September 8, 2004
War, the CIA and Narco-Trafficking
Afghanistan, American Drug Colony
By MIKE WHITNEY
"More than 10 million citizens have registered to vote in the October
presidential election, a resounding endorsement of democracy. Despite
ongoing acts of violence Iraq now has a strong prime minister, a national
council and national elections are scheduled for January. Our nation is
standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq because when America
gives its word, America must keep its word.
Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are
found in liberty, not tyranny and terror. Reformers and political
prisoners and exiles will hear the message that their dream of freedom
cannot be denied forever. And as freedom advances, heart by heart and
nation by nation, America will be more secure and the world more peaceful."
President Bush; Republican Convention
The US doesn't control a scrap of ground in Afghanistan outside the
capital. Now, with the up tick in violence and bombings in Kabul, even
that is in doubt.
Despite President Bush's delusional palavering at the Republican
Convention, the US has no reasonable expectation of succeeding in
Afghanistan. The countryside is dominated by warlords, the commitment of
troops and resources is insufficient, and the farcical American stooge,
Hamid Karzai, must be shadowed by an entourage of 400 mercenaries just to
keep him among the living. Karzai's tenure as king of Afghanistan won't
last 24 hours after America finally picks up and goes home.
The notion that the Afghanistan mission was a "success" is just one of
more glaring fictions initiated by the establishment media. Certainly, the
facts are plain enough for anyone to draw the obvious conclusions.
Instead, the American public is inundated with information that is
"liberally seasoned" with White House spin. What passes as analysis in
America's editorial pages is rarely more than a rehashing of the
hard-right platitudes issuing from Washington framed in flashier language.
The real situation in Afghanistan is dramatically different than the
being offered by the PR wizards in the White House.
William Thomas nailed it in an article in 2003, "Why Afghanistan was
Invaded": "The Caspian Sea basin's 200 billion barrels of untapped "black
gold" appeared to offer Washington a strategic counterbalance equal to
Saudi Arabia's immense oil reserves" (Those who have studied the war in
Afghanistan know that George Bush actually signed orders to invade the
country "PRIOR TO 9-11".) Thomas continues with a revelation that is
scrupulously omitted from American newspapers:
"Now, after war crimes that included the slaughter of thousands of
prisoners, and cluster bomb and radioactive cruise missile attacks against
thousands more defenseless civilians, the return to rapacious rule by
warlords worse than the Taliban is being overlooked by American occupiers
preoccupied with three exploratory oil wells.
Guess what? These new findings shrank the Caspian oil ocean to a more
modest subterranean lake of just 10 to 20 billion barrels of poor quality,
"Oops! No oil": another slight miscalculation.
This explains why the US commitment is so trifling and why no real
to secure the countryside has even been attempted. It also explains why
Iraq appeared on the radar screen soon after.
(I should note that the degree of anxiety we see in the
relentless pursuit of oil is no small matter. It's clear from industry
records that 2004 my well be the "peak year" for oil production, meaning
that entire economies will henceforward be vulnerable to dramatic shifts
in pricing and availability. This is compounded by the fact that many
reports indicate that Saudi Arabia's main wells are nearly exhausted.
Cheney and Co. decided that the only way to resolve this situation was to
get "ahead of the curve" and seize the world's oil by force of arms. The
results so far are less than spectacular.)
CIA and the US Banking Establishment involved in Drug trade?
Afghanistan's opium production has skyrocketed. Although the Taliban
virtually stamped out poppy production, the country now accounts for
two-third of the world's heroin. As hard as it may be to believe, there is
compelling evidence that the US (via the CIA) may be directly involved in
A report in Portland Independent Media gives us some idea of how this
works in their summary of the writings of investigative journalist Mike
"Before 1980, Afghanistan produced 0% of the world's opium. But then
CIA moved in, and by 1986 they were producing 40% of the world's heroin
supply. By 1999, they were churning out 3,200 TONS of heroin a year -
nearly 80% of the total market supply. But then something unexpected
happened. The Taliban rose to power, and by 2000 they had destroyed nearly
all of the opium fields. Production dropped from 3,000+ tons to only 185
tons, a 94% reduction! This enormous drop in revenue subsequently hurt not
only the CIA's Black Budget projects, but also the free-flow of laundered
money in and out of the Controller's banks"
And, this from Mike Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" (FTW):
"Until February, Afghanistan had been the world's largest producer of
opium/heroin, claiming close to 70% of the world's total production. That
opium, consumed largely in Western Europe and smuggled through the
Balkans, was a direct source of cash deposits in Western financial
institutions and markets.
