 25 years working in Afghanistan, "identified 91 minerals, metals and gems at 1,407 potential mining sites" as far back as 2001. Chamberlain was even contacted by the Pentagon to write a report on the subject just weeks after 9/11 (possibly to expound upon the findings of her co-authored book, "Gemstones in Afghanistan," published in 1996.)
Given the recent failure of Marjah, which Gen. McChrystal recently called "a bleeding ulcer," this new "discovery" could offer Western leaders a new way to convince their war-weary publics that Afghanistan is worth the fight. Government officials are already touting this new "discovery" as yet another "decisive moment" or "corner turned" in the Afghan campaign.
In the NYT article head of Central Command Gen. David Petraeus said, "There is stunning potential here. There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."
Afghanistan epitomizes the fate of countries too dependent on foreign patronage, which over time has weakened its security by undermining their leaders' allegiance to the state. In the long run, $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits could eventually help Afghanistan stand on its own two feet. However, two problems emerge. First, there is little assurance that revenue from mineral resources (which will take years of capital investment to extract) will actually reach the Afghan people and not be siphoned off by Karzai and his corrupt cronies--like much of the international community's investment does now.
Second, in the short-term, this discovery may feed conspiracy theories that already exist in the region. Though unwise to generalize personal meetings to an entire population, some conspiracy theories that I heard while I was recently in Afghanistan should give U.S. officials pause before announcing that America can help extract the country's mineral deposits. Some of the wildest conspiracy theories I heard were that the United States wants to occupy Afghanistan in order to take its resources; the Taliban is the United States; the United States is using helicopters to ferry Taliban around northern Afghanistan (courtesy of President Hamid Karzai); America is at war in order to weaken Islam; and the list goes on.
This "discovery" may force more people in the region to ask: what are America's real reasons for building permanent bases in Central Asia?
Follow Malou Innocent on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IndianBrownAle
You will notice the latest example, Iraq, where American oil companies gained the lions share of the oil development as well as infrastructure development contracts. If this were revealed before the build up to the Iraq war the American people would not have supported it. That is why the real aims of American Foreign Policy can never be stated. The government must always lie to its people to achieve its ends. Sometimes even resort to false flag operations to achieve this end.
You will notice the latest example, Iraq, where American oil companies gained the lions share of the oil development as well as infrastructure development contracts. If this were revealed before the build up to the Iraq war the American people would not have supported it. That is why the real aims of American Foreign Policy can never be stated. The government must always lie to its people to achieve its ends. Sometimes even resort to false flag operations to achieve this end.
Some vital help there:
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276787592&sr=8-1
A typical right wing nut house, I'm sure she can be trusted......to be wacky...
I hope all is well. Far from being a nut, I'm a knowledgeable and reasonable critic of America's interventionist foreign policy. Of course, you are within your right to denigrate me for who I am and where I work, but you do not seem to address any of the substantive points I raise in my piece. Please feel free to do so in the future.
All the best,
Malou Innocent
Foreign Policy Analyst
Cato Institute
I believe most international conspiracy theories are simply misinterpretations of functions of governments and capitalism.
Developing bases in Afghanistan, as example, is both of these systems in action: government, as an extension of culture, developing power to resist the perceived threat of an other and maintain a semblance of strength during adversity, and capitalism in developing more of the markets it needs to expand consumption and thrive. Actions taken to fulfill these goals have the appearance of pre-meditation but are largely a product of the ideologies which support these systems, at least in the U.S..
Much as we might want to pretend otherwise, we have always tended toward realism in our foreign policy and regard the taming of the Middle East as necessary selfishness to maintain internal stability.
Likewise expanding markets is not a conscious choice but a function of the system of capitalism that always seeks new markets. Given an opportunity to expand, it is in the interest of capitalists to do so but it does not necessitate a conspiracy to move in that direction.
Functionally what I am driving at is that conspiracies are unnecessary to get to where we are and in these situations I always fall back to William of Ockham's famous reminder not to posit plurality without necessity.
"I believe most international conspiracy theories are simply misinterpretations of functions of governments and capitalism."
Well, the more nuanced, informed ones certainly aren't. Rather, they are queries backed by critical thought, asking viably for investigations. Informed dialogue which is fed by an awareness of history, international affairs and true economics.
In the case of Afghanistan, the core questions still involve why we've been there for 9 years without having captured the core alleged perpetrators of 9/11, either alive or dead. Also, why are our military bases being built so close to the proposed TAPI energy pipeline route?
Of course, you can always throw the phrase "conspiracy theory" to try and shut said critical thought, but it'll continue to prove futile.
Government and capitalism in our system support each other and in function are completely intertwined. What this means in the simplest of terms is that if a pipeline is going to be built, our bases will be built in a manner situated to protect it.
There is nothing that requires subversive or furtive meetings or hidden conspiracies other than the function of the systems in question. Is the function of those systems deplorable? Yes, but it is wholly predictable and doesn't require any greater conspiracy than that which allows capitalism to function.
I'm not always certain that there exist coordinated efforts to control the people, not always conscious puppeteers behind the scenes, but I do believe there are always people who find a way to profit from both disaster and windfall, people who take an incident and milk it for the cash. Whatever the conditions of the sudden announcement of purported mineral wealth, it lends one more justification of corporate acquisition, and another reason to remain in a nation already devastated by our egregious drones and our attacks, another reason to stay somewhere where we've got secret prisons and unlawful treatment of prisoners, another reason to continue America's psychological (psychotic?) image of itself.
No, the virtuous corporatists, the benign dual loyalists, the mega-wealthy oligarchs, the meretricious politicians with hearts of gold, the omniscient pundits and the ambitious militarists would never, ever plan or conspire against justice, domestic tranquility, or the general welfare of these United States. Everything that happens in Washington, D.C., Wall St. and the air and cyber domains of the MSM is by fate alone, as those aforementioned entities hearken to the zeitgeist and ride the waves generated by the tidal forces of human progress and inexorable history.
Conspiracies must be left to the men in the cave.
P.S. "conventional wisdom" is a demonstrable synonym for "herded, conditioned stupidity".
It bothers me how little the public understands about US companies operating in hostile nations.
1. US resource extraction companies don't operate in hostile territories. It doesn't matter how much money there is to be made, if a country falls into a civil war then all the millions that go into development are lost.
2. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. We didn't get anything. That all went to China and the rest Asia. The Chinese and many other foreign governments are willing to compensate their oil/resource companies if something bad happens (believe it or not the US does not financially protect resource/oil companies). This allows them to make better bids when contracts are auctioned off. Also they can start work immediately as where US companies have a wait and see attitude.
3. These resources are scattered throughout the country, so there well be many bids, not a just a single blanket bid for all of Afghanistan's resources. Furthermore this means that security can't be concentrated, which means that US companies would lose out on bids to other foreign companies.
It's this convoluted reasoning about how the United States is funneling billions of dollars to Pakistan, Pakistan funds the Taliban, and we are fighting the Taliban. Somewhere in that equation, some people in the region believe America is actively sponsoring the Taliban.
When I was in Pakistan the conspiracy theories were even wilder! No joke!
Take care,
Malou
And I'm not really surprised.
Thanks for the reply.
Take for example, gold. Gold is a product of a star going nova and is thus quite rare.
Shouldn't that read, "siphoned off by Cheney and his corrupt cronies"?