Insider's View On Chavez' Recent Saber Rattling

My step-dad (Bill) is a retired senior Foreign Service Officer who led a fascinating career and has maintained long-time friendships with some very bright foreign policy folks.

He forwarded this analysis of the current situation in Venezuela to me. It was authored by a Foreign Service acquaintance who Bill holds in very high regard, but he asked that I refer to the author only as "a friend of my stepfather." So with no further adieu:

Finally got around to reading the journalist's note on Venezuela/Ecuador vs. Colombia, which was true when written but explained nothing.

Colombia's civil war began in 1948 and the FARC guerrillas trace their ancestry to that date. Then, it was a group of passionate revolutionaries ­ today it is a 20,000 man criminal enterprise, led by rich thugs who make a fine living from cocaine. Reyes, the FARCs # 2 whom Colombia killed just inside Ecuador, was wearing in his jungle camp a ROLEX worth $10,000.

It's not surprising that Colombia got Reyes, who thought himself untouchable in Ecuador, even using his camp for a classroom for "internationals," among them 10 Mexican students (most died in the air strike).

The most important aspect may have been the "information warfare" bonus. Seizure of Reyes' computers and a notebook at his rainforest office have already led Costa Rican police to a cache of $500,000 in moldy $100s in the back yard of a 79 year old professor ­ an aging Robespierre who kept a rainy day fund for the FARC.

The moral, your e-mail is not secure. In more important places, among them Mexico and Brasil, information from Reyes's files is also being tracked.

So while Ecuador got an apology and Chavez strutted, Colombia and President Uribe won big. Reputable polls show Uribe's popularity has risen from near 60% to 82%. The only dissonant note: President Bush ­ unpopular in much of Latin America, ­ broke s recent sensible silence about Chavez to growl loudly, a welcome diversion for Chavez and for the FARC. [Would he have criticized a Bill Clinton statement in a similar situation? I doubt it.]

None of this means the war on drugs goes well, it doesn't. But Colombia may have won a decisive battle against a shrinking FARC, a good thing.

Mindful of Scotty Reston's dictum that "the American people will do anything for Latin America except read about it," I will stop, before you delete all reference to Latin America from your computers.

But he goes on ...

Hardly anyone in the U.S., with the exception of the Spanish language news media, paid attention to the Venezuela and Ecuador vs. Colombia dust up. Now that their Presidents have shaken hands in Santo Domingo, Latin America will be forgotten, until the next crisis.

Colombia got its man (plus the gift of another of the FARC's top leadership). Most Colombians, who detest the FARC and support Uribe because he vigorously prosecutes the war, think an apology is not a heavy price for striking a hard blow at the insurgency.

For Ecuador, the crisis was about honor. That may sound strange, but history has given Ecuador a losers complex with respect to its larger neighbors. Uribe's apology settles the matter, until the next incident.

The chief protagonist, however, is Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

That's probably true for Ecuador, but not for Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who has a blood feud with Colombia and President Alvaro Uribe. Chavez will keep on backing the narco-guerrilla FARC, simply because it is a way of striking at the U. S.

Now the FARC, which has just suffered some hard blows, is nowhere near taking Colombia, who democratic [sorry; the text gets messed up here]

Experts say no; the parties want control of the narrative about who is at fault, not fight. Ecuador voted for an OAS resolution that fell short of its demands though the text gave the Correa government satisfaction by noting Colombia's violation of Ecuador's territory. By accepting OAS good offices, Ecuador, which doesn't have the military horses, signaled a desire for peace.

If this were only about Ecuador and Colombia we could be confident the OAS, with a fine record of defusing state on state conflicts, would talk the dispute to death. The real protagonist, however, is Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who has a blood feud with Colombia and President Alvaro Uribe, mostly because Chavez backs the FARC's narco-guerillas as a way to get at the U.S.

In the conventional wisdom, Chavez goads the U.S., knowing that we recognize that hostilities would drive oil prices through the roof and that our forces are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps that is still true, but his calculations may be changing.

It is important to recognize that Chavez sees himself as the heir of Simon Bolivar, who liberated South America from Spain. In Chavez's mind, he is the new "Liberator," destined to throw off the Yankee yoke. He takes heart from OPEC's success in damaging the American economy but his effort to build an anti-U.S. coalition has not gone well, massive expenditures to support Latin political friends notwithstanding.

Today, Bolivia and Nicaragua are acolytes, while Ecuador and Argentina are friends. Brazil humors Chavez but ignores him when it comes to Brazil's vast ties with the U.S. Elsewhere, he is often detested, for meddling and for his anti-democratic stance. By helping the FARC, which is nowhere near taking power, he has earned the enmity of most Colombians.

Chavez is in a race against time before his popularity runs out at home. Oil production is declining and inflation the highest in the Western Hemisphere. He is about to lose his favorite target, a Bush administration unpopular in much of Latin America.

Our next President, regardless of party, is likely to enjoy warmer relations with the region. A policy of giving Chavez enough rope with which to hang himself could pay off in 2009.

Autocrats in trouble at home resort to foreign adventures. If Chavez recognizes he is on the clock, a war with Colombia may commend itself as a way to drag U.S. forces into the fray, a last chance to mobilize Latin America before declining fortunes and a new U.S. administration cut short his Bolivarian destiny.

None of this, except for trying to bankrupt the U.S. through oil, is rational to us. But in Chavez's Mussolini-style search for glory, war may be logical.
Uribe is alert to this possibility; by not responding to Chavez's troops on the frontier, he positioned Colombia to avoid blame, should Chavez initiate hostilities.

That is key, for Uribe and for ourselves -- no ambiguity about who is the aggressor, should Chavez use force. In Latin America, self defense beats pre-emption every time. In saying this I don't want to fall into what Secretary Gates ­ back when he was DDI -- used to tell me was stuff for a "Cassandra column."

What Teodoro Petkoff (Venezuelan guerrilla turned staunch democrat) said may well be correct: "Chavez barks but will not bite." But have shin guards
handy, just in case.

Despite some breaks and mysterious repetition, perhaps caused when it was copied and forwarded to me, I thought the piece insightful and worth sharing.

Chavez: Up To W's Old Tricks

With Hugo (No, you go) Chavez suddenly appearing to find threats and terrors everywhere -- doing the same ol' dirty tricks the Left accuses Bush of -- will the Leftys' love affair with Hugo falter?

As all of us who read the Leftist polemics know, Bush created hysteria over "non-existent" WMDs in order to justify an attack on Iraq, and has kept the terror over terrorism purposefully pitched at a high level in order to continue expanding his control of government and masking his efforts to shred the Constitution and crush our freedom.

Or something like that.

Now this, from the Left's favorite crackpot despot:

CARACAS [Don't you just love saying "Caracas?" Carrracas. Carrrracasss!], Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez on Friday accused Colombia of plotting a military attack against Venezuela.

"A military aggression against Venezuela is being prepared" by Colombia, Chavez said. He warned Colombia not to attempt "a provocation against Venezuela" and said his country would cut off all oil exports in the event of a military strike from the neighboring country.

Chavez did not support evidence to support his claim.

Nor did Bush! Or so the Lefties say, anyway, conveniently forgetting so much.

Or maybe it's his old friend Fidel he's emulating; after all, he just accused Columbia of plotting his assassination. Fidel's used that one for years to whip up the anti-American mindset in Cuba -- although I'm sure a substantial segment of the population there merely wonders why it's taking us so long.

In reality, Chavez is behaving more like Saddam Hussein, as if he's preparing his own version of Saddam's disastrous Iran/Iraq war, with Columbia in his sights. Since, unlike Bush who is content to be an 8-year president, Chavez's wants to be a long-term dictator, he may see war with Columbia as his best means to that end -- behaving very much in reality just as the Left imagines Bush acting in their paranoid fantasies.

My, how confusing the Leftist mindset it!

By the way, the always informative Daniel at Venezuela News and Views has a lengthy post that digs into all this and concludes that ultimately, Chavez is unlikely to go to war with Columbia.

No Release For These FARC Hostages

I was thinking on the way home tonight of the recent hostage release in Columbia of two hostages held by FARC ... and got to wondering about Dave Mankins, Mark Rich and Rick Tenehoff.

The three Christian missionaries were kidnapped by FARC on January 31, 1993. They and their families were living in Panama, about 15 miles from the Colombian border. They were there at the invitation of village leaders, teaching villagers to read and write in their own language and providing medical assistance. They were seized when FARC guerrillas captured the village -- and have not been heard from since.

Unfortunately, it appears these three FARC hostages will not be released. I found this at the site The Inspirations, posted in 2007:

We now know that Rick, Mark and Dave did not survive, and it's God's Time for closure. Since 1996, the picture has been confusing. Had they been killed, or were they still waiting in a guerrilla camp? Slowly the story has emerged of a military attack and the ensuing fatal shots from the captor's guns.

I sat in a Colombian prison in early September, 2001, with a guerrilla who had once guarded Rick, Mark and Dave. His words, "They are dead," were final and emphatic, confirming what we had heard from several other insurgents. The years of tears and anxiety for our dear brothers have ended.They have gone to a far better place. They rejoice in the presence of the God they served so faithfully. Colombian authorities and the FBI will continue to search for those responsible, but now we have the answer we need.

Many of you have prayed for the Hostages, their families and us. Nearly eight and a half years have brought countless answers to your prayers. Our path has moved alongside presidents and humble peasants, guerrilla commanders and archbishops, self righteous and spiritually hungry. Three martyrs have gone to their reward. Families of the hostages have discovered God's sufficiency. And we have seen Him work in unique places and in lives of people we otherwise would never have met. What a privilege!

I purposefully put the word "apparently" above, because I would like FARC to confirm that Mankins, Rich and Tenehoff did indeed die while in the hands of the Communist guerrillas, and own up to their responsibility for what happened to three men who were just trying to help people.

Hugo (No, you go) Chavez is trying to score diplomatic points by brokering talks between the Columbians and FARC, a group he has no real quibble with since he's an idiot. He could score some points with countless Christians in America and around the world if he could use his influence to get FARC to disclose the status of the three missionary hostages.

Of course, impressing Christians is not high on Chavez' to-do list.

And being humanitarian is not too high on FARC's, since they hold as many as 750 hostages by some reports, including 45 'high profile' ones, mostly Columbian leaders. Not able to raise a credible army any more, they are left with only the repulsive tactic of kidnapping and ransoming.

So goes Communism, and along with it Chavez, figuratively wagging his tail, as friendly to FARC as a pup.

Why Bollinger Did It: Ego, Ego, Ego

As much doubt as I had about Columbia's rationale for inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, and as little faith I had in Columbia prez Lee Bollinger really asking him tough questions, I have to say upon reading the transcript that I'm impressed.

Let's start at the obvious place; the end:

Let me close with this comment. Frankly, and in all candor, Mr. President, I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately, I am told by experts on your country, that this only further undermines your position in Iran with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there. A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country (as in your meeting at the Council on Foreign Relations) so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party’s defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more.

I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better.

Ahmadinejad, of course, kept the revulsion meter running.

In my post this afternoon before the transcript of the college prez and the upchuck-elevating Iranian prez was released, I worried that Bollinger hadn't adequately covered Iran's active involvement in the killing of our soldiers and its desire to vaporize Israel in his questions. But non. On Iran's actions against our soldiers:

In a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to “a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support.”

A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.

Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?

I would have gone quite a lot farther, but all in all not bad for a Bush-hating, war-hating liberal college prof. And as for his desire to put Israel permanently on hold:

Twelve days ago, you said that the state of Israel “cannot continue its life.” This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the last two years, including in October 2005 when you said that Israel should be “wiped off the map.”

Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I personally have spoken out in the most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars and universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. More than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement. My question, then, is: Do you plan on wiping us off the map, too?

A little egocentric, but it'll do. And the egocentric nature of this question shines light on why Bollinger refused to cancel the invitation. It was just too big a spotlight for him to dim.

Still, and even taking into account how much better Lee Bollinger must feel about himself tonight, I still say it was a mistake to give Ahmadinejad a forum beyond the one forum we had no choice over, the UN General Assembly.

Did Bollinger Completely Miss The Point?

Update: The Bollinger transcript is out; view it here. He did quite a good job all in all, as I discuss above ... which I'll post as soon as I'm done.

I'm still waiting for a transcript of Lee Bollinger's reportedly scathing introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be posted. Despite the views of some I respect that it was an award-winning intro, I'm holding my opinion until I can see the transcript.

Here's why.

The LAT clip below is indicative of most clips I've read regarding the appearance:

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the "myth" of the Holocaust "absurd" and saying that he doubted he "will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

It appears from all the coverage I've read that Bollinger focused on the Holocaust, which certainly wouldn't have been my focus. As appalling has Ahmadinejad's view on the Holocaust is, it is inconsequential in terms of the politics of today. That's not to say the extermination of Jews isn't a critical issue, but Bollinger should have gone after Ahmadinejad for his declarations that Israel should be wiped off the map today. That is much more relevant than his denial that Hitler tried to exterminate them 60 years ago.

I also have seen no mention that Bollinger attacked Ahmadinejad for Iran's supply of munitions, funding and training to terrorists in Iraq, all in a deliberate effort to kill as many American troops as possible.

It would have taken some real courage to bring that up at Columbia, a place where a fair number on the faculty and in the student body probably think killing "imperialist" U.S. soldiers is a fine thing to do. Criticizing holocaust deniers, in contrast, is not risk-taking in an American campus (yet, thank God), so I don't give Bollinger any kudos for that.

Like I say, when I get to read the transcript, I may change my viewpoint.

