I Blame Communism
Banned
First, let me apologize for not responding in detail to every point you've made. With all due respect, it doesn't appear that you are reading or understanding what I've written, so I'm not sure what advantage accrues to a detailed dialogue. Secondly, most of your points seem to be rather incoherent, I almost have the impression that when you attempt to reply to me, you're replying to things that I haven't actually said. You cited Orwell at one point, but much of your 'arguments' such as they are, are replete with Orwellian doublethink. I don't think that there's much to be gained from responding to each sophistry.
The word "doublethink" is often misused, so show me an example. Show me two contradictory viewpoints that I reconcile by ignoring one and then the other. Anyway, responding to each of the other person's points is good conduct and shows your not trying to duck out of, for instance, apologising for a clear failure of your vocabulary demonstrated by the Most Holy OED.
Rather than waste your time and everyone's time, let me simply recapitulate my my points as clearly as possible.
1) Uribe does not represent any sort of significant transformation in Columbian politics. Rather, Uribe is business as usual, and represents a high degree of conformity with mainstream Columbian politics as developed over the last 50 years. Unfortunately, this includes corruption, narcotics, death squads and a social oligarchy in which a relatively small ruling class controls most wealth and employs violence, murder and a variety of legal and extralegal tactics to control the vast majority of the poor. Your faith in Uribe as a reformer is a pipe dream. Here's a clue: Guys who play footsie with death squads are never good guys.
Did I say he was a reformer? I don't believe I did. I said he's the better alternative to FARC. That's not saying very much at all. I said I think it will be a good thing if he destroys FARC. It would be even better if FARC were destroyed by Batman. I'm not giving Uribe browny points for destroying them, I just want them gone, this being a key first step to getting Colombia out of its present mess in its ruling institutions peacefully. Do you have a better, violent alternative to cure the ills of the Colombian state? Because my opinion is that the only good and effective way to change Colombia is peacefully. And for that to be done, the vicious terrorists who try to change it towards their own warped vision violently have to be defeated.
2) FARC is a dangerously toxic, inbred, ideological movement entering its third generation, in a long period of stability in which they've controlled a significant portion of the Columbian interior, but have consistently failed to make real headways. The analogy to Sendero Luminoso is apt. They are not good guys. They are really really really bad.
Then we agree on something. That's a start.
3) For one reason or another, the Columbian military has failed to make headway against FARC, despite 50 years. The notion that its going to clean them out now, while not impossible, earns skepticism. That claim has been made too many times over the last half century.
I have given many examples of what I believe to be objective evidence that the Colombian army is powering ahead with its offensive and FARC is buckling. Your clearly not going to be convinced, so consider it as a hypothetical: let us suppose that military victory over FARC within the next decade is likely.
4) FARC is involved with the Cocaine trade, but is not a major player. Farc does not control territory that would allow it significant impact on distribution. Distribution channels are urban. Thus the Medellin Cartel, the Cartagena Cartel, the Cali Cartel, etc. The cocaine trade is as or more tied with traditional Columbian polities than FARC. Conflating FARC and the Cocaine trade is simply nonsensical.
Well, maybe you shouldn't do that, then. The Most Holy OED speaketh thus:
"Blend or fuse together."
You yourself "blend" FARC with the trade by acknowledging its involvement, which is all I'm doing either. FARC is not at all the biggest slice of the cocaine pie. I'm merely saying that to make progress on Colombia's problems, crime and drugs and corruption and so on, a good first step is to defeat that vicious terrorist group. They set a terrible example, giving the impression of a feeble state having no monopoly on force which can be influenced by a small minority of loons hiding in the jungle. This is why I support their military destruction. This, I should hope, is why America supports their military destruction. Since that is in my opinion near at hand, the fight for a liberal democracy in Colombia must soon, perhaps now, shift towards attacks, from somewhere, on the corruption and crime festering within the state. That's not going to come from the top-down for a good while, but being a hopeless optimist I have faith in the Colombian people to better themselves from the bottom up.
You've accused me of moral equivalency and other 'liberal ills'. I reject that charge. It is not moral equivalency to recognize a corrupt and murderous oligarchy for what it is. It is entirely delusional to pretend that a politician who runs cover for death squads and cocaine traffickers is a reforming democrat. Improving a situation, or making the best of it, comes from seeing it as clearly as possible and acting accordingly. Operating on the basis of hallucinatory 'cowboys and indians' fairy tales is worse than useless.
But what solution do you advocate? Here is the solution I advocate:
"To cure the Colombian state of its many desieses, it is necessary to take many steps on mnay fronts. It will not be quick, clean, or easy. As good a first step as any is to destroy the psychopathic terrorist outfit hiding in the jungles. This is achievable. Achieving it will strengthen the rule of law, what little of it exists in Colombia, and instill greater faith in the state, and the need to work within it towards peaceful change, the only change that is useful or possible."
It contains neither cowboys nor Indians. It does contain a clear course of action for the developed world: help destroy FARC. This being done or nearly done, apply pressure on the Colombian government by exposing its abuses, trying to give help to its victims, criticising its failings, and demanding change. This in itself cannot solve anything. Change must as ever come from within. But it is an identifiable course which we can usefully take to give what help we can to the people of Colombia.
You say you "see clearly", but the prinicipal differances between your vision of Colombia and my vision of Colombia are but three:
1) You refuse, for some reason I cannot fathom, to refer to FARC as a "terrorist" or an "insurgent" organisation.
2) You apparently believe that Uribe was not elected. I believe that, although he does not by any means head a democratic polity, he was elected. And remains fairly popular among Colombians. This is by no means a good thing, but there it is.
3) I advocate action as explained above. You, from what I can tell, refuse to advocate any clear course action on the basis that both sides are bad. This is what I mean by moral equivelancy. I'm not saying that to identify it anywhere is wrong in itself (I don't think the Colombian state is as bad as FARC, bt I'm not sure you do, either) but I am saying that its wrong to refuse to lift a finger for the people of Colombia simply because both sides are bad. They are. That doesn't mean we can't do what we can to improve the lot of their mutual victims.