Four Elephants in the Afghan Room.

February 3rd, 2008, 09:16 PM

It seems to me that there is a lot missing from the present discussion about Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and what we should do after the present deadline in 2009. The first elephant in the room is the administration that initiated this NATO incursion and the political plan that underlies it.

The George Bush administration did not start the overthrow of the then legitimate regime in Afghanistan in order to improve the country and the lives of its citizens. It seems to my memory that it was purely a reflexive reaction to the 9/11 attack. The motive was almost entirely one of revenge. A secondary motive apparent at the time was the exercise of pure muscle – ‘allow something we don’t like and we’ll swat you down!’ I can’t say that I recall any international consensus that foreign governments should be asked to enter the country in order to alter its political and social systems. That has compromised any attempt to paint foreign presence in the country as beneficent and constructive.

The second part of the American problem – that is, the second part of the intractable problem caused by America – is that US interest in Afghanistan is so transparently an offshoot of its geopolitical ambitions in the region. Why do you suppose the Europeans don’t want to sacrifice their own soldiers? They’re not stupid. The US has always been concerned about the oil and gas production in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and had a plan to link those resources to the ocean (and US oil company customers) by building a pipeline across Afghanistan. Canadians might be willing to send their soldiers to be maimed and killed in Afghanistan out of humanitarian motives, but not to facilitate the business interests of big oil.

So the second elephant is comprised of two national interests – those of Russia, which currently already has commercial agreements to shift that oil and gas to European markets from the old Soviet republics bordering northern Afghanistan – and those of China, that has the same interest in buying that oil and gas, as well as constructing their own road and rail links through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the sea. China is so huge that it’s westernmost transportation links to the sea are shorter south through Pakistan than east through the mainland. Both countries are making political and commercial plans to strengthen their control of these resources and keep the US out – reasonable enough, given the business ethics of big oil. We can be quite sure that both of these giants on Afghanistan’s borders pay a great deal of attention to the NATO activities, and have their own ideas what the final structure of the Afghan nation might be.

The third elephant is clearly Pakistan, the sponsor and supporter of the Taliban regime that the CIA’s war ousted in 2001. There is a great deal of pious blather spread about Pakistan’s willingness or unwillingness to support our humanitarian and political efforts in Afghanistan. The reason is simple – the Pakistanis just want the interlopers – the US and NATO – to get out of their back yard and let the people who have to live with the consequences settle the matter. The Pakistani intelligence services ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) supported the Taliban regime materially and – with a high degree of probability – still supports its survivors today. How else is it possible for them to negotiate truces and cease-fires in the frontier areas (such as the Waziristans) so that the insurgency has a free hand to prepare and conduct actions in southern Afghanistan? Actions like the next Spring offensive in Hellmand and Kandahar that will be larger this year than last. How pathetic for the Conservatives and Liberals in Canada to work out deals about troop deployments between themselves in Ottawa, when the people at the switch are in Quetta.

The fourth elephant? Clearly the last two Afghan neighbours – India and Iran. The Karzai government is encountering much of its political turmoil because it’s said to have closer friends in New Delhi than it does in Islamabad. Much of the warfare and insurgency that kills Canadian soldiers is an extension of the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan that began with partition in 1949. The first group suspected of assassinating Benazir Bhutto was a Moslem Kashmiri resistance group that has been sidelined by the lessening of direct conflict in that region because of diplomatic efforts by the two neighbours. NATO will never have a free hand to create what they want in Afghanistan until the government in Kabul is acceptable to both India and Pakistan. Then we come to Iran – the country with the same interests in Afghanistan as NATO – the country with vital interests in the region to diminish the power of Sunni (Pushtun) terrorist groups on its border – the country most likely to be able to assist in modernizing the backward regions of the country. Iran is Canada’s natural ally for its ongoing involvement in the region, but it’s the one country we don’t communicate with because of the political jackasses in Washington. As long as anyone appointed by the Bush administration, or anyone approved by the Beltway power structure in the US capital, holds any power in the US government, our ability to enter into productive and successful negotiations in or about Afghanistan is compromised. Only by rolling back every action of the Bush administration and removing US troops can peace and order come to either of the countries he invaded – not, because of the chaos he caused, a quick or an easy task to accomplish.

How come we’ve never seen these observations in our North American press? Where did my information come from? Online from a few non-North American news media sources – Der Spiegel, Guardian Online, Peoples Daily, Asia Times Online, Salon.com. Let’s face it – with right wing governments owned and operated by big capital and their media operations – the news sources in both Canada and the US are severely compromised by a combination of direct influence, direct control, and spineless kowtowing to power. Want to read the truth? – it’s as near as a click of the mouse.

Chriskander.

February 3rd, 2008, 11:32 PM

I'm so glad you came, Chris!

The first part of your essay was not new to me. It's all about the oil, the pipes and getting to the Caspian Sea!

What I wonder, though, why haven't the Americans attacked Iran? With Iran under control they would have direct access to the oil and gas resources under and around the Caspian Sea. A pipe line through Iran would be much shorter and hence much cheaper.
What do you think is stopping the US from eliminating Ahmadineshad? Would they have to fear the Russians?

February 4th, 2008, 10:33 AM

I’m surprised by your questions. Clearly you have bought into the illusions of the Bush administration about the capabilities of the US armed forces. As the recent article in Asia Times Online by Mark Perry (A director of Conflicts Forum and author of Partners in Command, Penguin Press, New York, 2007) points out, the US military has been brought to near breaking point by the long insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. It clearly has no power to attack Iran, even if the administration gave the order. It’s equally doubtful whether it could have occupied Iran even if the Bush insanity had turned it against Iran instead of Iraq in 2003.

Perry says, “American military officers in key combat commands (the captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels who are actually responsible for carrying out the orders of their superiors) are leaving the services in record numbers.” It’s apparent that skeptics who doubted Donald Rumsfeld’s ideas of winning wars with a ‘video game’ army were correct. Only boots on the ground and the spilling of a great deal of blood, such as the Russian advances into Hitler’s Germany, win wars – not single, glitzy campaigns. Only the western press were deceived by the illusions presented by the military-industrial complex as they tried to prove the money expended on such expensive technology could pay off.

Your supposition about Russia is clearly valid. The Russians recently supplied Iran with the latest surface to air missiles – an action that speaks louder of their opposition to the American/Israeli plans for air attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities than any diplomatic note. In opposing Israel’s dream (and that of the Jewish lobby in Washington) the Russians doubtlessly have the agreement of China, which has been steadily increasing its reliance on oil exports from Iran. Neither nation can sit idly by while the neo-cons try to turn their dream of an American Empire into reality. The Shanghai Cooperation Agreement is only the most public of the diplomatic preparations between the two.

Lastly, the whole fallacy of American/Israeli Middle East policy comes into doubt. Perry points up the idiocy of the Administration’s blindness toward Saudi Arabia – “At the center of these early talks was a group of Iraqis led by Sheikh Talal al-Gaood, a Sunni businessman with close ties to Anbar's tribal leaders. Gaood, who died of a heart ailment in March of 2006, was a passionate Iraqi patriot who feared growing al-Qaeda influence in his country. Speaking over coffee from his office in Amman in 2005, Gaood was enraged by the "endless mistakes" of the US leadership. "You [Americans] face a Wahhabi threat that you cannot even begin to fathom," he said at the time, and he derided White House "propaganda" about the role of Syria in fueling the insurgency.” Remember Michael Moore’s 9/11 movie that showed that the only civilian aircraft flying in North America in the days that followed were the Saudi royals and sheiks flying home. The Wahabi movement is the religious underpinning of the Saudi ruling elite.

Bush’s blindness to the reality of Saudi maneuvering demonstrates the total lack of political savvy in Washington that would be a necessary foundation for a workable plan to recast the Middle East into a satrapy of the US and Israel. Ahmedinijad may sound like a fool – to our programmed Western ears – but he and the Iranian ruling council are more certain of success, even if only by virtue of their closer proximity to reality. The Bush administration has already lost the 21st century Great Game – the big issue now is whether the next US president will have the vision and power to demolish the organs that made such policies possible, and rejoin the law abiding nations of the world.

