You may have missed this item, but the US and Colombia have recently agreed to station more US troops in Columbia. That’s right, I said more. Not only have we been arming the Colombian military for years, a military force with ongoing connections to major drug cartels, but we’ve had forces there for years. Now we intend to increase that deployment and gain access to seven Colombian military bases for the next ten years, ostensibly to employ predator drones to combat “the drug trade and … terrorism.” Some in the region, particularly the governments of Colombia’s neighbors, aren’t so sure that our intentions are honorable:
South American leaders have issued a statement warning “foreign military forces” not to threaten the sovereignty of any of the region’s nations.
The declaration, which was signed by all 12 leaders of the Union of South American Nations (Unasur), came after a lengthy debate on Friday on plans to increase the presence of US troops at bases in Colombia.
The statement “reaffimed that the presence of foreign military forces must not … menace the sovereignty and integrity of a South American country and in consequence regional peace and stability”. […]
The extraordinary meeting the Argentine mountain resort of Bariloche was called after Venezuela, along with Bolivia and Ecuador, complained that the US military could use seven bases in Colombia as launch points to overthrow their governments.
“The US global strategy for domination explains the installation of these bases in Colombia,” Chavez said, holding up a document he said set out the US air force strategy to achieve that aim. […]
Colombia has insisted that the US troops are vital to tackle drug trafficking in the region and pose no threat to its neighbours. […][
But Eva Golinger, a consultant to the Venezuelan government, told Al Jazeera that the US military deployment was not necessary.
“It has been made clear in other US documents this year, particularly one on irregular warfare, about the need not to have permanent troops stationed in any one country but to have this type of mobility which allows for effective non-conventional military operations – so that’s the fear,” she said. […]
Many Latin American nations are wary of US intervention in the region, recalling Washington’s backing of right-wing military governments in the past.
Brazil, Chile and Argentina have demanded binding guarantees be made that the US military assets and personnel in Colombia not be used for any other purpose other than their stated mission of fighting drug-traffickers and Colombian rebels.
So why the sudden need for predator drones and more US troops? Are terrorist attacks in Colombia suddenly on the uptick? Did the drug trafficking problem get significantly worse over the last year? Or are our neighbors in South America right to be concerned about this new development which will give the US military greater access to Colombian military bases? You tell me, but personally I think this is not some garden variety escalation of an existing counter-drug and counter-terrorism program. I think they have good reason to be concerned. And I have to ask why is the Obama administration expanding an existing military intervention in Colombia for which our South American neighbors clearly don’t see any need, and which hasn’t been much of a success in any event?
Why?
Because the Obama administration appears to be pursuing, part and parcel, the empire-building strategy of its predecessor(s): support for regional oligarchs, suppression of popular movements opposed to those oligarchs, and the maintenance of states supportive of neoliberal economic policies.
That would be my guess.
Sometimes the answer will come to you in a blink, my suspicious eyes erased one word and read this:
Isn’t the drug trade why we need troops in Afghanistan? We already know about what happened in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. South America knows us well, as does any neighbor who has resources that we desire.
I think Sleepy’s got it right. So much for politics.
Because we’ve become too stupid to learn?
Since JFK got gunned down in Dallas in 1963 our military adventurism and the public support for it have not been in lockstep. Today most people don’t even know we’re in Colombia, much less know why. Most people don’t know about our military moves into Africa. Or why the hell we’re fighting in Afghanistan.
I’ve repeated over and over how so many post-WWII wars go hand-in-hand with waves of drugs blowing back to the US. And where the CIA is so is drug-smuggling.
So let me say it again:
It’s not the Obama Administration. The President has no say anymore. Those with the moxie to try to stand up to the military-industrial complex and Big Oil have been slapped down, pushed out, shot or otherwise removed from power. Obama may or may not support our various wars. IT DOESN’T MATTER. He can’t do anything about it.
We had a coup in 1963. LBJ went along with Vietnam. Nixon got too big for his britches in the eyes of his overlords. Ford was a CIA coverup artist (see: Warren Commission). Carter tried to reform the CIA, heh heh. Saint Ronnie caught a bullet for the temerity of standing between GHW Bush and the top spot. Clinton appears to have had a history with the permanent government. Dubya was “son of CIA”. Why would anyone think that Obama would be any different when it came to our wars?
Forget “It can’t happen here”. It already happened here forty-five years ago and damned few people noticed it or want to admit it. That’s what you get for growing up listening to Cokie Roberts.
Probably because of this
http://www.alternet.org/story/70292/
and this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7225824.stm
and this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-colombia-rockets28-2009jul28,0,1302779.story
Much like Central America in 1980’s little American presence can do but step in someone’s #%it.
.
Swedes have said they sold AT4s to Venezuela in the 1980s — covering a period when Hugo Chavez was just 27 through until he was 37 and still rising through the ranks. In fact the 1980s ended a whole TWO years before Chavez and his 2-i-C Francisco Arias Cardenas launched a failed coup d’etat against thoroughly corrupt Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, under whose mandate (and that of Jaime Lusinchi which preceded it) it is much more likely through rampant corruption in the Armed Forces that military ordnance would have gone AWOL than anytime since 1999 …
If we’re going to speak of THREE missing, presumed AWOL Swedish AT4s … let’s step back awhile and consider the United States’ own position… http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-29-missing-weapons_x.ht ..
USA Today: The Pentagon cannot account for 14,030 weapons — almost 4% of the semiautomatic pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons it began supplying to Iraq since the end of 2003.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Venezuela has oil.
The US wants it–cheap. And not instead sold for a good price to the Chinese.
Colombia is adjacent to Venezuela. Look forward to the next oil war to be launched from there.
Also, it is quite possible that FARQ is taking too big a share of the cocaine trade.
Further, under W Bush the “Southern Bloc” of Latin countries slipped the US leash. It’s Obama’s job (part of what he was hired for) to bring them back.
So many reasons, really, it was sort of inevitable . . .
Some how we always have money for imperial hubris and never money for ordinary people in this country. Somebody needs to ask all those alleged fiscal conservatives how we are going to pay for all this.