Tribulation Network

(Scarecrow)
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

I'd unravel any riddle
For any individ'le
In trouble or in pain

(Dorothy)
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain

(Scarecrow)
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean's near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I'd sit and think some more

I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain

Victor Fleming’s classics, The Wizard of Oz (written by Frank Baum) and Gone with the Wind (both directed by Fleming in 1939 while Hitler was invading Poland and the brainless Europeans sat dumbfounded by his ingenious subterfuge) remind us not only of Ray Bolger’s cerebrally challenged character but of the cowardly lion played by Bert Lahr: “As for you my friend, you are a victim of disorganized thinking. You are under the unfortunate delusion that simply because you run away from danger you have no courage! You are confusing courage with wisdom.”

Now, just why this reflection upon the brainless and delusions of confusion? Perhaps the metaphors chosen from “Somewhere over the rainbow” remind us of a bygone era whose pleasant themes allow us to face our present duress when we’re found unconscious, dreaming of real-life figures taking on bigger than life portrayals – figments of our imagination – surreal caricatures who benignly expose our real condition; it’s easier to face up to our enfeebled frame through cartoon than to come to terms with our fearful lack of reasoning in the real world.

This leads us down the yellow brick road to where we are today – though most are unconsciously swirling around in their fairyland of Munchkins, Witches (so-called “Good” and “Wicked”) and the IRS-symbolized figure of the Wizard of Oz himself, played by Frank Morgan (a.k.a. Ben Bernanke) – you know, the manipulator of power and money whose holographic image is but a great bluff of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Spinning knobs, amplifying sounds with god-like voice, complete with thundering clasps and steamy colorations – ah, all in an effort to impress, intimidate and confuse our formidable four. Why, if it hadn’t been for Toto’s exposé of the farce behind the curtain, we’d still be fearfully diluted, inept to understand what’s really going on here.

So, just as Herr Hitler, the man behind the curtain in 1939, terrorizing a multitude of the delusional and disorganized – you know, most of whom hadn’t a clue as to what was going on or didn’t want to know what was going on (aside from the Toto himself, Winston Churchill – not meant to deprecate his person or work) – brings us back to planet earth, knowing full-well that the tornado’s fury and aftermath await our arrival. Alas! We must use what little brains are left, face our fears, and as Dorothy enjoins, with unbreakable hearts realize that if it doesn’t exist in our own backyards, we never really lost it … but it does exist in our own backyards and it’s staring us right in the face, and, unfortunately, we never lost it!

One of the besetting issues with the heartless Tin Woodman, played by Jack Haley in the Wizard of Oz, had a lot to do with oil. Once the oil can’s squirts were strategically inserted into the Tin Man’s joints, he was up and at ‘um with the pack. That’s just about right where we are at this juncture in history.

As Obama Mania subsides, as polls are wont to ascend and descend, even so, are the vicissitudes of unceasing wars and rumors of war, with their seemingly senseless killings and apparent lack of purpose – or “Why are we in there in the first place?” – abound. Our backyard discovery seems apparent: We’re fighting the War in Afghanistan and are entrenched in Iraq, so that

America maintains control over the Wicked Spigot—Eurasia’s oil and gas in this New World Order; and we’re there to see that this Wicked Witch is boiled once and for all in the, let’s say, caldron of oil And, helping us in this boundless endeavor are the Tin Men of Europe, NATO, and the Pakistani-Indian heartthrobs—all of whom generously benefit from the oil can strategically placed hither, thither and yon. NATO’s engagement in Southwest Asia has very little to do with her sterling alliance with America and altruistic designs on ending the reign of Osama bin Laden’s terror network…but it does have everything to do with oil and gas. These two (petroleum and natural gas) are intrinsically linked in the American model for Eurasia wherein the dominance of the region by the NATO alliance, led by the USA, and the affirmations of the Indian sub-continent, confirms the strategic interests of the Euro-American alliance, as well as the Indian sub-continent’s enthusiasm for the same.

That is precisely why our sons and daughters are offered upon the altar of energy expediency – because such an offering serves the strategic interests of America’s plans for herself, Europe and the Indian sub-continent. Make no mistake about it—that’s why the War in Afghanistan accelerates and the War in Iraq consolidates. That’s why a new generation is about to change things into the much ballyhoo New World Order.

The southwestern exposure of Eurasia and the incessant wars which therein abound have nothing – and that’s a CATEGORICAL NOTHING – to do with the Arab-Israeli Conflict, growing poppies in Afghanistan, keeping Pakistan and India from destroying the world in a nuclear exchange, the designs of the Kurds to recreate the world of Saladin, keeping a lid on Islamic Terrorism and a host of other non sequitur postulations—and that includes the democratization of Islamic States or feuding tribal thugs. No, we’re there for spoil and that’s that. We figured it out years ago that the versatility of the petroleum molecule astounds…he who has the black gold has the rule—that is the golden rule and don’t you forget it.

