FARC to train Venezuela's military

elk says on May 9, 04:49:

This will effect the U.S. economy with the loss of Mr. Hugo's oil to the U.S.

elk says on May 9, 04:57:

Gen. Carvajal, another Venezuelan general is described as offering the port of Maracaibo to facilitate arms shipments to the guerrillas. The general suggests piggybacking on shipments from Russia -- from which Venezuela itself is buying everything from Kalashnikovs to jet fighters -- to "include some containers destined to the FARC" with various arms for the guerrillas' own use.

A spokesman at the Russian embassy in Washington declined to comment.

rhydewithdis says on May 9, 07:08:

In addition, Ecuador's interior minister confirmed that he had met with Mr. Reyes, after an email describing the previously secret meeting was found on the laptops and made public by Colombia.

They said I couldn't play football I was too small / They say I couldn't play basketball I wasn't tall / They say I couldn't play baseball at all / And now everyday of my life I ball.

Tinto (Moderator) says on May 9, 07:42:

Someone decided to put the US 'stamp of approval' on the authenticity of the files before Interpol, but I don't know why. FWIW, the story is also on the front page of the printed edition of the WSJ so it's going to be viewed by lots of influential eyeballs.

CatGirl says on May 9, 07:55:

Kitty is curious....(maybe a PBHer with military experience can answer). What is the difference between guerrilla warfare and ...well...the "other" kind(s)?? Is there a difference?
Sorry if this is a silly question. I have met Ex - Jihad (sp) who considered themselves "guerilla" fighters in their days, never asked what the difference was. Although, they weren't the warm and approachable type to ask anyways - jajaja

lampltr says on May 9, 08:07:

That friggin cat is larger than a regular size dog! jeje. Cat, guerilla warfare is one that hits and runs, they utilze what cover they can for better advantage with attacks and then they blend in making their disappearance whether into society, the jungle, city what ever is best for the surroundings and their doctrine. Quite often the regulars of the guerilla forces are small and strategic, but definately cannot go head to head with normal military forces. They do not have the financial backing nor technology on their sides. Regular warfare is pretty much head to head but lately countries will use critical buildings, citizens, and whatever can be of advantage against the west as shields for better protection. Hope this helps, anyone else desire to chime in....

romy says on May 9, 08:22:

lamplt says "Regular warfare is pretty much head to head but lately countries will use critical buildings, citizens, and whatever can be of advantage against the west as shields for better protection."
Total war has come to mean that since civilian structures are part of the engine that drives the military machinery, then they become legitimate targets (this is in conventional battle).

As far as guerrilla warfare goes the best for someone to do with somewhat limited time is to read the wikipidia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare)

from there on tactics of guerrila warfare:

"Guerrilla warfare is distinguished from the small unit tactics used in screening or recon operations typical of conventional forces. It is also different from the activities of bandits, pirates or robbers. Such criminal groups may use guerrilla-like tactics, but their primary purpose is immediate material gain, and not a political objective.

Guerrilla tactics are based on intelligence, ambush, deception, sabotage, and espionage, undermining an authority through long, low-intensity confrontation. It can be quite successful against an unpopular foreign or local regime, as demonstrated by the Vietnam conflict. A guerrilla army may increase the cost of maintaining an occupation or a colonial presence above what the foreign power may wish to bear. Against a local regime, the guerrilla fighters may make governance impossible with terror strikes and sabotage, and even combination of forces to depose their local enemies in conventional battle. These tactics are useful in demoralizing an enemy, while raising the morale of the guerrillas. In many cases, guerrilla tactics allow a small force to hold off a much larger and better equipped enemy for a long time, as in Russia's Second Chechen War and the Second Seminole War fought in the swamps of Florida (United States of America)."

CatGirl says on May 9, 09:12:

Lampltr: "That friggin cat is larger than a regular size dog!"

jejeje - this is the type of kitty I have - popular in Texas cause of the size. They are BIG. Many dog lovers like them - cause they are like dogs and they are so big

Romy/Lamp: Thanks guys. So basically it is very strategic and they more than likely take meticulous time into studying the territory/terrain in detail?

Their Achilles Heel? Possibly the element of suprise, an internal Mole within their group or basically being taken out in large numbers by widespread fire (since they are small) - so I would figure maybe this type of tactic would be not to stay in a group? They would want to be separated as much as possible - correct? To accomplish this, I bet they would have to rely on modern communications and some creative rudimentary communications to ensure they are on the same page?

Again - thanks! Very helpful!

romy says on May 9, 09:26:

"So basically it is very strategic and they more than likely take meticulous time into studying the territory/terrain in detail?"
Yes, this is definitely one of the key combat advantages of a guerrilla fighter. For instance, a Colombian soldier will tell you that the ability of guerrillas to run through the jungle to avoid the solider and to attack is remarkable. It also seems that this is the aspect that is implied when suggestions that Chavez wants to receive FARC training for his troops. Which, is not too far-fetched if war with the US is a possibility.

"They would want to be separated as much as possible - correct?"
This is also true. Thus, why the FARC has many fronts. And why the Reyes hit was so significant.

"I bet they would have to rely on modern communications and some creative rudimentary communications to ensure they are on the same page?"
This is what the Colombian government would like to believe after the Reyes strike, as this guy was the key communications guy. I'm not entirely convinced, but definitely communications are key.

I would suggest the downturn for FARC was when they lost the support of the people around them. As they became involved with narcotics and were involved in deaths of civilians, they lost their appeal and I believed signed the end of them.

CatGirl says on May 9, 09:29:

Thanks Romy ;))

Lcacique says on May 9, 11:18:

The whole point of guerrilla warfare is not to go head to head with the opposition military. As far as how successful they are...they didn't do a bad job in Vietnam and Cuba. Sixty years of survival in Colombia says something as well. As for not having popular support, that depends on the case. Castro armed the populace, only a suicidal idiot would do that if there was not support for the cause. Also, guerrillas are dependent on the populations where they operate and they are often of the people. If they did not have support, they could not exist. This is why one of the principle tactics against guerrilla armies has been to destroy the communities in the surrounding areas: empty the pond and the fish die.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

CatGirl says on May 9, 11:54:

Wow! That's another perspective. I was thinking about that. I recently watched a movie (true story) about this in El Salvador. In some instances people were forced to join in fear for their families safety. In other situations it appeared to be another case of basic survival and peer pressure.

Interesting tactic. But in cases where this "guerrilla" support is predominantly due to peer pressure or terror (where the majority would jump at any chance not to be involved) - is doing a mass (stealth) relocation first considered as a possibility. At the sake of not killing innocent people - or is this just my Mary Poppin's talking? jaja

Lcacique says on May 9, 12:39:

CG: I know several salvadorans. Some where actually guerrillas and others were involved in the Christian Base Communities. All were brutally victimized by the government. My friend's cousin's brains were blown out by the Salvadoran military at the funeral for Archbishop Romero. It is difficult for me to imagine anyone having to be pressured to join such movements in Central America (though some were of course), even though I oppose solving problems with guns. The governments in those regions (with US-support) were absolutely evil and there was never any hope of making change through elections.

CG: "Interesting tactic. But in cases where this "guerrilla" support is predominantly due to peer pressure or terror (where the majority would jump at any chance not to be involved) - is doing a mass (stealth) relocation first considered as a possibility. At the sake of not killing innocent people - or is this just my Mary Poppin's talking? jaja"

I am not sure I follow you. The tactic I was speaking of is not employed by the guerrillas, it is a tactic used by the legitimate militaries to dispose of guerrilla support. Here's what Colin Powell said about Vietnam:

"We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters," Powell recalled in his memoir, My American Journey. "Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in which his guerrillas swam. ... We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference did it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?"

So starve off the people, those who are not actually guerrilla fighters in most cases, and you get rid of the support for the guerrilla's who depend on others to provide shelter and food. Of course this tactic creates more animosity towards the government/military; therefore, it often backfires, leading to more guerrilla supporters and fighters [kind of like spraying glyphosate on illicit crops (financial resource) as well as licit crops (food resource) which Uribe has admitted has failed becuase it produces no results and pisses people off].

As for guerrillas carrying out "cleansings," it certainly happens, but it is at the detriment of the groups goals. On the one hand, they are a small and fragile group who depends on the trust of the populace; therefore, it would be extremely risky to allow people who oppose them to live in the areas where they exist. On the other hand, by carrying out "cleansings" they become what they are often fighting against. And how are you going to gain any meaningful support if you carry out such acts (i.e. look at the FARC)? Big problem.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

CatGirl says on May 9, 14:11:

Lacac: "I am not sure I follow you. The tactic I was speaking of is not employed by the guerrillas"

Yes, I was indicating Military to simply relocate or even evacuate these communities and their resources as opposed to destroying them and or unnecessarily harming uninvolved people - but I could see how that would be difficult if the terrain was an island in addition to how large the communities are.... It was just a thought...

Good sources of reference - thanks ;))

Lcacique says on May 9, 16:03:

aahh, my bad. I misinterpreted what you were saying. I am sure that militaries probably have carried out voluntary evacuations, but nothing comes to mind off the top of my head. As you point out though, there would be all kinds of problems associated with such a relocation (i.e. are they being relocated onto land that is less productive, less expansive, farther away from markets, etc, etc, etc.). That does not mean that such an effort is incapable of producing positive results.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

romy says on May 9, 16:08:

Lcacique- Though there must be some FARC sympathizers, I'm not sure their neighbors are too happy to have to deal with paramilitaries and the military all the time.

Lcacique says on May 9, 16:36:

Agreed, romy. But they have also done enough through their own actions to push any possible support away.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

romy says on May 9, 16:38:

of course

juancegomez says on May 9, 19:38:

This is another case where I'd like to read the documents myself, not what others say about them.

I can see more than a few FARC sympathizers being involved in such activities, but the specifics make a big difference and it would be interesting to read the documents in their proper context. The previously released documents, for all their faults, at least allowed that.

Hopefully more of them are made publicly available after May 15-16.

As for guerrilla warfare...I understand that guerrilla warfare's strength is usually its defensive potential. But the ultimate goal of a guerrilla is to seize power. Surviving is essential to that goal, and of course survival requires a certain amount of support, but victory is another ballgame.

And guerrilla warfare alone and enough support to survive is not sufficient for that.

You need enough support to win, for starters, as well as enough strength. Or, alternatively, get rid of your enemy's support and strength.

FARC has NOT accomplished so far, and they've probably hurt themselves politically and morally too much by now, even if their military and economic front has acquired certain self-sufficiency in exchange for it.

billyb says on May 9, 20:47:

Juance, along those lines, i think a big paradigm shift in the conflict and one that has been somewhat overlooked is that as where ten years ago the average colombian army soldier didn't really want to fight and was just concerned about surviving his two(?) year compulsory service (and I can't say I blame them) , the average FARC soldier was fighting for what they thought was a just cause, it now has turned around and the colombian army has 87k commited proffessional soldiers and a fighting (comandante guerrero in their lexicon) officer corps. While the average guerilla now just wants to survive long enough until he can find the right time to run away (and in the case of the mandos medios, with a bit of loot and his guerrillerita to boot).

Lcacique says on May 9, 20:58:

romy, I know that you were aware of the last point I made; howevber, I needed to say it. If not, everyone would have layed into me claiming that I was a fan of the FARC.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

CatGirl says on May 9, 21:06:

Lcac - Naaaahh ..Kitty would not have thought that, amor. I learned much from this post - thanks guys!!!

billyb says on May 9, 21:34:

Lcacique, you don't have to make that point if you don't mean it. Look, i don't often agree with you, or Juance for that matter, but I respect your point of view and i think Juance is the most interesting, nuanced, analytical and unbiased poster on PBH because although you both are not fans of uribe, neither of you let that get in the way of loving colombia and hoping for the best for her, instead of like some others here that froth at their mouths at anything that is anit-uribe, even if it means that they are willing to take the side of foreigners that are enemies of colombia against colombia, it is sort like they will cut off their nose so they can spite their face.

