Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IS COLOMBIA THE NEXT VIETNAM?
News Agency New Colombia ^ | 07/30/02 | MSG (Ret) Stan Goff

Posted on 07/31/2002 3:29:55 PM PDT by bat-boy

 

News Agency New Colombia
Associated member of FELAP - Latin American Federation of Journalists
redaccion@anncol.com    www.anncol.com


IS COLOMBIA THE NEXT VIETNAM?


An essay by former Green Baret Stan Goff


30.07.2002 (By Stan Goff/Workers World News Service)


On my 19th birthday, I departed McChord Air Force Base for Vietnam.

I was told I was going to fight for democracy there. The people back home were being told the same thing.

I found the truth was substantially different.

On the ground, we waged war not for democracy, but against the entire Vietnamese people. It cost billions of dollars and 58,000 American lives--as well as over 3,000,000 lives among the people of Southeast Asia--before we discovered that we had been manipulated by a vast military-industrial complex, a compliant press, and cynical political demagogues.

In 1996, I retired from 3rd Special Forces after having participated in my last massive deception of the people of the United States--again allegedly to protect democracy--in Haiti.

They are doing it again. The people of the United States are being led down the garden path in Colombia.

Under cover of the "fight against communism," we surrendered trillions of dollars from our national treasury to support criminals: Jonas Savimbi in Angola, Roberto D'Aubuisson in El Salvador, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Suharto in Indonesia, Romeo Lucas Garcia in Guatemala, Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam, François Duvalier in Haiti and so forth.

Our treasury also supported drug traffickers. The Central Intelligence Agency trained, equipped and financed the opium empires of the Golden Triangle, the narcotics-financed Chinese Nationalists, the Corsican Mafia, the Sicilian Mafia, the U.S. Mafia, Afghani-Pakistani heroin traders, the drug kings of the bloodthirsty Guatemalan G-2, key members of Mexico's Guadalajara Cartel, the cocaine-financed Contras of Nicaragua, drug traffickers with the Peruvian National Intelligence Service (SIN), the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army--a Balkan criminal network responsible for over 20 percent of Europe's heroin imports--and the Cali drug cartel in Colombia.

These activities were undertaken in every case to protect capitalist profits. They still are.

The profound irony--or the profound deception--is that the justification for U.S. military escalation in Colombia is a war on drugs.

The House of Representatives has already approved a $1.7-billion "aid package" for Colombia. The lion's share of that "aid" is for the Colombian military.

To sell this "aid" to the people here, we are being told that the U.S. Special Forces already training Colombia's armed forces are there to "assist in the counter-narcotics effort."

I was on one of those teams in Colombia in 1992, with the same story. It was a lie then, and it is a lie now.

We said one thing, did another

We were explicitly told that due to political sensitivities, any discussion of the mission to Colombia--like all missions going down from 7th Special Forces--was to be represented as part of the counter-narcotics effort. This was not a directive to clarify our mission, but to clarify how we were to represent the mission.

What we conducted was counter-insurgency training.

We were based at Tolemaida, the Peruvian Special Forces base. The troops we trained not only did not attempt to hide their mission--to prosecute the war against Marxist guerrillas--they were deployed to conduct operations on the weekend breaks.

The Colombian Army was losing ground. Their officers were corrupt; many involved themselves in drug traffic. There was racism in the ranks directed at Indigenous and Afro-Colombian troops.

Their long-standing record of abuses against civilians had earned fear and hatred from the people. Many of the officers--while physically tough and full of bravado--were incompetent planners and uninspiring leaders.

Anyone who knows the history of Vietnam will remember that a similar situation existed in South Vietnam after the United States took the role of colonial overseer. Ngo Dinh Diem, hand-picked by the United States, exercised tenuous control over a hodge-podge of corrupt military factions, each representing different interests.

President Andres Pastrana of Colombia finds himself in much the same situation today.

Our job was to begin teaching the fundamentals of night patrolling and the integration of infantry operations with heliborne infiltration and extraction. A previous team of specially trained American chopper pilots had just finished teaching their Air Force rotor-wing pilots how to operate at night.

The subject of every tactical discussion with Colombian planners was how to fight guerrillas, not drugs.

