why not shoot the living crap out of the 58 FARC? now that would have been a good rescue.

aztec says on Jul 3, 2008, 12:32:

Can understand the sentiments but that may well have condemed the remaining captives to a death sentence!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jul 3, 2008, 12:44:

Not shooting the others was a political master stroke and pretty much shields the military from any major criticisms of this operation. Even Ingrid has asked the farc to not punish these people despite the vicious way they treated her for years.

I'm sure they would and could have killed them if it became necessary for the sake of the operation, but there was seemingly an order to avoid a firefight if possible.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 12:54:

not really, they shot the crap out of them in ecuador; why not here? why let them go free? the hostages were already freed; it doesn't make any sense.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jul 3, 2008, 12:57:

Do you remember all the accusations of executions of wounded guerrillas that were leveled against them after the Rios raid? Even Ecuador was chirping those accusations. This makes the operation a lot harder to criticize.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:00:

yes, it also crippled FARC. who cares about the accusations? Uribe didn't. he had every right to follow them there and take them out. i am criticizing the operation right now. why give those 58 an opportunity to kidnap more?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:05:

it was a good rescue, don't get me wrong; but taking out 58 FARC would have made it a great rescue. let's vote. how many would be upset if 58 FARC were also killed in the operation? if so, vote NO. how many think killing 58 FARC would be justified? if so, vote YES. i vote YES.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:08:

I never said I'd be upset about it, nor did I say it wouldn't be justified. I simply think that as things turned out, it will be a good bit of political currency for Uribe and the military.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:09:

don't worry, the farc will make them pay for this humilation...

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Noelito40 says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:22:

I think that not killing them could prove to be a very clever tactic. Imagine the ordinary FARC foot soldiers now, their organisation is beginning to crumble from the top, their leaders have been killed (even by their own); humiliated (by the masterstroke on Tuesday); and they must have the feeling that the clock is ticking on them. If I was one of them, I'd hightail it to the nearest Policia with the white flag raised, (and here's the beauty of the latest masterstroke) I'd grab any of the kidnapped I could get hold of and bring them with me to the Policia to increase my bargaining power for a deal.

Noelito

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pedro says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:30:

They're thinking strategically, not just tactically.

I also wonder if the group left on the ground included other hostages who stayed behind? This would have been a deal breaker in its own right for a subsequent attack.

que nota!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:32:

Not killing them was the smart thing to do.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:34:

here's my problem; yesterday, the Colombian gov't said they were let go so they could keep spying on them; today, the gov't now says it was a "goodwill" gesture. i guess it could be both. or it could be a botched job. i just get suspicious when the government changes its story. anyone who seriously thinks Uribe wants peace with the FARC, i have a bridge for sale in Jamundi. actions speak louder than words and i think Uribe wants to crush the FARC, as he well should. of course, he is not going to say that.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:38:

tasco66 says on Jul 3, 2008, 13:09: flag

don't worry, the farc will make them pay for this humilation...

That's exactly what i'm worried about. And who really will pay? The Colombian military, the Colombian government or innocent Colombians caught in the middle?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:07:

I think tasco meant that the FARC would make the guerrillla unit that lost the hostages pay.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:08:

Santos was the first to announce the raid and he said from the start that they chose to not kill them to send a message to the farc.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NataliaV says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:17:

CG - I was about to note the same thing. I haven't heard the government change their story at all. I think it was a great move not to kill the 58. Although, I wonder if Ingrid is suffering from stockholm syndrome and that is the reason she feels pity for the farc guerrillas?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:21:

according to AP, the reasons were different if you view the article yesterday and then today.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:22:

here's today's reason:

The two rebels overpowered on the helicopters will face justice, officials said. But the 58 left behind on the ground were allowed to escape as a goodwill gesture, Padilla said.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:31:

and here is the reason from yesterday:

Santos said Cesar and another rebel on board would face justice. The other rebel captors retreated into the jungle, he said, and the army let them escape "in hopes that they will free the rest of the hostages," believed to number about 700.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:32:

yeah sure, they are going to release the 700 hostages. that's a good one.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:38:

I am going by what Defense Minister Santos said when he announced the rescue. That still appears to be the government's position. Have you seen a direct quote attributed to anyone in the Colombian government that states anything about letting them go so they could be spied on? That was your original contention.

As far as the two reasons you attribute to AP in your last two posts, they are not incompatible with each other. You are really mincing words at this point. Allowing them to go free with the hope that the farc will reciprocate by freeing more hostages certainly sounds like goodwill gesture.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kat1 (Moderator) says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:40:

the answer is simple.. Human rights, human rights, ONG

that is why i am glad that no one single guerrillero was killed, otherwise we would had the human rights and ONG on our case

0 funny, 0 helpful.

