US involvement in Columbian raid into Ecuador (1 Viewer)

[st dude]

I am fairly ignorant on South American politics. I know generally that the US is involved with some of the governments down there either suppoorting the government or trying to undermine it. I guess our interest has to do with stopping drug trade in some cases and with oil trade in other cases(Venezuela for instance).

I also do not know much on who the bad guys and good guys are. I saw where the right wing Columbian government staged a raid into Ecuador to chase the FARC, one of those left wing groups that kidnaps people for ransom. That has cause a lot of tension between Columbia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Columia claims Venezuela bankrolls the FARC and that I guess explains why Venezuela is in this deal. I know we dont like Chavez and he doesnt like us.

Early reports suggested the Columbian troops used high tech equipment to track the rebels and both Ecuador and Venezuela have implied the US provided logisitical support for this mission. I was kind of curious reading the first reports if we did and, if we did, how advisable it was for us to be doing a covert operation that involves military from one country crossing the border of another, even if we considered the incursion justified. South American countries often accuse us of meddling in their affairs and I assume we do to some extent.

In this case, even assuming the FARC are the bad guys and the existing Columbian govt are the good guys(you never really seem to know for sure down there as a lot of the govts we have supported have turned out to be very oppressive and corrupt), my thought was that I hoped we were not involved. Whether Ecuador harbors FARC rebels seems to me to be an issue between Ecuador and Columbia.

Today I read this in an article about the tensions this incident has created:

Earlier this week, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command, Jose Ruiz, would neither confirm nor deny that the U.S. military took part in the attack that killed Reyes and 23 other guerrillas.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080307/D8V8LLH80.html

That response seems to imply we were involved, I mean why not deny involvement otherwise? If we were not involved, why would we not just say so?

It bothers me a bit that we get involved in these clandestine operations without US citizens ever knowing if we did or why we did. I am not naive, though, and presume there are situations that justify covert operations and our involvement in the politics of other countries.

In this particular case, if we were involved, I sure hope we had a very good reason. I think providing logistical support for one country to invade the borders of another is a very dangerous business. While there might be some reason to justify it, I have a hard time understanding without someone explaining it to me how our national interests are so threatened by a leftist Columbian group to justify a serious attack such as this that might destabilize the whole region. Or was that the point?

 

[blackadder]

I am fairly ignorant on South American politics. I know generally that the US is involved with some of the governments down there either suppoorting the government or trying to undermine it. I guess our interest has to do with stopping drug trade in some cases and with oil trade in other cases(Venezuela for instance).

I also do not know much on who the bad guys and good guys are. I saw where the right wing Columbian government staged a raid into Ecuador to chase the FARC, one of those left wing groups that kidnaps people for ransom. That has cause a lot of tension between Columbia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Columia claims Venezuela bankrolls the FARC and that I guess explains why Venezuela is in this deal. I know we dont like Chavez and he doesnt like us.

Early reports suggested the Columbian troops used high tech equipment to track the rebels and both Ecuador and Venezuela have implied the US provided logisitical support for this mission. I was kind of curious reading the first reports if we did and, if we did, how advisable it was for us to be doing a covert operation that involves military from one country crossing the border of another, even if we considered the incursion justified. South American countries often accuse us of meddling in their affairs and I assume we do to some extent.

In this case, even assuming the FARC are the bad guys and the existing Columbian govt are the good guys(you never really seem to know for sure down there as a lot of the govts we have supported have turned out to be very oppressive and corrupt), my thought was that I hoped we were not involved. Whether Ecuador harbors FARC rebels seems to me to be an issue between Ecuador and Columbia.

Today I read this in an article about the tensions this incident has created:


http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080307/D8V8LLH80.html

That response seems to imply we were involved, I mean why not deny involvement otherwise? If we were not involved, why would we not just say so?

It bothers me a bit that we get involved in these clandestine operations without US citizens ever knowing if we did or why we did. I am not naive, though, and presume there are situations that justify covert operations and our involvement in the politics of other countries.