The U. S. military is involving itself in a civil war. People who remember Vietnam should find this very familiar.

It began with a decision by the president, the national security advisor, and the secretary of defense not to "cede" Vietnam. The interests that drove that decision were manifold. McCarthyism's impact gave the decision momentum of its own. The strategic decision was actually about filling post-World War II colonial vacuums with American influence, and with protecting current and future investments in Asia.

In Colombia, the U.S. interest is regional as well. Colombia sits in an oil- and mineral-rich region that includes Venezuela, Brazil and Ecuador, where populist and anti-imperialist movements are gaining strength. The United States sees Colombia as the front line against this current, and as a necessary foothold in the region.

John F. Kennedy won an uncomfortably close presidential election against Richard Nixon in 1960. Nixon relentlessly baited Kennedy for being "soft on communism." Now the fear is to be labeled "soft on drugs."

Washington propped up a doddering regime against a popular insurgency in Vietnam. Pastrana's administration is certainly being ripped apart by at least as many competing factions as Diem's.

Will Pastrana go the way of Diem?

Colombians perceive Pastrana as Washington's man. But he is under pressure to make a deal with the guerrillas to end the civil war. The guerrillas' demands for land reform, crop subsidies, social services and commodity price indexation are considered off-limits by the U.S. administration.

Recent attacks against Pastrana by the U.S. capitalist press--usually a precursor to the U.S. foreign policy establishment dumping a client--should give the Colombian president pause. He should think of Diem, dead in the back of an armored personnel carrier after a coup directed by the U.S. government.

The Clinton administration is now requesting that the ceiling for U.S. military advisors in Colombia be raised from 100 to 170. That's just the way it happened in Vietnam.

In Pastrana's July counter-offensive last year, U.S. military pilots were flying active, direct-support tactical reconnaissance missions. One aircraft was lost, and the Department of Defense has been mute about the circumstances.

The Colombian military is intimately linked to networks of right-wing paramilitaries--death squads--that receive a large portion of their funding, apart from U.S. aid funneled through the Colombian military, from narcotics trafficking.

Right-wing chieftain Carlos Castaño has long been associated with the vestiges of the Cali drug cartel. His death squads in the north have assisted aggressive land grabs for companies like Occidental, Shell, BP and Texaco, as well as guarding the narcotics export infrastructure. Conservative estimates put the number of death squad murders in the past decade above 25,000, and 1.2 million peasants have been displaced by right-wing violence.

This displacement by violence is directly supported by oil and mining companies and by big landowners. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, known as FARC-EP, are the only force in the region that protects now-landless peasants from further violence. Direct army complicity demonstrates to peasants that they are being attacked by their own government on behalf of foreign investors.

They see the guerrilla struggle, then, in the same terms that the Vietnamese National Liberation Front did--a fight against colonial rule enforced by the Colombian military and paramilitary as colonial surrogates.

Between the military and the paramilitary, whose operations and intelligence apparatuses were merged under CIA direction in 1991, Colombian forces are now committing the most massive human-rights violations in this hemisphere. Said Carlos Salinas, Amnesty International's advocacy director for Latin America and the Caribbean, who is generally no advocate for the revolutionaries: "If you liked El Salvador, you're going to love Colombia. It's the same death squads, the same military aid, and the same whitewash from Washington."

Drug czar and former SOUTHCOM Army Commander Barry McCaffrey recently spilled the beans: "[Operations in Colombia are] to recover the southern part of the country."

Drug charges hide politics

While the U.S. government provides direct and indirect support to elements in Colombia that profit most from the drug trade, it has launched a tidal wave of disinformation attempting to portray Colombian guerrillas as drug traffickers. Even President Pastrana himself, also no friend of the Colombian insurgents, and former U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Miles Frechette say there is no evidence to support such a charge.

The demonization of this 35-year-old popular insurgency is manufactured by the CIA and uncritically regurgitated by the U.S. mainstream press.

Guerrillas tax agricultural production, including coca. That's not drug trafficking. The increased production of coca by peasants has been decried by FARC leader Manuel Marulanda, who has long demanded that the government initiate a program for crop transition.

