PBH / colombia (travelguide, pictures) / post

Colombia's Military Toughens Up By Aztec

Colombia's military toughens up
FLORENCIA, COLOMBIA -- Seven years and $4.35 billion since the advent of a massive U.S. aid program, the Colombian military has been transformed from an outmatched "garrison force" that had yielded huge swaths of terrain to leftist guerrillas, to an aggressive force that has won back territory.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-colombia18jan18,0,....

By aztec on 2008-01-18 08:55:40 in Politics & the war.

moderators: demote | delete. Move to Colombia - friendly talkzone Colombia - travel tips Colombia - visa & paperwork Colombia - renting, selling & meetups Colombia - politics & the war Colombia - espanol Bolivia - bolivia rocks India - Hello My Friend! Travelicious - Travelicious Talkzone Learn travel Spanish - Learn Spanish Off Topic: do your thing - Off Topic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

juancegomez says on Friday January 18th, 2008 9:34:

Somewhat interesting, but it's fairly sloppy around the edges though.

On the surface, readers who don't know any better are left to assume that all U.S. aid went towards the military or that Colombia's own defense budget during this period of time was less than U.S. aid, both of which are considerably incorrect assumptions, if the figures were actually checked.

Also, while this is a controversial topic, it is concluded that more human rights abuses have been committed, but the article only details figures for increased extrajudicial killings, which while reportedly true, is not the only kind of human rights abuse. A rise in certain kinds of abuse doesn't automatically mean that all abuses are up, but the article doesn't even try to make this clear, and outright says that the total is up. It's also implied that the rise in abuses is directly proportional to the reduction in paramilitary activity, which would be an interesting subject worth researching but hardly necessarily true all across the board (for example, the paramilitaries largely stopped massacring people and we aren't seeing rising numbers of military massacres, which is a specific type of abuse). That doesn't mean that "oh, the military is so clean" or what not, but that I think the situation could be described a bit better.

It's rather freely described that "rebels had encircled the capital", which IMHO is a poor way to explain that there was, indeed, increased rebel presence in Cundinamarca, but there was no real "encirclement" at this point, even if it was a possible outcome of said presence.

Pastrana also didn't "cede" any land to FARC in hopes that such a move in itself would lead to a peace agreement. The DMZ was, in practice, under FARC's control but that was never the point of its existence: the point was to begin peace talks within the zone, not to say "here, take this".

Mr. Hollywood says on Friday January 18th, 2008 9:42:

That citation about extrajudicial killings is weird. It seems to be comparing the period of 2001-2006 to the five years before it. Which is a very crude statistic at best. I'd be much more swayed if someone showed that extrajudicial killings increased year-over-year from 2001-2006 rather than in one 5-year period over another.

SiV says on Friday January 18th, 2008 9:59:

"1,035 extrajudicial killings in the five-year period"

That's horrific, probably more than the Farc. I want to know more.

SiV

juancegomez says on Friday January 18th, 2008 10:28:

Mr. Hollywood: I'd like to see a better breakdown as well.

Instead of trying to show a year-by-year evolution, which could help us to understand exactly how that particular trend of abuse may have developed over the period as far as reported cases go, it simply adds two particular totals over an arbitrary length of time and leaves further interpretations up in the air.

SiV: Considering that many of FARC's killings aren't considered to be "extrajudicial" technically speaking (even though they are, in fact, outside of any kind of judicial process), your "probably more than FARC (and ELN?)" bit assumes too much, I'd say. Not to mention that, proportionally speaking, the comparison wouldn't even be as simple as that. Alas...

Mr. Hollywood says on Friday January 18th, 2008 10:39:

By the common (not technical) definition, should ALL killings by the FARC be considered "outside the law"? And I'm sure the FARC kills far more than 200 people per year on average.

SiV says on Friday January 18th, 2008 10:41:

Where's the complexity? Accepting that all Farc killing are extra-judicial, is there data on how many people the farc have murdered over the same 5 year period? Is it more than the claimed 1,035 murdered by the Colombian fuerzas armadas?

The fact is that the Colombian army is supposedly held accountable in national and international law by the Colombian state, or other judicial bodies such as the Court of the OAE, Hague, etc. How many of these extra-judicial killings have been brought to justice? The illegal groups, be they Farc Eln, Auc, Black Eagles, etc. by their nature are more difficult to hold to account.

1,035. Is nobody else horrified by this, or is it a just a case of double standards: when the Farc murders somebody it's an atrocity, but if a statal group does the same it's somehow acceptable, or at least, not so bad?

SiV

scotty says on Friday January 18th, 2008 10:55:

our tax dollars at work.

Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way

beisbollover says on Friday January 18th, 2008 11:05:

Hard to believe that after 100's of years Colombia still just doesn't have control of all the terrain inside her borders. As an American it's hard to fathom. I love Colombia and wish they would just get their chit together and take control of every inch of the country. Why haven't they? Any ideas?

juancegomez says on Friday January 18th, 2008 11:29:

SiV: "Accepting that all Farc killing are extra-judicial, is there data on how many people the farc have murdered over the same 5 year period? Is it more than the claimed 1,035 murdered by the Colombian fuerzas armadas?"

I don't have the exact figures for these same years right now, though I suppose they'll vary according to the source.

On the other hand, in 2000, during just one year, FARC alone killed at least 496 civilians, according to human rights NGOs. It may be a high figure not necessarily reached in other years, which may have lower or higher figures, but there you are:

"En 2000, los grupos de derechos humanos informaron que las FARC-EP había asesinado a 496 civiles en todo el país, muchos de ellos acusados de simpatizar con paramilitares o agentes del estado.10"

http://www.hrw.org/spanish/informes/2001/farc3.html#P160_26885

And according to CERAC, a think tank which uses NGO information and other sources, between 1988 and June 2005, the guerrillas (FARC being, of course, the largest by far) killed some 6243 civilians. 1487 were killed by government forces during the same period, and the paramilitaries killed some 6962. This is identified perpetrators only, mind you.

http://www.cerac.org.co/pdf/CSISPresentationwithtext-V10_Low.pdf

"The fact is that the Colombian army is supposedly held accountable in national and international law by the Colombian state, or other judicial bodies such as the Court of the OAE, Hague, etc.

Indeed. But you yourself said that this was "probably more than FARC", which is the point here.

"How many of these extra-judicial killings have been brought to justice?"

Probably very few, sadly, though the phenomenon has at least received more explicit press coverage lately and that has drawn attention to it.

I'm not against holding the army or the military itself accountable, but that's one thing and what brought this discussion on was something else.

"The illegal groups, be they Farc Eln, Auc, Black Eagles, etc. by their nature are more difficult to hold to account."

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable or that they are "probably (killing) less", does it?

"1,035. Is nobody else horrified by this, or is it a just a case of double standards: when the Farc murders somebody it's an atrocity, but if a statal group does the same it's somehow acceptable, or at least, not so bad?"

All murders are atrocities and they are not acceptable at all.

However, again, you're the one who first said that the figure was probably higher than FARC's (just like that), and then simply added that it's difficult to hold them accountable anyways.

juancegomez says on Friday January 18th, 2008 11:34:

beisbollover: Effective territorial control has never been big in Colombia or Latin America as a whole, to be honest, but it's probably gotten better over the years, compared to the 19th century at least.

On the other hand, the rest of the world doesn't exactly control "every inch of each country" either...it's just that, in many cases, there is nobody willing to openly challenge that control, where and when there is no war or no armed opposition.

But that still doesn't prevent smugglers, thieves and others from, much more quietly, hiding and slipping through. Total territorial control doesn't really exist.

SiV says on Friday January 18th, 2008 11:44:

Interesting response.

Still, the point is that the Fuerzas Armadas are statal agents, and therefore represent the govt. They have to be brought under control, and to justice. As, obviously, should all the illegal armed groups. The difference is these cases aren't investigated, or are done so inadequately. The Colombian army has to be credible and trustworthy, it can't go around arbritrarily murdering people, that is why due process exists.

Personally, I know exactly what I'd do if the army extra-judicially murdered one of my family members, and I imagine that's why the guerilla receive volunteers . . . It perpetuates the violent cycle of the conflict.

SiV

juancegomez says on Friday January 18th, 2008 11:55:

Tragically true in many cases, no doubt, that can and does indeed perpetuate violence. I agree with you there.

ColombianoGringo says on Friday January 18th, 2008 12:19:

"Hard to believe that after 100's of years Colombia still just doesn't have control of all the terrain inside her borders."

The main problem these days is that North American, Asian and European drug users pump billions in drug money into the farc's war chest. If the radical militia groups in the US had billions in funding, there would lots of remote places in the US that would be much harder to control.

Sr Tertius says on Friday January 18th, 2008 12:34:

CG: I'm afraid you are stating the causal relation backwards. To the extent that drug money can maintain territorial control by a criminal organization, you would see a competition for supplying drug. Countries like Brazil, Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, etc. would easily take a substantial share of the drug supply, and would have their own insurgencies, and all the same kind of problems that Colombia has. But in reality they don't. Because there are few countries in the world as fragmented as Colombia--a nation in spite of itself, as David Bushnell put it. It's its fragmentation what has allowed druglords and the oldest guerrilla in the world to not only subsist but have effective political power in portions of the country, not the other way around.

billyb says on Friday January 18th, 2008 12:43:

One might say that Brazil doesn't have absolute control of it's own cities, the drug gangs clearly dispalyed that last year in Sao Paulo. And I wouldn't be too quick to site Bolivia as an example of a unified country, if things keep going the way they are, there will two Bolovia's before long.

slguy says on Friday January 18th, 2008 13:25:

Sometimes I just want to scream for Colombia. How can a country resolve such a widespread, horrible problem, if it's citizens can't even agree on who the bad guys are, and who the good guys are?

