PBH / colombia (active forums more▼ | travelguide | pictures) / post

US anticipates military defeat for the Colombian FARC

US anticipates military defeat for the Colombian FARC

Thomas Shannon US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs said he didn’t discard a military defeat of the rebel guerrilla group FARC (Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces) because of the latest blows it has suffered in recent months from Colombian forces.

“What is happening now is that FARC no longer is what it used to be. Now it’s fully engaged in narcotics trade, kidnapping and I don’t believe they have the necessary strength for a negotiated end to hostilities�?, said Shannon interviewed by Colombia’s main daily El Espectador.

Shannon added that combating the narcotics trade adopted a “different aspect�? in Colombia from the moment FARC decided to finance their activities with resources from the trading of cocaine.

“Democratic systems must combat these organizations. I don’t see how they can not combat them. From the moment insurgents from FARC decide to appeal to drugs as their main source of financing activities, the fight against the drug trade assumes a different aspect. And that’s where military power plays a very important role�?, underlined Shannon.

“I understand that this trade generates a high level of confrontation in countries but there’s no way of avoiding it. For us in the US war against drugs and the narcotics trade is as natural as the sun, the sky, the clouds. We’re also paying dearly for this plague: our youth is suffering, street crime, among other things�?.

The US official insisted Washington will not legalize drug consumption, so the combat both at police and military levels in producing countries will remain at its current level.

“United States is not going to legalize drugs’ consumption. That simply is not going to happen. We’re going to do everything possible to diminish demand, address our social and public health problems, but also supply�? he insisted.

“This is a necessary and inevitable war for democracies. We must confront organized crime and the drugs cartels which have a clear strategic objective which is making business and debilitating states�?.

In related news the Colombian government revealed this week that FARC will have an army no bigger than 3.000 men by 2009 if guerrillas continue to desert the way they are currently doing.

Colombia’s high commissioner for Reintegration Frank Pearl revealed that in the first five months of this year, 1.500 fighters from FARC surrendered and expects that number to reach the 3,000 by the end of the year.

“If the trend continues, FARC will have less than 3,000 armed soldiers in December�? Pearl told El Espectador.

By tasco66 on Jun 19, 2008, 04:58 in Politics & the war.

tasco66 says on Jun 19, 2008, 04:59:

The end is near for the Farc

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

masterrrrrr says on Jun 19, 2008, 05:43:

I surely hope so. Unfortunately Colombia has several other fights to battle to make it a safe place though...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jun 19, 2008, 06:40:

“Democratic systems must combat these organizations. I don’t see how they can not combat them. From the moment insurgents from FARC decide to appeal to drugs as their main source of financing activities, the fight against the drug trade assumes a different aspect. And that’s where military power plays a very important role��?, underlined Shannon.

I don´t see either how can other countries combat drug use.

I don´t think farc will be eliminate even with Uribe second reelection, as long as the root of the problem exists there will always be Farc or any other name, and two of the problems are illegal drugs consumption, and foreing intromision in Colombia politics and economc abeit with the complicity of our politicians, wether it is from south or north.

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jun 19, 2008, 06:50:

Thanks for the wisdom, but I have not heard anybody say that destroying the FARC ends all suffering in Colombia, although I have noticed it has become a mantra for the left on this forum to imply that that is the pro-colombia thought process, sort of a red herring. That doesn't mean you shouldn't start there and when they are defeated you can pour those resources that are now going to protect democracy, on the other critical problems which, in my opinion are, poverty and poltical corruption. Foreign meddling in Colombian affairs is way down the line on the list of problems.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jun 19, 2008, 07:04:

I got some problem understanding references to left and right.

anybody say that destroying the FARC ends all suffering in Colombia

That is the impresion I get with the joy of the destruction of the Farc, it is undestable, but there are bigger problems as you pointed out and a few of them like paramilitarismo has contributed to the glorification of the Farc, just a few days ago there was on the news that a known paramilitar purchase a lot of armament and tip the police who seized such armament and then said it was for the Farc. Another case of Falso positivo