Increased coca production by peasants is directly related to forced dislocations by the right-wing paramilitaries. U.S. intelligence estimates, which are probably high, say the FARC levies taxes on coca amounting to around $30 million a year. Since the FARC is now administering a large area of the country, this is not a lot of money.

The net profit from coca in Colombia is believed to be around $5 billion a year. This means the "narco-guerrillas," a term McCaffrey shakes like an evil fetish in front of Congress, are pulling in a whopping six-tenths of a percent of the gross--from growers only, who have little choice of crop.

Former CIA officer Ralph McGehee says: "In Colombia today we attack 'narco guerrillas' or 'narco Communists' or 'narco terrorists,' as we quickly slide into the Latin version of the Vietnam quagmire. Does ... intelligence recognize or reflect this--of course not."

According to McGehee, a highly decorated CIA veteran, "Disinformation is a large part of [the CIA's] covert action responsibility, and the American people are the primary target audience of its lies."

As a veteran of a number of U.S. adventures--Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Grenada, Somalia, Peru, Colombia and Haiti--I have come to agree. Some will say that by taking this position, I am supporting the FARC. They would be right.

Imperialism is the enemy of us all, and the FARC is on the front lines against imperialism. It's very simple to an old soldier. Remember Vietnam!

 

Stan Goff is a retired Special Forces master sergeant and author of "Hideous Dream: Racism and the U.S. Army in the Invasion of Haiti," a book about the 1994 U.S. military intervention in Haiti, in which he participated. He lives in Raleigh, N.C., USA

 




Please note that the reproduction and distribution of this article, also of parts, is free provided that the source is mentioned
Back to news in English


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: latinamericalist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 07/31/2002 3:29:55 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
Same story has been published off an on for 5 years.

When something new is developed might be worth reading.

2 posted on 07/31/2002 3:41:34 PM PDT by dts32041
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
An essay by former Green Baret Stan Goff

Pretty much stopped reading after this...

3 posted on 07/31/2002 3:44:47 PM PDT by RoughDobermann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
I don't think any country will be another Viet Nam for us in the perceivable future. I think for now, we have learned that lesson. When we make war it is for real and has to have a purpose, be winnable and have an exit strategy. Every conflict we have engaged in since, the SAME LIBERALS who spit on our brave soldiers coming home fom Nam have said < insert conflict of choice here> is going to be another Viet Nam. Nonsense.
4 posted on 07/31/2002 3:52:21 PM PDT by AdA$tra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoughDobermann
That's what happens when Spanish websites translate articles into English.

I could really care less what you read.

5 posted on 07/31/2002 4:00:26 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
"The demonization of this 35-year-old popular insurgency is manufactured by the CIA and uncritically regurgitated by the U.S. mainstream press."

Um, what do the Colombian people think? Inconvenient fact, omitted.

"The net profit from coca in Colombia is believed to be around $5 billion a year. This means the "narco-guerrillas," a term McCaffrey shakes like an evil fetish in front of Congress, are pulling in a whopping six-tenths of a percent of the gross--from growers only, who have little choice of crop."

He has no understanding of how much money the guerillas make. His pseudo-economics are just as much b.s. as he claims the "CIA" or whatever is putting out.

This guy is like a caricature of a 1980's lefty.

6 posted on 07/31/2002 4:02:44 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
"Vietnam"

Seems that Colombia has a democracy. there is no popular support for the "guerillas" he romanticizes as "marxist" as if this precludes discussion whether they are also narco-terrorists. Plus no China next door. Venezuela is helping, but this can be overcome.

7 posted on 07/31/2002 4:05:30 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdA$tra
Yup- I have a problem with the "another Viet Nam" catch phrase as well. If you mean by "another Viet Nam" that the US will engage in war in a third world country in which it confronts both a guerilla insurgency and a regular army and defeats them in every major engagment desively, and then manages to wipe out the guerilla "insurgency" when they foolishly decide on a New Year offesive and are utterly defeated, and then after more defeats of it's regulars are brought to the peace table and made to sign a peace, but then- the President of the United states is ousted from office and congress cuts all support from the government we back and we refuse to sell it even defensive arms and then it is invaded by it's enemy and conquered- then no- that will never happen again.

The Viet Nam myth Liberals created is utterly bogus.

8 posted on 07/31/2002 4:12:00 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
"...This guy is like a caricature of a 1980's lefty..."

Goff and his political views are well known throughout the SF community, according to my d-boy and SF friends. At the same time, they all had a lot of respect for him, saying he was a hard charger and a great troop, although from my understanding, he did something in Haiti, which caused his forced retirement. Don't have any details.

What I find interesting is that a man with such leftist views was not only a successful career SF member, but actually participated in the very operations he dispises the U.S. for. Which makes me wonder if he has always been a leftist or did his operational experiences push him in that direction.

A "chicken or egg" question.

9 posted on 07/31/2002 4:32:42 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
Let’s see;

El Salvador was going to be another Vietnam…

Then Nicaragua was going to be another Vietnam…

Then Granada was going to be another Vietnam…

Then Kuwait was going to be another Vietnam…

Then Afghanistan was going to be another Vietnam…

Now it is Colombia that is going to be another Vietnam...

I do not demand intelligence. I do not demand coherence. I do not demand logic. I do demand originality.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye!

a.cricket
10 posted on 07/31/2002 4:36:44 PM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
Why are you printing agitprop articles from a Communist Newpaper association?
http://www.anncol.com/WHAT_IS_ANNCOL.html
11 posted on 07/31/2002 4:38:42 PM PDT by rmlew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Latin_America_List
.
12 posted on 07/31/2002 4:52:20 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
Why are you printing agitprop articles from a Communist Newpaper association? http://www.anncol.com/WHAT_IS_ANNCOL.html

I guess it's because I'm not as all knowing as you. I didn't know it was a Communist Newspaper Association. I do know that I found it while searching for Latin American news.

I found it interesting that a former green beret would have this opinion. I thought others might find it interesting also, so I posted it.

Now if you'd like to have a discussion on how someone with his Anti-American sentiments could have a successful carreer in special operations, then I think that would be an interesting conversation. However, if you just want to make snide remarks to me/about me because I posted an article you dislike, then don't bother.

In other words, *uck off.

But if

13 posted on 07/31/2002 4:54:46 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
During his confirmation hearing, now US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said,

"I am one who believes that the drug problem is probably overwhelmingly a demand problem and that … if the demand persists, it's going to find ways to get what it wants. And if it isn't from Colombia, it will be from somebody else."

But an advocate of the drug war, Ret. Maj. Andy Messing, of the National Defense Council Foundation told CNN's "Crossfire" recently that Secretary Rumsfeld is "out of step." The new designate for the Office of National Drug Control Policy John P. Walters (the deputy director of the office under the other Bush administration) has written in favor of the U.S. military aiding the Peruvians in shooting down small aircraft (Rep. Benjamin Gilman, Congressional Record, May 20, 1994, p. E1008).

Let's hope that the defense secretary stays on top of the drug czar in the chain of command. Even Clinton's former drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, told NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that he thinks Walters is "focused too much on interdiction. I hope he educates himself carefully on prevention and treatment as an essential part of this strategy."

The militarization of the drug war is ineffective, costly and fraught with serious problems. It would only take thirteen truckloads of cocaine to satisfy U.S. demand for one year. Since the United States has nearly 20 thousand kilometers of shoreline, 300 ports of entry and more than 75 hundred miles of border with Mexico and Canada, stopping drugs at the borders is like trying to find a needle in a haystack (Frankel, G., "Federal Agencies Duplicate Efforts, Wage Costly Turf Battles," The Washington Post, June 8, 1997, p. A1; Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook 1998, 1998).

Interdiction efforts only intercept 10-15% of the heroin and 30% of the cocaine while drug traffickers earn gross profit margins of up to 300%. At least 75% of international drug shipments would need to be intercepted to substantially reduce the profitability of drug trafficking ("U.N. Estimates Drug Business Equal to 8 Percent of World Trade," Associated Press, 1997, June 26).

A 1996 Rand Corporation study for the Pentagon showed that money spent on treatment is seven times move effective than domestic law enforcement, 11 times more effective than police interdiction and 23 times more effective than fighting drug production.

