Retaliating against terrorists

Hunter says on Aug 14, 2005, 01:11:

Terroists To be a rebel, you have to have more than a few percentage points of the populations support or roughly equal to the governing parties support, with the remainder of the population non aligned.

As we have many Americans on the board, an example from their war for Independance was that approx 1/3 supported English rule, 1/3 wanted to break away, 1/3 didn't care one way or the other. They were called Rebels at the time and still are in the history books.

The highest percentage support that I have read for the terrosits groups in Colombia is 5%, most articles are between 1-3%, I certainly haven't seen any large percentage of the poulation that don't care one way or the other.

So terrorists are what they are.

Hunter

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr X says on Aug 14, 2005, 02:51:

Hunter you are right. It has always amazed me how a group like FARC who, as you correctly point out, has virtually no popular support, could have been allowed to survive and indeed thrive during so many decades. I can't think of any instance in modern history where an armed insurgency with no popular support has been permitted to operate. In Colombia's case I fear it's a case of corrupt political system, inefficiency of the armed forces/police forces, or a combination of both. How long would such a group last in the USA, Canada, UK, France, Germany etc etc ? Colombian politicians of all parties, past and present, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr X says on Aug 14, 2005, 02:59:

I would however dissagree with the term terrorist Criminals is the most appropriate term for these guys. To call them terrorists is to give them some sort of legitimacy which they don't now have, if ever they did have. They are just in it for the money. They are not a group of missunderstood would be political activists who are out to change the world or improve the lot of the impovrished downtrodden. They are only interested in the greenback so I guess in that respect they have a lot in common with the Colombian government of the day. They both love Uncle Sam.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Blue says on Aug 14, 2005, 07:15:

Interesting Observation It does seem like it would be such an easy thing to solve. But maybe not. Maybe some Colombian historians here can provide some insight. At first blush you would think a certain strong will to change things isn't there. Is this an example of the "wait till tomorrow" mentality so prevalent in LA? Or maybe the equally prevalent sense of fatalism that characterizes many latin cultures. I'd like to hear what Colombians believe keeps this thing alive.

Blue

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Aug 14, 2005, 08:14:

FARC support This issue was discussed here:

http://www.poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/6591

and here:

http://www.poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/8735

Let me add one thing that is probably missing in those discussions: those percentages of support to the FARC are highly misleading, because they are based on samples of urban and, at best, semi-urban populations. No opinion pollster would go to red zones or deep into rural Colombia (I know it because I worked for one of them). And that's were the "support" for the FARC is. But such "support" is difficult to characterize: it's not like one's support for a football team, or even a national government... most of it is discussed in the threads I mentioned.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Aug 14, 2005, 09:06:

juancegomez offered a sober analysis of FARC support... at this post: http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/node/9411#comment-65131

CW says a guerrilla army cannot survive without popular support.

Al ejercito colombiano le conviene convencer a la gente que la guerrilla ni tiene ni merece apoyo popular.

Plátano
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

boomer says on Aug 14, 2005, 09:16:

With respect to red zones and rural Colombia.......... I would tend to think that if you eat, sleep and live where the "old bandoleros" play, then "support" does not become an option.

orgullo_de_colombia

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Aug 14, 2005, 09:27:

Yeah, and in rural areas you can give someone a meal... offer good ol' fashioned Colombian hospitality... and then later have someone accuse you of being a "guerrilla sympathizer" because you opened your door and conversed with someone.

It is a dangerous place to be for those who live in rural areas where any hint of support (of the right or the left) can lead to your death by the opposing faction.

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Aug 14, 2005, 09:29:

The option to support My experience (disclaimer: that was 10 years ago) is that support for the FARC in red zones IS an option. In the area that I worked, the FARC openly supported the UP and Communist candidates to local offices, but never interfered with Liberal candidates and their campaigns, that is, until the 13th brigade showed up to stop any possibility of elections. What the FARC wouldn't tolerate is open support for the military. But I think that goes both ways.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Hunter says on Aug 14, 2005, 09:54:

Sr Tertius I don't pay any attention to what group people say they support, who are under the FARC (or other groups) yolk.