Or, as the more familiar map below illustrates the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan, into India, illustrates why Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan are all involved in securing the wealth; let alone India, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, with the latter two a direct link to Central/Western Europe and NATO nations.

Rather than bore you with old news – let’s first determine from a backyard glance the oil flow coming out of Iraq and the consolidation of US forces in the Cradle of Civilization.

A little background wouldn’t hurt, although I promised I wouldn’t bore…but this will help:

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves (actually nigh 200+ billion – see below) – 10-14 per cent of the world total. There are 80 discovered oilfields, of which only 17 have been developed. Oil accounts for more than 70 per cent of Iraq’s GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue.

“The proposed Iraq hydrocarbon law would take the majority of Iraq’s oil out of the exclusive hands of the Iraqi government and open it to international oil companies for a generation or more. The law is a dramatic break from the past. Foreign oil companies will have a stake in Iraq’s vast oil wealth for the first time since 1972, when Iraq nationalized the oil industry.”

“BearingPoint, a Virginia based contractor is being paid $240m for its work in Iraq, winning an initial contract from the US Agency for International Development (USAid) within weeks of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. A BearingPoint employee, based in the US embassy in Baghdad, was hired to advise the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up a new hydrocarbon law.”

“BearingPoint employees gave $117,000 to the 2000 and 2004 Bush election campaigns, more than any other Iraq contractor.”

“The process of drafting the oil law has been particularly troubling. The timeline of which entities have seen the draft when suggests that Iraqi interests are not being considered first and foremost:

“The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — reserves open to foreign control.” (Iraqi Oil Law, Oil Change International – and from Greg Muttitt of PLATFORM)

As it turns out, the Iraqi Oil Minister, Hassain al-Shahristani, made the privatization of Iraq’s oil fields to Western Interests a patriotic celebration of Iraqi independence. As a result, the bidding was disastrous. A BP-led group secured Iraq’s biggest oilfield, Rumaila, while the West spurned Iraqi nationalist tendencies, informing them that if they won’t play ball, neither will the West. And, since Iraq’s impoverishment will not tolerate this stupidity on the part of al-Shahristani, he’ll probably be dumped as Oil Minister, with the appointment of a more reasonable and compliant individual, not adverse to appearing less patriotic, as long as Iraq’s oil wealth can be exploited by the West’s technology – crumbs will have to do for now.

Never mind, take a gander at what you Europeans and Americans are paying at the pump for petrol:

“The National Defense Council Foundation, a Washington-based research organization, estimates the U.S. now spends about $49 billion a year on forces dedicated to protecting Persian Gulf oil. That translates to more than $1 per gallon of gasoline, estimates Milton Copulos, the group's president.”

“There are other, indirect costs as well, said Rick Mueller, an analyst with Energy Security Analysis Inc. in Wakefield, Massachusetts. While the military has been ‘guardedly successful’ in protecting the oil supplies, and the steady flow of oil from southern Iraq helped ease oil prices the past two months, he said, ‘Using U.S. forces to defend oil infrastructure is taking them away from pacifying other areas and winning hearts and minds.’” (U.S. Steps Up Security for Iraqi Oil, Adding to Taxpayer Bill, by Tony Capaccio and Jim Efstathiou Jr., Bloomberg.com) (Note: Who gives a hoot about “winning hearts and minds” in the first place!)

But you jolly well should keep in mind this one dictum: The Americans have no intention of allowing the Iraqis to cut deals with anyone else other than themselves and their cronies:

“Iraq has the world's second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq's reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, ‘friendly’ companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over

dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. But first the Parliament must pass a new oil sector investment law allowing foreign companies to assume a major role in the country. The US has threatened to withhold funding as well as financial and military support if the law does not soon pass.” (Oil in Iraq, Global Policy Forum, General Analysis on Iraq, n.d.)

Listen up, if you think for one New York minute that after 4,654 lives have perished in Iraq (some 1,347 coalition forces in Afghanistan) – let alone up to 1,446,063 Iraqis who have perished since 2003—a mere pittance compared to the oil wealth so secured, and that’s not counting the nearly 20,000 Afghan casualties – that the USA et al have any intention of folding their tents in the Arabian oil sands of Iraq to let a bunch of Iraqis decide who gets their petrol wealth, forget it! Never happen G.I. and you know it. America has an iron fist over Iraq no matter the delusions of grandeur expressed in the puppet Iraqi parliament. Ah, and “happy trails to you” too when the day cometh wherein Iraq’s production matches that of Saudi Arabia:

“Iraqi production reached 3.5 mb/d pre-invasion and is currently about 2.5 mb/d. Contrasting that with the current 12.5 mb/d potential production claimed by the Saudis and their (Iraqi) peak 10 mb/d production gives some perspective to the Iraqi potential.” (Iraq Oil Production Could Surge, Jim Kingsdale’s Energy Investment Strategies, early 2009)…yep, you better believe we have no intention of leaving…and if Royal Dutch Shell PLC, BP PLC, ExxonMobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. have anything to say about it, we’ll never leave until the last drop is squeezed out of her soils!

