Venezuela, Ecuador send troops to Columbian border

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, important affair I think.

Colombia? One more hot spot for the fight "West and allies" vs. "Anti-Imperialists".

Concerning the probability of a going on and on military conflict? To me, it is possible in the next days if everybody continues in bellicose rhetoric. Hey! We're in Latin America! We're with Chavez and Uribe!

A few weeks ago Chavez established a military alliance with, among others, Ecuador, and I think that if Chavez seems to be down to eyes of the world, he would try something. Here, as everywhere in conflicting relations, psychology is very important, and one thing is sure, Chavez wants to keep the psychological ascendant and to make it grow. So, I think the best we can expect, it's very cold relations for the future between the 3 countries creating a climate making an explosion possible at every time.

More of that, sure Colombia is a good US friend and I would be surprised that Uribe decides big things without the US agreement. The question would be to know here if Bush's administration is OK for opening a front here and now.

But, on the other hand, no one has such control on Chavez, and everyone know the temper of Chavez, the more which could have it is Russia, its weapons seller. Russia has clearly an anti-imperialist policy but would it want to open now and there a conflict in which it would be involved in the background? Clearly, I can't say.

Well, on the armies, Colombia is armed by US as said here, personally I know nothing about the quality of the arms. I just know Colombia has made an army before to fight FARC and drug producers and this army has good reputation, especially commandos.

On the other hand, as I said, Venezuela (and so, surely its friend states) is armed by Russia and since Chavez is at power he never stopped to involve more and more his population in the army.

An other psychological aspect. Uribe seems to be less and less liked by its population and Chavez more and more by Colombians. A war could unify Venezuelans behind Chavez and if he does it good he could convince Colombians that what he does is good for them and that they should support him. More of that, Chavez carries with him a popular ideology in the whole Latin America, I mean his sort of "Anti-Imperialism Socialism" (and personally if I dislike US foreign policy I also dislike anti-imperialists ones, to me they are quite the same, one is less hypocrite than the other but I think the other is still worst than the first). I think this last point is also an important psychological aspect which plays for Chavez, as Napoleon carried with him the ideas of the French Revolution of 1789 and for example it's also thanks to it that he more easily conquered Germany. I don't compare Chavez to Napoleon, far, I just speak of similar psychological aspects that, to me, we should take in count.

To finish, If ever a military conflict is open, I think we could see Chavez taking Colombia and if he loses for sure he will want to take a revenge if he is able to take it. I also think that such a conflict could potentially be the first step to a global conflict.

To resume. Military conflict? I can't say, I just think it's a real possibility, we have to deal with and to consider seriously because of the possible consequences.

At least, I think that what happens now is something very important for the future of this region.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

If full blown war breaks out, I assume the initial combatants would be Ecuador and Venezuela on one side; Bolivia on the other.

Questions...

1.     What, if any other countries, would be drawn in and to what extent?  And on what sides?
2.     What would the war "look like?"  I mean, would we see tanks rolling across the Bolivian
        border?  Airstrikes on Bolivian cities?  Or would this be more like Vietnam, with insertion
        and withdrawal of special forces, etc. 
3.     To what exent do you expect the US to get involved?
4.     To what extent do you expect the OAS to get involved?
5.     To what extent do you expect the UN to get involved?

For many of you, I bet these seem like dumb, basic questions.  But indulge me.  When I don't know the answer and want to learn -- I ask.  :-)

Well, even if I can't define me as a "specialist", I'm just someone who watch the things and who is not afraid to watch it as they really are, I always search to be the more right as possible and until now I use to succeed especially in things I envisaged. I can't show it to you here because I didn't discussed about it on this forum as that's not a long time I'm on it.

So, following this way, I could try to give you my personal elements of answer to some of your questions and also go further on this "Andean affair" (as called by US press agencies, I would have said "Amazonian affair").

First, I think that when you say Bolivia/Bolivian you mean Colombia/Colombian, don't you?

Then before answering your question, back to actuality:

Ecuador asked apologizes to Colombia and currently travels all over Latin America to look for support. Until now he won the support of most of the countries and especially those of the big Brazil and Argentina. These countries blame Colombia but ask for a Pacific solution by Colombia apologizes.

Venezuela has moved 10 soldiers battalions (9 000 soldiers) and 10 tanks battalions (200 tanks) to Colombian border it has also shut this border so all the trucks full of different goods are stuck each side of the border, he also blocks the maritime border.

For your questions, here are my answers:

1. If the conflict begins, clearly, to me it could be the first step to WW3, especially if Chavez wins. I think that Russia and/or China could begin by a spoken support and continue by a material support to Chavez's coalition. I think that so would US and maybe then European countries for Colombia. In Latin America, I think the only West allies could be Brazil and Chile but that's not sure to me they can also stay neutral or support Chavez. There is also a country that I don't really know which is Peru.

2. Well I personally think it could be a little bit of all what you say. Several points on the military concerning this conflict.

First, an important one is that Venezuelan and Ecuador air forces are really more numerous than Colombian ones.

Air forces soldiers:

Ecuador: 4000
Venezuela: 9980
Colombia: 4239

Second advantage for Chavez, the marine forces.

Marine forces soldiers:

Ecuador: 5500
Venezuela: 15506
Colombia: 24756

Then, concerning marine aspects, other important point is that Colombia is on this point surrounded by Chavez's allies on each marine border and at north there also is Carribean Chavez allies.

Concerning ground forces, big advantage to Colombia.

Ground soldiers:

Ecuador: 50 000
Venezuela: 52 263
Colombia: 199 070

So Colombia as the double of Ecuador and Venezuela together and very good commandos well adapted to the jungle. But on the other hand I guess that it would be easy for Ecuador and Venezuela to mobilize Ecuadoran and Venezuelan population, and not so much for Colombia, because of the unpopularity of Uribe, of the popularity of Chavez, his ideas ("Anti-imperialist socialism"), and the fact that Chavez seems to begin in succeeded to rule a big problem for Colombia which is FARC problem. Then, maybe that FARC (17 000 good soldiers adapted to jungle) could also help Chavez.

Last point on the military aspect, Colombia as not the advantage in air and marine forces but it has maybe a better equipment than its opponents, a US equipment. But I think the psychological advantage is for Chavez.

Data I gave here come from something called RESDAL which I discovered because quoted by AFP (big French press agency).

3. I personally think that US would get involve if Colombia begins to lose.

4. I don't think this council would have a big importance, each Latin American country would decide alone, to me.

5. Euh, do you remember? Russia and China are at UN security council! So, I guess UN would get involve, making US taking a UN way, if Russia and China don't want this conflict and so don't put their veto, what I can't say. Put if they put such a veto, I think we should worry about what could happen next...

Well, where is currently going this conflict?

Personally I think it's Uribe to see now. It depends of his reaction. If he is clearly not bellicose and if he succeed in speaking with Ecuador, I think we could avoid a military conflict.

Anyway, I think the best we can expect now it is a "Cold Amazonian War" which could become hot at every time.

The rhetoric of the next days will be important.

Well, here are my views and informations on this conflict.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, we may not fall OK.

I hear what you say and I consider it.

OK, we can't say Uribe is fully unpopular, that Chavez and Correa are not fully popular, I know it.

But, I think the psychological trends play for Chavez and friends, and when we speak about Colombia especially because of the FARC problem. I also think these trends would be reinforced in case of war and especially if Chavez gain the support of big countries like Russia and/or China.

Well, here are my views, as I often say, I don't look for convincing I just expose my views. Then, of course, we can discuss on it and on yours and maybe look for a common way.

I don't say I give you the truth just because no one can do it. These are just my views.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Doesn't the FARC have substantial support in parts of Colombia - mostly in the Andes region?A guerrila group, however unpopular, usualy has at least some local support, or it doesn't last as long as FARC.

Any support the FARC ever had has collapsed after 40 years of war. They probably did have some support in isolated rural areas, but now most of the areas they control they do so out using fear rather than real popularity. A 2007 poll I read somewhere [it is referenced to here, but I can't find the original link) reported that only 1% of Colombians identify themselves as supporters of the FARC.

I agree but, once upon a time, FARC had a lot of support in Colombia and that was the Colombian army and Colombian government which were really disliked by a large part of the population, Chavez could play on this historical track.

And talking about polls, Uribe is in fact the most popular South American president currently. The latest poll (from January) gave him an amazing 81% approval, with only 14% disapproval. Ecuador's Correa, on the other hand, has an approval of 55%, with 38% disapproving. No polls have come out of Venezuela for many months, at least to my knowledge.

I think that the last liberations of hostages, and especially Clara Rojas story, has played a lot for Chavez in the Colombian Population.

Then, if we wonder about war, we have to think about war. Peoples have not the same attitude in war than in peace and most of time peace trends disappear to make appear other trends in the population. I think it depends mostly of who is winning war and who seems to have the more chances to finally win it. If we add to this that Chavez carry with him it's "Anti-American Imperialist Socialism", a very popular ideology in Latin America, I think that if Chavez show he has possibility to win such a war, trends will play for him in Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and further.

The greatest danger about a Colombia-Venezuela war is that there is the potential that all of South America gets involved. South America suffers from extreme nationalism and resentment between nations, product of old border wars in the two previous centuries. Chávez's imperialism has only made things worse. Whether other countries get involved will of course depend on many different factors, but there is a large potential that a war would encompass the whole continent.

I agree, the continent could take fire and, to me, the world could too.

Concerning the last actuality:

The conflict seems to become quieter. I think "international community" will recognize that Colombia has done a mistake, and Colombia could apologize, let us see in which ways it would happen. If none of them do it, it means they want war with Venezuela and friends.

I think the only ways for an open military conflict currently, are, for the slightest, that Colombia keep a hard rhetoric vs. Venezuela, refusing to apologize for most of the points Ecuador asks, and, for the sure one, that Colombia does again a similar operation.

And I think that now an "Amazonian Cold War" is open and that if something of what I said before happens the war will become hot.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

"Genocidal" though?  I know the far left like hyperbole as much as the right, but sheesh.  That's like PETA comparing a chicken farm to the holocaust.

Well, that's true, I'll admit, if you think of genocide Serbian or Sudanese style.  But he probably thinks of capitalist domination and enslavement as 'genocidal' in a larger sense. 

I'm just back to the forum.

Yes, please, don't put hard terms everywhere.

A genocide is, please someone correct me if you think I'm wrong, when a group of humans want to kill an other group of humans for what they are (color of their skin, culture, religious, etc).

Holocaust is unmistakably a genocide, so is Rwanda in April 1994. Milosevic's Serbia was hard war crimes but it's not sure that Serbians wanted to eradicates their opponents. Darfur, clearly no one can say. This are mass killing but they kill what they find to take the region, I don't think they want to eradicate a group of human, they want to kill all they find to can take the full control of the area.

Clearly, I don't say that Darfur and Milosevic's Serbia are not horrible. There were and there is still (for Darfur) very hard war crimes. But words must have a sens, I think the only ways we can use the word genocide is concerning Holocaust and Rwanda 1994.

Otherwise, if you retire the sens of the words, you weaken words and step by step make them useless and useless, and concerning conflicting relations you may know what happens when words are useless...?

Only if your a Commie in South America (or standing next to one).

I generally 'root for' any of the Resistance, deadman.

Then, I think this sentence is also not really responsible. Would you support the "Islamical Resistance" (Al qaeda) against West and Christians?

I'm not the last one to say that US govs have an imperialist attitude to the world, but personally I won't blame it as I think it's a normal human way, I would just ask them to not be hypocrite, and to those who don't like it to try to invent new things to establish something more interesting than the current reality which to me is more or less shortly driving us to a big crash.

So, in this way, I think it would be more interesting to make more acurate criticisms...