Discussion
  • Read More
    Jerry-NetherlandMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 1:15pm

    There was a news story that got very short shrift from the media cycle in 2004. While she was Nat'l Sec. Director, Condoleezza Rice pulled 5,000 troops from Colombia because of troop shortages elsewhere. I remember thinking "We have 5,000 troops in Colombia?"; "How does Rice have the authority, rather than say, then-Def. Sec Rumsfeld or the President to redirect troops?" simultaneously with "Watch the price of cocaine tumble!"

    Well, the first question was easily explained as long-standing policy assisting Colombia against both FARC and the cartels; but with two middle eastern wars and difficulty getting new recruits, question 2 seemed logical, especially the logistical part, as everything that happened during the Bush years was outside the rulebooks (cabinet members stepping all over each other) and with funding off the budget. This would also streamline their operations in Colombia to CIA operations (targeted killings), which certainly fits neatly with the timeline here. And, indeed, question 3 happened, as the street price of cocaine fell by half.

    It's always about money. So, first remember everything involving drug policy is about money: government contracts, graft, prison industry, even urine testing). So if we were maintaining that level of military force in Colombia, it explains why the drug trade - owned by Colombia in the 80s & 90s - moved to Mexico in the 2000s. The timing of the sunset-clause of the assault weapons ban from 1994 in 2004 allowed the deluge begin massive sales of high grade weaponry to flow over the border. The blowback by 2008 was that US policy had created a more corrupt than ever mess in Mexico, that beleaguered country is suffering a miserable bloodbath a la the US in the 1920s, and US prisons in the US are bursting at the seams.

    Which leaves the US involvement in the Colombian government's war on its opposition ongoing. What is our reason for this? The last vestiges of cold war-think, which goes something like "they'll go all leftist if we don't stop them; another Venezuela". But why is Colombia being so extensively underwritten by US dollars? And who in the US suffers when South American countries shift to the left?

    Oil Companies (in the case of Venezuela and Brazil) and mineral companies (in the case of Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Peru). And that is who your country's tax dollars and reputation are "protecting".

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      dsfsdg4r4fJerry-Netherland
      12/22/13 1:45pm

      We didn't have 5,000 troops. We were, by law, only allowed 500 troops during the time frame you're talking about. We exceeded this temporarily a few times. During operation checkmate almost 1,000 special forces troops came into the country (ended up getting the hostages back with trickery, not a shot fired) as an example. We needed permission from them for this (which they would almost always give) but it was always temporary.

      The 500 troop limit we have in Colombia is mostly spec ops personal. They are almost exclusively training and recon, sometimes a couple guys will ride out with large Colombian units. Also included in the 500 number is those who provide security for the huge embassy there and staff (the embassy is enormous, with the DEA, CIA and a lot of other govt. interests here).

      Anyways, your story is made up.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Jerry-Netherlanddsfsdg4r4f
      12/22/13 1:53pm

      Thank you for those stats. My story is not made up - but the information you provided may explain how and why it got buried so quickly. You explain how "we needed permission from [the Colombian Govt], (which they would almost always give)" to add troops. That, along with the many various definitions of troops [how many private contractors may be there at any given time?] lends credibility to the excessive troop levels at any point.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Freddie DeBoerMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 12:21pm

    Remember when Americans couldn't stop themselves from buying cocaine, so we sprayed thousands of gallons of carcinogenic herbicides on destitute farmers in Colombia? Good times, good times.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max Rivlin-NadlerFreddie DeBoer
      12/22/13 12:25pm

      It would be pretty half-assed to not orchestrate the attacks that finally broke the peasant rebellion.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      superImposedMax Rivlin-Nadler
      12/22/13 12:35pm

      Most of the wars US waged on other countries since WW2 were against peasants' rebellions. Either come to work below minimum wage in US or sell your stuff below market price.

      Let the market decide!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Rusty ShacklefordMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 12:26pm

    I'm from Peru and am 100% down with this. Hosting a neighbour's terrorist group is an all time scumbag move by Ecuador and Colombia couldn't do anything about it. Imagine if Mexico hosted Al Qaeda memebers in Tijuana and the US just had to sit there and take it?