In this particular case, if we were involved, I sure hope we had a very good reason. I think providing logistical support for one country to invade the borders of another is a very dangerous business. While there might be some reason to justify it, I have a hard time understanding without someone explaining it to me how our national interests are so threatened by a leftist Columbian group to justify a serious attack such as this that might destabilize the whole region. Or was that the point?

You can assume we are involved.

We train the Colombian military, we have advisors and other personnel down there ostensibly to fight the "war on drugs" and we have oil interests there.

I can't imagine we weren't involved on some level. Hedging bets against Chavez, Colombia would be a potential proxy for us.

It goes on all over the globe. There isn't a pot we don't have a finger in.

It's just a symptom of the prevailing foreign policy. Meddling breeds more meddling. Every time you extend the forntier or expand your "interests" you acquire yet another set of "interests" that require protecting in order to secure th last set of interests you took on.

More involvement on the Colombia-Panama border:

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=74761

 

[LSSpam]

I am fairly ignorant on South American politics.

I doubt i'm any brighter. But let's give it a shot


The US has been providing Columbia with significant military aid since the 80's with Reagan/Bush's "War on Drugs" (which was an excellent cover for providing military aid to right-leaning regime's, like Columbia, to use them as bullworks against encroaching communism. Which is why we can fight a "War on Drugs" in Columbia and then turn around and prop up Noriega for a time).

Anyways, since then we've poured billions of dollars of military aid into Columbia, which is why Columbia has all sorts of nice high tech tools that came from the US. This by the way has an interesting side effect. Venezuela will not invade Columbia. Mainly because Columbia has an enormously well trained army with the most modern equipment quite capable of defeating Venezuela. Venezuela however may step up it's aid/inciting of groups like FARC, which may cause Columbia to retaliate and invade Venezuela.

As to your last point, whether we participated. I'm not sure if we have troops down there now but in the past we've had soldiers and even FBI agents (and I'm sure CIA as well, though I wouldn't know) serve variously as "advisers" in some capacity. So it wouldn't be surprising if some US soldiers/agents/whatever went along on the raid serving as observers. I would doubt, however, we have enough personal down there to actively participate in anything.

 

[SaintsBrazil]

It's just a symptom of the prevailing foreign policy. Meddling breeds more meddling. Every time you extend the forntier or expand your "interests" you acquire yet another set of "interests" that require protecting in order to secure the last set of interests you took on.

Well said :clap:

 

[Saint77]

The real reason we are even messing around in South America.

 

[efil4stnias]

Remember - New World Order and we are the World Police w/ a God Complex.

 

[TulsaSaint]

If I may offer a correction to several posters. The correct spelling for the country in question is Colombia, not Columbia.

 

[FWtex]

My opinion is that this is nothng different than preventing another possible Alqueda from growing down there. The US probably provided intelligence and oversaw the columbians aligned the missle coordinates correctly but it was a columbian decision. My understanding is that it was a single missle.

I read that chavez was allowing the FARC to operate freely in the jungle and they had been making movements into Columbia. Columbia basically said told Chavez that if your not going to police your own territory we will do it for you to protect Columbia.

This also sends a message to Chavez, to remind him of his weaknesses. The US is Ok with you beating your chest around the world but keep your eye on your home.

 

[TulsaSaint]

My opinion is that this is nothng different than preventing another possible Alqueda from growing down there. The US probably provided intelligence and oversaw the columbians aligned the missle coordinates correctly but it was a columbian decision. My understanding is that it was a single missle.

I read that chavez was allowing the FARC to operate freely in the jungle and they had been making movements into Columbia. Columbia basically said told Chavez that if your not going to police your own territory we will do it for you to protect Columbia.

This also sends a message to Chavez, to remind him of his weaknesses. The US is Ok with you beating your chest around the world but keep your eye on your home.

Something like al-Qaeda? In Venezuela or Colombia or Ecuador? What the hell are you talking about? The FARC has been fighting its battle there for decades; it's a Communist guerrilla group similar to the Maoist rebels in Nepal or the Shining Path in Peru. Their main technique is kidnapping wealthy Colombians and holding them for ransom, using the proceeds to fund their ongoing war. Their other strategy is growing cocaine and selling it to the drug cartels for shipment abroad. Definitely an unpleasant group, but I don't get how this has any similarities to what's going on with al-Qaeda in the Middle East. Not even remotely.

Furthermore, how does this send a message of Hugo Chávez, of all people? The Colombian army crossed into Ecuador, not Venezuela. Chávez only got involved because he's buddies with Correa, the Ecuadorean president. And if Colombia is the one crossing the border into Ecuador, how does this amount the US sending a message? I don't think we sent a missile into Ecuador; I don't think our troops were involved in the border crossing. Sorry, but your post makes zero sense.

 

[st dude]

Columbia basically said told Chavez that if your not going to police your own territory we will do it for you to protect Columbia.

This also sends a message to Chavez, to remind him of his weaknesses. .

Actually Colombia made their assault in Ecuador, not Venezuela, so I am not sure about sending some message to Chavez to police his territory.

And it seems to me that if we were involved what limited benefit we get from knocking out a handful of FARC people (there are thousands of them) is offset by the fact that Chavez and others get to holler about US meddling in South American affairs which most of the countries down there resent.

There are militant groups like FARC all over the world. Some of them are terrorists, some of these groups view themselves as revolutionaries as did our forefathers. I dont know enough to know which ones have legitimate causes and which ones do not. From what little I know about FARC, they are bad guys if for no other reason because of their kidnapping escapades.

I dont see the benefit to us getting involved in these fights, particularly when it involves one country crossing borders into another.

I also wonder who approves this type of action. Does it go up to the president? Can the president, without approval from congress, involve us in what might be consdiered an act of war? Suppose Spain and Portugal were at odds, could the president approve a clandestine operation wherein we helped the Portuguese make a military strike in Spain? how would that be different than helping Colombia mount a militray raid in Ecuador(if we did)?

 

[Jeff Miller]

Remember - New World Order and we are the World Police w/ a God Complex.

Actually, the United States has has been exerting its influence in Latin and South America sine the 1904. Most in the interests of economics and trade, but also as a form of American expansion in response to the continued colonial expansion of England, France and Germany of the early 1900's.

 

[Saintman2884]

Tulsa, Chavez has been accused of funding or giving aid to FARC rebels and leftist rebels directly or indirectly over the past 10 years. I mean he did call the now dead Reyes a great man and in fact met with him in 1995 in Brazil when he was a trade unionist in that capacity. I am also aware of some sympathy that some people in this country have for Chavez, most notably Sean Penn and Danny Glover. I think their support for him is naive and stupid IMHO. Why would a freely democratic president try to appoint himself leader for life and overrode the Venezuelan constitution in the process. Because a Bolivar's revolution with him as the forefront? Why would he call anybody who visits and disagrees with him a traitor and a disgrace to Venezuela. It sounds like to me he wants to be a nationalist leader of all of South America and be damned the consequences. Hell why would he shut down the nation's longest TV station just because they disagreed with him on political issues and cover it up by saying they tried to oppose him in 2002.
To me Chavez is part of the problem in many ways he tries to be the solution. He covers it up by saying the US is the problem, which may have merit, but at the same time using it to his advantage, which is to be a megalomaniac ruler.

Ends justifying the means indeed. JMO

 

[blackadder]

Actually Colombia made their assault in Ecuador, not Venezuela, so I am not sure about sending some message to Chavez to police his territory.

And it seems to me that if we were involved what limited benefit we get from knocking out a handful of FARC people (there are thousands of them) is offset by the fact that Chavez and others get to holler about US meddling in South American affairs which most of the countries down there resent.

There are militant groups like FARC all over the world. Some of them are terrorists, some of these groups view themselves as revolutionaries as did our forefathers. I dont know enough to know which ones have legitimate causes and which ones do not. From what little I know about FARC, they are bad guys if for no other reason because of their kidnapping escapades.

I dont see the benefit to us getting involved in these fights, particularly when it involves one country crossing borders into another.

I also wonder who approves this type of action. Does it go up to the president? Can the president, without approval from congress, involve us in what might be consdiered an act of war? Suppose Spain and Portugal were at odds, could the president approve a clandestine operation wherein we helped the Portuguese make a military strike in Spain? how would that be different than helping Colombia mount a militray raid in Ecuador(if we did)?

Congress has allowed itself to become almost irrelevant in the checks and balances equation.

It's all quite simple. We get involved in these things out of a combination of hubris and graft. Our government really believes it can control these groups and governments and successfully orchestrate the puppet strings according to the benefit of American economic and financial interests.

Why they stubbornly cling to this behavior I do not know because the historical record shows quite the opposite. The keystone cops could do just as well in the way of geopolitical manipulation.

Involvement also reflects the economic interests of powerful lobbies who bankroll Congress. Again this is the oil lobby I refer to. U.S. companies have many oil contracts with Colombia. FARC could be seen as a threat to this arrangement because I would imagine of they were able to gain power they would nationalize the oil and take a similar tack to Chavez.

FARC also has targeted oil pipelines in the past and disrupted production in Colombia. In current circumstances any incidents even in a mid-tier producer like Colombia can spook the market and propel oil pries even higher. In this economic environment, that is quite dangerous to the US economy. We are already teetering.

So, rather than deal with risk in the world marketplace, the oil lobby will get the Pentagon to insure their investment. The best thing about this is, so far as we know, Colombian forces are the proxy here and we are not directly involved with combat troops on the ground.

I'm ambivalent about this one so long as we are as vulnerable to oil shocks as we currently are. I can see supporting the government of Colombia and trying to help them protect Colombian oil infrastructure from FARC. We don;t have much of a choice right now. But I would avoid deep direct involvement. It always creates more problems than it solves.

Ultimately here we are back to the addiction to oil that keeps us meddling in oil producing coutries and the natural tendencies of special interests to capture government resources in support of their own special projects.

 

[SaintJ]

My opinion is that this is nothng different than preventing another possible Alqueda from growing down there. The US probably provided intelligence and oversaw the columbians aligned the missle coordinates correctly but it was a columbian decision. My understanding is that it was a single missle.

I read that chavez was allowing the FARC to operate freely in the jungle and they had been making movements into Columbia. Columbia basically said told Chavez that if your not going to police your own territory we will do it for you to protect Columbia.

This also sends a message to Chavez, to remind him of his weaknesses. The US is Ok with you beating your chest around the world but keep your eye on your home.

1. lmao. Just lmao.

2. Wouldn't that be El Queda?

 

[guillermo]

This, my friends is a comedy of errors from which ever angle you want to look at.

Ecuador is right about being mad for Colombian entering their territory in a military action to kill one of the leaders of the FARCs.

Colombia is fed up with the support (f not economical, at least they let them work) that Ecuador and Venezuela give to the FARC. They broke international law intentionally, letting the message clear that they will not tolerate the position of Venezuela and Ecuador, who want to recognize the FARCs as a revolutionary movement, not what they really are.

There is U.S. involvement on both sides of the conflict. You follow the money and you will understand. The colombian guerrilla has trascendeded politics, they are more of a criminal organization that support themselves with drug and ransom money, all to buy weapons from.... you guess it right.

The biggest complain of Mexico (as an example) right now with the US is to keep the weapons market close, the drug cartels are feeding themselves in trades of american weapons, traded from the US, and this deteriorates the state of law in different areas.

Police and military of this countries just can't keep with the spending of these drug cartels and guerrillas, they just don't have the money.