NataliaV says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:40:

I think that is an AP miscommunication and not the government changing their story. I watched it live on CNN and Santos said that it was a goodwill gesture. Plus, I am sure it was chaotic and things got twisted. But where's the part about they let them go to keep on spying?? I never heard that. Link?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:48:

sorry, not to keep on spying; but to free the hostages. i said the 2 reasons were not necessarily incompatible. but they have to get their excuses straight. santos said one thing; padilla said another.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:50:

right, now AP is miscommunicating! sure they are.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:53:

and Padilla was quoted as the goodwill man, not Santos.

let me know when FARC recipricates for the goodwill gesture by freeing 700 hostages.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:58:

and not only in Colombia are mistakes made; same deal with letting Osama go free when the U.S. had the chance to take him out.

it just would have been more satisfying to at least take them prisoners. Letting them go free is a slap in the face to those who FARC have harmed.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Jul 3, 2008, 14:59:

testing456, the last thing they wanted was to start a firefight. The likelihood of such an action would have been the death of every one of the hostages and probably the loss of an aircraft and pilots! The objective was the safe rescue of the hostages.

How could they have killed the 60 plus FARC and at the same time accomplish their mission?

That is why leadership is so important in situations like this. One can't let their emotions interfere with the mission.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:01:

they let them go free after the hostages were safe. that's why i can't understand it. how about at least taking the 58 FARC as prisoners? what is wrong with that?

but to let them go safely into the jungle in the hopes they will free the hostages is laughable.

goodwill? sure. they need some excuse. FARC responds really well to goodwill.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tomtom33 says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:14:

Maybe a good percentage of the 58 were infiltrators.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:16:

Take the FARC prisoners? Are you serious? How? How many Colombian soldiers were involved in the rescue? Obviously not many. So the operatives should have just told the FARC "uhh, hey, we're going to free these hostages why don't you guys lock yourselves up in their chains so that we can come back later to hall you off to prison." jajaja...Not killing them was the obvious decision for a variety of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:18:

Nobody is claiming that those 58 FARC soldiers will go and free the remaining hostages.

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

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:20:

Those 58 FARC are dead men walking if they show up in an area controlled by another front. Imagine how those guys are just crapping their pants at how they were fooled and how stupid they look. Remember, the FARC is an organization that kills its own just for the suspicion of disloyalty and "crimes" like possessing an FM radio.

I'm betting those 58 and everyone else in the FARC connected with this incident are hightailing it to surrender and demobilize.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Mr. Hollywood says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:22:

And, yes, it was a political and strategic master stroke.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ColombianoGringo says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:25:

Their only probable chance for survival is to turn themselves into the military. I doubt the farc would spare them just because Ingrid requested it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

tasco66 says on Jul 3, 2008, 15:31:

"I think tasco meant that the FARC would make the guerrillla unit that lost the hostages pay"

yes that's what I meant...

Bravo, Presidente Uribe for the perfect operation!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Jul 3, 2008, 16:05:

I suspect like tomtom, a good part of those 58 were already bought off; the whole group likely just skedaddled, never to farc again. . . :0)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 16:27:

doesn't anyone read the news before they opine here? the FARC were supposedly to be surrounded by the Colombian military in Plan B. the military knew where they were. so they could have easily been captured or shot, as i would have preferred.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 16:35:

the details are starting to come out:

Colombia rescue hinged on rebel disarray, payback

By FRANK BAJAK
Associated Press Writer




BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) -- The plan was nothing if not audacious: A turncoat persuades rebels to bring together their most prized hostages and march them 90 miles through Colombia's wilderness. A month later, disguised commandos primed with acting lessons land in a helicopter and trick the rebels into handing them over.

The mission was to rescue three U.S. military contractors, former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt and 11 others held captive in the Colombian jungles.

Its success hinged entirely, its planners said Thursday, on a near-total breakdown in communications between the isolated guerrilla jailers and their commanders - the net result of years of intense U.S.-Colombian military cooperation that has seriously weakened Latin America's last major rebel army.

That, and a bit of revenge.

"When I first got briefed, I said, 'This is realistic? Can this truly work?' U.S. Ambassador William Brownfield told The Associated Press. "And obviously, the answer was yes."

Wednesday's expertly choreographed rescue had its genesis in the escape last year of a Colombian who had spent time in captivity with the three Americans and Betancourt.

But it began to gain steam only in January, when Colombian intelligence determined that the hostages were being moved, said Gen. Freddy Padilla, Colombia's armed forces chief.