February 4th, 2008, 01:27 PM

I guess, I have! And remember? There was talk about attacking Iran two years ago, and that kind of talk actually never quite stopped this entire time. It looked very much like the Americans only needed a reason (Iran's nuclear facilities) or an event to unleash their attack on Iran. If you feel the American army is not strong enough, what about reinstating the draft, like it was during the Vietnam war? Also, I think, the Israelis are capable of much more than they showed during the Lebanon war in 2006. Yes, troop fatigue and depletion could be the reason for not having attacked Iran yet. But with the guarantied help of Israel and most likely Britain as well (not so sure if they have gotten cold feet by now) don't you think they could succeed? I guess someone, perhaps Israel, would have to throw the first nuclear bomb to bring Iran to it's knees. Which countries in your opinion would counter-attack? Honestly, I don't think throwing the Bomb is a good idea! (waste basket!)
I know a couple, and also Bush's loyals left in record numbers last year, citing private reasons. It seemed like the first rats leaving the sinking ship! But General Petraeus seems to be committed to his post in Iraq.
Rumsfeld, a German, should have known better!! He carries a lot of blame as well as a pile of war crimes around his neck! I, too, was impressed when I saw the parade of war machinery rolling in against that little fly, Iraq! It truly was a great show-off. And now? Who would have thought they would still be at it in 2008?
Thanks! Yes, that was a good move from Russia! It put a crease into the USrael dream! I still have to read up on that Shanghai agreement, am not in the picture of what was agreed upon.
I have been of the opinion that the American Empire is a reality already!!! So often in the news America is referred to as an Empire. So, what exactly does that mean? Who are the Wahhabis? Is it the Saudis who fuel the insurgency? But from what I read, the Saudi Kings are good friends with the Bush family and are big investors in the Carlisle Enterprise, plus other American Corps. To now sneakily behind Bush' back to support the very enemy the Americans are fighting, doesn't make sense to me. I probably misunderstood you. Oh,... now I read what the Wahabis are! And Bush doesn't know that? Truth is that almost all of the 9/11 high-jackers were Saudis. How does all that fit together? I had to get the meaning of satrapy, and while I checked I found this sentence, probably just meant as an explanation: "No military legions from the West are going to liberate their Eastern European satrapies", John Hughes. Sorry, it is a different can of worms - let's not get sidetracked.
Lack of political savvy... the American think tank consisted of great minds, like Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney... They worked on this Middle East plan for years before they started to act upon it. Sure, mistakes can be made and things can be overlooked, but still...to end up like this now... bogged-down in a real quagmire without an alternate plan to get out of it, is almost not fathomable. I wonder, if this holy mess is not part of the neo-cons' plans? They are bleeding Iraq to death and making Afghanistan into a non-retrievable moon landscape. Yes, I have sometimes wondered how bold and defiant he stepped out and faced the American threat. Good luck to him or her! It will be impossible to break the power of the Jewish lobby in Washington. They are the ones who have the greatest interest in Israel gaining more land and supremacy in the Middle East.

Thank you, Chris, I enjoyed the challenge to debate with you. Please, don't loose patients... oops, patience!

February 4th, 2008, 05:22 PM

There is evidence that suggests plans for an Afghanistan invasion had been drawn up and troops (US and British) were stationed in close proximity prior to 9/11. The evidence seems to suggest anything but a reflexive reaction but rather a cool calculation.

I agree. The "humanitarian" aspect of the mission is a concoction to keep troops there occupying the country.

Their own hawks openly debated these interests prior to 9/11.

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." - Brzezinski

It is easy to see why then the Bush administration would befriend terrorist sympathizers in Pakistan and, indeed, Afghanistan. Once the obstacles to pipeline construction (the Afghanistan government) was removed stewardship could be handed to Pakistan who could defend the region from Iran because it is a nuclear power. Here is where we see the problem with Iranian nuclear weapons cropping up. The balance of power would shift and Pakistan might not be able to secure control.

Likewise, it is easy to see why bin Laden was allowed to leave Afghanistan and seek refuge in Pakistan. He is a Saudi and has no love for Iran.

It seems the Europeans do not benefit as clearly as the USA and Pakistan in light of recreant developments with Russia. Basically they no longer have self interest keeping them there. I don't think for a moment their reasons have any humanitarian aspect - just simple self interest of which they have little now.

Tensions are heating up between the USA and Russia because of this. The Russians have found a very practical way of undermining US imperial ambitions by supporting Iran and supplying oil to Europe.

Here I disagree with you: most people are stupid.

If the occupation can be sold to Canadians as a humanitarian effort (as it has been), then the population will begrudgingly support it for quit some time (see above). The Europeans aren't being sold the same bill of goods because their governments are losing interest. Non of this has anything to do with people or humanitarian efforts, or democracy.

