Politicians and a complicit mainstream media are doing a good job of framing the war in Afghanistan and its long shadow in Pakistan as a fight against Islamic fundamentalists who want to attack the United States. Let the Taliban win in Afghanistan and they and Al-Qaida will destabilize Pakistan, which even now is on the verge of a civil war. Let terrorists fracture the government in Islamabad and they will have nuclear weapons to use against us, and tensions with India may boil over into a regional nuclear conflict. This may be true, but it is not the complete story. Our transparent government is wrapping the entire show in the cloak of fear and waving the flag of patriotism.
President Obama is right to say Afghanistan is a war of necessity; but when he stops his sentence there the unspoken reasons leave the impression that it's all about following up on 9/11, that the Taliban and Al-Qaida are the sole enemy. We're being told it will be years, if not decades, before our presence will end. No wonder the war doesn't add up and public support is dwindling: it's based on a weak premise. What no one is talking about on the nightly newscasts is that Afghanistan is a proxy war being fought over carbon-based energy sources.
Russia is the world's largest energy supplier (second in oil exports, first in natural gas) and is trying to protect its markets. Europe is a hostage to Russian energy, and every so often Moscow finds an excuse to remind our European allies to play nice by cutting natural gas deliveries. Russia's invasion of Georgia also demonstrated that energy resources moving through Georgia and Turkey on their way to Europe can be cut off whenever Moscow feels it necessary. Georgia may wish to be a member of NATO, and its importance to energy supplies for NATO allies might be enough to bring it in, but NATO willingness to commit to fighting for Georgia may keep it at arm's length for some time.
China knows it needs to get away from a suffocating coal economy, but that means massive oil and natural gas imports. Beijing has long-term deals with Iran for oil and gas supplies, investments in Iranian oil fields and with Myanmar for a seaport and oil and gas pipelines to China. Beijing is also nearing completion of another natural gas pipeline that will carry gas exported from Turkmenistan. Meanwhile China's investments in green energy make U.S. efforts look like a high school football team playing against the pros.
The U.S. and NATO are in Afghanistan because we cannot afford to cede regional hegemony to Russia, China, and an Iran that is flexing its muscle as an oil and natural gas producer. (Iran's oil reserves are third largest in the world, and its natural gas reserves second only to Russia). Iran may have the second largest natural gas reserves, but Turkmenistan also has large reserves. A natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India was planned during the 1990s and then put on hold after 9/11; it's now back on the table assuming we can stabilize the country.
India needed the nuclear power deal that George W. Bush put in place because the Turkmenistan pipeline project was derailed by the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It has maxed out its hydropower sources and is left with carbon-based energy sources from its own coal reserves and then from oil and natural gas imports. India already has massive shortfalls in its ability to delivery electricity and water to its population; nuclear power generation will help and also forge long-term relations between India and the U.S. The prospect of seeing India's economic development threatened by lack of energy, risking civil unrest, no doubt was seen as a greater threat than destabilizing relations with Pakistan. Because India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the U.S.-India nuclear pact is a clear example of how energy needs drive energy policies that will trump treaties and other international agreements.
Afghanistan is the U.S. foothold in a region where the several countries have a combined population that is half the world's population, and there are tremendous oil and natural gas resources. It will be decades before green energy replaces carbon fuels – never mind global warming and climate change. While it may be necessary for us to be there the war is about far more than preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Perhaps a candid acknowledgment of energy policy driving the necessity of this war would bolster U.S. public support. It would also let the U.S. put more pressure on friends and allies to step up and make this more than an American-led effort.
It's not a question of trusting America to stand by our commitments. Other countries that benefit from America's effort should not send token troops or refuse to participate, assuming that it's our war or that we're too big to fail. But we can't make that argument if we don't put energy on the table as an explicit reason. Assuming we're too big to fail while pinning the war on avoiding terrorist attacks may find mounting opposition marching in the streets, toppling Presidents and domestic as well as foreign policy initiatives. If that happens, then it won't be the war in Afghanistan that is like Vietnam, but the outcome.