The Colombians installed U.S.-provided remote-controlled video monitoring devices - which can zoom in and out - along rivers that are the only transport route through dense jungles, U.S. and Colombian officials said. U.S. surveillance planes intercepted rebel radio and satellite phone conversations and employed foliage-penetrating imagery, they said.

In mid-February, a Colombian patrol spotted the three Americans - Marc Gonsalves, Keith Stansell and Thomas Howes - bathing in the Apoporis River under guard, the first sight of the Americans since their surveillance plane crashed in 2003.

For four days, "We had eyes on them," Brownfield said.

But a rescue operation was deemed too risky and called off.

"The president's order was: rescue, yes, but without even a drop of blood," said a Colombian army general directly involved in the mission, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to disclose details.

The general said a disgruntled member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, had agreed to spearhead the operation. This turncoat, he said, was trusted by both the rebels' high command and by the leader of the 1st Front, which was holding the hostages.

"The FARC's communications are medieval," Padilla said. He said its command-and-control is so diminished that it sends important messages by courier.

So the turncoat was the key. He convinced Gerardo Aguila Ramirez, alias Cesar, the commander of the 1st Front, that top commanders wanted the 15 hostages moved to a rallying point, the general directly involved in the operation told the AP.

The turncoat was upset with the FARC because his own commander had taken a house and farm away from him, the general said. This was payback.

U.S. spy satellites helped track the hostages on a monthlong journey that began May 31 and ended with Wednesday's rescue.

All the while, Brownfield and a team of 100 people at the U.S. Embassy who had been dedicated to securing the American hostages' release worked closely with the Colombians running the operation.

"The truth of the matter is, we have actually come together in a way that we rarely have in the United States of America, except with longtime allies, principally NATO allies," Brownfield said of relations with Colombia's security forces, which have received more than $500 million annually in military aid since 2000.

About seven times, he said, the U.S. government had to make decisions - "at the highest levels" - about proceeding.

On Monday, President Alvaro Uribe gave the go-ahead, Padilla said.

On Tuesday, the two Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters left a military base in an Andean mountain valley, settling down for a nervous night in a wilderness clearing.

Aboard were four air force crewmen in civilian disguise, seven military intelligence agents and the guerrilla turncoat, military officials said. Two of the agents were dressed as rebels, and the rest wore white, as if representing some sort of humanitarian mission. All had taken a week and a half of acting lessons, Padilla said.

Shortly after midday on Wednesday, the helicopter touched down at the rendezvous point.

One of the agents, posing as a cameraman, recorded video as the guerrillas on the ground bound the hostages' hands on the crew's instructions, Padilla said. Tying up the hostages was part of the plan.

"These are 14 trained soldiers we're dealing with," Padilla said, referring to the captive Americans and 11 Colombian soldiers or police. "Nobody wanted to risk them trying to overpower the crew."

Once aloft, it was Cesar and his aide who were overpowered instead.

There was no need for Plan B - sending 39 helicopters and 2,000 troops to encircle the hostage-holders and trying to persuade them to give up peacefully.

The turncoat is now free and will likely receive a sizable amount from a $100 million government reward fund, the general said.

For the FARC, the rescue could not have come at a worse time. The rebels were already in disarray after losing three senior commanders in March - one killed by government bombs, a second by a turncoat bodyguard and the third, co-founder Manuel Marulanda, succumbing to a heart attack at age 78.

"Even before the rescue operation - but especially afterwards - there is every indication that the war is, for all intents and purposes, over," said Michael Shifter of The Inter-American Dialogue, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. "A very different question is whether the FARC is prepared to acknowledge that reality."

Padilla said the FARC have maintained complete radio silence since Wednesday's rescue. Its two most senior leaders, Monoy Jojoy and Alfonso Cano, are hunkered down in jungle hideouts and not communicating.

But Padilla said he thinks it will take well beyond the end of Uribe's second term in 2010 to defeat the rebels, who over 44 years have filled their ranks with peasants resentful of government neglect.

They are simply too well-entrenched, he said, and unlike Central American leftist groups of the 1980s are unprepared to enter peace talks.

"They're not ready for that process," he said. "They can't set conditions."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

testing456 says on Jul 3, 2008, 16:36:

so why not Plan C? after the hostages are flown away, take the 58 FARC prisoners?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Noelito40 says on Jul 3, 2008, 18:44:

2 questions...

When exactly do you think the FARC left on the ground realised they had been had? Just imagine, they've handed over their precious cargo, the helicopter takes off and they are still none the wiser, so they just turn around and begin the long trudge home...then somewhere alone the line it dawns on them...priceless!

and, will we ever get to see the footage that was taken by the guy posing as a cameraman!!?

Noelito

0 funny, 0 helpful.