It's Mine - No, it's Mine.

May 15, 2009 3:48 AM

Pipelineistan Goes Af-Pak, the second article from Pepe Escobar; Asia Times reporter after his Postcard from Pipelineistan - Liquid War.
Energy Wars for the 21st Century as recently indicated by Moscow. ( previous ).
posted by adamvasco (11 comments total)

I love how Pepe Escobar is, like, the sanest person to write for Asia Times
posted by FuManchu at 5:23 AM on May 15, 2009

As much as Washington may live in perpetual denial, Russia and Iran together control roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves and nearly 50 percent of its gas reserves. Think about that for a moment.

Who, exactly, in Washington is in denial over the control Russia and Iran have over energy reserves? Hasn't that been the entire motivation behind 30+ years of sabre rattling and not-Africa-helping?

Or kill me.
posted by Bathtub Bobsled at 6:29 AM on May 15, 2009

well, the problem with articles like this is that they certainly lay out the fact that these pipelines, deals, and jockeying for deals exist, there's no evidence provided that these pipelines are the main motivation for the U.S's actions in the region (except for the fact that many political leaders also worked for the oil companies as lobbyists )

Although it's ironic that when Russia invaded Georga, everyone in the MSM was going on and on about how pipelines were a major motivation for their behavior, but the idea that it could be a motivation for our behavior is rarely brought up.
posted by delmoi at 6:43 AM on May 15, 2009

Thanks for posting adamvasco. Very interesting. I agree with Delmoi in this. Using a single lens - be it never so important - to understand global politics in a region tends to impoverish the analysis of why decisions are being taken. AfPak is about regional security and stability, trade, US security as well as resources. Of course, these have interlinkages with resources, but are not exclusively about resources.
posted by YouRebelScum at 7:09 AM on May 15, 2009

delmoi: Although it's ironic that when Russia invaded Georga, everyone in the MSM was going on and on about how pipelines were a major motivation for their behavior, but the idea that it could be a motivation for our behavior is rarely brought up.

Glen Greenwald at Salon had a great article on the double standards in the American media, how we decry "atrocities" on the part of others, but are absolutely mute when it comes to far worse crimes by our own government.

I don't think it's ironic. I think it's deliberate.
posted by Malor at 7:14 AM on May 15, 2009

delmoi: Occam's razor, what other possible reason could the US be involved?

Human rights? Why aren't we in Somalia right now?
posted by amuseDetachment at 7:21 AM on May 15, 2009

regional security and stability, trade, US security as well as resources

You said "resources" five times.
posted by fleacircus at 7:24 AM on May 15, 2009

fleacircus: realised that too late. Regrettably by vocab lacks some, well, ...
posted by YouRebelScum at 7:29 AM on May 15, 2009

Human rights? Why aren't we in Somalia right now?

Because Somali doesn't have nukes and Pakistan does?
posted by absalom at 8:46 AM on May 15, 2009

there's no evidence provided that these pipelines are the main motivation for the U.S's actions in the region

Other than the fact that wherever these pipelines exist, there is usually a war, usually involving the U.S. or its proxies?
posted by fullerine at 8:53 AM on May 15, 2009

Wars are often fought over resources, territory, etc. - wealth by any other name - a rose is a rose is a rose. Not sure why history should be ignored on that fact.
Of course there are always other issues, but it's usually alloy.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:22 PM on May 15, 2009