US Bases in Colombia Rattle the Region

[Judi Lynn]

Published on Friday, March 19, 2010 by The Progressive
US Bases in Colombia Rattle the Region
by Benjamin Dangl

On the shores of the Magdalena River, in a lush green valley dotted with cattle ranches and farms, sits the Palanquero military base, an outpost equipped with Colombia's longest runway, housing for 2,000 troops, a theater, a supermarket, and a casino.

Palanquero is at the heart of a ten-year, renewable military agreement signed between the United States and Colombia on October 30, 2009, which gives Washington access to seven military bases in the country. Though officials from the U.S. and Colombian governments contend the agreement is aimed at fighting narcotraffickers and guerrillas within Colombian borders, a U.S. Air Force document states the deal offers a "unique opportunity" for "conducting full spectrum operations" in the region against various threats, including "anti-U.S. governments."

The Pentagon sought access to the bases in Colombia after Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa canceled the lease for the U.S. military base in Manta, Ecuador. The U.S. capability in Colombia will now be greater than at Manta, which worries human rights advocates in Colombia and left-leaning governments throughout the region.

"The main purpose of expanding these bases is to take strategic control of Latin America," opposition senator Jorge Enrique Robledo of the Polo Democrático Alternativo told me over the phone from Bogotá.

Every president in South America outside of Colombia is against the bases agreement, with Hugo Chávez of neighboring Venezuela being the most critical. Chávez said that by signing the deal the United States was blowing "winds of war" over the region, and that the bases were "a threat against us."

More:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/03/19-6

Also posted in Editorials, etc.: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x524798

[protocol rv]

1. They are not US bases

You should do a lot more to complain about the US Guantanamo base. That base sits on land stolen from Cuba, and it has no right to exist. How come nobody complains about it? It makes more sense to complain about Guantanamo than about the base agreement in Colombia, because the agreement doesn't turn them into "US bases". Guantanamo, on the other hand, is definitely a US base.

[Peace Patriot]

2. They ARE U.S. bases. The Pentagon maintained a similar fiction about South Vietnam--

that CIA-created army which was a front for U.S. aggression in Southeast Asia. And that appears to be the case in Colombia. The Colombian military (and it bases) are supported by $7 BILLION in U.S. taxpayer dollars, not counting the billions for this greatly expanded US military presence in Colombia. In addition to the use of SEVEN military bases, the Colombia/US military agreement grants the US military use of ALL civilian airports and other infrastructure, and total diplomatic immunity for all U.S. military personnel and 'contractors' no matter what they do in Colombia. It is, in short, an occupation, which Uribe (much like Diem in South Vietnam) was probably strong-armed into signing because he is so very, very dirty on many fronts, but particularly on his close ties to the Colombian military's rightwing paramilitary death squads and drug trafficking.

Rather than advising others what to be concerned about, you should be examining your constant promotion of rightwing pro-corporate, pro-militarism views and the racist comment about "Indians" that you made here...

Comment 36: “Indian presenting a complaint?”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x30994

...which you defended here, by saying that, since North Americans killed "most of your Indians," we shouldn't object to racist comments about "Indians":

Comment 8. "Well, you did kill most of your indians, didn't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x31397

You seem to have plenty of time on your hands to jump in, often first, into every Latin American thread, to trumpet your far rightwing views. Why don't you spend some of it on meditating on this...?

An estimated 2,000 bodies were recently found in a mass grave, with grave dates (but no names) of 2005 through 2009, in La Macarena, Colombia, an area of special U.S. military activity and interest. The Colombian military is notorious for its death squad 'disappearances' of local labor union, human rights, community and political organizers. Have the U.S. and U.K. militaries joined them in the slaughter?

The La Macarena massacre (includes a description of, and links to docs about, U.S. ops in La Macarena)
http://www.cipcol.org/?p=1303

The UK military connection
http://www.tribunemagazine.co.uk/2010/02/04/silence-on-british-army-link-to-colombian-mass-grave/

[protocol rv]

3. Sorry, but you're wrong

I don't see anything in the legal terms nor practice to say they're US military bases. I've been inside a US military base, and there's a huge difference.

[Judi Lynn]

4. You're a graduate of the S.O.A. at Ft. Benning, Georgia?

Your parents must have been so proud of you.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com.nyud.net:8090/191/493502539_f4a75445fb.jpg

[protocol rv]

7. LOL, no way

I visited a couple of US bases when I was a tourist in the US. One was a base in South Dakota where they keep their nuclear bombers (forget the name), the other was a base in Texas, Fort Hood, where you could go visit a place where they keep some tanks. My boys love that stuff, and it's free. For those interested, they also keep a very nice exhibit of an old battleship in Mobile, Alabama, but they charge for the entrnace ticket.

You do have a tendency to extend your imagination a bit too much - I don't even know for sure what this school of americas does, but it sure seems to turn you guys into rabid opponents of whatever they do.

I like to study military matters because I am opposed to violence and war. To be intelligent about it, one has to understand it, which enhances the quality of the debate one can bring forth when arguing against the use of violent means to resolve differences. For example, I read several books about Gengis Khan, and I just finished reading about the Moghul invasion of India. It was fascinating. However, my visits to US bases where incidental, I happened to be driving by, and since it was free...

But I assure you, the one thing those bases have is a lot of military personnnel at the entrance, lots of American flags, lots of barbed wire and bomb barriers, and so on. And I really doubt the Colombians are allowing the Americans to set up a base that way in Colombia.

On the other hand, I've used Google Earth to look over the Guantanamo base, and it's definitely a US base. You can see the perimeter very well, and I read all about it. it was stolen from the Cubans, and they are powerless to do anything about it. So if you're going to complain, I suggest you complain about that base. And I will gladly complain alongside you, I think what the Americans did was terrible, taking what appears to be prime harbor from the Cubans the way they did.

And next time you plan to insult me or say something bad about me, I suggest you calm down and think about it twice. It just doesn't help you much. I'm interested in a reasonable debate, rather than reading the garbage you guys keep saying about me, in such a personal way.

[Wilms]

5. You don't see a lot of things. n/t

[EFerrari]

12. Peace Patriot is not wrong and that's why the Colombian Supreme court

is taking the matter up.

[Downwinder]

21. They are as much US bases as Torrejón was.

[naaman fletcher]

6. What was racist about that comment?

I have asked many times, but nobody answers.

[protocol rv]

8. Why bring up the 2000 bodies at La Macarena?

You'll have to tell me, what does the subject of mass graves in Colombia have to do with the presumed American bases in Colombia? I say they're not because I didn't see anything in the agreement which says they are American bases. Now you can go back and cut and paste some more, but until I see some proof, I'll continue to say they are not.

Regarding the comment about the mass grave at La Macarena, everybody knows the Colombians have been going at each other in a civil war for over 40 years. What do you think, they throw spitballs at each other? And what does that have to do with whether the bases are Colombian or American? That's not the point we're discussing...evidently the Colombians are going to keep fighting, and given the current trend, the FARC jungle cadres are well on their way to being defeated - they'll likely change into urban terrorist cells, and eventually will be defeated anyway, the same way Sendero Luminoso, the Bahader Meinhoff gang, and other urban terrorists were defeated. And it's going to mean a lot of innocent people killed. That's the way homo sapiens works.

Let me offer a small tip: when you make an argument to back a point, you may choose to add on all sorts of extraneous information, irrelevant to the case at hand. But it won't help you make the case.

[EFerrari]

10. The mass graves are located in time and place in the same place

where Colombia and US forces had joint operations. La Macarena absolutely speaks to the point of more US troops on Colombian soil. And apparently, the Colombian Supreme court agrees with Peace Patriot and not with you because they aren't liking the idea, either.

[protocol rv]

13. What does the Colombian Supreme Court say about La macarena?

I haven't found anything about the subject. I can't even find anything about a firm body count, they remain claims which so far are not supported. Is this like the famous Kosovo mass graves Clinton used as an excuse to bomb Yugoslavia? They weren't there at all.

[Zorro]

9. Peace Patriot complaining about someone jumping in to every LatAm thread?

What a hoot. Look in the mirror, sister.

At least protocol rv focuses on the thread topic, instead of repeatedly straying off course and stating mistruths about US access to Colombian bases, or ceaselessly insinuating that the US is behind the La Macarena gravesite.

[EFerrari]

11. We don't know how those bodies go there. But we do know

that our troops were working there at the same time. Are you claiming they didn't have command and control of their area? That would be pretty sloppy, wouldn't it? Dangerous, too.

[protocol rv]

14. US troops don't have command and control in Colombia

US troops control themselves, they don't command and control Colombian forces, nor do they have command and control over territory. Now you're really stepping out beyond the looking glass. I'm not sure, but it seems the way the FARC are being defeated in the field is making you guys intensify a propaganda campaign. I don't think it's going to work, the FARC seem to be headed towards defeat in the field. As I mentioned before, analysts in the field believe they'll change into urban terrorists.

[EFerrari]

15. Maybe you should read my posts again. n/t

[protocol rv]

16. I did

Maybe you should express your posts in a clearer fashion?

[EFerrari]

17. You know, I'm putting you on ignore because you're a complete waste of time.

Have a nice day.

[protocol rv]

18. Sad

I'm sorry you think I'm a waste of time. I thought in time I would be able to shift your postion a bit. But as the Dutch Liberal said, there's something called cognitive dissonance.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

19. why in the blazes would anybody want to shift their position more toward insanity and confusion? n/t

[Downwinder]

22. Not stolen, leased.

[rabs]

20. The region is about to get even more rattled

The U.S. ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, is quoted by El Espectador newspaper today (Thursday) that the United States is on the verge of signing military cooperation treaties with TWO more Latin American nations.

The amb said the governments of those two nations had asked they not be identified because of the reactions provoked by the Colombia/U.S. base accords.

(El embajador de EE.UU. en Colombia le dijo a El Espectador que su país está a punto de firmar un acuerdo de cooperación militar con otros dos países de América Latina.)


cuyos gobiernos han pedido silencio para evitar algunas de las reacciones que este acuerdo produjo.

----------------------

Full article in Spanish with other goodies ....

http://www.elespectador.com/impreso/articuloimpreso195130-estamos-cambiando-nuestra-estrategia-brownfield

----------------
Anyone care to venture which those two countries might be ??

[Judi Lynn]

23. Undoutedly Peru will be one.They discussed it before Correa who won, with a promise to close Manta

officially allowed the lease to expire.

Of course they'll be keeping Soto Cano in Honduras, after it had been slated for a change.

What would you guess, rabs? I think I've heard Costa Rica mentioned. Sure the new pro-Pinochet pResident wouldn't do it, or would he? They still have a group of powerful hardliner fascists there.

Horrible, horrible news. It's just the kind of thing which would have had that loathesome Brownfield walking on air.

[rabs]

24. Yep, suspected Peru immediately

and don't know about the other one. Bases in Peru would be conviently near Bolivia to the east and Ecuador to the north. Chile? Don't think so.

Mexico came to mind, after the Hillary/Gates/Blaire and others jaunt to Mexico City early this week to discuss "Plan Merida" and the narco-trafficking problem along the border.

But it would hit a big time fan with Mexicans were U.S. troops actually be stationed in Mexico, so doubtful to me.

Costa Rica? U.S. already has people in nearby Honduras and Panama.

[Downwinder]

25. Disaster capitalism says Haiti.

[Judi Lynn]

26. Peru would make up for Paraguay and Mariscal Estigarribia.

I had failed to see the convenience presented to both Bolivia and Ecuador. That's so creepy, isn't it?

Glad they wouldn't take it kindly in Mexico.

This is really unpleasant waiting to see where they will go. There isn't any good place.