Meanwhile, I thought David Schizer, the dean of the Columbia Law School did some pretty commendable risk-taking with this statement:

A controversy has developed about the invitation extended to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran by the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. Although Columbia Law School was not involved in arranging this invitation, we have received many inquiries about it.

This event raises deep and complicated issues about how best to express our commitment to intellectual freedom, and to our free way of life. Although we believe in free and open debate at Columbia and should never suppress points of view, we are also committed to academic standards. A high-quality academic discussion depends on intellectual honesty but, unfortunately, Mr. Ahmadinejad has proven himself, time and again, to be uninterested in whether his words are true. Therefore, my personal opinion is that he should not be invited to speak. Mr. Ahmadinejad is a reprehensible and dangerous figure who presides over a repressive regime, is responsible for the death of American soldiers, denies the Holocaust, and calls for the destruction of Israel. It would be deeply regrettable if some misread this invitation as lending prestige or legitimacy to his views.

Our university is a pluralistic place, and I recognize that others within our community take a different view in good faith, and that they have the right to extend invitations that I personally would not extend. I know that we will learn from each other in discussing the difficult questions prompted by this invitation. (emphasis added)

That's getting it right.

Meanwhile, over at Kos, we read this:

As an American, I was stunned and embarrassed by Bollinger's harangue of Ahmedinejad. It was a craven and cowardly capitulation to political pressures, and unworthy of the academic institution that Bollinger represents. I know who and what Ahmedinejad is, but I also know that he was at Columbia at Columbia's invitation. Bollinger's speech was less a challenge to Ahmedinejad than it was an ambush, and it dishonered [sic] all of us as Americans.

Hmm. I wonder what this writer's response would be if Bollinger had been equally pointed in introducing the president of the United States. I'll hazard a guess that he wouldn't think that to be unworthy of Columbia or -- and this is really odd -- dishonoring to Americans.

And speaking of Kos, we also see this on the site, courtesy of LGF:

Obviously, this is not a poll based on reality so a lot of people used it to make political statements that do not reflect what their actual actions would have been if we were suddenly transported to Bizzaro World, where such a vote might in fact take place.

Be that as it may, Kos posed the question, a question no one on the Left in the pre-Bush era would have ever thought about asking. It appears that as the Bush administration is winding down, the demented hatred of Bush is only increasing among the rabid Left.

hat-tip: memeorandum

Columbia Has A Lot To Learn

Columbia University. A front-row seat of higher learning, where only the smartest go to get even smarter. As a mere honor roll student of meager means, I couldn't have hoped to get into a school like Columbia, a school so elite and prestigious.

So I have to wonder what has happened to this great university over the four decades since I graduated from high school that would cause its president, Lee Bollinger, to defend Columbia's speaking invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by saying:

"It's extremely important to know who the leaders are of countries that are your adversaries. To watch them to see how they think, to see how they reason or do not reason. To see whether they're fanatical, or to see whether they are sly." (WSJ)

Bollinger is a First Amendment scholar and author of high repute and a former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger, so he knows he is on solid legal ground in extending and defending the invitation. But why does he think so little of the smart kids who got accepted to his school?

Does he think they will really gain anything from seeing a polished politician on his best behavior, far from the protection of his elite Revolutionary Guards and his Mullahs? Does he think for a moment that he is tricking Ahmadinejad into revealing his true, brutal, hateful, repressive, totalitarian, theocratic, fanatic, GI-killing self, so the students of Columbia will see the world as it is?

Or is he merely being an academic pawn, supporting the purpose of Ahmadinejad's trip, which is to project a positive image of Ahmadinejad as a thoughtful man who is dedicated to the downtrodden?

In other words, Ahmadinejad is on a mission to present a lie, and Bollinger -- whose university is home to aggressively antisemitic and anti-Israel scholars -- is giving him that forum.

The students of Columbia will see a polite, learned man not dissimilar to the man who presented to the Council on Foreign Relations during his last visit. In other words, one who thinks well (if faultily), who reasons well (if intolerantly) and who appears to be anything but a fanatic. A man who will try his hardest to make President Bush appear to be the one who doesn't think well, who doesn't reason well, and who uses his fanatical Islamophobia and Christian crusading against Islam.

In that, he will be sly. Will the Columbia students see the slyness? If they do, will they learn from it? Will they learn as much as they would have learned if Bollinger instead had rebuffed his faculty and others and said, no, Columbia is a place of higher learning, and that precludes invitations to men like Ahmadinejad?