Funny how all the left leaning media who are regularly on FARCs side in their news articles have never yet shown any popular support for them, they always seem to skip that part in their reports, I am sure if there was popular support for them, they would be publishing it no end.

The lack of them publishing any articles pointing out this support speaks for itself.

Hunter

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Aug 14, 2005, 10:38:

A quick recap of my opinion/observations on this Though of course, I don't pretend this to be a perfect, complete analysis on the matter. Far from it, as I clearly believe that the opinions of many should also be taken into consideration, definitely, when dealing with such complex subjects.

As has been pointed out already, the FARC might not be too popular today, but they definitely need to have some support in order to exist. The exact nature of this support, of course, is a matter of speculation, though a few things can be recognized both through personal experiences and research.

As Sir Tertius, platano and others have mentioned or alluded to, in some "red" rural/semi-rural zones, some people really and sincerely choose to help the FARC. Not necessarily because they are 100% ideologically in-tune, of course, but probably because they may see them as the lesser evil, in light of earlier problems with local authorities or illegal paramilitary groups. Some of them might be "historically hardcore", in a sense, but that doesn't mean that they'll always support or like everything the FARC does, mind you. They are just much harder to "reconvert", so to speak, without clear and constant effort in that direction.

It's hard to say whether this type of voluntary support constitutes most of the population in these zones (today, I mean; this type of support was probably higher in the UP's time or even the pre-UP days), but certainly it's a much higher percentage than the one you'll ever find in any of the main urban settlements (which, all things considered, may be reasonably reflected by the polls).

Also in the "red" zones, but more predominantly outside of them, you'll find a lot of people (probably a much higher number of people than in the previous category) that help the FARC completely involuntarily, due to the open or implied threat of armed action (or simply "revolutionary justice"). These people only help the FARC because they are physically present in the area, so to speak. The moment they leave, they'll stop helping them without any significant alterations in their lives, or they'll simply side with the Army or paramilitaries, as things develop.

From what recent experience shows (ie: actions/abuses which are politically and emotionally negative, even though effective in military terms), the FARC as a whole doesn't really want or care to necessarily "convert" these people to their cause. They figure that, in the event of their "revolutionary victory", they'll open their eyes and finally "thank them" for their glorious achievements. In the meanwhile, they are simply working for what they perceive as their own good, whether they like it or not. They'll "win" the battle first, and then they'll worry about hearts and minds.

Overall, the FARC seem to have a relatively small degree of support today, based on a persistent "core" of "true/historical believers", but at the sametime they are able to coerce or intimidate a higher (but also expendable) number of people into doing their bidding when necessary. They thus have enough support to survive, but too little to achieve a total political and military victory outside of specific rural locations.

In the end, if the Colombian state and Army don't take urgently needed steps to win more hearts and minds (and stomachs, obviously) than they currently have, then things may simply continue in a quasi-stalemate for a long while. The U.S., obviously, also has a role to play here, since it's mostly providing military aid at the moment (which is necessary, but clearly insufficient, to tackle the problem).

As for retaliating against terrorists, I don't see a need for specific violent retaliations, so I would tend to side with the pacifists on this, on a tactical case-by-case basis.

Still, in general strategic terms, it's a crude reality that law enforcement operations still have to continue, whether they are perceived as retaliations or not (hopefully not, but...sometimes it's impossible to prevent such things from happening, intentionally or not).

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Blue says on Aug 14, 2005, 16:15:

Despite being.... a few years old, here's an interesting essay that tries to frame the Colombian situation. Served as a basic primer for me.

http://www.ideaspaz.org/publicaciones/download/guerra_civil_english.pdf#search='understanding%20colombia's%20civil%20war'

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Aug 14, 2005, 16:47:

Blue, thank you, I read the whole thing... and now a joke... The true cause of violence in Colombia was not mentioned. The true cause being "gadejo"

Plátano, el banano verde
Oxigeno Verde ¡Libertad por Ingrid y los demás!