Some Colombians encourage "negotiations". Some back FARC (although for the life of me I'll never understand why!). Some see the paras as a reasonable solution. But I swear- it seems to me most Colombians just play ostrich, and hope somebody else solves the problem- until they lose friends/family members.

There's an AWFUL big contingent of people on this site who never miss no opportunity to badmouth Uribe. But according to all credible polls, let alone election figures, he seems to enjoy wide popularity in Colombia. During his tenure, unless I have learned nothing, FARC territory has been shrunk, the cities are safer, and anecdotal evidence suggests that Colombians are enjoying a period of relative prosperity. Why do so many here love to hate on Uribe? His arrogance? His methodology? His single-mindedness with respect to his attitude towards those FARC bastards? I swear, there must be a ton of cuban blood flowing thru folks on this site- no matter how much things improve, always bitching and moaning....

I don't have an answer to the problems facing Colombia - I'm too ignorant of the nuances to form any sort of informed opinion. I do, however know this - sometimes it makes sense to appreciate results, instead of constantly bitching about methods.

Some people are like Slinkies, not really good for much, but you can't help but smile when they tumble down the stairs!

Desi1 says on Friday January 18th, 2008 13:50: edit

How can a country have an effective control of all its territory whenthere aren't even any roads to many places? land communications have always been a huge problem in all South America.. Almost all big cities (Bogota being one of the exceptions) are situated either on the coast or on a river with access to one of the oceans. Before aviation developed the rivers were the main communication routes and ways of transportation of both people and goods in all South America. The mountainous topography and the extensive jungles make it extremely difficult to control land areas.

MitchAlvarez says on Friday January 18th, 2008 14:01:

que maten a todos esos perros guerilleros.

I dont spell check and i spanglish alot. Sorry but I am paisa y montañero. :)

Mr. Hollywood says on Friday January 18th, 2008 14:30:

I went looking for a source of stats on extrajudicial killings as a global problem. I struck out but found this UN site that's very interesting. Not that it excuses anyone, but, for example, it looks like the Phillippines has a problem about on par with Colombia's over the same time period.

http://www.extrajudicialexecutions.org/index.html

SiV says on Friday January 18th, 2008 19:41:

Slguy, I'm one of those people who often slates off Uribe, and if you wanna know why, follow this link and listen to someone more eloquent than me, the Colombian journalist Hollman Morris, explain why in this 3 minute video clip. . .

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cw6HQflZMz0

PS. Try not to cringe too much at the questioners awful Spanish accent!
PPS. It's got English subtitles.

SiV

billyb says on Friday January 18th, 2008 20:21:

Colombia Buys Night Eyes
January 18, 2008: Colombia is buying $13 million worth of Star SAFIRE HD stabilized, multi-sensor surveillance turrets, plus spares, support and training. These units, which cost less than $100,000 each, are fully stabilized, day/night cameras that will equip most of Colombia's 90 helicopters. Weighing 120 pounds, the SAFIRE units have been in use for nearly a decade, and are another example of rapidly developing technology becoming smaller, lighter, more robust, and cheaper. The SAFIRE unit enables the helicopters to operate effectively at night. Similar units are being used by police, and to guard bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The stabilization means that, no matter how the helicopter moves, the picture stays stable.

billyb says on Friday January 18th, 2008 20:26:

Venezuela
February 23, 2007: The Venezuelan armed forces are undergoing a transformation, brought about by massive arms purchases (mainly over $6 billion worth of Russian weapons.) The full time military, of some 90,000 troops, is also being augmented by several hundred thousand poorly organized "reserves." Many of the new weapons are Russian assault rifles to arm these guys, who may end up supporting post-Chavez warlords.

Of course, this spending spree looks impressive. It remains, however, to be seen as to whether the Venezuelan armed forces can absorb the mountains of equipment, and use it effectively. The army has already been disrupted by three changes of its main infantry weapon in the past six years. On top of that, president Hugo Chavez' yes men have managed to foist a new tactical system on the army. The so-called "Bolivarian tactics" were apparently made up out of bits and pieces of various dated guerrilla theories (Che Guevara in particular), and have never been wargamed or tested in combat.