Since President Nixon announced a federal drug war in 1968, we started by spending $65 million. Spending jumped to $1.6 billion in 1982 under President Reagan and skyrocketed to $19.2 billion last year, under Bill Clinton. [Is the Drug War Being Won or Lost?]

Three-quarters of the $1.3 billion we sent to Colombia is for military assistance. With U.S. forces in the field there training troops with U.S.-supplied combat helicopters, how long before we start counting our commitment in body bags?

The wanton environment destruction of the "crop eradication" program is reminiscent of the Agent Orange approach to the Indo-China conflict. Logically, coca production just moves to other areas with no drop in overall supply despite the poisoned landscape. What are the local people supposed to farm now?

The National Center for Policy Analysis has presented a compelling case that should be considered:

• There is no need for a federal program.

• Federal programs to reduce juvenile crime are inconsistent with the modern approach to crime prevention, which requires decentralization of authority and giving cities the freedom and flexibility to adapt to local circumstances.

• Federal anticrime programs often make things worse.

• Overall, the federal government is contributing to our crime problem.

• Some of the most successful local programs involve clever ways of getting around federal government impediments to crime-fighting.

• A greater federal role also opens the door to unintended consequences that could make the crime rate worse.

• The federal government has done a miserable job — far worse than almost any city government — of fighting crime in the one city that is under its direct control.

We are spending billions of dollars a year to keep drugs out of this country and to stop production. No one believes that this approach has or will cut off access to undesirable drugs in this country. It is not too late to close this Pandora's box of problems before more innocent people are killed or before we find ourselves in the midst of another undeclared war.

With competing budget demands, calls for a tax cut, protecting Social Security and Medicare and paying down our national debt, we should not waste money on programs that do not work. With military analysts complaining that our military is stretched too far, we should not jeopardize our security by misallocating precious resources. Should a civilized country be using the military against civilians—much less its own civilians?
14 posted on 07/31/2002 4:55:49 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
Weakest link eh? By the looks of your post, I'd say it's you parents that are the weakest link.

Goodbye

15 posted on 07/31/2002 4:57:08 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KDD
For how long have we had troops in Colombia? I know it's long enough for a movie to have been made about the subject. (The Price of Empire is high.)
16 posted on 07/31/2002 4:59:48 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
The remark was to the author of the article Stan Goff. Unless you are him you should not take it personally.

a.cricket

17 posted on 07/31/2002 5:02:38 PM PDT by another cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Regular military started moving in when Richard Secord was Director of C.I.A.

George Bush Sr. was DDO under him.

18 posted on 07/31/2002 5:03:37 PM PDT by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: another cricket
My apologies sir. I misunderstood.
19 posted on 07/31/2002 5:42:46 PM PDT by bat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bat-boy
I believe Worker's World is the organ of the old Communist Party USA. Here is their mission statement taken from their web page:

Workers World Party

Have you ever thought of joining a working-class party that fights against capitalism? For over 40 years, Workers World has been that party.

Workers World has united Black, Latino, Native, Asian, Arab and white in the struggle against racism. It has brought together women and men, lesbian, gay, bi, trans and straight, youth and seniors, workers and the unemployed, native-born and immigrants to fight for better conditions for all. Members of WWP have worked hard and long to build many of the most important progressive actions of the last three decades.

But you can't just patch up this racist, sexist society. Capitalism rests on the exploitation of the many by the few. The monopoly of economic and political power by a small ruling class becomes more concentrated every day with mega-billion-dollar mergers and mass layoffs. That's why capitalist democracy produces nothing but hot air. The power of the workers and the oppressed is in the streets, not in Washington.

Workers World fights for a socialist society -- where the wealth is socially owned and production is planned to satisfy human need.

That's also what workers around the world, from Cuba to China, have been struggling for. The U.S. rulers have spent trillions of our tax dollars trying to stop them in a global class struggle. WWP promotes international working-class solidarity, the right of every nation to sovereignty and self-determination, and militant resistance at home to imperialist interventions and wars.

Do you belong in such a party? Then contact us:

National Office
Workers World Party
55 W. 17 St.
New York, N.Y. 10011

20 posted on 07/31/2002 5:43:53 PM PDT by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson