Killings in Colombia

[Brazilophile]

Yesterday, the Colombian army tried to rescue 13 hostages held for a year by FARC in a small town near Medellin.  When the rebels heard the helicopters they killed 10 of the hostages and injured 2 others.  The hostages were 2 politicians and 11 soldiers.  Both politicians were killed.  

There has got be a more effective way of bringing Colombia's situation under control.  The US has enough satelite pictures and spy drones to track the movements of FARC and ELN rebels very precisly.  We also have "quiet" helicopters for surprise attacks and the same type of "stun gas" the Russians used against their Chechen kidnappers.  It seems that little of that sort of thing is being done in Colombia.

[Edge]

... in response to Killings in Colombia, posted by Brazilophile on May 6, 2003

Looks like Uribe took a gamble and lost.  He is apparently under alot of pressure to make some kind of deal to get some of the political sequestrados back.  Even Ronald Reagan traded arms for hostages.  But I guess we were not supposed to know that.  Maybe Uribe needs to get creative or hire Ollie North.  We seem to live in a world where apparently the end justifies the means.

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: Killings in Colombia, posted by Edge on May 7, 2003

If Uribe gets handcuffed maybe its back to Carlos Castana as the solution.Maybe a government there just can't do whats needed to get it done.Castana doesn't have that problem.
I have never been a person who thought the end justified any means.Contrary to the impression a person might get here I am big on human rights.
But--,sometimes the alternative to undesirable means is the continuation of a situation that is worse than the undesirable means.Even there there are things I just would not do.Torture for instance.A big debate recently.No end is worth that violation of human dignity.But a war where innocents are unfortuately killed,like Iraq,might result in less innocents being killed in the long run.And a whole lot of other benefits.
Better to unchain Uribe though than Castana,if one could choose.

Pete

[Edge]

... in response to Re: Re: Killings in Colombia, posted by Pete E on May 7, 2003


.

[Big Wally]

... in response to Killings in Colombia, posted by Brazilophile on May 6, 2003

First of all, the US satellites don't monitor that part of the world (don't ask me how I know) because it's not a 'threat' to the US.

Second, the guerillas travel through the dense jungles. Hard to navigate and hard to find. Did you see the movie "Proof of Life"? It's very accurate and loosely based on a true story.

Quiet helicopters? That's a good one.
Stun guns? and these would be used by whom?

It's a much more complicated problem than that. The guerillas started 40 years ago as a Marxist army and still maintain that is their cause. Of course over time it has lost its ideology and merely serves to perpetuate it's own existance. They have the backing of the drug lords to keep the government in check. They offer young guys hope and money and a sense of belonging to recruit them and once you're in you don't just leave the FARC.

When you have a force of around 15,000 who have better weapons and communications than the government it's hard to fight them. Plus they are constantly moving so it's hard to pin them down.

When you have a rebel force that has already killed over 50 mayors and judges, who wants to hold these jobs or create any conflict with them? Each small village can be overan anytime the guerillas so desire. The army can't be everywhere all the time. If the guerillas want something (food, land, money) the take it. Who can stop them?

It's going to take a massive effort with lots of money using a much superior force to overtake them. Know anyone who can do that? Yes, but at what cost?

We sent $1.5 billion in military aid and 'advisors' and the FARC went balistic.

Look at the uproar over 100 deaths of US military in Iraq. How would the US people feel about losing US troops in the jungles of Colombia? Sounds a little too familiar to another little country overrun by jungle, don't you think?

There are no easy solutions to this problem until it's agreed to do it on a large, unrelenting scale. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[cancunhound]

... in response to It's not quite that simple., posted by Big Wally on May 6, 2003

Good points Wally.  At least there have been very promising reports recently pertaining to the results of the new "ranger" type division that the US trained.  Apparently they have been very successfull in removing key leaders of the FARC, ELN and surprisingly even the AUC.  Their "decapitation" plan appears to be working.  Nothing will happen anytime soon, but at least something is happening.  Just a couple years ago they had that friggin demilitarized zone, now we've got rebel commanders turning themselves in - not bad progress!  There is no way we'll ever see a major VISIBLE U.S. presence in Colombia because of the items you mentioned, so I guess we just have to keep our fingers crossed that the Colombians can work it out.  I for one don't expect it feasible to jump in the convertible and cruise the countryside in Colombia anytime in the next 15 years.  Of course, we could just quit using drugs in the US - but I'm not so sure that would even resolve the conflict.