This is why NATO is losing interest in Afghanistan and Russia is supporting Iran. China too plans to build a pipeline to Iran, which, in reality, is supporting Iran as the regions steward instead of the USA's Pakistan.

This isn't to say there isn't friction between all the players. There certainly is. China has sanctions on Iran because the USA has demanded them, even though such sanctions go against China's interests, disrupting trade with the USA would be worse. What I mean by this is only that all players are acting as selfishly as can be imagined.

It is a little more complicated than that. The issue is how Afghanistan is going to be run, who is going to control it, and who is going to benefit. While the Wahhabis will deal with the USA (as they have done since the turn of the 20th century) there are other factions interested in dealing with China and there are still other people who don't want their country to be a western vessel state. Understandable but not conducive to grand imperial ambitions.

Russia and China are working very hard on burying their old animosities right now. Each country has year long celebrations of each others cultures planned, they are working hard on a military alliance too, and have been conducting huge military games on each others soil - this is no small event given the suspicion the two countries had for each other after Stalin.

While Russia is planing pipelines to Europe non are openly being planned to China because they assume such a pipeline will run through Iran and Afghanistan. This is why one US presidential hopeful was recently heard saying that the US needs to bolster its military and prepare for a war with China and Russia.

There is nothing pathetic about it. It is an act of diplomacy between Canada and the USA. Canada needs to be very careful right now. The USA has gone completely mad and every indication is that they are going to get a lot worse. They count our resources as their resources; for example, when they say "domestic oil supply," they really mean our oil. When they talk about the North American Union and a common currency (oops that isn't in the public eye yet) what they really mean is they want to rape Canada to recover their economy. We have two choices at this point: play along and play dumb or be annexed.

India's allegiance to the west comes from trade relations through it's commonwealth roots, its acquisition of weapons from the USA and it's territorial disputes with Pakistan. They are obliged to have the wests interests in mind not regional ones.

I disagree. Canada has become too weak and effeminate to try and negotiate anything without Washington's green light. To suggest that we could go behind Washington's back and negotiate with one of its rivals about a region the US imperialist war machine has staked out as its own is sheer lunacy!

There are also a great many books and magazines with remarkable observations in them.

Anyway, nice to meet you

February 4th, 2008, 05:32 PM

Firstly I have to ask if you’ve ever examined your standpoint in the debate? You seem to readily assume the US has a right to invade other independent countries – even though it is contrary to all international law. Assuming you are Canadian (since you are on CC), I have to wonder if you would extend them this right to Canada if our government here did something they did not like.

Taking the example of Alberta’s oilsands, it is reasonable to suppose the next government of the province will take steps to carry out the measures necessary to cool an overheated economy (that penalizes many sectors of its own economy), protect the northern environment, and work positively toward controlling carbon emissions. To do this by legislating a reduction in the pace of oil sands development would run counter to American plans to dominate the production here for their own future energy security. Following your mindset I would have to assume you would welcome a ‘Desert Storm’ operation here to take over the region and reassert American interests.

I also have to comment on your suggestion – “the American think tank consisted of great minds, like Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney... They worked on this Middle East plan for years before they started to act upon it.” While I don’t doubt they consider themselves to be very clever fellows, the fact is that every policy they have followed has gone wrong (except, as you say, unless their real intention was to magnify international chaos) and they have failed even to keep the American public bamboozled and docilely following their schemes of aggrandizement. This has been the most incompetent US administration in recent history. I really have to wonder where the Republican Party can hide these creators of such embarrassments to clear the decks for their future hopes.

Actually, if the United States is to restore its stature in the world and receive the trust, even of friends, in its future policies, this gang must be put on trial. Otherwise these events since 2000 will drag down America and American interests for the rest of the century. You may imagine from the neo-cons own propaganda that they have had a right to act extralegally both with domestic and international law, but the world does not act that way. International relations are built upon trust, and who can trust the future proposals of a system that has proved itself so fundamentally untrustworthy?

February 4th, 2008, 08:19 PM

No, I can't say I have! To ass-u-me you are making an ass out of you and me! Something the teacher once explained to us students!! You couldn't be more wrong, Chris! Ass u me ing again!! Yes, I am a Canadian! How about you? Been long in this country? Dear Chris, I don't know what you are driving at, but again, you are way out and totally wrong. If I wasn't such a mild-mannered loon, I'd... ... you one for making all these absolutely preposterous accusations!