Excuse me, right about this time I have this uncontrollable urge to bash the brainless eschatologically-oriented, so-called Biblical literalists, who assume that Babylon the Great shall arise upon the banks of the Tigris-Euphrates Rivers (Note: A most unchristian attitude, I might add.) Can someone please tell me who’s getting the better deal around here: the Americans or the Iraqis? I find it noteworthy that the constellation of nations involved in the Oracle of Damascus, the Gog-Magog War or, for that matter, the Armageddon Campaign—not once is the name of ancient Babylon mentioned or Iraq, nor is a veiled reference to some obscurity so alleged that would confirm of her rising from the ashes of the past. Fascinating, isn’t it—with all this detail of nations mentioned here and there in such specific Biblical passages relative to the three aforementioned prophetic conflicts; there is not one allusion to the megalopolis of Babylon to be, aside from her horrid destruction in Revelation 18, none! And, all that Revelation 18 unveils is naught but a world-wide commercial empire going down in flames.

Could it possibly be that our prophetic Babylon-to-be is present in the region via the commercial interests of the Merchants and Ships of Tarshish? Come on now, do you really think that her identity can be all that concealed?

Yes, modern Israel and Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Persia, the tribes and people who comprise modern Turkey, Libya, ancient Ethiopia or Sudan, the nations of the Saudi Arabian Peninsula (Sheba and Dedan), modern Jordan (ancient Edom and Moab), the Western Powers (Merchants of Tarshish, allusions to Russia and China are confirmed (“news from the east and north shall trouble him” – Daniel 11:44) but absolutely nothing is mentioned of the most obvious nemesis of Israel: Babylon? Virtually all the surrounding states of the ancient world have high profile reference and visibility—but Iraq, ancient Babylon, is glaringly absented from the equation. And, why is this so? Because Iraq is hook, line and sinker possessed by the real Babylon on the Hudson! Your backyard reeks with the smell of the 800-lb. gorilla. Now, let’s all get back on the yellow brick road and be done with these distractions based on reality…

Now that I’ve regained my composure, it’s time to irritate the obvious by delving into the serpentine efforts about these amazing pipelines and their historical import:

“Calculus has two main variants—derivative and integral. The Eurasian energy pipeline geopolitics between Turkey-Washington and Moscow today has elements of both. It is highly

derivative in that the major actors across Central Asia from China, Russia to Turkey are very much engaged in a derived power game which has less to do with any specific state and more to do with maintaining Superpower hegemony for Washington. Integral as the de facto motion of various pipeline projects now underway or in discussion across Eurasia hold the potential to integrate the economic space of Eurasia in a way that poses a fundamental challenge to Washington’s projection of Full Spectrum Dominance over the greatest land mass on earth.”

“Since at least the time of the Crimean War of 1853, Turkey has played a strategic role in modern Eurasian and European developments. In the 1850s Ottoman Turkey became a target of Great Power imperial ambitions as Britain and France sought to take advantage of tensions between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in order to weaken and ultimately take vital parts of that weakened empire.”

“The Great Powers of that time, the empires of Britain, France, Russia and Austria began plotting the dismemberment of the vast Ottoman Empire. Debt was their preferred instrument. The foreign debt situation in Ottoman Turkey had become so extreme that Sultan Abdul Hamid II was forced by his French and British creditors to put the entire finances of the realm under the control of a banker-run agency in 1881, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA), controlled by the two largest creditors—France and Britain. By the late 1880’s a new player on the Continent who was not part of this debt control, the German Reich, engaged the Ottoman Empire economically. That strategically challenged the vital imperial design of the most powerful empire of the day, Britain.”

“After Britain sank into a Great Depression after 1873, Germany’s industrial colossus emerged as the fastest-developing economic power on earth with the possible exception of (the) then fledgling United States. The political and economic fate of Germany and Ottoman Turkey were linked after 1899 with the decision by German industry, Deutsche Bank to build a railway connecting Berlin to the Ottoman Empire as far away as Baghdad in then-Mesopotamia. It was a land bridge for trade between Ottoman Turkey and Germany independent of British control of the seas.”

“That Berlin-Baghdad Railway linking the fate of Ottoman Turkey to that of Germany was a geopolitically strategic factor in the events which led Britain to the First World War in a failed bid to preserve her global hegemony. Turkey then as today was regarded by powerful Great Powers as a ‘pivot’ state. The danger in being a pivot state is, of course, the question of who has their hands on it, who moves the pivot for their own geopolitical purposes.” (The Eurasian Pipeline Calculus, by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, June 17, 2009)

A few Eurasian geopolitical basics would be appropriate here – in that the American-British schematic has ostensibly remained unchanged from World War I to the present.

“In 1904 a British professor of geography, Sir Halford Mackinder, delivered a lecture before the Royal Geographical Society titled The Geographical Pivot of History, which was to shape a history of two world wars and subsequent wars and power relations. Mackinder, the father of geopolitics—the relation of geography and political economy and power—developed the systematic axiom of British imperial power. It was simple as it was fateful:

“For Mackinder East Europe was Continental Europe from Germany to Poland, France and Austria. The Heartland was the vast Eurasian land power, Russia. The World-Island was Eurasia.

“When the United States emerged to displace the British Empire in world affairs after 1945, she also took the lessons of Mackinder geopolitics. The leading postwar foreign policy strategists including Henry Kissinger, were schooled in Mackinder’s ideas. One American disciple of Mackinder, Zbigniew Brzezinski, cited Mackinder’s geopolitical axiom in a 1997 essay in Foreign Affairs magazine where he defined the American strategic priorities in the post-Soviet era:

“‘Eurasia is home to most of the world’s politically assertive and dynamic states…The world’s most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there… Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world’s population; 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia’s potential power overshadows even America’s.

“‘Eurasia is the world’s axial super-continent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world’s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard…the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy.’” (Brzezinski, Zbigniew, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997)

“That has largely defined US foreign political and military relations with Turkey and the newly emerging former Soviet Republics of Eurasia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Unfortunately for Turkey and the republics of the Eurasian region, those relations have too often been determined by IMF conditionalities and by military alliances and actions more resembling the Cold War than an era of genuine peace and respect for national sovereignty. Until now the post-Soviet East-West relations have largely been based on a negative construct.

“The two geopolitical statements—the one from Mackinder in 1919 during the Versailles talks to divide Europe after the First World War, the second by Mr. Brzezinski in 1997 at the end of a bitter Cold War—have defined the principle relations of Turkey and the rest of Eurasia to the world for more than a century.” (The Eurasian Pipeline Calculus, by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, June 17, 2009)

Prior to being awakened from our hallucination-induced trauma wrought by the maelstrom of Dorothy’s tornado, allow me, once again, to disabuse our beloved brethren, who may be recovering from their prolonged fascinations, you know, the ones who cling so tenaciously to Europe’s political ascendancy and ipso facto the revived Euro-base of Antichrist, after, of course, America’s devolution, that America’s primacy (as Z. B. calls it) is irrevocable when it comes to who’s leading the Atlantic alliance. What Zbigniew Brzezinski outlines is hardly the picture of resurgent political will upon the Continent:

“But first of all, Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead on the Eurasian continent. America’s geostrategic stake in Europe is enormous. Unlike America’s links with Japan, the Atlantic alliance entrenches American political influence and military power directly on the Eurasian mainland. At this state of American-European relations (Note: And that relationship is far more solidified through NATO’s Eastern European expansion since these 1997 statements made by Z.B.), with the allied European nations still highly dependent on U.S. security protection, any expansion in the scope of Europe becomes automatically an expansion in the scope of direct U.S. influence as well. Conversely, without close transatlantic ties, America’s primacy in Eurasia promptly fades away. U.S. control over the Atlantic Ocean and the ability to project influence and power deeper into Eurasia would be severely circumscribed.” (The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Perseus Books Group, 1997, p.59)

“The problem, however, is that a truly European ‘Europe’ as such does not exist. It is a vision, a concept, and a goal, but it is not yet reality. Western Europe is already a common market, but it is still far from being a single political entity (Note: Much further since France in 2005 flatly rejected the EU Constitution!). A political Europe has yet to emerge. The crisis in Bosnia offered painful proof of Europe’s continued absence. If proof were still needed. The brutal fact is that Western Europe, and increasingly also Central Europe, remains largely an American protectorate, with its allied states reminiscent of ancient vassals and tributaries.” (Ibid.)

Brzezinski’s evaluation of Western European states adherence to nationalist priorities at the expense of a truly European “entity” have only been exacerbated by NATO’s irresistible advancement, Germany’s protective American umbrella, philo-America feelings among all Eastern European states, especially those of the Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and even Armenia, awaiting entry into NATO.

Brzezinski’s remarks were all made before September 11, 2001 and before the 2003 incursion into Iraq. Not only has America’s primacy dominated the region, it has become the colossus of Eurasia beyond the imagination of even the Wizard of Oz – the only difference being America’s reality is not that of smoke and mirrors but the real thing.

“Turkmenistan is reportedly estimated to have 159 trillion cubic feet (4.8 trillion cubic meters) of gas reserves, the 11th largest in the world. But its landlocked status and the 23 years of war in Afghanistan have skuppered previous plans to open up the reserves to the outside world. ‘I have spoken to a number of people concerning a possible pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan and either out through a port in Pakistan or through to India,’ Wolfensohn (Director of the World Bank) told reporters.” (Afghanistan: World Bank and Central Asian Pipeline, Agence France-Presse, May 15, 2002)

On August 12, 2009, the Toronto Star released a brief by John Foster entitled: Afghanistan and the New Great Game – Prized pipeline route could explain West’s stubborn interest in poor, remote land. An expansive report was published a year earlier by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (Volume 3, No. 1 • June 19, 2008) entitled: A Pipeline through a Troubled Land: Afghanistan, Canada, and the New Great Energy Game.

Canadian analysis concerning American hegemony in Eurasia brings with it a measure of indifference that surprises nobody. Figuring out why America persists in this god-forsaken quagmire does merit Canadian inquiry—especially, since Canuks are dying half way around the world. Foster’s observations (fascinating from a Canadian perspective) are critical in that America’s strategic interests are clearly at stake:

• The proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline will transport approximately 33 billion cubic metres per year of natural gas 1,680 kilometres from the

Dauletabad gas field in southeast Turkmenistan through southern Afghanistan, to Pakistan, terminating in Fazilka, India. India and Pakistan will share the output equally, and a small percentage will be used by Afghanistan.

• A Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement, signed by representatives of the four participating nations on April 25, 2008, commits the partners to initiating construction in 2010, supplying gas by 2015. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is sponsoring the project.

• The impact of the TAPI pipeline on Canadian Forces must be assessed, given that the proposed pipeline route traverses the most conflict-ridden areas of Afghanistan, crossing through Kandahar province where Canadian Forces are attempting to provide security and defeat

• Construction of the pipeline could provide important economic development opportunities to the region. But if the project proceeds without a peace agreement that will end the insurgency, the pipeline could exacerbate the ongoing conflict and take the Canadian Forces away from other priorities to defend the pipeline.

The fascination over Canadian involvement in Afghanistan somewhat perplexes. Foster is well aware of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs and his statements made in September 2007:

“One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south. . . . and so that the countries of Central Asia are no longer bottled up between two enormous powers of China and Russia, but rather they have outlets to the south as well as to the north and the east and the west.” (Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Speech at the Paul H. Nitze School for Advanced International Studies, 20 September 2007)

“A very big game is underway, with geopolitics intruding everywhere. U.S. journalist Steven LeVine describes American policy in the region as ‘pipeline-driven.’ Other countries are pushing for pipeline routes, too. The energy game remains largely hidden; the focus is on humanitarian, development and national security concerns. In Canada, Afghanistan has been avoided in the past two elections.

“With the U.S. surge underway and the British ambassador to Washington predicting a decades-long commitment, it’s reasonable to ask: Why are the U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan? Could the motivation be power, a permanent military bridgehead, access to energy resources? Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?” (Ibid.)

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a regional security body which includes China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan—with supposed “candidate-nations” akin to NATO’s. This inept and toothless organization – though NATO and its head, the United States of America, would dearly want us to believe that its interference signals to us all that Eurasia is still in the grasp of a semi-communist threat – did, on July 5, 2005, issue a declaration for the United States to give a timetable for withdrawing troops from the region. But our little SCO – notwithstanding Putin’s pre-Soviet desire for Empire – seems fairly compromised in its endeavor to oust the USA-led NATO from its environs, especially when the World Bank-IMF and other financial matters seem to tilt the winds of political change from anti-American to “can’t we all just get along.”

“Turkmenistan is quietly developing into a major transport hub for the northern supply network, which is being used to relay non-lethal supplies to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has confirmed a small contingent of US military personnel now operates in Ashgabat to assist refueling operations.”

“The United States has a deal in place that allows for the landing and refueling of transport planes at Ashgabat airport, according to the US Department of Defense. NATO is also seeking to open a land corridor for supplies destined for troops in Afghanistan, a source tells EurasiaNet.”

“If secured, an overland rail and road route for cargo would provide military planners with a quick, well-worn path into western Afghanistan. The move would also build on Turkmenistan’s low-profile support role for the war effort.”

“Ashgabat has already played an important support role in Operation Enduring Freedom. Since at least 2002, aviation fuel purchased in Turkmenistan has been forwarded ‘via rail car to the northern [Afghan] border cities of Turghundi and Hairaton,’ according to Fuel Line, the in-house magazine of the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), a Defense Department contractor that facilitates fuel supplies.” (Turkmenistan: American Military Personnel Set Up Shop in Ashgabat, by Deirdre Tynan, EURASIA INSIGHT, 7/12/09)

“Uzbekistan is once again allowing the US to use a base in the south of the country for operations in Afghanistan. US troops attached to NATO forces would be allowed to use Termez airbase if travelling on German planes, the US military told the BBC. US troops were evicted from Uzbekistan in 2005 after the US condemned it for shooting protesters in Andijan city. German forces were allowed to continue using the airbase at Termez, on the border with Afghanistan. Uzbekistan has made no comment on the new arrangement, but a US military spokesman said US troops ‘can use the German air-bridge from Termez to Afghanistan on a case-by-case basis’. (US troops returning to Uzbek base, BBC News, March 6, 2008)