[Michael B]

... in response to Re: It's not quite that simple., posted by cancunhound on May 7, 2003

Rattling the saber again (but he does mean business, I think, not just idle talk) Very short summation: The party is over, no more flattery nor meetings with the terrorists. It is time for force, we will remove the FARC from the jungles of Colombia, whatever it takes.

(here's the complete article in Spanish if anybody cares to plod through it)

BOGOTA, Mayo  (AFP) - El presidente colombiano Alvaro Uribe, aseguró este jueves que se acabó la tertulia, el trato zalamero, la lisonja con los terroristas de las FARC, a quien hay que aislar, "aun de las selvas de donde los vamos a sacar".

"Se acabó la tertulia, el trato zalamero y la lisonja con los terroristas. A ellos tenemos que aislarlos y derrotarlos, aun en nuestras selvas, de donde los vamos a sacar", aseguró Uribe en ceremonia realizada en una unidad militar de Bogotá.

Al recordar el frustrado proceso de negociación de paz entre el gobierno de su antecesor Andrés Pastrana y las FARC, el mandatario dijo que "durante años hubo un desfile de colombianos de buena fe que visitaban a 'Don Manuel' (Marulanda) -líder del grupo insurgente- y al señor (Jorge) Briceño" -alias 'Mono Jojoy', y jefe militar-.

"Hoy esos colombianos de buena fe sienten que fueron víctimas del engaño y solamente quieren que estos bandoleros reciban la visita de la fuerza pública", advirtió Uribe.

Más adelante, al hacer referencia a las acciones de las Fuerzas Militares, el presidente aseguró que "tenemos una fuerza pública en la iniciativa, volcada para derrotar el terrorismo, y con la capacidad y decisión de derrotar el desorden, como nunca antes se había presentado en la vida nacional".

Dijo que es esperanzador que ya no haya refugio seguro para los delincuentes y que las grandes mayorías nacionales estén rodeando a sus Fuerzas Militares y la decisión de instaurar el orden en el país.
Uribe hizo los planteamientos, tres días después de que las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) ejecutaran al gobernador del departamento de Antioquia, Guillermo Gaviria; a su asesor de paz, el ex ministro de Defensa, Gilberto Echeverri y a ocho militares, quienes se encontraban secuestrados, algunos de ellos desde hacia más de cinco años en el noroeste del país.

Los plagiados fueron asesinados luego de que tropas del Ejército llegaron a la zona para intentar rescatarlos, y sin que mediara combate alguno, según relataron tres militares que sobrevivieron a la ejecución.

[cancunhound]

... in response to Uribe gave a speach Thursday, posted by Michael B on May 9, 2003

-and I hear he has been doing TV spots during primetime (evening soaps)that have been a big hit - very visible and I believe the majority feel that he's a tough guy who does what he says - no BS.  The other day he inaugarated a special 1200 strong elite mountain brigade that will patrol the Farrallones de Cali.  That's fantastic - it has been frustrating to me not being able to check out that national park at Cali's doorstep, much less venture up the river just past Pance which is a short drive from my Condo (I tried last time but we were turned back by military roadblock).  If the only thing he accomplishes is to rid that area of guerilla, he's successful in my book.

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: It's not quite that simple., posted by cancunhound on May 7, 2003

I agree.But of course people in the US will not quit using drugs,so we need a solution that does not count on that.
Legalization would stop demand from Colombia,so we would stop adding to their problems.I think it need to be seriously debated,but probably would create more problems in the US,even though it would benefit Colombia.Our drug use has caused them a big problem,even though Billions have circulated through the Colombian economy because of it,a 2 edged thing.Just another reason we need to help them.We are a big part of the problem.
You are right about the convertible and the countryside.I am going to stay here for now,where I can jump in the convertible and go anywhere I like without much worry.There was another reason I was considering it that has thankfuly gone away.
The higher cost of living is worth it.Just ask those Colombians in Miami.

