-Caveat Lector-
Stories like this are utterly confusing to me.
First of all, I had thought that the "drug traffickers" were connected with the
government and/or the military--either directly or through corruption. And supported by
elements in the US government.
Next, I had thought the "guerillas" were connected with people--indigenous, Native, and
otherwise outside the main economy--who were struggling to survive a corrupt regime
that had thrust them into poverty, people who want land and economic reforms.
Then, I had thought that the US had an interest in protecting the drug traffic in
Colombia (which, it seems, has been our policy for decades, in spite of what we say in
public)--unless of course the main traffic has moved elsewhere and Colombia is about
to be dumped as America's main drug source, a la Panama and Noriega.
Confusions like this make stories like this absolutely mind-boggling and impossible to
understand.
Has the Colombian government and military ever been "on the side" of the Colombian
people? At the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, I have thought, for the longest time,
that drugs were the main product and export of Colombia, Juan Valdez notwithstanding.
On 4 Aug 99, , William wrote:
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> ---------- Forwarded message -
>
> ===========================================================================
> Published Sunday, August 1, 1999, in the Miami Herald
>
> U.S. buildup in Colombia?
>
> The possibility of U.S. military intervention in Colombia may not be a
> burning issue in the United States, but it's grabbing headlines from
> Mexico to Argentina.
>
> In Latin America, the press seems virtually certain that a massive U.S.
> military buildup in Colombia is on the way.
>
> You can't blame Latin Americans for being suspicious: On July 23, a U.S.
> Army reconnaissance plane with five U.S. soldiers aboard crashed in a
> guerrilla-controlled Colombian mountain area, raising new questions about
> the U.S. military's mission.
>
> U.S. officials say the Pentagon maintains about 200 military personnel in
> Colombia, with duties that include training an elite Colombian battalion to
> combat drug trafficking. The battalion will begin operating in mostly
> guerrilla-dominated areas later this year.
>
> Meanwhile, the Clinton administration is calling Colombia's drug
> trafficking a U.S. national security problem, there is growing alarm over a
> massive exodus of Colombians to Florida, and U.S. anti-drug czar Barry
> McCaffrey has called for a $1 billion increase in U.S. anti-narcotics aid,
> most of it for the Colombian military.
>
> ``There is no mystery why Latin Americans are apprehensive,'' says Michael
> Shifter, of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank. ``Add the
> latest headlines to the recent NATO intervention in the Balkans and the
> long history of U.S. intervention in the hemisphere, and their conclusion
> is logical.''
>
> During a tour of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela last week, McCaffrey was
> forced to repeat endlessly that Colombia will be no Vietnam. There will be
> ``zero U.S. intervention in Colombia,'' he stated in Venezuela.
>
> Should U.S. officials be believed? I asked a half-dozen well-placed current
> and former U.S. officials why they are so categorical in their denials of a
> U.S. military buildup in Colombia. Among their answers:
>
> There is a near consensus in top Clinton administration foreign policy
> circles that the civil war in Colombia is rooted in ancient political
> conflicts and cannot be won militarily.
>
> ``To think that the problem in Colombia could be solved with a military
> policy would be deceiving ourselves,'' said Arturo Valenzuela, a senior
> White House National Security Council official overseeing Latin American
> affairs. ``This is a problem that has been dragging on for 40 years, which
> has a lot to do with the progressive weakening of the central government.''
>
> Even if U.S. troops could help Colombia's army win the war militarily, the
> risks of a Vietnam-style quagmire would far outweigh the rewards. ``There
> are no Cold War pressures in this case: There is no fear that Colombia is
> going to be taken over by a hostile superpower,'' says Brian Latell, a
> former chief CIA analyst for Latin America, who now teaches at Georgetown
> University.
>
> There is no support among the U.S. public for U.S. military involvement in
> Colombia's civil war, which has cost 35,000 lives over the past 10 years,
> and no one in Washington wants to take the risk of selling the idea.
>
> A U.S. anti-insurgency effort could backfire and help rally support for the
> guerrillas. Even if many Colombians would support a U.S. intervention,
> there would be a strong nationalistic reaction in other Latin American
> countries.
>
> U.S. officials say the current policy -- focusing on military anti-drug aid
> -- will ultimately weaken the rebels as well, because drug-trafficking
> rings pay the guerrillas up to $500 million a year in protection money.
> ``If we can do away with the drug traffickers, the guerrillas will not have
> the capacity to subsist at their current levels,'' one U.S. official said.
>
> Others add that by strengthening its underequipped army, Colombia's
> government will be able to negotiate from a position of greater strength.
>
> What do I think? The United States is highly unlikely to commit combat
> troops to Colombia. But some influential hard-liners in Washington are
> whispering that if 55 U.S. military advisors helped to defeat a leftist
> insurgency in El Salvador in the 1980s, the same could be done in Colombia.
> I would not be surprised if the next U.S. president -- especially if it's a
> Republican -- follows that road.
> =============================================================
> David L. Wilson * 212-674-9499 * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you can't spell it, don't bomb it! -- Anonymous
> =============================================================
>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
> screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
> and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
> frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
>
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
> ========================================================================
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
>
sno0wl
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