“Kazakhstan has permitted the transit of non-military logistical supplies for U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan, a Kazakh Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Monday. Yerzhan Ashikbayev said only the land transit of civilian cargoes for the U.S. contingent in Afghanistan had been allowed. He also said that their ‘technical and commercial parameters’ had yet to be specified. Moscow said on Friday it would allow the transit of non-military supplies for U.S. troops in Afghanistan as soon as Washington provided Moscow with cargo specifications. Several NATO nations, including France, Germany and Canada, already transport so-called non-lethal supplies to their contingents in Afghanistan via Russia under bilateral agreements. Washington is expected to follow suit after striking a similar deal with Moscow in mid-January. (Kazakhstan allows U.S. non-military transit to Afghanistan, ASTANA, February 9, 2009 (RIA Novosti)) –

“Kyrgyzstan has reversed a Russian order to evict the US military from an airbase close to Afghanistan in a significant foreign policy victory for Barack Obama. The deal appeared to represent a blow for Russia, which has long opposed the presence of American troops in central Asia, an area in which the Kremlin last year claimed it had a ‘privileged interest’. Washington also appears to have acquiesced in allowing Kyrgyzstan to fall under Moscow's influence once more and to have abandoned its policy of criticizing the country's human rights record. Until last year, Kyrgyzstan was seen as the most pro-western of the five former Soviet states in central Asia. (Kyrgyzstan agrees to allow US troops to stay in country, Telegraph.co.uk, June 23, 2009)

“A top U.S. official said the United States and Tajikistan have finalized a deal on the transit of non-military cargo for Western operations in Afghanistan. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher confirmed the long-expected agreement during a visit to the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, on Tuesday. The use of the new route to supply 70,000 NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan could begin within two months. The Obama administration has been looking for new supply routes to Afghanistan after Kyrgyzstan announced earlier this year that it was evicting U.S. troops from the Manas airbase. The main transit route through Pakistan has become increasingly dangerous as militants step up their attacks on supply trucks.” (US, Tajikistan Finalize Deal to Supply Troops in Afghanistan, by Voice of America News (VOA News), April 21, 2009)

An army travels on its belly – and if the “STANS” of Eurasia can provide that assistance to the USA-led NATO forces in Afghanistan – so much for the SCO! So it would appear, that “news from the east and north” which shall trouble him is tepid at best (at this juncture of history) but it doesn’t take a concussion on Dorothy’s noggin to figure out how “rumors” from the SCO might someday “trouble him.”

The Eurasia envisioned by Zbigniew Brzezinski parallels his original forecast to the max – one would have to conclude that Z. B. walks among the prophets. The advancement of NATO since the 1997 release of The Grand Chessboard can only be considered one of the most spectacular fulfillments of secular prophecy ever observed in the annals of human history.

What Z. B. contemplated is sheer genius in geostrategic planning and forethought.

“Ultimately at stake in this effort is America’s long-range role in Europe. A new Europe is still taking shape, and if that new Europe is to remain geopolitically a part of the ‘Euro-Atlantic’ space, the expansion of NATO is essential. Indeed, a comprehensive U.S. policy for Eurasia as a whole will not be possible if the effort to widen NATO, having been launched by the United States, stalls and falters. That failure would discredit American leadership; it would shatter the concept of an expanding Europe; it would demoralize the Central Europeans; and it could reignite currently dormant or dying Russian geopolitical aspirations in Central Europe. For the West, it would be a self-inflicted wound that would mortally damage the prospects for a truly European pillar in any eventual Eurasian security architecture; and for America, it would thus be not only a regional defeat but a global defeat as well.”

“The bottom line guiding the progressive expansion of Europe has to be the proposition that no power outside of the existing transatlantic system (Note: With America at the head!) has the right to veto the participation of any in its transatlantic security system—and that no qualified European state should be excluded a priori from eventual membership in either the EU (European Union) or NATO. Especially the highly vulnerable and increasingly qualified Baltic states are entitled to know that eventually they also can become full-fledged members in both organizations—and that in the meantime, their sovereignty cannot be threatened without engaging the interests of an expanding Europe and its U.S. partner.”

“In essence, the West—especially America and its Western European allies—must provide an answer to the question eloquently posed by Václav Havel in Aachen on May 15, 1996:

‘I know that neither the European Union nor the North Atlantic Alliance can open its doors overnight to all those who aspire to join them. What both most assuredly can do—and what they should do before it is too late—is to give the whole of Europe, seen as a sphere of common values, the clear assurance that they are not closed clubs. They should formulate a clear and detailed policy of gradual enlargement that not only contains a timetable but also explains the logic of that timetable.’” [Italics added by Z.B.] (The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Perseus Books Group, 1997, p. 80)

Underlying Z.B.’s geopolitical strategies for the “NATO Alliance” – included not only his forecast for the Baltic States – but clearly a step-by-step incursion throughout Eastern Europe:

“That Europe in its formally organized scope is currently much less than its actual potential. Several of the more advanced and politically stable Central European states, all part of the Western Petrine tradition, notably the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and perhaps also Slovenia, are clearly qualified and eager for membership in ‘Europe’ and its transatlantic security connection (viz. – the security provided by the USA) . . . In the current circumstances, the expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary—probably by 1999—appears to be likely. After this initial but significant step, it is likely that any subsequent expansion of the alliance will either be coincidental with or will follow the expansion of the EU. The latter involves a much more complicated process, but in their number of qualifying stages and in the meeting of membership requirements . . . Thus, even the first admission into the EU from Central Europe are not likely before the year 2002 or perhaps somewhat later. Nonetheless, after the first three new NATO members have also joined the EU, both the EU and NATO will have to address the question of extending membership to the Baltic republics, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovakia, and perhaps also, eventually, to Ukraine.”