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr X says on Aug 15, 2005, 02:24:

Ideology? How can anyone mention that word in connection to the present day FARC?
Popular support for the FARC, if there is any at all, is concentrated in the rural areas which in itself doesn't mean a lot when you consider that the majority of Colombians are not rural dwellers. And even that rural support is probably only based on fear. It's a complex problem and difficult to solve because of the vested interests involved on all sides. Drugs, money?
These peolpe are not fighting for the independence of a certain region or area of the country. They don't represent the interests of the landless downtrodden poor. They don't have any political goals which they pretend to acheive through insurrection. They have become an armed group living for and from the proceeds of criminal enterprise.
The only response to the threat that this group poses to the security of Colombia is a military one. No bunch of criminals would be allowed to control parts of a nation's territory in any other country I can think of. If indeed they don't have popular support then it ought to be possible to erradicate them. They have been allowed to grow into a formidable force so now the task of erradication will be costly both in blood and money. But it's a price that needs to be paid if Colombia's potential and aspirations have any chance of being met. The longer the problem is left to fester the higher the price will become. Half hearted attempts, like those tried until now, will only serve to contain the problem. The answer may be a concerted effort by all neighbouring contries to seal their border with colombia followed by an all out military offensive by a greatly expanded and well armed colombian army and airforce. You can't negotiate with a group like this if you have nothing to offer them which they either don't want or have already got.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

vladimiro says on Aug 15, 2005, 07:51:

farc I think that since they were doing so well against the government militarily in the recent past they still have pretensions of gaining their objectives through force alone and are not concerned about the political consequences of thier actions.

Maybe when Marulanda dies the more politically oriented leaders will start using more sophisticated tacticts. If they used some of thier money for a charity network they would easily gain a lot of support in the largely neglected and exploited country-side. Like a Latin Hezbullah which built most of the hospitals, and social support networks used by the poor in Lebenon and has become the major political force in the country as a result.

At any rate, it seems to me that any conflict that lasts 40 years must have social roots. You often hear that the FARC is just a mafia, but if money is what they are interested then then they could be bought off like the AUC. Would the FARC quit if permitted to keep thier loot? No, atleast not the core members (maybe a few thousand or less) for whom money is a means to an end and not the main objective.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Aug 16, 2005, 09:40:

Ideology "How can anyone mention that word in connection to the present day FARC?"

I don't understand this argument. Nobody would argue that Stalin or Mao didn't have an ideology, yet they murdered millions. Pol Pot was a crazy ideologue and also murdered millions. An ideology doesn't always have to be noble or kind or consistent.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Aug 17, 2005, 23:40:

Ideology "How can anyone mention that word in connection to the present day FARC?"

Curiously, when I search through this page, the first mention of the term "ideology" comes from Mr. X. And since he doesn't provide even a minimal anecdotical support for most of his statements (e.g., "even that rural support is probably only based on fear"), it is ideology what he provides, of the cheapest kind.

Mr H: With the recent anniversary of Hiroshima, I can't help to notice the absence of Mr. Harry Truman in your list of infamous ideologues. I am as amazed with Holocaust deniers and Stalin nostalgics as with those that twist the most basic sense of morality to justify burning alive hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

"El que a hierro mata..."

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Sr Tertius says on Aug 17, 2005, 23:41:

Ideology (accidentally re-posted)

"When the finger points to the moon, the fool looks at the finger" (Chinese proverb)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Aug 18, 2005, 20:28:

Yeah, well, we can't all be as sharp as you all the time. And, frankly, even with Hiroshima, Truman doesn't hold a candle to Stalin, Mao or Pot, all of whom killed millions.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Hunter says on Aug 19, 2005, 00:26:

The two bombs SAVED many million of Japanese lives.

