How well does armor work in the Darian gap?
How well does armor work in the Darian gap?
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
On that note
It may be interesting to note how much of the overall forces ordered to the border show up in WORKING order.Originally Posted by selil
As to the overall how do we suppose the Drug cartels themselves would act to new players in house. Although initially there might be some curiousity about possibilities, one would think most of the big timers didn't get where they are by being overtly stupid. I'm quite sure it would occur to them where their loyalties would end up having to be in order to continue their existence.
Suppose Mr Sulfur smeller thought about that?
The solution to this problem is a $.50 match round.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americ...bia/index.html
Colombia is now making claims of recent, substantial financial ties between Hugo and the FARC. $300 million in financial ties, to be precise. The timing of this information's release seems interesting, no?
Uribe is also not redeploying his forces to meet the Venezuelan and Ecuadoran forces. He's leaving his borders more or less unprotected. That's a real melon-scratcher, in my opinion. Any idea what that's about?
Honestly, besides a few new airframes from Russia, what does Venezuela's military have to boast of? The only area in which they would be relatively free to operate would be the south, where the FARC is and where the CAF are not. But the terrain is not at all suitable to conventional military forces, so... ? Plus, the CAF have been fighting the FARC for 40 years, so they're quite experienced. It seems to me that with help from U.S. satellites and AWACS, and maybe a carrier task force in the Gulf of Panama, this would be a very brief and very one-sided defeat for the Venezuelan and Ecuadoran forces. I'm pretty sure the OAS would immediately condemn any hostile action by Venezuela as well. This seems like a one-way ticket to humiliation for Chavez.
When I die, I want my last words to have been "Hold my beer and watch this."
Exactly
One thing you can almost count on is for him to do something not so bright.
And I would bet you quite a few of the Venezuelan military leaders know it.
Last edited by Ron Humphrey; 03-04-2008 at 12:35 AM.
My take on this would be a bit different: I blame the US.
Post 9/11 the US unilaterally changed the rules of the game, they had significant international sympathy - and the military/diplomatic/economic superpower status did not exactly encourage other states to be too vocal in their complaints. They significantly weakened their position on human rights (enhanced interrogation techniques, Gitmo etc.) and on the norms of international sovereignty (kidnapping foreign nationals in other countries AKA extraordinary rendition) and this week we have seen military strikes in Pakistan and Somalia (presumably by US forces).
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Having changed the rules others have taken the opportunity to jump on the band waggon. Now it is the 'new norm' for any tin pot nasty-piece-of-work who has control of their countries military - regardless of how they got there - to call anyone they want to get rid of a terrorist and massacre them. If that includes extremely repressive tactics (Russia vs Chechen's, IDF vs Lebanon) or forays into another country (Turkey/Iraq, Colombia/Ecuador) then the new rules say no problem - as long as you remember to call whoever you want to attack a terrorist.
If the US intends to make the rules and then enforce them then they must expect to have to face vastly increased opposition across the board; friends shift to neutral, neutral to hostile and hostile to terrorist.
Just my $.02
Sorry....
But this is really nothing new. Blaming the US may be fashionable, but this has cropped up time and again in history. Call them reactionary stooges, counter-revolutionaries, Imperialist/Communist puppets...whatever. The tactic has always been there. Doesn't mean the US was wise in using it, but we certainly didn't invent it.
This seems more like Chavez trying to create some kind of internal unity after his defeat at the polls a few months back. And I think Columbia's wise to not provide any military provocation. Forces Chavez to show his true colors, if his intent is to actually commit forces and not just rattle his saber.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Seems to me this ignores a lot of history...
While the rest of your comment has has elements of truth in it, the US has thrown its weight around internationally and unilaterally since 1795.
As did great Britain in the day -- and from whom we learned to be assertive -- as have numerous others over the years.
Nothing new here. Look at Ol' Fidel -- he and Che were throwing their weight around before all you young folks realized it and long before 9/11 -- about 40 years before. Go elsewhere in the world and there are myriad examples.
I really don't mind folks blaming the US for all the ills of the world but it would be nice if they'd get their facts straight.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks