Scott Horton Interviews Gareth Porter

Scott Horton, May 14, 2011

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Gareth Porter, independent historian and journalist for IPS News, discusses the minimal impact Osama bin Laden’s death has had – or will have – on US foreign policy; how the Obama administration’s insta-bragging makes clear the operation was a domestic political ploy rather than a blow against terrorism or an intelligence bonanza; keeping US troops in Afghanistan long past 2014 through a strategic partnership with the Karzai regime; how the security situation in Afghanistan is getting worse, if that can be imagined; and why David Petraeus’s CIA job probably won’t help his presidential ambition.

MP3 here. (20:52)

Gareth Porter is an independent historian and journalist. He is the author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam. His articles appear on Counterpunch, Huffington Post, Inter Press Service News Agency and Antiwar.com.

5 Responses to “Gareth Porter”

  1. Osama bin Laden was only the pretext. The real reason for war against Afghanistan was to secure military basing with which to achieve strategic advantage over Russia, Iran and China who compete with the US for scarce resources. Another reason was securing exclusivity for US big-oil corporations to build the proposed Trans-Afghan-Pipeline and monopolize oil exploration and production in Central Asia and the Caspian Basin. In 2001, negotiations between US Oil and the Taliban faltered. Taliban was viewed as favoring Bridas of Argentina for constructing the pipeline.
    Bridas offered the people within a wide swath adjacent to the pipeline (free) natural gas which sat well with Taliban negotiators. The US company did not match the offer. All during the summer of 2001, between conferences in Berlin and to Taliban diplomats in Washington, threats were issued that the US would bomb Afghanistan before "the snow flies in October" of 2001. These threats are well-documented and took place months prior to 9/11. Washington's rationale for war does not hold up as they stated and stated that the 9/11 'mastermind,' bin Laden was the reason for war.

  2. You're right, Osama bin Laden's death in December of 2001 didn't change very much.

  3. Yeah, it's ALWAYS geopolitics, NEVER so-called "American principles." If more people in this country would realize that their conception of their country doesn't remotely resemble reality, perhaps we could actually become what we THINK we are (i.e., True, Justice and the American Way). Instead, they're too busy watching American Idol and waving the flag.

  4. Judging by the reaction from people I've spoken with who only get their info from MSM, the "Pakistan is the new enemy" line sure seems to be the one that's getting pushed here.

    Are there really enough fools in the Pentagon who think they can make a bid to break up Pakistan and have this somehow not become anything but a complete disaster? You really have to wonder sometimes…

  5. Was Osama bin laden really killed a couple of days ago or has he been dead for years? Why arent you asking this Scott? There are a lot of people who have claimed he has been dead for years, but you dont even bring that up! You just puke out the government narrative that they killed him. A government that lies and kills and rips us off.
    This is a fabricated story that is being used to expand the war and get the idiots behing them. And Scott is promoting it!
    Give me some proof they killed him!!!!
    It is a FRAUD!!!
    That is one reason I am not giving Antiwar.com any more money.

Leave a Reply