Are you planning to run for premier? You have insider knowledge as to who will form the next government, that you already now know what the next government of Alberta will do? It might be what YOU are HOPING for, but that hope might not materialize. The pressure on Alberta could prove too strong to escape. Yes, and I would be leading instead of Rummy!!

Alright, this time I have to assume you missed my sarcasm completely. Never mind.... it is of no importance. They don't need to hide any one of the "creators". I have checked and they all do very well moneywise! As to the most incompetent administration... I don't think so! They have done very well. Bush was reelected for a second term, he was never in danger of impeachment, leave alone being assassinated, he is well liked by many Americans, the troops are loyal to him, he has achieved a great deal... like he got the oil flowing directly from Iraq to Israel, and there is still great support for him and the neo-cons in the country! Good luck with the trial! Who do you assume would put them on trial! Our cute little boy, Stephie? I don't think they care! If they were that sensitive, they wouldn't have started the wars in the first place. Again, WHO would or should stop them to do as they please? They still have the power!! But Chris, the Americans have us by the pants! They can eliminate, topple, cripple and starve any country through their trade sanctions. Remember our softwood deal? Our beef export? We and pretty much the rest of the world is under their boot.

So, there you have my response! I hope for future debates we can do without "assuming" so much!

February 5th, 2008, 07:23 AM

Sorry, no sidetrack. Take for satrap the German word "Stadthalter", the guy who wanted to release Jesus, but agreed to the mob claiming his crossing for blasphemia, since he was afraid of local trouble coming to the ears of his masters in Rome.
Assuming is a good english word. Why should it get replaced by believing, accepting, supposing...? Sorry, did there make a teacher just a joke or is there a realy emotional trap in the use of these word?
Mr. Obama is said to be the hope for change, rather than Hilary. Other skin colour of a president means more of change, than other sex type of the president. Wow, it needs a rocket scientist to puzzle that out.
Guess who! Guess who the political newbee Barak chose as his advisor for international affairs (i.e. in terms of US - handling of war): Zbigniew Brzeziński (hawk and friend of hawk Wolfowitz), who let support the Mujahidin since July, 3rd 1979, what provoked Breshnew to jump into the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan half a year later, what got so long refused by the Soviet leadership.
Not stupid, but discouraged to defend democracy:
People are chased into competitive fights for their daily dollar to secure food and shelter. What intensity shall they develop in checking out their political brainwash? If someone tries to find out political differencies between candidates for elections, it turns out to be a waste of time. The avoidance of Barak Obama to say something besides: "We need change! Now!" ("clever" copied from MDC in Zimbabwe) - that avoidance is very professional “talk without saying something”. Look, how close the alternatives are in the 2008 preelections, or elsewhere in the present world: http://politicalcompass.org/

February 5th, 2008, 09:36 AM

Canadians have been brainwashed into believing that the actions of the Canadian military in Afghanistan are "accordance" with the NATO mandate. War-mongers on this board love to generate divisiveness and exercise bigotry with aplomb... Kind of takes the veneer of "civilization" and rips it off those who froth at the mouth in anticipation of more bloodshed....

Like most propaganda and in fact the consequences of policy decisions in the United States (as well of course as those of "big-business"....Enron and corruption in general) allow the American machinery of imperialism to lead the weak-minded Canadians around by their prejudices....nothing new there.

February 5th, 2008, 11:07 AM

Elephant Number One
Chriskander said:
Oh what CRAP! Yeah, "allow something we don't like and we'll swat you down"......when that thing is aid and assistance to terror groups that subsequently murder thousands of people....thank GOD we slap them down.........and even then we first offered them the option of turning the guilty parties over...........

Who gives a **** about "international concensus". What, now we need the approval of Robert Mugabe, Colonel Khadaffi, and the Red Chinese to DEFEND ourselves? Exactly what planet are you from?

And, BTW, this is a UN approved mission............perhaps we need to seek approval from each country individually? GET REAL!

And, if you knew ANYTHING about the Taliban, you would not think them capable of being the "legitimate" gov't of a two hole outhouse.

GEEZ!

February 5th, 2008, 11:26 AM

Elephant Number Two
Chriskander said:
So, I see no pipeline.