    Historically the US has done some shitty things in Latin America but this is not one of them.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Bones of a HareRusty Shackleford
      12/22/13 12:32pm

      Agree with this wholeheartedly. I'm Mexican and have known personally people who were ousted from their homes by the FARC, as well as people who had family members kidnapped for over three years by the guerilla. Many of the Colombian cartel enforcers have since moved to Mexico and continue wrecking hell. So yeah, USA has done craptastic things in Latin America, by far more crap than good. But this is one of the few good things.

      (I understand Colombia is more peaceful now, too, and perhaps recuperating economically?)

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      JadeOwlRusty Shackleford
      12/22/13 12:34pm

      Another Peruvian here. Also 100% OK with this.

      The FARC are terrorists. Destroying them is a good thing. Bombing their camps is a good thing.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    UngratefulDeadMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 12:54pm

    Is there anything the Bush legal team analyzed in their tenure that they didn't conclude was legal? Just gay marriage?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TamerlaneBlogUngratefulDead
      12/22/13 1:25pm

      Keep in mind that his crack legal team was made up entirely of Regent University School of Law grads.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      UngratefulDeadTamerlaneBlog
      12/22/13 1:32pm

      Yeah, the man was, if nothing else, an unfailing patron to the base. I just finished Peter Galbraith's Unintended Consequences and he makes the same complaint; any slim chance we might have ever had of victory in post-war Iraq was frittered away in part by Dubya's tendency to fill important provisional government posts with political backers instead of qualified bureaucrats.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    theghostmanMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 12:31pm

    I don't understand what's wrong with killing Osama Bin Laden in 2011? I also don't understand why it is wrong to support our ally's against rebels attempting to overthrow their governments?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Dropfox2theghostman
      12/22/13 1:20pm

      It's more to the point that we only help out the causes that benefit ourselves and then turn around and act like we are global policeman standing up for every man women and child on the planet. Sure we help out Columbia because it's in our best interest but if this group exsisted in Venezuela or Iran then we would be funding them with money and weapons.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      theghostmanDropfox2
      12/22/13 1:37pm

      That because Venezuela and Iran are not our allies. So why should we help them? We would likely support the rebels if it was Venezuela or Iran (albeit in secret) because they do not have America's interest at heart and would rather see us destroyed economically. So why on earth would we help them?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    raincoasterMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 4:59pm

    I sometimes wonder what people who claim to be shocked by such things think the CIA is actually for.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Archdukeraincoaster
      12/23/13 2:19am

      but... but... but... we all thought the CIA was a useless vestigial organization that's still fighting the cold war!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Thunder-LipsMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 1:03pm

    It just happened. I no longer am surprised to hear the U.S. government killing anybody, any where, without any due process.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ArchdukeThunder-Lips
      12/23/13 2:18am

      Colombian guerrillas don't enjoy the protections of the U.S. Constitution. No due process necessary.

      Best historical simile - Jefferson's war on the Barbary Pirates.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    It takes a nation of millions to elect the corruptMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 12:32pm

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      superImposedIt takes a nation of millions to elect the corrupt
      12/22/13 12:47pm
      GIF
      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    toothpetardMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 12:46pm

    I remember when marines would talk of being trained by garroting cigarette smugglers in the woods of panama.

    Sounds freedomey.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AyeCaptaintoothpetard
      12/22/13 5:14pm

      yeah, well smoking kills.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    JJCatanoMax Rivlin-Nadler
    12/22/13 1:51pm

    Colombian here, The US can attack FARC in any way they please for all i care. The consequences FARC has brought to this country are ridiculous.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Ms EvergrayJJCatano
      12/22/13 6:35pm

      Thank you! I moved to the US in 1989 and I still get furious when these monsters are mentioned. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I would lose no sleep if the entire FARC were massacred and left to rot in their own coca fields.

      Reply
      <