Bush Re-Authorizes Shoot-To-Kill in Colombia

Caballista says on Aug 19, 2005, 07:06:

Tinto, its good to get that clear, Thank you.

protocol13 says on Aug 19, 2005, 10:19:

Detect bias on the part of Platano Just as Tinto mentions, a Catholic priest was just murdered by the criminal terrorists and he comes up with this headline. Just las week two other priests where killed by FARC in Colombia and he did not even mentioned.

platano says on Aug 19, 2005, 10:20:

Tinto, this was not a made-up headline... This was not my headline. I did not make it up. I took it from AP (althogh I did correct their spelling).

This story involves a specific authorization (shoot to kill in Colombia), made by a specific person (George W. Bush), on a specific date (Wednesday).

If you want to "make up headlines" then you should at least provide specifics to back up your headline. What was the specific authorization made in writing by FARC? Who in FARC authorized murdering priests? On what date was this authorization made?

It's the specifics that give legitimacy to the story.

As to bias, I was not aware of the stories about murdered priests so it wasn't like I was ignoring one and picking the other. Who murdered the priests? Have the perpetrators been brought to trial and convicted based upon evidence presented in a court of law?

Plátano, el bobo simplón
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

utopiacowboy says on Aug 19, 2005, 10:36:

The actual authorization was for the US to continue helping Colombians ground or shoot down the planes. As mentioned in the last sentence, it's actually the commander of the Colombian air force who gives the order. Of course on PBH, it's always George W. Bush who is to blame.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

platano says on Aug 19, 2005, 10:44:

We live in a wonderful world of double-speak... "use assets"
"air bridge denial"

It's all so tidy and legal. But, heavens, don't blame Bush. He is innocent.

I just hope these "Colombian decisions" don't result in any "collateral damage" (otherwise known as dead civilians)

Oh, by the way, I also hope the "insurgents" do not engage in any more ecclesiastical personnel reduction.

Plátano, el bobo simplón
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Tinto (Moderator) says on Aug 19, 2005, 10:57:

Air Bridge Denial is kind of clunky. I expect better names for military operations from my government. ;-)

utopiacowboy says on Aug 19, 2005, 14:44:

I like the way you use quotes, Platano. OK, the way you see it, the Colombians are puppets and good ol' George is pulling all the strings. So even though the chief of the Colombian air force has the final call, I am sure you assume he'll call W. before he gives the word. You really have a very low opinion of Colombians, don't you? I think they're big boys.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

Miguel says on Aug 19, 2005, 15:22:

Good Point UC But with US aid at 3 billion a year, you think Uribe is not going have the final say on matters like this?

Mr. Hollywood says on Aug 19, 2005, 15:29:

$3 billion? I think your estimate of US financial contributions is WAY high. My understanding is that it's less than $1 billion per year (though not by much).

Miguel says on Aug 19, 2005, 16:04:

Mr Hollywood I Stand Corrected 3 billion per year USD is wrong...looks like 1.3 billion USD (2003), 4 billion from other countries including Colombia, according to a Google search. Some sources quote 7.5 billion a year.

platano says on Aug 19, 2005, 16:42:

UTC, suppose someone wants to blow up your house... because they suspect it's being used as a meth lab. (kind of like shooting down a plane with missionaries aboard because you suspect it's hauling drugs). The people who want to blow up your house need some of my assets. (Let's suppose I got plenty of dynamite assets) I give them permission but tell them the final decision to blow up your house is theirs. (They are big boys after all). So I'm off the hook, right? OK, so I gave them my VISA card, I signed the receipts, but it was their decision to bomb your house. I just provided the material means and by giving my blessing urged them on. But I am innocent. Right? Just like Bush? Right?

Plátano, el bobo simplón
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

utopiacowboy says on Aug 19, 2005, 17:56:

Well, Platano, in your example, yes, it WAS their decision to blow up my house. The way you make it sound, the people who supplied the dynamite are more culpable than the people who go ahead and use it to blow up my house. Sorry, I don't see it that way. The guy who pulls the trigger is the guy who pulls the trigger. I'm not going to blame his dad and his granddad and his kindergarten teacher for it.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

platano says on Aug 19, 2005, 19:30:

UTC, I am a very important and influential person... I am no dad or granddad or kindergarten teacher. I am much, much more important and wield more power than you will ever know.

I am both leading the War on Meth Houses campaign and giving supplies to anyone I want to include in my campaign. (I choose who I authorize and I provide "inducements").

It is great to know that they will carry out my house bombing campaign with no protest from you.

Plátano, el bobo simplón
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

Hunter says on Aug 20, 2005, 04:12:

Wether You supply people with weapons, food or scredrivers it is irrelevant, they are all inert objects that has to be used by a person.

I love it how G. Bush gets blamed for everything, he must be an extremely clever man to do all that is doing and fit it in to 24 hours a day.

Hunter

platano says on Aug 20, 2005, 07:55:

Hunter and UTC, Bush is clever and has clever helpers... Leaders (Hitler, Pol Pot, Reagan, Clinton, Mao, Osama Been Forgotten, and Saddam Hussein, for example) are responsible and you have to hold them accountable even though they don't personally do all the killing. Hunter, the gas chambers were inert objects and Hitler wasn't operating them so why did they pick on poor Hitler? Because leaders must be held accountable for their policies. Bush signed the re-authorization papers for shoot-to-kill in Colombia.

(DELETED)

plátano

Hunter says on Aug 20, 2005, 08:39:

Gas chambers are inert, nothing could happen unless SOMEBODY put the gas pellets in.

Hunter

Hunter says on Aug 20, 2005, 08:46:

Leaders Dictators:

Hitler
Pol Pot
Mau
Saddam

Elected leaders

Bush
Reagan

Bush is the leader of the goverment, if the US people didn't like the Republican policies as a whole, they could have got rid of them, but they choose not to. So it is the present US policy, not just Bush policy.

Personnely I got sick of your distorted posts long ago, no wonder FARC let you go (presuming it is true), to me and many others on this board, you are one of them.

Hunter

utopiacowboy says on Aug 20, 2005, 09:48:

In your world view, Platano, Bush is the root of all evil and everyone else is just standing around waiting for a bus. I guess it's easier to blame him than the men in the Colombian air force who are actually going to give the orders and pull the trigger. BTW, your house bombing campaign would go absolutely nowhere without the enthusiastic and necessary participation of those who actually do the bombing. You could be walking down the street exhorting everyone to bomb my house and offering the materials but if everyone ignores you, what happens? Nothing.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

vladimiro says on Aug 20, 2005, 10:04:

The danger is that By fueling the war the US may end up doing to COlombia what they did to Afghanistan. If it is a choice between anti-American groups gaining inlfuence in Colombia and funding an endless civil war that halts any development if not outright destroying the country the US would choose the latter.

(Just look at how the Americans are claiming that Reagan's 'Freedom Fighters' in Afghanistan attacked the World Trade Center because they hated 'Freedom'.)



"Los Estados Unidos parecen destinados por la Providencia para plagar la América de miseria a nombre de la Libertad" - Simón Bolívar

juancegomez says on Aug 20, 2005, 11:04:

An air interdiction policy, properly funded and regulated, is essential in order to protect both Colombian and international air space from both drug flights and other illegal operations.

Btw, the "shoot-to-kill" bit is highly misleading. Unlike what happened in Peru, there are stronger controls in place here. That doesn't mean that errors can't happen, but at least regarding this particular policy, they are significantly reduced.

vladimiro, the so-called civil war has already been "endless" enough on its own, as strategically (tactically is another matter) the guerrilla groups have never been in a position to topple the state.

But in fact, without significant U.S. aid, the government and other sectors of society would simply have to resort to less preferrable means more often than they currently do.

A comparison with what happened with the Taliban et al. is misleading, just like apples and oranges, especially if you look at the history and conditions of both countries.

vladimiro says on Aug 20, 2005, 13:17:

The US could very well be prolonging the war in Colombia.

platano says on Aug 20, 2005, 21:07:

Elected, unelected doesn't matter. Leaders are to be held responsible. Even unelected tyrants like Saddam Hussein.

Regarding your argument that Bush was voted in by the USA people. No one knew Bush was going to re-authorize the shoot-to-kill orders that would result in the death of Colombians at the time of the last "election" in the USA. Whether recent USA elections (2000 and 2004) were legitimate is a question under debate. Obviously an illegitimate government has no authority to authorize shoot-to-kill in Colombia.

Plátano, comandante del Frente PBH (según Hunter)
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

utopiacowboy says on Aug 20, 2005, 22:45:

The elections are only under debate by idiotic left-wing groups which represent hardly anyone in the US. Demographic trends in the US are running strongly against the Democrats and their one idea is to oppose whatever Bush stands for. That's not enough. It must really irritate you guys that Bush and the Republicans actually control the US government. Get used to it.

Meanwhile you continue to let the entire Colombian government off the hook. I suppose they have nothing to do with happens down there.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

platano says on Aug 21, 2005, 09:30:

The original thread (an AP report) states: "...shoot down planes suspected of carrying illegal drugs."

As Commander in Chief of the USA armed forces, Mr. Bush is providing training and material support to the Colombians and giving them specific authorization to engage in extra-judicial assassination of Colombian citizens or American missionaries or whoever they "suspect".

The person who authorizes the action is responsible. Connect the dots. I don't suppose you had any trouble connecting the dots when Osama gave material support, training, and specific authorization to the 19 Saudis to use USA assets when they attacked the World Trade Center. Or do you absolve Osama because it was the Saudis who did the killing? That is the position you are taking with Mr. Bush and his authorization of use of USA assets in the extra-judicial assassination of Colombians.

Plátano, el comandante bobo
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

utopiacowboy says on Aug 21, 2005, 09:48:

Blaming Osama for everything that happens is as idiotic as blaming Bush. The things that fuel Islamo-terrorism are a lot bigger than any one man and even if Osama disappeared tomorrow, it would continue. Same with Bush. In another three years he won't be president, then what are you going to do? Better start looking now for another boogeyman.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

Hunter says on Aug 21, 2005, 09:54:

UC & Tinto Your waisting your time with Platano.

One day he might wake up, but I doubt it, I have met many like him over the years, one word sums them up, dreamers.

Hunter

vladimiro says on Aug 21, 2005, 11:34:

Don't disregard US logistical support "Legitimate Colombian government employees make the shoot down decisions (re-read the article you posted) and they pull the trigger."

The Colombian government may pull the trigger, but if the US is providing logistical support, then its the US that is telling them what and where to shoot.

The logistical and political support US provides to governments is critically important. For example, the Iraqi Government dropped chemical bombs on Iran, but it was US AWACS that told them where to drop them. US logistics were vital because Iraq did not know about the troop locations or where to drop the bombs. These important decisions are made at the highest level.

platano says on Aug 21, 2005, 14:57:

My responses... UTC, we agree at last! Blaming any one person for everything that happens is stupid.

Tinto, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't dislike George W. Bush. I am not a "Bush basher" or a "Bush hater". I think Mr. Bush is a nice man and I'd be happy to sit down with him and discuss foreign policy as it relates to Colombia.

What I dislike are the policies that result in innocents being killed whether they be innocents in the World Trade Center, or innocents in Iraq, or American missionaries being blown out of the sky.

Hunter, I may be a dreamer. But I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us. And the world will be as one.

Vladimiro, you make a valid point. Many PBH readers are aware that the U.S. Air Force has been quietly operating an airbase near the western Ecuadorian town of Manta. The base, which is only twenty minutes by air from guerrilla controlled areas of Colombia, already houses over 150 U.S. personnel, and accommodation is being readied for about 300 more -- mainly air force crews, security personnel and military communications experts.

Runways have been lengthened and massive new hangers built to house a growing fleet of U.S. Air Force spy planes. These planes include the highly sophisticated E-3 AWACS and are already flying missions into Colombian airspace and gathering intelligence on guerrilla movements under the guise of the "drug war."

And I come back to my initial point: leaders will be held responsibe for their policies.

Plátano

plátano

platano says on Aug 21, 2005, 15:22:

UTC, once again I agree with you... You write: You could be walking down the street exhorting everyone to bomb my house and offering the materials but if everyone ignores you, what happens? Nothing.

Correct. I would first have to make the case that you are a danger, perhaps part of some kind of Islamo-fascist organization or Axis of Evil. Intelligence reports can be cherry-picked and enough people can be convinced to go along with the plan... out of fear. In the same sentences I mention you I will also slip in "9/11" and repeat it enough until people believe there is an association and a concomitant danger originating from your house.

plátano

utopiacowboy says on Aug 21, 2005, 15:39:

Platano, there are nuts all over the US. Take the Aryan Nations in Idaho or the remnants of the KKK in parts of the south. Sure they go around spewing their conspiracy theories and their hatred but very few people pay them any attention.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

platano says on Aug 21, 2005, 17:46:

Yes, something on Manta was posted on PBH by Platano.... http://www.poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/11431

:-)

plátano

vladimiro says on Aug 21, 2005, 17:53:

Ecuador All oil exports from Ecuador's state oil company were halted and the army has only been able to restore a fraction of the exports so far. Meanwhile Ecuador has asked Venezuela to loan them oil so that they can honor thier contracts. Local residents in the improverished oil producing section of the country took over 400 oil facilities and are demanding roads, electricity and other basic inventsments be made. Currently, most oil income is used to pay interest on Ecuador's debt.

The temporary and unelected president (Palacio) does not seem to have much power. The former finance minister resigned in protest recently and in order to run in the upcoming presidential elections. He is said to be the most popular politician and a much stronger supporter of Chavez than the current president. Initially the finance minister that replaced him refused to follow the president's orders and continued to report to the former finance minister. Undoubtely US press will say in unison that the evil doers (Chavez and Castro) are behind all of this.

Hunter says on Aug 21, 2005, 23:15:

platano I afraid that I will never join you, in fact I agree with your views on pacifism, but it will only work if 100% of people follow those views.

If 99% of followed, you will need somebody to keep the other 1% in line.

Turning the other cheek to them will not work in most circumstances.

Hunter

platano says on Aug 22, 2005, 12:14:

Et tu, Hunter? It is amazing how many pacifists there are at PBH. The wannabes would be except there are some bad people who aren't pacifists, so we have to use violence against them. As soon as 100% of the other people are pacifist, then I can be pacifist.

Reminds me of the blues song: "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."

plátano

utopiacowboy says on Aug 22, 2005, 16:58:

No claims to pacifism from me or anyone in my family. We're a belligerent group who think violence has its place in this world. So take that! WHACK!

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

platano says on Aug 22, 2005, 17:21:

I assume you think violence has its place in your family, too... and regularly beat your children (or grandchildren) and your wife, too. Gotta educate the kids right (with the belt, and occasionally the belt buckle to draw blood) and gotta keep the woman subservient just like the Bible says. That's how things were in my family. USA family values in my family did mean violence, and violence reigned, not pacifism. It was hell. As soon as I turned 18 I left home, never looked back, and renounced violence forever.

Then I got drafted and had to explain to my draft board that I had renounced violence forever and, no thank you, I don't have any beef with the Vietnamese and do not wish to kill them. I'd do the same today if they tried to send me to Colombia under Bush's shoot-to-kill authorization.

plátano

utopiacowboy says on Aug 22, 2005, 19:43:

No, I am not that simplistic, Platano. For many years I owned and trained horses and anyone who thinks that a good smack is the answer to everything could never be a horseman. That's not to say that many people don't use violence to intimidate their animals but it's not really effective. On the other hand, I had a dog someone had given me that was killing a neighbor's lambs. I didn't think twice about killing that dog.

Disclaimer: any comment I make is inane and is not to be taken seriously, and is so patently ridiculous that no one should take it seriously, even as an insult.

platano says on Aug 22, 2005, 22:43:

You sound like a very sensible, practical man... But you wouldn't fit in very well in the Baptist Bible Belt I was raised in if you don't know enough to know when to beat your wife and kids. Even the public school I went to had the big wooden paddle in the principal's office and I was on the receiving end. They gave me orders to behave, they gave me warnings, then they used brute force. Got beat at home and got beat at school. Those were the Christian family values I was taught. Got a problem? Use violence. It's the American way I was taught: "Might makes right."

Got unidentified planes flying over the Amazon jungle? Give them orders to land, fire warning shots, then use brute force and blast them out of the sky... with full authorization of Bush's shoot-to-kill policy for using USA assets in that way.

plátano

cam0940 says on Aug 23, 2005, 20:33:

Is it possible that this was just an unfortunate accident, I have some unique experience with suspicious aircraft. Internationally, if you can't communicate either technologically or because of a language barrier, or if you are otherwise in trouble, you're supposed to wave the wings of the plane from side to side. Sign language if you will. This communicates 1) I'm having trouble and 2) Don't shoot. Pilots have a responsibility to know where they are, including no fly zones. I would be very surprised to hear that this warplane snuck up on this civilian aircraft, the pilot of the civilian craft never saw him, if he did see him didn't get the hint, I mean come on you guys. You're asking to get shot down. Tragically, this turned out to be an innocent aircraft but the pilot has to have some responsibility here. That's why they send warplanes out in the first place: to be seen, to guide the suspicious aircraft down, and control the situation. If they just wanted to shoot to kill, they'd use a surface to air missle and be done with it.

cali373 says on Aug 24, 2005, 08:41:

Better understanding I need to better understand this people. Simply changing the words justifies the act of killing. In that case the FARC, AUC, and ELN have always justified their acts of terrorism and killing. Thank you all for clearing that up. There are many Colombians who were confused and thought they were just a bunch of terrorists.
Would you call it shoot to live? Do you want an aircraft you are flying in to be able to get shot down because of a language barrier? Answer that one with a yes or no. You can't, can you. Lets keep on killing, eventually we will get peace. right!

Smile if you are a thinker!

cali373 says on Aug 24, 2005, 08:50:

vladimiro "The US could very well be prolonging the war in Colombia."

You think? LOL

Smile if you are a thinker!

cam0940 says on Aug 24, 2005, 20:53:

Cali373 A pilot being completely oblivious to what was going on in that scenario is the pilot's fault. All of us, everyone of us, whenever we board a plane are trusting that the pilot of that plane 1) knows where he can fly and where he can't and 2) knows what to do if he's in trouble, particularly if he sees warplanes circling him firing warning shots. We've tried to make this a policy issue but really. If an unidentified aircraft flies over the White House or the Casa Narino, and it doesn't respond to verbal communication, a show of force, and then finally warning shots, they are going to shoot him down. Can't blame Bush or any other pol organization for that. The pilot is clearly in the wrong.

platano says on Aug 24, 2005, 22:22:

Tinto, about Max Weber and the monopoly on violence... The "war on terrorism" in Colombia and elsewhere involves state violence against groups who do not represent states. The very existence of the violent groups means governments do not have a monopoly on violence anymore.

After the invasion of Iraq George Will said: "every door American troops crash through, every civilian bystander shot - there will be many - will make matters worse, for a while. Nevertheless, the first task of the occupation remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence."

Obviously it has not worked... in Iraq or in Colombia. Governments no longer have a monopoly on violence. And soon governments will be victims of nuclear attacks by non-governmental entities... and there will be nowhere for governments to respond with all their "legitimate" nuclear weapons. It's called asymmetrical warfare, and governments are powerless to respond, no matter how big their militaries are.

plátano

cam0940 says on Aug 24, 2005, 23:02:

Platano Gotta give you that one. Well written.

vladimiro says on Aug 25, 2005, 09:11:

Another Unique Aspect "One could argue that what IS unique to Colombia is they let the problem of the guerillas/narcos/terrorists/insurgents/criminals/thugs fester for about 35 years before they got serious about fighting it."

I could be wrong, but it still seems to me that they will except the status-quo as long as the cities are safe and they can safely drive to thier fincas on the weekends.

I think you'd have to be a social scientist specializing in Colombia to even come close understanding it, but another unique aspect is that illegal groups can be traced back to the armed wings of the Conservative and Liberal parties. The Liberal and COnservative parties fought eachother with these groups. The leader of the FARC, Marulanda, got his start killing Conservatives for the Liberal party bosses in Bogota. Only later did he join the communists and continue the fight when the Liberal and Conservative parties came up with unique power sharing aggreement. I would imagine that from some of the guerillas perspectives it seemed like the bosses in Bogota just used them and sold out.

As we have seen in Iraq war fuels itself. Once you start a war it is very difficult to stop. Two different studies, one Israeli the other Saudi, have found that most of the foriegn fighters in IRaq do not have a terrorist or militant background: they are just normal people that have become radicalized by the US invasion of Iraq. Similarily, it was the Colombian Government that radicalized the situation in Colombia.

Albatross says on Aug 25, 2005, 12:04:

Asymmetry Yes, asymmetrical warfare has been around for centuries, but as technology grows so does the asymmetry. Never before have such small groups been able to wield such power. Unfortunately the situation will likely get worse. If any of these fringe groups ever manage to detonate a nuke, the governments of the world will absolutely lose it. And I imagine civil liberties will then become history.

So enjoy them while you can.

“Democracy - a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H.L. Mencken

juancegomez says on Aug 25, 2005, 17:42:

IMHO, the Colombian mess is less about structural conditions (which we shared and still share with Latin America at large, much more so in the beginning even) than about contextual mishaps that we were not able to handle correctly. Or that simply showed up when we least needed them. Or simply because of decisions that some individuals made (or chose not to make).



For example, it wasn't necessary to murder Gaitán in 1948. If the CIA/Colombian Oligarchy/Aliens/Roa Sierra/The Grand-Ghost of Elvis wanted to get rid of him, there were plenty of others ways to do so.

Same thing with the National Front agreement. Was it necessary to even make it become a bilateral exclusivist pact? Or to extend it to 1974 and not just to 1970? No.

Was it necessary to make a fraud against Rojas Pinilla? Nope. He could have been couped, if necessary. Or simply never allowed to even rejoin political live.

Was it necessary to not have a military government? Nope, especially when we had several of the same short term problems as most military governments of the time, but few of the long term benefits (as weird as that might sound...I still believe that Argentina and Chile got off the hook too easily, compared to how Colombia's being criticized now...better to imitate them when it was very much possible to do so at little expense, not now).

Was it necessary for a peace opening to only come by 1982? Nope. It could have come earlier, or it could have not come at all. Either alternative could have been preferrable, given the very unfavorable context at the time, in spite of public opinion.

Was it necessary to not have a war with Venezuela in 1987? Nope. We probably did need such a beating, and perhaps it would have help us unify the country around a common cause/revenge aspiration (after the obvious humilliation).

Was it necessary for the Colombian Supreme Court to impede or obstruct several important constitutional reform/peace initiatives in the 1970s and 1980s? No. In this case, what may have been legally correct was definitely pragmatically stupid.

Some of the previous questions are a bit too politically incorrect and even coldhearted and machiavellian (some even go against my personal opinion, really), but then again, political correctness has been too overestimated, really, in practice the history of the world doesn't seem to reward it, sadly.

mikecolombia says on Aug 26, 2005, 15:32:

I agree with what you say, but the U.S has supplied more than just inhanced radar. There have been U.S special forces fighting there since the early 80's combating terrorist groups, and I'm not talking about groups just from Colombia. Just 2 years ago Alquaeda tried to negotiate with the Cartel to poison over a ton of cocain. They caught 2 from the IRA 3 years ago teaching the FARC how to make homade rockets and bombs, and also 2 germans teaching the Farc on chemical weapons. We've had a base in Melgar for the last 20 years, and another in Santander the last 3 years so I would say it's just a little more than just inhanced radar.

mikecolombia says on Aug 26, 2005, 15:37:

los padres de colombia Apparently you don't know too much about Colombia or you haven't been back for awhile. They've been killing priest every year for the last 50 years. It's part of the polotics that the FARC uses. Just go down there for a few months and I'm sure you'll here of a few more being murdered by the hands of the FARC.

mikecolombia says on Aug 26, 2005, 15:46:

collateral dammage Talking about collateral damage. There has been collateral damage for the past 50 years since this war has been going on by the hands of the FARC, ELN, AUC, EPL, and about 50 more factions in between including the multitude of Cartels - Cali cartel, Medellin cartel, El cartel del norte del valle and ect.,etc,y ect. It's time for change and in any war change comes at a price. Colombia is headed in the right direction, but it takes time and alot of sacrifices on both ends.

cam0940 says on Aug 26, 2005, 15:53:

Just asking... I humbly ask, as a student of Colombian politics, why can't the Colombian army just outright defeat the FARC? From what I understand, there are only about 17,000 of them and the government generally knows where to find them. The government troops seem to be better armed, better trained, better fed, and have international support. The FARC obviously has its own "fundraising" platforms, but I still find it amazing that the group has been able to not only sustain itself, but thrive in recent years. How is it possible for the FARC to blockade Putumayo? It to me sounds mindboggling, as an outsider, because I can only imagine how swiftly a rebel group here would be crushed by our national government, local militias, and police forces. And in Colombia's case, the government has looked the other way as paramilitaries exacted bloody murder for years. So the government isn't even fighting the FARC alone. It's my understanding that you have special units of the National Police, the Army, the Navy, and the paramilitaries, all killing FARC rebels. I understand the polarity of the country, and the availability of fresh recruits as the wealth gap widens. But still.

Even the much smaller ELN is still in business. I just can't fathom how this is possible.

mikecolombia says on Aug 26, 2005, 15:54:

puppet Uribe is all man. He calls the shots. When I was down there during the elections, they tried to kill him 2 times. When He believes in something, he doesn't back down. Just ask Hugo Chavez when they extracted a Gerrila leader in Caracas. Chavez demanded an apology and for the return of there naturalized citizen, and of course Uribe said "there is nothing to apologize for, and there is nowhere that the enemies of Colombia can hide." Uribe is nobodies puppet!!!!!!!!

mikecolombia says on Aug 26, 2005, 15:57:

I do believe it's 3 billion over 5 years, but that's not incluiding other military support from the U.S. Correct me if I'm wrong please!

mikecolombia says on Aug 26, 2005, 16:09:

You don't know too much about national security or even too much about the world. U.S, Colombia, or cualquier country or even that matter terrorists groups. They're just trying to maintain there sovergnty and implement there ideaology, and hopefully the best man wins!

mikecolombia says on Aug 26, 2005, 16:17:

U.S prolonging the war? Not a very smart comment. Greed on everybodies part and self preservation is prolonging the war. Nobody wants to give up the money or power. Don't put it all on the U.S's head. If you're saying that the U.S is prolonging it for the drugs, that's just plain stupid. There is just as many coca fields in Bolivia and Peru. You have to look at the world on that aspect. You have all of Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and everybody else that benefits. Everybody wants a piece of Colombia.

juancegomez says on Aug 26, 2005, 17:39:

cam0940 "I humbly ask, as a student of Colombian politics, why can't the Colombian army just outright defeat the FARC?"

You mean as in now or as in historically?
It's a multi-part question with a multi-part answer, I'd say.

I'll just give some general responses, though the problem demands a lot more than that, obviously. I'll try to address (in an obviously imperfect and confusing way, as I'm always open to discuss any of this, clearly) the military side more than the political or moral side, in the interests of time.

A bit of Devil's Advocate in favor of a military solution (one of the three plausible ones I see, as I've written elsewhere, though not what I would want or even put in practice personally) for the sake of making this long, but not eternally long.

"From what I understand, there are only about 17,000 of them and the government generally knows where to find them."

More or less so, but as it's always been the case, most of the geography and infrastructure involved in the areas were FARC is significantly active is horrible and tends to aid the defender rather than the attacker.

It's clear that they do have some measure of real support (voluntary and not) in the more backward and godforsaken areas. Not enough for them to actually topple the Colombian government, but enough for not a few of them to slip out of the camouflage when necessary and walk away, with relatively few whistleblowers. They don't study guerrilla warfare and marxism-leninism for nothing, you know.

"The government troops seem to be better armed, better trained, better fed, and have international support."

That hasn't always been the case, specifically when the FARC first managed to get a hold of the drug trade and kidnapping industries to the degree that they now control them (late 80's to early and mid-1990s).

Besides, there aren't enough government troops to, according to classical counterinsurgency theories, really have a decisive advantage both offensively and defensively. Also, the international support is limited mostly (though not exclusively) to the U.S. and (in addition to criticisms that I would also make in other respects) it's only really been at currently high levels in recent years. It's not just a matter of money either.

"The FARC obviously has its own "fundraising" platforms, but I still find it amazing that the group has been able to not only sustain itself, but thrive in recent years."

Well yeah, but keep in mind they've only been really able to "thrive" in the 1980's and most notably in the mid-1990s (circa 1996 to 1998, give or take a couple extra years if you want) because the political context both nationally and internationally allowed them to do it, by taking advantage of certain situations that came up at the wrong time.

"How is it possible for the FARC to blockade Putumayo?"

In a large part because Putumayo's geography and infrastructure is horrible, and also because it's attractive enough for them, the guerrillas, to have some very useful hidden places.

Keep in mind that the blockade wasn't really based on the use of constant military force but rather on fear, intimidation and perception of force.

Communications, supplies, etc. were definitely significantly hurt and the population suffered for it, but the department was never really completely and permanently blockaded. It was more of an "armed strike" (paro armado) than a real blockade.

"It to me sounds mindboggling, as an outsider, because I can only imagine how swiftly a rebel group here would be crushed by our national government, local militias, and police forces."

You say that because you imagine that the rebel group was going to suddenly appear out of almost thin air, you mean. In that case structural conditions are definitely key.

First world countries, for a large number of reasons, have developed stronger states and societies, while third world countries and Latin America in particular have developed considerably weaker states and societies in turn. How each country has handled the challenges of guerrillas or plainly irregular fighters, however, is a matter of specific contextual situations.

juancegomez says on Aug 26, 2005, 17:42:

"And in Colombia's case, the government has looked the other way as paramilitaries exacted bloody murder for years."

Well, kinda...roughly speaking that is true and I'd agree with you if we were just swapping thoughts over coffee, but more scientifically speaking that's not the whole story. Arguing about that would deserve an analysis of its own, but paramilitarism, like Marxist revolution and even simply Colombian history, is a very complex animal.

The paramilitaries or self-defense groups or counterinsurgency groups or similar constructs were never, in the post-La Violencia world, significant enough to actually make a decisive dent against the guerrillas.

It was only when the guerrillas, given a breather of sorts, decided to really take the kid gloves off, extorting, killing and kidnapping the heck out of (current and future) druglords and co. in the late 70's and 80's, at a time that the local elites for the first time had huge amounts of cash and enough ego to really fight back massively (btw, large landowners have always existed, but land isn't equal to cash; that druglords also became landowners and vice versa is another matter), that there were the conditions for a privately funded paramilitary monster of the nature that we see today.

Did the government do much to stop that? Not at all. But the government was weak and already "looking the other way" with respect to most of the whole situation of violence even before such a point had been reached. With exceptions that deserve their own discussion, it almost completely divorced itself from actively involving the nation or even just the state as a whole in the "struggle against communism".

In particular, it can be mentioned that land reform was tried but it slowed to a crawl due to the National Front's workings (which also provided a contextually unnecessary political bipartisan handicap that Colombia's political class has had to pay dearly for, leading to the origin of the M-19 and eventually to the current situation as well). But militarily, there were also big problems.

For much of the Cold War, the military itself had to face the task of being treated as possible coup plotters (remember what the Hispanic world was like then, please) and thus lacking the necessary resources and trust from the government (though the U.S. was more understanding, it was also not very actively helpful), while at the same time the police was being given, almost in solitary, the job of handling the guerrillas. Some people interpret this as a sort of "free hand", but if so it was a "free hand" with unnecessary weights attached.

The military and police have therefore been, with very short and unstable exceptions, historically underfounded, understaffed, politically distrusted (with reason even, I'm not saying anything to the contrary) and inefficient by Latin American standards until it was too late. The government almost never truly had neither the will nor the resources to back a sustained counterinsurgency effort or even a "win the hearts and minds" operation (short bursts did exist, but see above).

So this frustration made for an explosion of noticeable military and police support and tolerance for paramilitarism when it did develop, when the drug lords (and local elites of the traditional nature, of course) had the money to fund it. Paramilitarism in its current incarnation has very little to do with the government directly, even if obvious links to military and police people exist (however, the fact that the military and police are growing stronger is actually helping to lessen the "need" that some sectors originally felt for paramiltarism...the problem is actually getting the political, judicial and economic mess sorted out, or avoiding a FARC counterattack that simply sets us back another 10-20 years in this issue).

"So the government isn't even fighting the FARC alone."

That depends on what you consider really fighting, or actually fighting effectively. Several counterpoints can be made here. The government almost never really, really had a sustained will and the proper means to fight the FARC before, to begin with. Note that I've clearly distinguish between military, police and government, they aren't all the same (life isn't so simple).

Paramilitarism as a significant actor is relatively new. It only really grew like mad in a time when the guerrillas were already growing on their own and, not coincidentially, the drug trade and extortion industries shot through the roof. The paramilitaries, logically, made up for their small number with a greater degree of open barbarity, which isn't useful in politico-military terms unless it's applied to a now internationally impossible degree (though Rome sure didn't have to care about these things, back in the day).

And by the way, to keep things simple, when the FARC, circa 1994-1996, had a second "growth spurt", panic ensued and a second generation of the paramilitaries followed in kind not long after.

Though paramilitaries have definitely had some counterinsurgency usefulness in "clearing" and taking back (through fire and blood, so to speak) certain areas (at a high cost in human life, yes), they have limited range (specifically, they can't really go too far from where they have local support networks or were they have simply eradicated or displaced any opposition to begin with). They aren't really suitable for fighting the FARC on its true heartland. In fact, the FARC has kicked the paramilitaries behind several times.

The paramilitaries play a supporting role, but one on their own terms, for their own interests. They are not military or government lackies. They see and recognize the state as weak, something that some agents of the state also recognize, and that's that.

Ironically, for all the warranted criticisms about it (I have my mile long list about things I don't like about Uribe's policies and ideas), in theory, if the effort was sustained enough throughtout time, Uribe's (and Pastrana's, and the U.S.'s) remilitarization may actually make most paramilitaries unnecessary eventually (perhaps at the cost of a degree of impunity, but...ask Argentina and Chile about what they did, how they did it, when did they do it, and when they decided to backtrack and do the morally right thing).

"It's my understanding that you have special units of the National Police, the Army, the Navy, and the paramilitaries, all killing FARC rebels. I understand the polarity of the country, and the availability of fresh recruits as the wealth gap widens. But still."

Mutually killing cannon fodder doesn't really change the overall strategic stalemate (though a stalemate where the government is actually slightly ahead, as opposed to slightly behind as in the previous years).

Despite what many foreigners believe, the country isn't really polarized into "pro-guerrilla" and "anti-guerrilla", but rather into "pro-status quo" and "anti-status quo". The guerrillas, in their current incarnation and modus operandi, have become a part of the status quo in itself. In the cities and most of the countryside they aren't welcome voluntarilly by the vast majority of the population, outside of key "heartland" areas that do welcome them with open arms.

They can survive because now they are economically and militarily independent and strong enough to massively draft people against their will and hold onto a smaller number of hardcore followers, because they don't want to depend on voluntary or convinced recruits as they did back in the day. They decided that they want to earn money and scalps first, and only later will they care about the consequences and political aspects. But in the meanwhile, they think all that can wait, because they are in "war mode".

The number of people that join the FARC out of "consequences of the wealth gap/unemployment" is probably not higher than the number of people that join the AUC for much the same reason, if you think about it.

Btw, the wealth gap wasn't exactly significantly shortening in other countries were guerrillas were successfully defeated. They just simply solved the problem, despite whatever was felt as necessary to do so.

"Even the much smaller ELN is still in business. I just can't fathom how this is possible."

The ELN in particular is too different from the FARC in its historical development and even in its ideology (beyond obvious Marxist revolutionary beliefs). It began as a Cuban-backed group, one that was almost destroyed in the 1970s (an exception given what I've said), but then was left off the hook by president Lopez, who did not allow a military crackdown to continue, but failed to negotiate anything with them (nor did Betancur ever get to do so, either...). After laying low for a while the ELN found a cash cow in European oil companies, so it managed to rebuild itself due to extortion and a favorable wider national context.

But its glory days are over, it's once again in decline. It began to suffer once again, both from the Army, the paramilitaries and even the FARC itself. It may still be in business but not because of its own worth per se, but because of the twists and turns of the rest of the situation.

cam0940 says on Aug 26, 2005, 17:58:

juancegomez What an amazing discourse on the current situation and historical context!! I have a number of questions, but you'll have to give me a moment to digest this information. I'll print it, read it again, and get back to you.