I see no construction.

I see no plans for construction.

I've been hearing this crap for seven years.

Crap being the key word.....THINK about this.....a pipeline through some of the most rugged terrain on earth, vulnerable to any looney with 4 ozs of explosive, and the area has NO lack of loonies or explosives...........

Get sensible.

February 5th, 2008, 11:31 AM

Elephant Number Three

Chriskander said
At least here you have some contact with reality......but personally, I do not care to leave issues of my country's defense in the hands of Islamo-fascist lunatics......be they in the Pakistani Secret Service, or anywhere else.

February 5th, 2008, 11:38 AM

If you knew anything about the American government you might have the same outhouse outlook, but you plainly don't. For two years I have read your pathetic little demeaning retorts and juvenial detractions and never once have you supported your childish notions of power and government with so much as one article or link to some support material that we might peruse to more fully understand your perspective which remains through your own efforts that of a commic book reading prepubescant nose picker.

February 5th, 2008, 11:39 AM

Elephant Number Four

Chriskander said:

" Iran is Canada’s natural ally for its ongoing involvement in the region, but it’s the one country we don’t communicate with because of the political jackasses in Washington."

OH RIGHT!

IRAN is our natural ally.....the nation that wants to murder every Jew on earth, the nation in which political leaders have stated they want nukes to destroy the western democracy of Israel, the nation where homosexuals are hanged, the nation where women are whipped for eating ice cream in a titilating way, the nation that has beaten to death one of our citizens, the supporters of terror through Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as Islamic Jihad and others, the catalyst of much of the horror in Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank.....THEY are our "natural" allies..........not the USA, which shares a continent, a history, the values of western civilization, a long friendship, membership in numerous treaties,k a language, a common economy...........NOT the USA, for God's sake!

Unbelieveable!

February 5th, 2008, 11:40 AM

BTW, I didn't know elephant hunting would be so easy.....and I never left the house!

February 5th, 2008, 11:45 AM

That's all you got ain't it Colpy.Just another schoolyard putdown, a whiney tiny little inconsequential petulant sneer, because you have no teeth and a harmless bark. Give us a link or be consigned to the sand box. I dare you Colpy.

February 5th, 2008, 12:09 PM

Hi Colpy;
There have been plans for the pipe line. Read the following:

Friday, 27 December, 2002, 11:23 GMT Central Asia pipeline deal signed




By Ian McWilliam
BBC correspondent in Kabul An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan. The project has been around for some years

The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan's unstable political situation.
This follows a summit meeting bringing together the presidents of the three countries last May when the project received formal go-ahead.
The pipeline would represent the first major foreign investment in Afghanistan in many years.
Alternate route
With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban about a year ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline.
Pakistan will be the terminus for the pipeline

The leaders of the three countries have now signed a framework agreement defining the legal aspects of setting up a consortium to build and operate the pipeline.
The trans-Afghanistan pipeline would export Turkmen gas via Afghanistan to Pakistani ports, from where it could reach world markets.
India is the largest potential buyer and the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, said Delhi was welcome to join the project.
Turkmenistan has some of the world's greatest reserves of natural gas, but still relies on tightly controlled Russian pipelines to export it.
Ashgabat has long been desperate to find an alternative export route.
Wary investors
Afghanistan would profit by receiving millions of dollars in transit fees and construction of the pipeline would provide thousands of desperately needed jobs.
It is also hoped such a project would boost regional economic ties and pave the way for further foreign investment.
The chief difficulty will be actually finding the money to build the pipeline.
The Asian Development Bank is carrying out a study for the project.
But investors will be very cautious about putting serious money into Afghanistan when the central government in Kabul still has only limited influence in the regions the pipeline would cross.

---------------------------------------------------
I know this is an older article, but it shows there is serious consideration and planning. Unfortunately, Afghanistan is still in a state of war with the Taliban, who oppose the building of the pipeline and would destroy it if given a chance. That, I think, is the real holdup, not the rugged terrain. With dynamite any terrain can be altered.

Why not negotiate with the Taliban? Offer them to be the safe-keepers of it, and ask what they would expect in return. Treat them like intelligent people!!

February 5th, 2008, 12:15 PM

Taliban was running the country. The women couldnt go to school, face covered 24/7, children being drafted...The war to get taliban out is the best war to date