Pete

[A1A]

... in response to It's not quite that simple., posted by Big Wally on May 6, 2003

All that aid and absolutly no results.  Does Uribe now have a nice house in Miami and numbered Swiss bank account?  Funny how an american journalist can find the FARC, but the Colombian military can't.  Maybe they need some more money, another billion may get Uribe to do something.
A1A

[Pete E]

... in response to Re: $1.5 billion desn't buy what it used..., posted by A1A on May 7, 2003

I know we are often surprised to find our money squandered
and Colombia is a place that could happen easily.Even their own money gets squandered.A Colombiano attorney friend who is trying to fight corruption tells stories of money allocated for roads and schools that never get built,it is all drained off in graft,bribery and inside deals.
But to accuse Uribe of this without any evidence is unfair I think.Maybe I am Niaeve,something I often accuse others of,but it seems to me he is putting his a- on the line for his principles.There is a good chance he will be killed,they already tried before he was elected.Self serving motives,this time,I don't think is the case.
Maybe I am just hopefull,Colombia needs change so bad,its been so frustrating to watch them do nothing to face their problems in the past.
I sincerly hope your suspicions are not justified.And that Uribe will get it done against all odds.And I think we,yes the US,need to help.We have to watch where our money goes.Better to send equipment than money.But fortunately troops they do not need,people they have.
Many will disagree,but being the worlds only superpower is not only a benefit but an awesome responsibility.If we can easily help correct a bad situation we should do it.If you are the big guy in the neighborhood you don't let punks mug grandma.And the whole world is now our neighborhood.
I think Bush,rightly so,has a list of things to handle in the world,and Colombia is on that list,although nowhere near the top right now.But if we don't wimp out,ala his old man,and the American people have the guts and foresight to back him(anyone want to wager 2004 elections ?)it will get done,more for the good of others than for us.
OK,off the soapbox and back to work.
Patrick,I really didn't start this round of politics,but of course I can't resist jumping in.

Pete

[Ricardo]

... in response to It's not quite that simple., posted by Big Wally on May 6, 2003

Quoted from the article at this website.....Note:  please don't flame me with labels of 'left-wing' or 'socialist'  .... whatever your political stripe, Colombia is a country with a chronic and desparate situation; it's doesn't take long for the  astute visitor to Colombia to realize that this 'war' only hurts the people with nothing (the majority of the population)...

http://www.tools4change.org/encamino/fascistlist.htm

2. 85% of all political assasinations are carried out by state agents and paramilitary groups. 3% directly, 82% through complicity, collusion or negligence between armed forces and paramilitaries. 15% of political assasinations are carried out by guerrilla forces.

3. More than 2.7 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes in resource-rich territories. In 1996, 180.000 people were displaced. In 2001, 360.000 people were forced to leave their homes; that is 1000 people are forced to displace every single day. More than 50% of those displaced are children (boys and girls). More than 50% are afro-Colombians, more than 50% are women. 60% of the displacement of people is forced by paramilitary forces and 40% by guerrillas.

4. 9 people are kidnapped every day: 3000 people every year (1500 people 5 years ago). 60% of people are kidnapped by guerrillas, 10% by paramilitaries and 30% by “common delinquents” (often involving state agents in active service or retired).

6. Alvaro Uribe Vélez (AUV), Colombia’s president was elected with fewer votes than his predecessor Andrés Pastrana: less than 25% of those who could vote participated in the elections and 53% of these voted for Uribe Velez. More than 75% of Colombians did not (and do not) support Uribe Velez, yet he rules as an autocrat and claims to have the overwhelming mandate of all Colombians.

7. AUV wants to establish a national network of salaried informants, which he calls the “million friends” (in a country with more than 25% unemployment and where more than 60% of the population are under the poverty line).

[Pete E]

... in response to Armed peasants have inevitably turned in..., posted by Ricardo on May 6, 2003

Ricardo,
I reacted,perhaps I didn't even understand your point.I certainly don't want to stifle debate although we are way off course of the intention of the board and I know I am the number one violator of that.
Maybe we should mail off the board.We might be surprised to find we have more in common than my post would make you think.

Pete

[Pete E]

... in response to I appologise for being hard on you, posted by Pete E on May 7, 2003

Ricardo,
I was going to send you a private mail but noticed you don't list your E-mail address.
Mine is peiguren@aol.com.
Patrick please add my address to my profile,it was there at one time but we lost it in one of my cookie replacements.

Pete

[Pete E]

... in response to I appologise for being hard on you, posted by Pete E on May 7, 2003

Ricardo,
I was going to send you a private mail but noticed you don't list your E-mail address.
Mine is peiguren@aol.com.
Patrick please add my address to my profile,it was there at one time but we lost it in one of my cookie replacements.

Pete