In class today we talked about the irony in the Scheier piece. Scheier said the targets we try to protect from terrorism are physical, economic, and social, and yet we unwisely spend money and give up civil liberties in our attempts to combat terrorism. So we're actually in some sense attacking two of the three targets which we're trying to protect.
This week's Economist had an article about Colombia's bombing of a FARC camp just across the border in Ecuador ("On the warpath"). Scheier's point can be seen in the current situation in South America, too. Colombia--like the US--wants to protect itself physically, economically, and socially. Yet it is spending a lot in its drive to eliminate the FARC and has violated civil liberties. Surely the bomb which killed Mr. Reyes was expensive, as was the Super Tucano plane. I'm not sure what the Colombian-US deal was, but President Uribe's forces were using US intelligence (whether or not they had to pay for it, or were just given it, I'm not sure). As for civil liberties, even if those of the Colombian people were not violated, surely the territorial integrity of Ecuador was when Colombian forces bombed a FARC camp about a mile inside the country (and did not get permission from President Correa of Ecuador).
So, rights and money are still ironically being used in the fight to protect them. However, the situation in Colombia may be a bit different from that in the US. It seems that Colombia may be able to permanently cripple the FARC and is on the path to doing so, whereas the US, according to Scheier, is not getting as much security as it should be for the price it is paying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
SchNeier, se llama.
Oh, and as long as I am threadjacking, here's another link that you all might find interesting: the official blog of the US Department of State. Question of the week this week: "What responsibility do Venezuela and Ecuador have to fight terrorism on their borders?" Neat, huh?
Under the circumstances, what should Colombia do when the FARC runs away and hides in friendly Venezuela or Ecuador? If Ecuador was more helpful in their fight against terrorism then they wouldn't have to worry as much about the Colombian military crossing their borders. Colombia's approach is fairly simple: Stop aiding the enemy and we will stop chasing them across your borders.
Imagine that our Coast Guard was in hot pursuit of an al-Qaeda leader who was running (or swimming) for Cuba. Should we really stop chasing him when he reaches Cuban waters? I say take him out and deal with the consequences later (which will typically include a handful of condemnations and a slap on the wrist from the international community). If Ecuador and Venezuela were a little more helpful they wouldn't have to worry about it.
Post a Comment