I think not, but I also think Duncan Hunter is woefully wrong in his approach to the situation:

"For an institution of Columbia University's caliber, it is inconceivable that you would provide President Ahmadinejad with this opportunity," said Mr. Hunter, who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. "I trust the University will do the right thing and immediately withdraw its invitation to President Ahmadinejad. However, should you choose to go forward, I intend to introduce legislation in Congress to disqualify Columbia University from any future federal support." (WashTimes)

Bollinger knows the First Amendment will shred any such effort by Hunter, and Hunter should know better than to issue the threat, which just makes him look like a book-burner and worse, a believer in a big, heavy-handed government.

It is not government's place to slap Bollinger around. That role falls to the funders of Columbia University -- from its big benefactors to the corporations and individuals that underwrite scholarships, to the parents who pay the tuition, to the students who enroll there. These are the people and institutions that should rise up against Bollinger's entirely legal but entirely irresponsible decision and give the man some hurt.

As he sees the millions drain away, will he react rationally, as a man who thinks well, and apologize -- or will he react fanatically, like a die-hard liberal academic, and continue to bite the hands that feed his institution?

Whichever, it's clear that Columbia, like all our foremost universities, has a lot to learn.

Ahmadinejad's Silly Saber-Rattling

On the eve of his trip to New York, Mah- I'm in the -moud for aviation fuel Ahmadinejad (rhymes with "Let's have a little jet-powered jihad") bragged about Iran's new Saeqeh fighter jets, which were flitting about in the sky above.

"Those who prevented Iran, at the height of the [1980-88 Iran-Iraq] war from getting even barbed wire must see now that all the equipment on display today has been built by the mighty hands and brains of experts at Iran's armed forces," Mr Ahmadinejad said BBC.

Hmm. I read the BBC article from top to bottom and I found plenty of threats, like Ahmadinejad saying anybody who attacked Iran "would experience nothing but regret," but I didn't find out any more about these famous jets that came from the mighty hands and brains of Iran's' military experts ... especially anything about why they look so much like our old F-5s. You know, the F-5s we sold about 100 years ago to the Shah.

So I went on over to Defense Talk to see what they were talking about and lo and behold:

The Saeqeh shown previously was in effect an F-5E with a V tail. The Azarakhsh [the other "new" Iranian jet, the] in turn is an F-5E with the wings moved from the bottom of the fuselage to a mid point on the fuselage. While either design change may give some improvement in performance the plane is still a modified F-5.

Funny that BBC wouldn't take the effort to tell us that, especially since it took me about five seconds to find that confirming quote.

The last F-5E rolled off our assembly lines 20 years ago, in 1987, so I kind of wondered just how the Saeqeh and Azarakhsh would fare in warfare against one of our better jets, like an F-18. Back to Defense Talk:

Neither could be described as similar to an F-18 in capabilities.

I don't know to what extent, if at all, the Iranians were able to improve on the performance, avionic or firepower capabilities of the F-5A -- especially since they're under an arms embargo -- but here's what the jet could do when Northrup (as opposed to a bunch of Iranians) manufactured it:

Max Speed:	802 kt / 924 mph
Max Range:	2594 km / 1,612 miles
Powerplant:	two 1850-kg (4,080-lb) afterburning thrust General Electric J85-GE 13 turbojets
Armament:	two 20-mm M39 cannon with 280 rounds per gun; provision for 1996 kg (4,400 lb) of disposable stores, including AAMs, bombs, cluster bombs, rocket-launcher

Now let's mosey over to the carrier-launched F-18 Hornet, the aircraft the Iranians would most likely be up against if tit were to lead to tat:

Max Speed:	1,032 kt / 1,183 mph
Max Range:	740 km / 460 miles
Powerplant:	two 7257-kg (16,000-lb) afterburning thrust General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofans
Armament:	one 20-mm M61A1 Vulcan six-barrel rotary cannon with 570 rounds; up to 7711 kg (17,000 Ib) of disposable stores, including AAMs, ASMs, anti-ship missiles, free-fall or guided bombs, cluster bombs, dispenser weapons, napalm tanks, rocket launchers, drop tanks and ECM pods, carried on nine external hardpoints

Ouch. Hugely faster, double the thrust and Holy cow, those munitions! Yes, the Iranians would have a range advantage on us, but what good will that do them if they're shot down within a few miles of taking off?

I bring this all up not to saber-rattle, but merely to point out that Ahmadinejad has no choice, given the sorry state of the nation he quasi-rules, but to use propaganda to shore up Iran. The facts do nothing for him. We'll be hearing that propaganda full bore this coming week when be soils New York with his presence.

Some, like students at Columbia and delegates at the UN Gen. Assembly, will fall for what he says. But I know that you, dear reader, won't.