Then there's the Navy. While it's also being run by some yes men (in fact Chavez promoted one of his buddies to full admiral -- the first sailor of that rank since the war for independence, some 180 years ago -- and made him chairman of the joint chiefs). A substantial portion of the Navy consists of several riverine flotillas, which patrol the country's extensive inland waters, and which would be of marginal utility for coastal operations, though perhaps of help against neighboring Guyana (Venezuela claims 60 percent of Guyana). The surface fleet is relatively small, and there have been reports of shortages of equipment and parts. Like all dictators, Chavez seems to think more equipment is a better investment than spare parts. Then there are the nine Russian submarines Chavez is intent on buying. Frankly, these would seem to be a highly dubious investment. The country does have two older German boats, and thus a small cadre of submariners. But how long would it take to expand that cadre sufficiently to man a total of eleven boats?

The Venezuelan Marine Corps (actually naval infantry), is small, but likely to be of value, as they used to train with the USMC; apparently the marines are very loyal to the regime; the new chairman of the joint chiefs was formerly the head of the marines.

The air force will have less trouble with the new Russian Su-30 fighters. Venezuela has been using American F-16s for decades, and the new Russian aircraft are of the same class in terms of complexity. So Venezuela will have no insurmountable problems in developing pilots and maintenance personnel for the Su-30s.

Naturally, maniacal dictators don't usually worry about such details. The new weapons will work out, or not, depending on how motivated the troops and officers are, and how much leeway they are given to improvise. If Chavez insists on micromanaging, which he has been guilty of in the past, this huge investment in new weapons may well backfire.

slguy says on Friday January 18th, 2008 21:14:

SiV

Thanks for the clip. I feel a little better informed.

I guess it poses a couple questions in my mind.

1. "humble campesinos"? While murder is murder, no matter who commits it - why would anyone arbitrarily murder these "humble campesinos"? I'm not defending it by any means - I'm trying to learn. Are these campesinos viewed as FARC supporters? Is that the assumption as to cause for these murders?

2. Who's doing this? Military? Paras? Someone that people feel have government ties?

While it is tragic that ANYONE needlessly loses their life, I fail to understand, even now, why people are so quick to ignore the improvements. There are no bombs exploding in Medellin or Bogota, or certainly they are MUCH reduced. It seems to me like a blind man regaining his sight- but complaining loudly "but I still have a terrible headache!".

I've not seen anyone clamor to anoint Uribe a saint - but neither have I seen any credible evidence that he is in any manner directly responsible for these killings, or even that he encourages such actions. Why not be at least a little upbeat about the positive contributions he's made, while continuing to demand explanations for the remaining problems, and supporting any credible inquiries?

Seems like a case of being hell bent on throwing out the baby along with the bathwater, from my vantage point - but my vantage point is admittedly at least somewhat foggy...

Some people are like Slinkies, not really good for much, but you can't help but smile when they tumble down the stairs!

juancegomez says on Saturday January 19th, 2008 7:40:

SiV: I'm not a fan of Uribe, a person I did not vote for and most likely won't ever do so. I also do respect Hollman Morris, but it seems to me that in this video he simplifies the existing improvements quite a bit in order to (better?) make his case.

But other than that I do believe the rest, in other words the essential elements, of his view tends to be right.

He’s mentioning critical situations that he likely has actually witnessed (or heard about) firsthand, in several regions of Colombia, and which do continue to constitute serious problems, often due to the action or inaction of the different branches of the state and/or the local political representatives, as well as other forces. Problems which require more attention than the current administration and Uribe are willing to provide, when they are not contributing to them directly or indirectly.

By Desi1 (Moderator) on Jan 20, 2008, 09:21 in Politics & the war.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 20, 2008, 10:42:

I had to chop off the BS banter that ruined this perfectly good thread and since I don't have tools to split threads I decided to post the jokes in off-topic as a separate thread and save the good comments in a new thread. Cheers,
Desi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Jan 20, 2008, 11:34:

We did sorta take this thread out for a walk. Was fun, though.

I'm still waiting for specifics about these "humble campesinos" and their murders. Sounded to me like generalities molded to make a point. For example - if one chose to, I guess most FARC guerillas could be called humble campesinos, given their jungle living conditions. I'm not well-enough informed to sling accusations, only trying to learn.

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 20, 2008, 11:39:

Well dear Desi, you made a mistake posting this, but anyway... I bet you'll soon get an email from Peter

"I am a citizen of the most beautiful nation on earth. A nation whose laws are harsh yet simple, a nation that never cheats, which is immense and without borders, where life is lived in the present."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 20, 2008, 11:59:

why?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

robi666 says on Jan 20, 2008, 12:00:

... ehm... descuida Desi :-)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

jake074701 says on Jan 20, 2008, 12:37:

Exposing the secret IP computer addresses of these people?

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desi1 (Moderator) says on Jan 20, 2008, 12:46:

Yes, but it's taken care of now. Thanks, robi, jake.

0 funny, 0 helpful.