2008 Andean War

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.
 
Said far better than I did, and rebutting IBC extremely well in susequent posts.

The only things I disagree with you here is your last two sentences.

So you diagree with the sentences in which he condemns FARC? Given everything else you've posted, I can't help but think you have a heavily romanticised view of that organisation and consider it the "cowboy".

Fact is, Uribe made his little cross border invasion and the silly little claims on that magic laptop happened precisely because of the fears Chavez would get FARC to lay down their arms.

You have yet to provide evidence to disprove the data from the "magic laptop", where the burden of proof is with you. In any case, Chavez is still trying to get FARC to lay down their arms. If it was an urgent threat, wouldn't they have done it by now?

As a general rule of thumb, election campaigns are preferable to high body counts. If Chavez could've succeeded in getting them to be a political party, that'd be better for the whole region. But Uribe didn't want FARC getting any legitimacy. He invaded Ecuador to prevent the opening up of democracy in Colombia.

So you're saying that the participation of FARC in the ordinary run of Colombian politics would have instantly transformed them into a democracy. You're saying that a criminal organisation of murderers and drug-dealers entering the mainstream of a polity rife with crime, murder, and drug-dealing would have reformed it into a liberal democracy overnight, much like Venezuela, which is of course a liberal democracy which is no way ruled by a demagogue subverting his own constitution.

Run that past me again?

The reason the participation of FARC in ordinary Colombian politics is bad is that it wouldn't change anything for the better. Destroying them may. It will show that small bands of armed criminals don't influence the Colombian state. They do, obviously, but sometimes its the feeling that counts. FARC is in any case a murderous psychopathic terrorist organisation. Removing them from the picture can only help. It won't be enough to improve things all by itself, but it won't make them worse.

IBC made the typical kneejerk assumption of Cold Warriors with a kneejerk fear of anything that gets labeled Communist. But like Dvaldron poined out, FARC don't fit such non-Latin American labels easily.

It is indeed hard to classify FARC. Are using this to argue that they're actually a good thing, and really just so terribly misunderstood? I don't fear FARC. Full stop. I live in Britain and I believe FARC is on the way out with no chance of influencing anything for the worse now. I do revile FARC because its pretty seriously fucked up. You still seem to be tiptoeing around this essential attribute.

Essentially they are the Shining Path in their ideology but thankfully not their tactics, minus the mass executions of peasants and peasant organizers. Uribe and his govt are the ones who do that, along with the far more dangerous paramilitary death squads run by business elites.

This doesn't make sense. They are the Shining Path in ideology but not tactics except for mass executions. That is just not grammatically coherent. I assume you're saying that FARC, unlike Shining Path, doesn't partake in mass executions? Well, we have no evidence that they do that I'm aware of, so that's a pretty justifiable observation. It does not, however, justify their use of child soldiers, their needless and avoidable killings of civilians as pointed out by notorious Colombian stooge organisation Human Rights Watch, and all the other highly necessary and justifiable attrocities they get up to. Good for them. Truly, they are the way forward for demcoracy in Colombia.

That's why the polls about supposed widespread support for Uribe are useless. People don't tell the truth about who they support when it would get them killed. Esssentially Uribe has the support of the very same people who fund and support paramilitary death squads, wealthy elites, a middle class that just hopes for violence to end somehow even if democracy is among the victims, and some of the other more reactionary elements.

So everybody was just lying when they took part in those enormous demonstrations against FARC?

Tell me Uribe's popularity had been massaged, I'll believe it. Tell me Uribe is implicated with death squads, I'll believe it. Tell me the election or Uribe wasn't fair, I'll believe it (I do maintain that, insofar as anyone wins such an election, he did win). But you appear to be trying to say that the majority of Colombians support FARC. That's just crazy.
 
This argument did not prevent Hague court from ruling that Serbs commited genocide in Bosnia. Majority (absolute) of both Croats and Bosniaks survived, but Serbs were still ruled genocidal maniacs. Should we consider your argument null and void then?

Let's not get diverted: I said that DValdron's statement made it sound like there had been genocide or ethnic cleansing in Colombia. Do you think there has been genocide or ethnic cleansing in Colombia? I should certainly hope not.

Taking into account Narco Cartels, I would suspect that Colombian state is at least as heavily involved. I confess my ignorance about Columbian situation, but I can compare with Russian one. This level of unlawful activity is impossible without MAJORITY of state apparatus involved in it. Uribe might not personally use his plane to traffic cocaine to States. Well, neither does Putin run business racket himself. But they're both responsible for situation.

In my response to DValdron I made clear that I don't think Uribe is Mr.N Guy, or that his army always ays attention to the law. I stand by my claim that FARC is worse, and FARC being destroyed can only improve the situation. The Colombian state is bad, but it can be changed peacefully. I'd say that's the only way to change it. Are you proposing that FARC be changed peacefully, or that the Colombian state be change dviolently?

I'd say he just moan, which isn't nearly enough but still is useful, taking into account scarcity of knowledge about internal Columbian situation in Anglophone world and heavily onesided (pro-Uribe) coverage by mainstream media.

If he advocates doing nothing for the people pf Colombia based on moaning, that's not useful.

Again, not necessarily. There're much more examples of peaceful integration of formerly militant rebels into political context of their respective country than successful military campaign against said rebels, especially if rebellion isn't purely ethnic-based.

How about Irish or Suthern African path? Integrating rebels into political system. Or even Russian one (buying less radical Chechen rebels to weed out crazy radicals)? There're many ways to skin a cat.

But only one is appropriate to a given situation. If FARC is integrated into Colombian politics, murder and drug-crime are integrated into murder and drug-crime. Whoopie. If they are destroyed, then this shows that you have to work within the state, not to mention that, while they'll still live in a very messed-up country, the people of the interior will no longer have to worry about gas-cylinder bombs. I think those are imrpovements. And there are deals concerning amnesty-for-surrender. That's what's being dangled in front of the encircled First Front.


The way I see it, some sort of peaceful solution through mediated talks instead of blind reliance on violence. I might be wrong though.

I'd be willing to see that, on certain conditions. The mediator must be truly disinterested and clean (Chavez is neither). Finland, say. FARC must end all its violence. It weapons should be handed over to some trustworthy body for destruction. Important leaders should be put on trial. Colombian trials are obviously not fair. But it's not asthough the FARC leaders aren't criminals, and letting them off scot-free is a worse precedent. An amnesty for the lower-level stuff would be for the better, I'd say. In other words, I'll accept a settlement other than unconditional surrender, but only it its made clear that FARC isn't negotiating concessions.

Gosh, I see Putin here.

It's a pretty good comparison.


Well, it does remind me of Afghanistan today, but I haven't seen too many sane voices recently saying that NATO is sure winning. "We're making headways" is the most optimistic statement I can remember.

The situation is certainly very differant. FARC doesn't have anything like the same popular support. The Colombian forces aren't perceived as invaders. And I've provided all the many reasons to suspect that FARC is weakening.


Fell under weight of its internal problems, had never been defeated military.

Which I think is an argument in favour of peaceful change of the Colombian state.

I was under the impression that it is you who advocate violent solution as preferred option to deal with the situation. And Polish and Bulgarian progress in anti-corruption fight is a matter for a great long discussion.

I advocate a violent defeat of FARC, and peaceful change within the framework of the legitimate Colombian state as outlined in my response to DValdron.

Poland and even Bulgaria, for all their faults, are a lot better than Colombia. Poland, at least, has made some progress. That at least, I think, is an argument in my favour.
 
Top