The Taliban's actions this year (destroying the opium crop) severed the
ruling military junta in Pakistan from its primary source of foreign
revenues and made bin Laden and the Taliban completely expendable in the
eyes of the Pakistani government. It also cut off billions of dollars in
revenues that had been previously laundered through western banks and
Russian financial institutions connected to them.
... Prior to the WTC attacks, credible sources, including the U.S.
government, the IMF, Le Monde and the U.S. Senate placed the amount of
drug cash flowing into Wall Street and U.S. banks at around $250-$300
billion a year.
In that context, the real history of Osama bin Laden, as America's
terrorist-du-jour reveals a long and continuous history, interwoven with
the drug trade and the Bush family, of supporting conflicts that have
benefited U.S. military and economic interests."
"THE TALIBANS DESTRUCTION OF THAT (OPIUM) CROP WAS APPARENTLY THE
MOST IMPORTANT ACT OF ECONOMIC WARFARE AGAINST US ECONOMIC INTERESTS THAT
THE TALIBAN HAD EVER COMMITTED".
It invited the war that would come shortly after.
The facts related to CIA involvement are fairly well documented at this
point. (Although, I haven't seen these particular allegations before.) It
seems unlikely that this level of "economic activity" would continue to
flourish without US participation. Also, the parasitic relationship of the
major banking institutions to the drug trade is hardly anecdotal.
We shouldn't be surprised that America's "new friend" Pakistan is
involved as well. Before the Taliban's rise to power, a "whopping" 60% of
Pakistan's GDP is estimated to have come from the illicit trafficking of
drugs; making it a factor that penetrated every area of Pakistan society.
(The ISI, the equivalent of the CIA, was a particularly large beneficiary
of drug receipts)
What is striking about these charges of US involvement in narco
trafficking is that suggests a compelling interest on the part of the
banking establishment to prosecute the war in Afghanistan. Up to this
point, many critics had alleged that the Energy giants were driving the
bus. Now, it appears that there was a confluence of interests (Big Energy,
Banks, Wall Street and arms dealers) who elected to steer the country
With the giants of industry on board, there's no need to wonder why the
Forth Estate followed suit and "whipped up pre-war hysteria" on front
pages and TVs across the nation.
This should give us all some idea of the (almost) insurmountable task
front of us; to extricate America from its new imperial wars. Virtually,
every major institution in American life (including the Congress) is
committed to this new crusade. This illustrates the gravity and the
magnitude of the "Iraq-Afghanistan" campaign. The principle players
involved in this global war really believe that America's future depends
on its success and will employ any means necessary to achieve their
objectives. (as Abu Ghraib clearly proves)
Everything from the solvency of the dollar, to our economic fortunes
the next millennia, to our securing reliable energy resources, to our
unchallenged military dominance, to our foothold in the world's most vital
economic region (Asia) has been recklessly gambled on the current wars.
Simply put, they've bet everything on their plan and will fight "tooth
nail" to make sure it succeeds.
It will be a monumental task to turn this train around.
The unanticipated lack of vital resources (oil) implies that we may be
looking at Afghanistan's "final status"; a fractured country broken into
regional fiefdoms (ruled by warlords) to facilitate the ever-burgeoning
drug trade. As we have seen, the narco dealing provides crucial resources
and liquidity to American markets and the banking industry. The dearth of
troops and reconstruction money strongly indicates that no change in this
scurrilous policy is forthcoming.
Aside from the "lofty rhetoric" of the Prevaricator and chief,
is being condemned to a future of unending violence and neglect by
powerful constituencies in the US. It's critical that we shed as much
light as possible on the institutions in our society that are underwriting
aggression to perpetuate their economic dominance and to keep the entire
fraudulent system afloat.
Thanks to Mike Ruppert's "From The Wilderness" FTW's story, The
Bush-Cheney drug Empire in October, 2000. That story is online at
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: