What You Are Not Being Told About the Afghanistan War

by | Oct 12, 2016 | Videos | 22 comments

October 7, 2016 marks the 15th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by US-led NATO forces.

15 years since the bombs began raining down on the country. 15 years of drone strikes and civilian massacres, detainees and prison torture, insurgency and bombings, warlords and druglords and CIA kickbacks.

15 years of death. 15 years of destruction.

And still, like a decades-long nightmare, it continues.

OBAMA: I’m announcing an additional adjustment to our posture. Instead of going down to 5,500 troops by the end of this year, the United States will maintain approximately 8,400 troops in Afghanistan into next year through the end of my administration. The narrow missions assigned to our forces will not change. They remain focused on supporting Afghan forces and going after terrorists. But maintaining our forces at this specific level, based on our assessment of the security conditions and the strength of Afghan forces, will allow us to continue to provide tailored support to help Afghan forces continue to improve.


The world was told that the invasion, launched after the invocation of NATO’s self-defense treaty, was a response to the false flag events of September 11, 2001.

But this explanation, like the official narrative of the events of 9/11 itself, was a carefully constructed lie. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization explains, the US government’s demands for Osama Bin Laden’s extradition were proven disingenuous when they repeatedly denied the Taliban’s offers to extradite him, and the invasion itself, a major theatre operation, was launched impossibly quickly.

That the invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well before 9/11 was first revealed by Niaz Naik, the former Foreign Secretary of Pakistan, who told BBC News that he “was told by senior American officials in mid-July [of 2001] that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.”

This story was confirmed by Donald Rumsfeld, who told the September 11th Commission Hearings in March of 2004, that the first major national security directive of the Bush administration was a plan to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Although it was not officially signed until October 25, 2001, nearly three weeks after the invasion began, it was in fact drafted in June of that year and was sitting on the president’s desk waiting to be signed on September 4, 2001, one full week before 9/11.

“Dr. Rice has stated that she asked the National Security Council staff in her first week in office for a new presidential initiative on al Qaeda. In early March, the staff was directed to craft a more aggressive strategy aimed at eliminating the al Qaeda threat. The first draft of that approach, in the form of a presidential directive, was circulated by the NSC staff in June of 2001, and a number of meetings were held that summer at the deputy secretary level to address the policy questions involved, such as relating an aggressive strategy against Taliban to U.S.-Pakistan relations.

“By the first week of September, the process had arrived at a strategy that was presented to principals and later became NSPD-9, the President’s first major substantive national security decision directive. It was presented for a decision by principals on September 4th, 2001, seven days before the 11th, and later signed by the President, with minor changes and a preamble to reflect the events of September 11th, in October.”


So if the plan to invade Afghanistan was not about 9/11, then why were the neocons so eager to take over the country?

Like any major military operation, there are multiple strategic objectives to be achieved.

Securing a key transportation corridor from rich Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves has always been one important objective of the Afghanistan war.

But this was by no means the only objective of the invasion.

From the monetary perspective there is as much as a trillion dollars of untapped mineral wealth in the country that could make it one of the world’s leading mining centres in the coming years, a mineral wealth that has been known about for decades.

And there is also the fact that the world’s lucrative multi-billion dollar heroin trade sources almost entirely from the country, with up to 90% of the world’s opium coming from the record crops that are being diligently protected by US troops.

The oil and gas pipelines. The mineral extraction. The opium. All of these are factors in the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan years after any pretence of an excuse for NATO’s presence evaporated. But there is one factor that has made Afghanistan the target of would-be world rulers for centuries: its location.

In 1904, Sir Halford John Mackinder PC, the Director of the London School of Economics, published an essay in The Geographical Journal titled “The Geographical Pivot of History.” In that essay, Mackinder laid out the “Heartland Theory,” a theory that would come to dominate foreign policy and geostrategic thought.

The Heartland Theory holds that the earth’s surface can be divided into a “world island,” the “offshore islands” and the “outlying islands.” The “Heartland” lay at the center of the “world island” and the Eurasian landmass, and its importance was summarized in Mackinder’s famous dictum:

“Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the World.”

This is why control of the Central Asian region, and Afghanistan in particular, has been prized by empire since the 19th century, when Britain and Russia engaged in diplomatic struggle, intelligence operations, military conflicts and subterfuge for control over Afghanistan in what was called “The Great Game.” And this is why former National Security Advisor and perennial Washington insider Zbigniew Brzezinski was able to predict in his 1997 magnum opus, “The Grand Chessboard,” that the first major war of the 21st century would take place in Afghanistan.

Brzezniski had no crystal ball. He did not know that the neocons would be in office in 2001. He had not seen NSPD-9. He did not know how 9/11 would be used as the fig leaf to cover the naked ambition of NATO’s land grab. But he did understand the geostrategic imperatives of world empires, and he knew that control over Central Asia was crucial to control over the world. Without NATO’s Afghanistan toehold, the US hegemon would have no chance of countering China and Russia in the New Great Game of the 21st century.

This is what Afghanistan was, is and always will be about: empire. The naked ambition of would-be world rulers. As long as that ambition remains unchecked, NATO will continue to keep its forces in the region at any cost. And as Russia and China continue to exert their own influence in the region, that deployment brings us one step closer to direct military confrontation.

And the people of Afghanistan, once again, are crushed underfoot, mere pawns in the game for world empire.


  1. Great stuff James !!
    You’ve outdone yourself again.

  2. “And still, like a decades-long nightmare, it continues….”
    “…NATO will continue to keep its forces in the region at any cost.”

    — May I interject something here, we’ve all seen what happened in Iraq when Obama pull the troops out right? The pro Israeli Blackops people then proceeded to create ISIS in order to fill in the vacuum and thereby allowing them to continue their war on Syria.

    Obviously Afghanistan is geo-strategic, so how can the next administration, whether it be Clinton or Trump, simply uproot from Afghanistan knowing the same people that control ISIS might expand their too?

    Seems to me, the best possible outcome, is to keep a small but formidable force within Afghanistan, at least until ISIS is done for in Iraq and Syria, and then and only then will it be feasible to leave Afghanistan.

    • Hey VoiceOfArabi,

      No mistake, no mystery either.

      ISIS is an offshoot of AlQeada, and AlQeada is an offshoot of the Mujahideen, and we know the Mujahideen were created by the Reagan/Bush administration in the 80’s along with the help of Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Israel.

      Don’t know why you guys keep talking in riddles, it isn’t that complicated.

      • (Sadly, out of the 85% Sunni Muslims, there is about 25% Wahabi Muslims.)
        = tomato/tomahto

        You are still agreeing with me that Wahabism is an offshoot of Sunni Muslims which is based out of Saudi Arabia!

        Furthermore, you again stated in your post that Wahabism started and was being spread from Saudi Arabia with the assistance of CIA and MI6.

        Sorry if I offended your faith, I’ll try to refer to ISIS/AlQeada as Wahabi from now on, however it doesn’t change the fact they have been created by the Sunni House of Saud.

        • I’m not blind, maybe a little ignorant, however aren’t we all?Fact is we barely know each other.

          Furthermore, wiki describes Wahhabism as a branch of Sunni Islam, so it’s not really like the KKK, it’s more like a branch of Protestantism, kinda like the Baptist church.

          (Sadly, out of the 85% Sunni Muslims, there is about 25% Wahabi Muslims.)

          — So out of the 25%, what percentage do you believe have been radicalized?

        • Thanks for the info VoiceOfArabi.

          This is how I understand it now, in the 80’s the US, Saudi’s and Israeli’s created Al Qeada with the help of Bin Laden, a Wahhabi, at first to kick out the Ruskies in Afghanistan, and then to overthrow Saddam.

          Since Iraq has a weak shia majority population, it be interesting to know what percentage of Shia’s in Iraq were killed since 2003 compared to the number of Sunni’s that were killed in Iraq.

          Reason why, I’d like to know if “they” are now using Wahhabism to primarily attack Shia Muslims, meaning the House of Saud might be using ISIS as a proxy army to attack Iran.

          To my knowledge, Yemen is also Shia, and Saudi Arabia is currently bombing them, are they not? And as far as I know, ISIS/DAESH has yet to attack Saudi Arabia.

        • “Your statement should read.. USA & co. is fighting a proxy war with Russia & co. using ISIS…”

          — I don’t think so, John Kerry negotiated a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear program (P5+1), and Obama could have easily declared a no fly zone over Syria thereby becoming ISIS air force overthrowing Assad, but instead Obama choose to negotiate the withdrawal of Assad’s WMD’s with Russia, and currently Kerry and Lavrov are trying to come up with a peace deal for Syria.

          Your theory about the US using ISIS as a proxy to attack Russia makes no sense.

    • Here, let me expand my theory in order to fill in any void some of you may have. You’ll see, it’s all common sense stuff, no mumbo jumbo.

      Remember when General Wesley Clark said: “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran.”..remember that?

      That Clark interview was in 2007, a year before Obama took office. A time when Americans were not only war weary but Bush’s approval ratings were at an all time low.

      The Neocons, knowing they were months away from loosing the white house also knew with it that their planned war(s) that General Clark had forewarned us about were going to be derailed by Obama, this is when they decided to create ISIS. ISIS is doing the work of the Neocons in Iraq, Syria and Libya.

      As far as Iran (Shia) is concerned, John Kerry was able to successfully negotiate the P5+1 agreement avoiding major war, which greatly angered the Neocons and the far right in Israel, including Saudi Arabia (Sunni) Iran’s enemy.

      The only two countries left on Gen. Clark list are Somalia, Sudan, and since Syria hasn’t gone as planned, I’m assuming those two countries will have to wait.

      • You’ll probably have to explain how this administration’s toppling of Libya and continued destabilization of Syria and Somalia does not fit into the Clark Plan.

        • The toppling of Libya was largely a French incursion, mainly Sarkozy. If you remember, it was the French Rafale fighter jets that struck first (with the help of American logistics).

          Obama even called him out on it. http://www.france24.com/en/20160311-obama-cameron-sarkozy-libya-mess-gaddafi-france-uk

          Sarkozy is the French equivalent of American Neocons, and I believe Obama was either tricked into Toppling Libya or he was weak. What we do know however, is that Obama had the same opportunity when it came to Syria, yet choose a different path.

          • We’re already living in the “New World Order” and have been for quite some time now. One could say the “New World Order” that we are currently living under dates back to the time of Julius Caesar.

            Hate to break it to you, but Russia and China aren’t our saviors, they simply have alternate interest than the ‘West’, and they clash from time to time.

          • For some reason I just don’t buy the premise that it was “largely” a French incursion.

            There is also this little gem where President Obama admitted that:

            “In fact, American pilots even flew French fighter jets off a French aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. Allies don’t get any closer than that.”

            (There are other little nuggets in that speech btw, its worth a read.)

            But you know, 5 years down the road, after you destroyed a country, I would probably want to save face and blame it on somebody else as well…

            • First of all, the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 was proposed by France, Sarkozy was the main driver.

              Secondly, a leaked email that was sent to Hillary Clinton reads that French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind:

              1) to obtain Libyan oil
              2) ensure French influence in the region
              3) increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically
              4) assert French military power
              5) and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”


              Trump supporters use leaked emails like these to blame Hillary, and in a way she deserves much of the blame, however to somehow believe that Trump, which is backed by people such as Guliani and Nethanhyu, would not have attacked Libya if he had been secretary of State is absurd.

              All of these wars for Oil and Currency is traced backed directly to when Nixon killed Bretton Woods agreement in 1971.

              Hillary is in the camp that free trade, open borders with free floating currencies should rule the world, whereas Trump wants to build a wall, impose tariffs, declare open jihad against Muslims and reaffirm the US petrol dollar as the sole International currency.

              My pick in this election is Hillary, because she is the lesser of 2 evils, period.

      • Looks like we hit the maximum # of replies to a single topic. Continuing the conversation from your last comment @ 10/14/2016 at 7:55 pm:

        I have no doubts that the French had ambitions in Libya, and I do concede that UN Resolution 1973 was indeed introduced by the French (although the BBC reported it was jointly with Lebanon, the UK, and US support), and I’ll even give you the fact that France pushed the U.S. to get on board with the no-fly zone. However, there is one dirty little secret that you are overlooking (which the President is conveniently omitting,) and that secret is what happened when the French brought the U.S. in on the no-fly zone plan.

        You have to remember that the the original bill of goods sold to the American public was that a no-fly zone was being created to stop Gaddafi from bombing his own people. Yet, within the first day of the campaign, it immediately escalated to an all out bombing spree of the country which continued for months. This was justified, the American people were told, because UN Resolution 1973 provided that, “all necessary measures” were to be taken to protect the Libyan people. This was literally Obama’s justification for a war of aggression in Libya, and he stated it plainly in a public letter sent to Congress at the time.

        So, you might be surprised to find out that, according to a UK House of Commons report on the Libyan conflict released earlier this year (see pg. 11-12), it was actually the US, and the “reluctant warrior” Barack Obama himself, who pushed for the inclusion of the “all necessary measures” clause into UN Resolution 1973, taking what was basically a simple no-fly zone being proposed by France and the UK, and giving the coalition carte blanche to do whatever they wished, from attacking ground targets, to dropping bombs, to raining down Tomahawk missiles, launching drone strikes, engaging in naval battles, etc.

        Here is the relevant section (emphasis added is mine):

        24. Dr Fox told us that “the US were quite reticent about getting involved militarily and tying up assets in a Libyan campaign.” Lord Hague added that “there were divisions in the American Government” and that the UK and France influenced the United States to support Resolution 1973. Before the United States joined the coalition of nations willing to intervene in Libya, France and the UK argued that the international community should simply impose a no-fly zone. Former US Ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, pointed out:

        “Cameron and Sarkozy were the undisputed leaders, in terms of doing something. The problem was that it wasn’t really clear what that something was going to be. Cameron was pushing for a no-fly zone, but in the US there was great scepticism. A no-fly zone wasn’t effective in Bosnia, it wasn’t effective in Iraq, and probably wasn’t going to be effective in Libya. When President Obama was confronted with the argument for a no-fly zone, he asked how this was going to be effective. Gaddafi was attacking people. A no-fly zone wasn’t going to stop him. Instead, to stop him we would need to bomb his forces attacking people.

        The United States was instrumental in extending the terms of Resolution 1973 beyond the imposition of a no-fly zone to include the authorisation of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. In practice, this led to the imposition of a ‘no-drive zone’ and the assumed authority to attack the entire Libyan Government command and communications network.

        So if the Obama administration wasn’t duped or tricked into the war, but instead was the party “instrumental” in expanding its scope from a simple no-fly zone to an all out war of aggression against Libya, and if it wasn’t “largely” France doing the dirty work in the country, but was instead the US flying the most sorties and providing the most war resources (and who knows what the real numbers are because the President admitted that on at least one occasion US pilots flew French jets), then I ask again, how does this administration’s toppling of Libya not fit into the Wes Clark plan?

        And if it does, then isn’t Obama and his administration just another Neocon/Neoliberal one?

        • Ask any military leader of any country, and they will all tell you that imposing a “no-fly zone” is to destroy all command and control and communication infrastructure. In other words, it means war, period.

          Furthermore, the countries that could have Veto’ed UN Resolution 1973 said they were fooled by the added clause of “all necessary measures”.

          Seriously? I call bullshit, they all knew exactly what this meant, including the Russians and the Chinese, and they choose to abstain regardless.

          When General Wesley Clark forewarned us that “We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years…” what he forgot to clarify was the “we” part.

          He failed to mention “we” is mainly the US, UK commonwealth of nations and France, however the reality is that sometimes the “we” in effect includes Russia and China as well.

          Most of the time our media make it appear as though its Russia & China versus the West, however these nations meet regularly multiple times a year and negotiate trade deals during the G8, G20 summits etc…

          After WW2, the current world order has been, essentially the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, UK, and US), and that’s the truth.

          So is Obama a puppet? Yes he is. They all are, including Putin, Hollande, Cameron and Xi Jinping. All these people are interchangeable, and unfortunately Gaddafi didn’t fit into their world order plans to re-carve the world, therefore he was expendable.

    • Can you elaborate on what ‘the 35,000 view’ is, and maybe tell us more about your ‘one designer’ notion? It seems to me that you may have deeply held beliefs, but unless you describe to us the manner in which you came about them, and describe what they really are, that this is degenerating into nothing short of a youtube comments section.

      I mean this with respect, and am not simply attempting to troll you.

    • P.Frog

      I don’t understand how you can assume that Obama and his administration are against the “military-industrial” and “police-state industrial” complex… Under Obama, America has become more Orwellian than ever before – from what I understand he has written/signed more executive orders than all other presidents combined. Under his administration, all of the same nation destabilization (Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc) has continued on from 8 years of Bush… Obama and Hillary have been just as “warhawkish” as the Neo-Con’s just more subtle and strategic (e.g. drone warn, paramilitary build up, etc)… and Obama and Hillary get away with it in ways they never could if they weren’t Democrats, African American/a woman…

      It’s a complete Deocratic “neo-con”, and from the sounds of things you’re completely eating it up and disseminating the “left wing/progressive” BS… Almost sounds like “Democracy Now” or Chris Hedges about 8 years ago. But at least now they admit (to some degree) that they’ve been lied to/deceived in light of the past 8 years of the Obama administration/Democrats.

      • I believe Obama has used a more pragmatic approach, much like what Lavrov suggest should be done in Syria.


        As far as Obama signing more executive orders than all other presidents combined…well, what other choice did he have with a Republican Congress led by Neocons like McCain and Lindsey Graham constantly pushing for war in Syria, and looney’s like Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh.

        GOP Specifically Stated They Wanted Obama To Fail And Would Obstruct At Every Turn. SEPTEMBER 2, 2012



        • “…and Hillary will surely finish what she started in Syria.”

          — I doubt it, the Russians have S-300 and S-400 in Syria now, besides, once Aleppo is either retaken or a peace deal brokered with the Free Syrian Army, then they’ll turn their focus on ISIS and finish them off in Raqqa.

          Obama to a certain extent is a puppet, he is the “leader” of the American Empire after all, however he did try to close down Guantanamo, he did draw back the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to have a certain faction within the US industrial Complex create ISIS in order to continue the war(s).

          * You know, I don’t think Obama would have referred to ISIS as a JV Team had he known what was about to unfold.

          When it comes to foreign policy, Obama has made some poor decisions, however overall, given what he had to work with after Bush left office, I think negotiating the Iranian P5+1 nuclear agreement, deescalating the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were largely good policy moves.

          • Someone still drinking the Obama/Democrat koolaid is almost as nauseating as someone drinking the Trump koolaid. Same shit, different toilet bowl.

            That you on one hand affirm that 9/11 is a false flag, and then on the other say that Obama and the Democrats are the “good guys” in American politics astounds me tbh. You’re either clueless (like any Trump or Hillary supporter) or you have some kind of agenda/narrative that you’re trying to spin here on CR and elsewhere.

            • I’ll say this, we know it was the Neocons that created the Mujahideen, which led to AlQeada which has now been re-branded as ISIS…right?

              We know it was Bush Sr that orchestrated the Iranian “October Suprise” to tip the Presidential election versus Jimmy Carter in his favor.

              We also know, the Neocons are primarily Republicans…right?

              We also know that there is no love lost between the Clinton’s and Trump…right? I mean have you watched the debates lately? Surely, it’s not all theater.

              We also know, Trump may not be supported by the Bush’s, however he’s still supported by Neocons such as Nethanhyu, Guiliani, Cheney, and radio personalities such Limbaugh and Alex Jones.

              We also know Bush was President when the towers came down, and his administration which was chalk full of Neocons, decided to attack Iraq for a second time.

              We also know that Monica Lewinski, a nice Jewish girl, was gullible and set up to take down Bill Clinton when he was President.

              We also know that Bush stole the election from Al Gore in Florida and 4 years later in Ohio.

              Is America an Empire? Yes it is.

              Is there no difference between the Left and Right, like Alex Jones would have us all believe? I don’t think so. Sure, there is always common ground, but they are not independent from each other.

              Are there factions within the Republican and Democratic parties that wrestle for control of the Empire every 4 years? the answer is yes.

              Is there an “all powerful entity” that rules both political parties? No.

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member