Did U.S. Mercenaries Bomb the FARC Encampment in Ecuador?

[Joanne98]

As diplomatic and military fallout from the March 1 Colombian raid into Ecuador escalate regional tensions, allegations from Ecuadorean sources link the unprovoked attack to the U.S. Manta airbase and charge the American mercenary firm DynCorp with piloting the planes that killed FARC commander Raúl Reyes and 24 others.


According to investigative journalist Kintto Lucas,


A high-level Ecuadorean military officer, who preferred to remain anonymous, told IPS that "a large proportion of senior officers" in Ecuador share "the conviction that the United States was an accomplice in the attack" launched Mar. 1 by the Colombian military on a FARC...camp in Ecuador, near the Colombian border.

"Since Plan Colombia was launched in 2000, a strategic alliance between the United States and Colombia has taken shape, first to combat the insurgents and later to involve neighbouring countries in that war," said the officer. "What is happening today is a consequence of that." ("Ecuador: Manta Air Base Tied to Colombian Raid on FARC Camp," Inter Press Service, March 21, 2008)

Ecuadorean Defense Minister Wellington Sandoval said an investigation into whether the Manta airbase was used in the attack should be carried out by Ecuador's armed forces. According to the leasing agreement, the Manta base can only be used for counternarcotics operations.
http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2008/03/did-us-mercenaries-bomb-farc-encampment.html

[MaryCeleste]

1. That quote from the "high-level Ecuadorean military officer" has been around for a few weeks

nothing more seems to have come from it.

[Peace Patriot]

2. I'm glad you re-posted this, Joanne98, because I hadn't before noticed the

condition for the U.S. military's lease of the Ecuador site--that it may only be used for counter-narcotics (in the lethal joke called the "war on drugs"). The lease is up in 2009. Rafael Correa has pledged not to renew the lease--in effect, kicking the U.S. military out of his country. But I figured that the Manta base would still be available to Donald Rumseld & co., whom I believe are planning to cause major trouble in South America, this year--to destabilize the region, and create opportunities to regain global corporate predator control of the Andes oil fields (mostly in Venezuela and Ecuador--two allies, with governments committed to social justice and regional self-determination).

My guess as to the Bushites' first move is U.S. military support of the white separatists in four gas/oil rich provinces of Bolivia, where the rich landowners want to split those provinces off from the central government of Evo Morales--the first indigenous president of Bolivia (a mostly indigenous country)--to deny benefit of those resources to the poor majority. These fascists are likely to declare their "independence" this May, and, if Morales uses the Bolivian military, to try to hold the country together, they may ask for U.S. support of their "independence." (I believe the Bushites are already funding/arming them.) Bolivia is strong allies with Venezuela and Ecuador (also Argentina). They could be drawn into this civil war, and even end up in combat with U.S. troops. In any case, a major fracas may ensue.

But what drew my attention to the condition for use of the Manta base is that, if they have broken their lease, by bombing that hostage negotiator camp inside Ecuador, Rafael Correa could throw them out sooner. And this would greatly increase the strategic value, to Rumsfeld & co., of the U.S. base in Paraguay, right on the border of Bolivia (near the separatist provinces). Paraguay has elections this year. The lead candidate for president is the beloved "bishop of the poor," Fernando Lugo. Paraguay is currently run by a very entrenched, corrupt ruling elite, which has been playing both sides of the Bolivarian vs. Bushite struggle. Lugo would most certainly frown on war being waged against the poor in Bolivia, from Paraguay. But I don't think the Colorado Party (the ruling elite) would be too happy about it either. This is probably one of the reasons that Rumsfeld needs a fascist enclave in Bolivia--because which way Paraguay will go is so much up in the air. I don't know the status of the U.S. military lease in Paraguay.

U.S. surveillance and ordinance was most certainly used in the Ecuador bombing. I think it's likely that U.S. aircraft was also used, and possible that U.S. special forces were present--as well as U.S. intelligence personnel (given that concoction about the emails in the Raul Reyes computer). Rafael Correa is still very angry about what they did, and is likely highly motivated to get the evidence that Manta was involved. If he evicts the U.S. military prior to the expiration of their lease, on grounds that they broke the lease, we are going to see a very interesting situation in the OAS and at the Rio group, and I think the Bolivarians will win that one. And it may be critical to heading off Rumsfeld and Oil War II.

[SirScud]

4. U.S. Mercenaries in Equador

"Peace Patriot", you seem to be fairly well informed on this topic, so what is all this stuff about "Rumsfeld?"

[Peace Patriot]

5. I just caught up with your question...

On Dec. 1, 2007 (four months ago), on the weekend that the first two hostages were to be released (negotiated by Chavez), Donald Rumsfeld published the following in the Washington Post:

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

This was the weekend on which Colombian security forces bombed the position of the two hostages, driving them back into the jungle on a 20 mile hike to safety (still in captivity), which the two hostages only recently reported. Rumsfeld's first paragraph shows signs of being hastily re-written (updated as events unfolded) on this very issue--the hostage releases. And notice that he omits the fact that Uribe asked Chavez to undertake the hostage negotiations. This indicates to me that Rumsfeld is at the least following events in Colombia/Venezuela closely, and is more than likely orchestrating them on the Uribe/Colombia side--for instance, either playing out a dirty trick on Chavez--the Uribe request to Chavez being a trap from the beginning--or had pulled Uribe's strings at the last moment, to rescind the request and sabotage the hostage release effort. Uribe's erratic behavior that weekend certainly resembles a puppet whose strings are being pulled, but I now favor the theory that Uribe was in on setting the trap from the beginning--setting Chavez up for a disastrous hostage release scenario in which hostages would be killed. They didn't count on Chavez deftly avoiding the trap--by a call to the Colombian military--and on Chavez getting a total of six hostages released, before Rumsfeld & co. engineered the murder of Raul Reyes, the chief FARC hostage negotiator, and his group--with the recent bombing/invasion of Ecuador (using U.S. surveillance and smart bombs, and, likely, U.S. aircraft and personnel)--on the eve of the release of 12 more hostages, negotiated by the presidents of Ecuador, France, Venezuela and Argentina.

The trap for Chavez was to be sprung that weekend, and the Exxon Mobil attempt to freeze $12 billion in Venezuela's assets was advancing simultaneously (first move in 09/07). That was also the weekend of the constitutional referendum in Venezuela (which the Bushites were pouring money into defeating--it lost by a hair, 50.7% No (anti-Chavez) vs 49.3% Yes). Although Chavez ultimately got six hostages released, they denied him a diplomatic triumph that weekend.

In the concurrent op-ed by Rumsfeld, Rumfeld urges economic warfare against Venezuela and others ("tyrants like Chavez"--i.e., other leftist, democratic leaders who control big pots of oil, such as Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Evo Morales in Bolivia), and further urges "swift action" by the U.S. in support of "friends and allies" in South America. We saw the latter in the "swift action" by the U.S. military at the Manta, Ecuador base, in "defeating" the hostage negotiations--and saving Colombia from a peaceful settlement of their 40+ year war on the poor--by slaughtering the hostage negotiators. I think the next "swift action" will be in Bolivia--in support of Rumsfeld "friends and allies," the white separatists who intend to split off the gas/oil rich provinces from the central government of Evo Morales--the first indigenous president of Bolivia (a largely indigenous country) and a strong Chavez ally--in order to deny benefit of those resources to the poor majority. These rich landowners are likely to declare their "independence" this May, and may ask for U.S. military support. A split-up of Bolivia would cause a major fracas in South America, and possibly a war--with allies Venezuela and Ecuador drawn in, in support of Morales and Bolivian unity. This is Rumsfeld's M.O.--chaos, war, dividing and conquering. He was trying to draw them into a war with the Ecuador/Colombian thing. He may succeed in Bolivia.

I think what we are looking at is Rumsfeld's plan for Oil War II. He is not "retired." He is out to regain global corporate predator control of the Andes oil fields, and he means to get this war started this year, before Bush leaves office. In fact, we've already heard the first shots--U.S. military involvement in the U.S./Colombia bombing/incursion into Ecuador to destroy that humanitarian effort and threatened peace talks.

[Peace Patriot]

3. This is a much fuller, more detailed report, than the initial report.

It's pretty clear that DynCorp did it. They run the fumigation planes (fumigation of crops and humans). They have the technology. And, as with Blackwater, one way to insulate crimes committed in our name, is to have U.S.-paid mercenaries commit them. After reading this article, I think that's likely in this case--DynCorp pilots, planes, and mercenary special forces on the ground--but I don't know who exactly runs the surveillance technology, or how the smart-bombs got transferred. Cooking evidence (the Reyes computer) could be a privatized unit of Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans," DynCorp or some other private corp, or the Bush-purged CIA.

Autorank's OP today certainly seems relevant--these predatory corps are 'floating countries,' with loyalty to no one, and do what they damned please. We are going to rue the day that our military services (not to mention our voting machines) were privatized.

Of the world's 100 largest economic entities,
51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3050284

[classysassy]

6. Chavez and Morales

want to use their resources to help the needy,Bush and Rummy want that oil for their pals,they don't care how many lives are lost as long as they steal the resources,this country have a history of screwing Indians.Shame on all of us for putting up with those evil bastards.