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jun 19, 2008, 08:17:

Left and right shouldn't be taken as derogatory terms, instead they are used to indentify where in the political spectrum your point of view falls for the purpose of discussion, that is unless somebody is ashamed that they are either left or right.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 19, 2008, 08:50:

left-right doesn`t work in a good discussion because it`s not specific enough... the political spectrum is not merely one dimensional (let alone economic spectrum)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jun 19, 2008, 08:54:

It's not very specific, but gives a general direction for the purpose of most discussions here.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jun 19, 2008, 09:01:

why are left wingers ashamed to be called left wingers?

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 19, 2008, 09:13:

I think it's a useless classification because the meaning is so ambiguous... but maybe that's just me

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jun 19, 2008, 10:38:

siempre he sido medio campinsta. I am proud of not falling into any left, right label, the end of the farc, paramilitares and else depends on a great porpotion to the less consumption of illicit drugs here and elsewhere. And then again to the investment in education rather than military investment alone.

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 19, 2008, 10:53:

jajja maybe I'm a box-to-box midfielder
is military spending a right wing policy? left wings want peace not war... right wings want less government... right wings waant security... left wings want stronger government... where's nationalism fit in? is the war economy an influencing factor?... and it goes on and on

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jun 19, 2008, 13:13:

left right is not very exact of course, but it's the most widely understood way to describe those who believe in big government vs those who believe in minimal government

it sure isn't derogatory, which is why I am always amused at why so many lefties here get upset at the label.

someone please explain (romy, sr t, caritadeangel etc.)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jun 19, 2008, 13:19:

nationalism is a good example of where left-right doesn't work well.

A lot of 'right wing' Americans and Canadians (not to mention french and germans etc) are strong nationalists (they believe in patriotism, blocking 'unfair' competition from foreign companies, limiting immigration).

Falls right in line with 'protecting the motherland' as preached by Stalin himself, or with all the protectionist policies that unions love so much.

Only us true liberals are consistent here...free trade means free trade...ask not what I can do for my country but what my country can do for me

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 19, 2008, 13:21:

describe how I'm a leftie
I'm a liberal at heart, I just don't think purely liberal policy can straighten the ship. At this point all liberal policy does is strengthen the grip on power of those that have it and leaves 90% in the dust.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

webmanco says on Jun 19, 2008, 13:24:

left handed, zurdo jaja

...A yo, déjenme queto y no me jodan má! ...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jun 19, 2008, 13:48:

well I don't know what you mean by liberal policies romy, the proper definition of a liberal policy is to do nothing, leave markets alone to function as they naturally do.

So if you don't think that works, and you want government to intervene by taxing the rich to give to the poor to make thinks more 'equal', that's a classic socialist, interventionist, collectivist, welfare statist, that is, left wing, point of view.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jun 19, 2008, 13:49:

maybe you're a political/social policy liberal, and an economic socialist. Lots of people are.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Jun 19, 2008, 13:52:

social liberal... I don't believe people are smart enough for classical liberalism

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Jun 19, 2008, 16:51:

ah... excellent point, but I still have faith that people are both intelligent enough and well intentioned to make it work. Not perfect, but the best possible in an imperfect, unfair world.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

lampltr says on Jun 19, 2008, 18:18:

This Shannon dude sound like a flake!! US thought the same in both Iraq and Afghanistan...they do not care who they support/destroy as long as everything meets their agenda!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

dwmte7 says on Jun 21, 2008, 07:57:

trouble with all this, tasco, the u.s. also anticipates an early victory in iraq........

so jubilant was our 'leader' that he lands on an aircraft carrier with a flag/banner declaring, "mission accomplished"......really, mr bush?

dwmte

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Jun 25, 2008, 23:31:

I would hope, but I would also wait and see.

0 funny, 0 helpful.