Lcacique says on May 10, 00:54:

billyb: The only reason I would write it is because I do believe it. I am absolutely NOT a fan of the FARC. I've made that point over and over again; however, it tends to go unnoticed. Instead, some have chosen to make all kinds of assumptions based on the fact that I condemn the paras and I have concerns about the governments of Colombia and the US.

With respect to Uribe, I think he has done some great things. I have suspicions about him and some of his motivations, but my suspicions could be completely off-base. However, if these suspicions are eventually proven to be justified, I think I'll feel more devastated than many of the people who support Uribe. Setbacks are inevitable (especially in a country as complex as Colombia); however, if links to the paramilitary are ever substantiated it will be a tremendous blow to Colombia's reputation as a democracy. It will also link the US (albeit, indirectly) to yet another Latin American government that has used force to suppress its own citizens.

If I focus on the paras, it is for two reasons. 1) Their involvement in the majority of the human rights violations for an extended period of time (mostly in Colombia's modern history). 2) They are more easily controlled because they are not opposed to the government (in theory). While I am not completely satisfied with the demobilization process, I think it demonstrates this very fact.

We both agree that the FARC needs to disappear; however, we probably disagree to some extent about the methods necessary to achieve such a goal. That is not an overwhelming obstacle to overcome.

I sincerely appreciate the fact that you recognize that I have a deep love for a country that is not mine by birth, but that has adopted me through the warmth and kindness of its citizens. Like you, I simply want to see Colombia continue to move in a positive direction in order to become the country that its people so richly deserve. Anyway, thank you.

And I agree wholeheartedly about juance, who I disagree with from time to time on trivial matters as well. Nevertheless, his arguments have caused me to rethink my position on more than one occasion. In addition, he seems to be one of the few members that does not suffer from monochromatism, making him a tremendous asset to the site.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

romy says on May 10, 06:15:

"Surviving is essential to that goal, and of course survival requires a certain amount of support, but victory is another ballgame.

And guerrilla warfare alone and enough support to survive is not sufficient for that.

You need enough support to win, for starters, as well as enough strength. Or, alternatively, get rid of your enemy's support and strength."
The thing is that guerrilla warfare has been very succesful in the past in accomplishing all its goals including seizing power. Though this has never been the case in Colombia.
Like I said previously in this post, I believe when the guerrillas in Colombia started taking actions that took away their support from people around them was the major turning point towards the eventual end of the guerrillas.

Lcacique- hopefully the "FARC U" bunch will get a hint eventually that not everything against Uribe is coming from the FARC and then we won't have to waste our time adding these tags to our comments.

Lcacique says on May 10, 10:44:

Agreed romy. I always get a serious case of the sectarian blues when i come here, jajaja.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

jello biafra (newbie) says on May 10, 10:48:

FARC training Venezuela should be comforting. It shows what a rag-tag military Chavez has.

regarding El Salavdor, the media portrays Archbishop Romero is this saint, when in fact he supported leftist guerillas that also killed innocent people also. Archbishop Romero was a lefty and when your in a civil war in a violent country, perhaps as someone in the clergy, he should have tempered his words, he pissed off a lot of people in El Salvador, the people in power. Did he deserve to be murdered? No, but in some ways he brought it upon himself. Romero was also anti-american....

The Catholic Church usually sides with the wrong people, for they too like to manipulate the poor for their own agenda. This is why they are so pro-amnesty here in the states, it is about money and more sheep in the flock. The catholic church cares more about illegal immigrants than it does about law abiding americans IMHO...