“Accession by the Baltic states might prompt Sweden and Finland also to consider NATO membership. Somewhere between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, especially if in the meantime the country has made significant progress in its domestic reforms and has succeeded in becoming more evidently identified as a Central European country, should become ready for serious negotiations with both the EU and NATO. . . . By the year 2020, Franco-German-Polish-Ukrainian political collaboration, engaging some 230 million people, could evolve into a partnership enhancing Europe’s geostrategic depth.” (Ibid. pp. 81-2, 84-5) Indeed, the timelines astound:

Although Z.B. gives Russia a “door of opportunity” to join in the alliance – its participation would be many years off and would take on a more “organic union” with the alliance. Let’s look at Z.B.’s prophetic timelines:

European States Admitted to NATO	Year of Admittance or Consideration
Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary	1999
Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania Slovakia and Slovenia	2004
Albania and Croatia	2009
Macedonia, Ukraine, Georgia	Pending Admittance – 2010?

And, insofar as Moldova concerns, they finally dumped the communists and opted for European integration big time:

Other nation states are lining up for full admittance to NATO. All that Macedonia has to do is change its name so the Greeks won’t get upset; otherwise, she’s a done deal. Coupled with this, “Membership Action Plans” are well advanced for Ukraine, Georgia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina. Likewise, NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” (another clever devise wherein would-be member states are able to flirt with the idea of joining NATO) include Azerbaijan (supported by just about every NATO member); Finland (whose defense forces are making “technical preparations” for joining NATO and have already participated in the Kosovo and Afghanistan missions); of course, Moldova; and Serbia and Armenia (both of whom are a little miffed because of the actions of certain NATO conscripts—but will hang around until tempers settle down); Sweden (an amazing 37% now support NATO membership).

The Austrians and the Irish may be forced to join if the party gets exciting; and lastly, the Swiss—they’re into banking, besides, they could hold off the world from their mountain hideouts – just ask the Nazis. Note: We have purposefully left off mentioning Belarus because she’s truly a satellite of Russia; sorry, but that’s the fact – notwithstanding all the nationalist bravado.

I don’t know if you’re getting the picture yet? Perhaps you abide unconscious from the window screen which knocked you out during the tornado? In any event, keep following the yellow brick road—bound to lead to the Emerald City up yonder…and insofar as EU membership concerns:

Meanwhile from the Wonderful Land of Oz – a thunderous presence greets us, full of mystery; the faint image likened unto a man appears above the firmament, all-wise, all-knowing upon his fiery throne where the wheel within the wheel ascends and descends at the sound of the voice of the one . . . listen to the prophetic utterance of one Mike Ely:

“In Berlin on July 24, Barack Obama made a clear and unmistakable statement on his view of the world. There is much to say about its details, but the most central and specific feature of it was his demand that the U.S. (and the German government) escalate their military invasion of Afghanistan.

“‘This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.’

“This is not an antiwar stand. It is an open call for new escalations in this aggressive war initiated by the Bush regime. And it offers Obama’s diplomacy and charisma as an opportunity to rally more support for that war from the countries of Europe.”

“At this moment, there is a sentiment in many places of the U.S. military and political establishment for a strategic shift — from Iraq to Afghanistan (where the U.S. occupation is rapidly falling apart). Obama is making a major appeal for those forces, speaking directly to the ruling class and putting forward his own distinctive aggressive strategy for defending and expanding the U.S. Empire.”

“At the brink of each new American military outrage, the lying representatives of this system claim the coming aggression is about protecting the American homeland. That is what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did to justify their invasion of Iraq. And that is what Obama is doing now to justify his escalation plan for Afghanistan. (Obama: Oil, Afghanistan and the American Way, by Mike Ely, July 25, 2008)

A bit out front and personal, I’d say, but, then again, backyard discoveries do amaze at times. Be certain the stakes are pretty high out there on the backside of the Kandahar desert – high enough for President Obama to surprise the anti-war crowd and prosecute the unfathomable, a war, a land, wherein no empire from Alexander the Great forward has subdued. Yet, before this Empire we will witness a supernatural tenacity that intends to prevail—for who is able to make war with him?

We are repeatedly told that our cause is just – we boast that President Obama has kept his promise and is bringing the troops where? Off to Afghanistan?

“If Mr. Cordesman’s recommendation reflects the view of General McChrystal, who recently presented the findings of a 60-day review of Afghanistan strategy to Washington, it would mean sending another nine combat brigades, comprising 45,000 American troops, in addition to the 21,000 already approved by President Obama. This would bring the total American military presence in Afghanistan to about 100,000, considerably closer to the force that was deployed for the counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq.”

“Anthony Cordesman, an influential American academic who is a member of a team that has been advising General Stanley McChrystal, now in charge of NATO forces in Afghanistan, also said that to deal with the threat from the Taliban the size of the Afghan National Army might have to increase to 240,000.” (Another 45,000 US Troops Needed in Afghanistan, Military Adviser Says, TIMESONLINE, August 10, 2009)

Glancing around Eurasia we notice the obvious. Sooner, rather than later, time is running out for Israel. Micah Zenko reports in the Los Angeles Times (August 30, 2009) that unless Tehran responds by late September to international proposals on its nuclear program, “history strongly suggests the Israelis will act alone.” Zenko’s analysis bears close scrutiny in that there most definitely is precedent:

1. October 1956 – Israel, Britain and France launched a war on Egypt over control of the Suez Canal. Abba Eban was grilled by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles the day before about Israel’s military buildup on Egypt’s border the day before, but Eban kept his mouth shut about Israel’s coordinated attack.

June 1967 Israel launched preemptive strikes against Egypt and Syria in spite of President Johnson’s injunctions to the contrary. Johnson immediately notified Prime Minister Levi Eshkol in a not so subtle statement: “Israel just must not take preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities.”

3. On June 7, 1981, Israeli fighter-bombers wiped out the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak prior to its fueling in order to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons-grade plutonium. President Reagan condemned the attack and “thought that there were other options that might have been considered” – well, as far as Israel was concerned, there weren’t. Prime Minister Menachem Began told CBS News “This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel…Every future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way.”

4. September 6, 2007, Israeli aircraft bombed the suspected North Korean-supplied plutonium reactor at Al Kibar, Syria. Four months prior to this Israeli intelligence gave substantial evidence to the Bush administration about the reactor. The Pentagon drew up elaborate plans to attack it. Strangely enough, according to New York Times reporter David Sanger, President Bush finally concluded the U.S. couldn’t bomb another country for allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. US officials admitted that the attack by Israel went forward without a green light from the USA… “None was asked for, none was given.” (Taken from Micah Zenko’s Los Angeles Times article entitled: Israel has Iran in its sights, August 30, 2009)

“Those hoping that the Obama administration will be able to pressure Israel to stand down from attacking Iran as diplomatic efforts drag on are mistaken. The current infighting among Iran's leaders also has led some to incorrectly believe that Tehran's nuclear efforts will stall. As Friday's International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear programs revealed,

throughout the political crises of the last three months, Iran's production rate for centrifuges has remained steady, as has its ability to produce uranium hexafluoride to feed into the centrifuges.”

“Should Tehran prove unwilling to meet the September deadline and bargain away its growing and latent nuclear weapon capability, we can expect an Israeli attack that does not require U.S. permission, or even a warning.” (Ibid. Note: Zenko is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations)

Sad, isn’t it, that some in evangelicalism who wish to have their cake and eat it too – who desire Empire at the expense of the kingdom yet to come on the late, great planet earth – who are willing to stay in the front of the house and avoid the backyard, and claim Kingdom Now or put blinders on their patriotic eyes claiming we’ve got to do what we have to do; otherwise, we’ll be blown up by a terrorist some day. No, the Eurasian geostrategy as set down from Mackinder to Brzezinski not only holds true today – but accelerates beyond even their wildest imaginations.

The annihilation of America via Rapture or Russia is their only way out – forbid that they open the backyard door and gaze upon discoveries heretofore thought unimaginable. Could it just possibly be that Babylon the Great, with all her exploitive commercial pursuits, could be someone other than a resurgent Iraqi Babylon on the Tigris-Euphrates? Could the Antichrist hail from ancient Assyria (Kurdistan) – another bizarre notion fraught with Biblical contradictions? Could Brzezinski’s Europe suddenly enlarge her tent and embrace a new Europe possessing a mighty army and refuse to be led around by the nose by the Americans? Could Germany regain her once colonial aspirations and commence the rebuilding of her military in earnest to become the Hun once again (all the while American military bases are more entrenched in Germany and ostensibly a part of her security culture)? These are rhetorical questions which don’t deserve responses; nothing to do with American Empire, of course – the answer to all this absurdity so projected is a resounding NOT!

There is a choice one must make regarding vision and ultimate mission. By using their understanding or wisdom wrought by experience or having courage and heartfelt commitment to a city Whose Builder and Maker is God – now there’s an option to which you might awaken. You can follow your own yellow brick road to your Emerald City or bestir from your slumber, from the ethereal land of your enchantment and face the reality found in “the Scripture of Truth” – “the Book of Truth”…if I only had a brain!