War, what is it good for?

War, what is it good for? Oil, of course.

I posted here in late March thoughts on the American empire's Asian oil itch:

"...the military and CIA continues its stranglehold actions on the Middle East and Central Asia.Just one example of the disturbing neocolonial trend happening very quickly these last few years is Kyrgyzstan. It's pretty clear that the goal is to establish weak, puppet-type regimes in these strategically important areas, so that they are ripe for the plundering by multinational corporations and American military takeover."

Well, now things are beginning to ramp up over in that part of the world, and it looks like between the nearly dried up Aral Sea and the Himalayan Mountains there is a revolution underway.

Post-Soviet splinter states Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have both made deals with US and Russia--as is only natural, since they are small, vulnerable and caught in the middle.

But things are looking ugly, and who will be the agent provocateur in this heated imperialist situation is anybody's guess.

Russia has just thrown down one gauntlet. They've issued the statement that they will double the troops at their military base in Kant, in northern Kyrgyzstan, not far from the United States' own carpetbagging base there, in nearby Manas.

In addition to several regional papers, Forbes has reported on it as well.

The Kyrgyz ambassador to Russia has made assurances to Russia that the US base will be withdrawn--eventually.

And the acting Kyrgyz foreign minister Roza Otunbaeva has been quoted as saying: ""All of us are part of the anti-terrorist coalition, including our country. However, there is a time limit for everybody who comes to stay somewhere."

In other words, the US is beginning to provoke that hatred we all know, of the guest who overstays his welcome.

The situation in Uzbekistan looks similar--we're the guest who is rapidly overstaying their welcome.

"The Uzbek Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the Americans were allowed to use the air base at Karshi-Khanabad "in direct connection with the military operation in northern Afghanistan" for the overthrow of the Taliban regime after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. ...

Uzbekistan also said that the United States had not paid takeoff and landing fees, as well as compensation for security services, new infrastructure, ecological damage and inconvenience to the local population."

The US military is not paying its bills? Big surprise there.

But that country has serious security problems, with rioting in the streets and a veritable popular revolution underway. No doubt the US will take advantage of the unrest to assert the "necessity" of our continued and even increasing presence there.

Indeed, in a statement of which the authenticity cannot be immediately verified--since it is Russian sources reporting US statements--the United States seems to be digging in its heels, and is not about to give up without a fight its first real presence on the ground in the post-Soviet Central Asian power vacuum. The article in The Hindu reports thus:

"Washington has rejected the demands. The U.S. Embassy in Tajikistan, where the U.S. military also use air base facilities, said the U.S. military bases in the region continue to give active support to the continuing operations of the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The bases "have been set up with express consent of the governments of the receiving states and will operate till each of the countries regards the facilities as a basis for its national security," the RIA Novosti news agency quoted the U.S. Embassy in Tajikstain as saying in a statement issued on Friday."

That's quite a Rumsfeldian position, if that is what the US embassy had to say. If true, it amounts to saying "we're here, get used to it."

Whether a real statement or not, more reliable sources do indicate the US has rejected the pressure from the host countries, backed up by teeth-bearings from Russia and China, to set a timetable for withdrawal.

On the 10th, Rice was in Beijing and said that the US would not leave Afghanistan. But as reported by al-Jazeerah, it would seem that Rice's statements failed entirely to address the real issue--the call for withdrawal from Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Not mentioning at all the relevant countries, Rice prattles on about Afghanistan, its "sovereignty" and our--of course--unilateral agreements with its "democratically elected government":

"“The one country that said that the United States should stay in Afghanistan was Afghanistan,” Rice said on the last day of her visit to China as part of a four-nation Asia tour.

“I think that since Afghanistan is sovereign, since Afghanistan in fact has an elected president, who was elected freely and fairly, then the relationship we have with Afghanistan is with that government.” She argued US troops were still needed in the Central Asian country.

“There is still a fight going on in Afghanistan. The United States and others are training Afghan forces. The Afghan army is coming along. Its numbers are coming along. It’s capability is coming along. We’re training them in counterterrorism matters,” Rice said.

“But there are still a lot of terrorist activities in Afghanistan ... It is our understanding that the people of Afghanistan want and need the help of US armed forces.”

But again, Condi, since you seem to have missed the point of the question, what about the bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan?

Well, we will see how things develop. Of course, most of this is being extremely underreported in the US corporate press. Typical American myopia. The distraction circus still in full swing.

I hadn't posted for awhile, although plenty has been happening the last month. But this morning some things really seemed to need some notice. Again, we'll see how things develop...