Hunter

0 funny, 0 helpful.

protocol13 says on Aug 19, 2005, 10:39:

My family comes from the rural areas of Colombia and I can assure you the reason they left the rural areas was that they feared the FARC criminals. They had to give them food or they will suffer the consequences. The vast mayority of the rural inhabitants do not support these criminals and for years the rural people have pleaded and hoped that the Colombian government will ascertain control of the rural areas. With the current president, this goal may become a reality and these criminals will forever be eliminated.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Aug 19, 2005, 11:32:

protocol13, you are right that people fear the FARC... But you know what would be even better than eliminating the FARC? (who are after all holders of Colombian cedulas, born in Colombia, raised singing the himno nacional and are Colombians). What would be even better than eliminating the FARC would be to become friends and work together for the Colombia everybody says they want, the Colombia where people have dignity, employment, health care, and an opportunity to raise their children and give them an education and hope for the future. So many want this that I believe someday FARC and Colombian soldiers will work together as friends and Colombia will become the paradise that it deserves to be. (Like in that Colombian movie where the FARC and government soldiers call a cease fire to watch the futból match) We don't have to "eliminate" anybody. We need all the brains and creativity and love for Colombia that we can marshall.

Putting on flack jacket... waiting for incoming.

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

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

protocol13 says on Aug 19, 2005, 14:42:

FARC/ELN only understands one way and that is force. Peaceful means have been tried before. In addition they have been provided land that they control and for what? So that they could do whatever they want and plan more kidnappings, terrorism, violence and other criminal activity. No more. I had enough and it is my wish that all the FARC/ELN leaders be captured and be given the proper punishment that they deserve -death. Fujimore was able to eliminate the Sendero Luminoso by capturing the leaders by means of an efficient spy network. The day Marulanda and his cohorts are captured and killed will be the happiest day of most Colombians. There are times when peaceful means to end a terrible evil is impossible (such as Hitler's, Hussein, etc) and FARC/ELN is one of them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Aug 19, 2005, 16:57:

So tell me how FARC/ELN is different from other... groups of violent actors such as M-19, Quintin Lame, EPL, and AUC, all of whom at one point "only understood one way and that is force" but they all have entered into peace negotiations and demobilzed and turned in their arms. Virgilio Barco made it happen. Gaviria almost made it happen. Uribe made it happen with AUC.

Colombia can be a country without any armed insurgency where everyone is on the same page working toward a better Colombia--without eliminating anyone. Talking works. It has been proven in Colombian history. Both sides have to be willing to give up the "plomo" and work together. It is not impossible because it's been done successfully with many other groups of Colombians who at one time felt so desperate they resorted to armed conflict.

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

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Aug 19, 2005, 19:52:

m-19 My understanding of the M-19 negotiation was that those who wanted to "come in from the cold" did and the really bad, criminalized elements just hopped over to the ELN and FARC.

I don't think Colombia will be even reasonably free of violence until the huge criminal profits of the cocaine trade either move somewhere else or are legitimized.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Aug 19, 2005, 20:39:

Cocaine is not an end for the FARC... it is a means... According to many observers FARC does not engage in control of the complete process, they just engage at a level that insures they have ongoing source of funding. Cocaine only became a factor after the collapse of the Soviet Union when that funding source dried up.

Now that the alliance of Russia and China seems to be strengthening they could be an alternative source of funding for the FARC, in which case cocaine could disappear from the face of the earth and FARC would continue its struggle to achieve its ends without "huge criminal profits of the cocaine trade"... cocaine is not necessary... and in any even cocaine is not the central factor here, it is just a convenient funding source which could be replaced tomorrow by another source. It's not about cocaine.

I was speaking to someone today who told me about a friend who was a civil engineer in Colombia and for a few months worked in the urban guerrilla in Cali. He was paid better by the FARC than civil society paid him for his work as a civil engineer. Something is wrong with that picture. Fighting FARC by attacking the drug trade has proven to be an unsuccessful strategy. Strengthening civil society, caring about worker's rights, paying a living wage, reducing unemployment... those are the things that would kill FARC's ability to recruit people to its ranks... not following a war strategy.


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

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.