Military prescence of USA in South America (be advised...)

Here is the http://www.nuevamayoria.com/ES/INVES...sa/050809.html for those of you who read spanish.

Text by Ignacio J. Osacar (Coordinator of the Comission of Defense of the CENM)
Any way i will translate some parts of importance:
"Some effectives have imformed of the presence of 400 northamerican privates en Paraguay and in someway it sugest that is an advance to the instalation of a base with geopolitical signification in South America. This would be the result of bilateral agreements signed in the current year with the finallity of making excersice (i don't know if this is translated correctly, in the text it's "ejercitaciones" it refers to economics excersices) and bilateral exchange. It's sayed that the base would be located in Mariscal Estigarribia..."
"For it proximity it may be an attempt from the United States to take control of the natural resources of the zone, like oil and bolivian gas, the water source on Guaranie's land and the trafic on the Triple Frontier (Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina). Knowing the recent political and social situation on Bolivia, the scarce fronteir control of the surrounding countries, the endemic smugling of all kind of mercancies -also narcotics- with the complicity or pasivity of the neighboring nations and with an scenario of poberty and maginality; it allows to see that in a middle term this activities will increase and for instance they will influence the regional estability. If we include in this scene the presence, permanent, transitory or temporary, of terrorists, it is expected that some anticipated measure was taken with the objective of ensuring a controllable future."
"In 2003, the Commander of the NATO, General James said:"...there exists great zones not ruled, that are potential santuaries for the terrorists of the world and for the future traders of all types of elements, wich we try to fight...". This reflextion is not only circunscribed to the european or Islamic terrorism nor to the narcotraficants, it appears to be more ample. He added: "...we've an oportunity to set an strategic presence, if necessary an operational presence, faster than before. For instance, is reasonably expected that we analize the settlements of any bases to ensure that we will do things right in the future...". The General continues:"...anything we do, any proposes we've made, is to do things more agile for the forces that with have...", then he clearify "...the direction of any type of adjustment in our forces is to dispose of a greater strategic effect...".
This will indicate the general politics for all northamerican forces available in USA territory and in the rest of the world.
"The United States have Uniffied Commands, wich depends directly of the president, with jurisdictional responsability world wide, and even in outer space."
"This are the Central Command, to manage all hostile operations in the rest of the world (actually their forces operate in Irak and Afganistan); the European Command, wich extention is given by the name and relates to the NATO; the Pacific Command, wich includes all the ocean, the isles and the Far East; the South Command, with responsability from Bravo River to the Antartida included the Caribe; the Command of Special Forces, with global jurisdiction; the Command of Administration of Military Traffic, wich manages all the mediums of transportations, aerial, naval and ground of the Defense; the Space Command, with jurisdiction on all outer space, including the medium of strategic defense and, finally, the North Command, with the mission of strategic defense of USA. It's very clear that the northamerican strategical plan does not leaves any spot uncovered, foresighting the employment of all the mediums in all moments and depending on the turn of events that affect their interests and those of their allies."
"The topic of the military bases of USA is old and goes back to begginings of the XX centurym when USA inspered by it's "manifested destiny" decided to take control all over the places considered by them as vitals for their interests. This strategical actitud is the continuation of one employed by Britain, for many centuries, with the occupation of the interoceanic paths to ensure it's commerce."
-He makes a series of clearifications and mentions and then he says this: "There's no much information about what are the factors of negotiation for each case with the objective to get consent of the countries in question (some near Irak), we apreciate that it goes from voluntary and enthusiastic cooperation, to a more militaric opression in other cases."
"Tough there's no information conffirmed in actuality, because of the viculations and history beetween this countries, wich form the Organization of Caribbean States of the East...they could provide irrestrict coopetation to USA for operations from their territories and in fact they materialize an arrow aiming geograficaly to Venezuela.".
"In the case of Australia, traditionaly they have cooperated with fullness with the USA forces, giving unlimited access to their instalations and the execution of unilateral and bilateral armies."
"Respect of the troops in Paraguay, the nothamerican military sources consulted deny that's a permanent force, but it's the result of bilateral agreements for exercises and exchange and that this troops will not extend their activities beyond a limited time."
"Tough the authorities in Paraguay granted the soldiers in it's territory an juridic immunity without precedents, thing that never happened in any other country. They'll have the same condition given to diplomatics administratives functionaries. We've to clearify that the agreement ends in December of 2006 and is of prorrogable caracter."
-He then follows with some more assumptions and deductions.

Well i've posted this so everybody who wants is informed of the recent movements of USA in all the world, but specially here. Also i've mentioned sometimes the case of the petition of USA to make something similar here, so here it's a current example.
I don't like to make predictions in this, but one thing is certain USA haves power in all the world, an it appears that their new way to make diplomacy is throught employments of military bases. Personally i think that it's too much power of response to one single country, but make your own guesses.

Don't worry Soulforged when we take over your name will be on the protected scrolls ~D

This seems to also say some of the same thing - but with a different viewpoint.

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/165

Here is an article that might be reporting the same thing as the one that you linked.

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29775

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Here is the http://www.nuevamayoria.com/ES/INVES...sa/050809.html for those of you who read spanish.
[...]
Well i've posted this so everybody who wants is informed of the recent movements of USA in all the world, but specially here.

---

I'm very interested in reading Ibero-American perspectives on global affairs.
But, no hablo español. :embarassed:

Thankfully, your link has an English section as well! Plenty of good stuff in there. I'm not a native English speaker myself so I know what a drag it is to read something interesting that you can't share here (without translating it). But if you do a little search you're bound to find articles in English of similar interest.

While looking for a link in English I also stumbled upon this rather good site: essays about evil gringo intrusion of Latin America

A more complete translation--

Quote:

---

Some sources have spoken of the presence of some 400 US military personnel in Paraguay, and suggest that these could be the advance guard for a possible military base in this geopolitically important point in South America. This troop movement is the consequence of bilateral accords signed this year with the goal of bilateral exchanges and excercises. The sources say that the base would be located in Mariscal Estigarribia, where historically the Paraguayan army has maintained a Divisonal Command and a considerable number of troops to secure sovereignty in the Chaco region.

For its location, this move might be linked to a US attempt to control natural resources in the region, such as Bolivian petroleum and gas, the Guaraní aquifer, and the traffic which runs through the triple-border. Taking into account the recent political and social instability in Bolivia, the lack of border control in the in the immediate region, and the endemic smuggling of all types of contraband-- including narcotics-- with the cooperation or tolerance neighboring governments; and considering that these things are largely caused by poverty and marginalization; we can see that in the near term these activities will increase, and thus influence regional stability. If we include in this scenario the presence of terrorist elements, permanent, temporary, or just passing through, it is to be hoped that some preemptive action be taken to ensure a manageable future.

In 2003 NATO commander General James Jones said that "...there are large lawless zones, which are potential sanctuaries for the terrorists of the world and future dealers in all types of things we are trying to combat..." This reflection does include only the European sphere, nor only Islamic terrorism or narcotraffickers, but appears to be broader. Jones added "... currently we have the ability to establish a strategic presence, and if necessary an operational presence, much more rapidly than we could have before. As such it can reasonably be expected that we will consider the installation of new bases, to ensure that we do things well in the future..." Jones continues: "...anything we do, any proposal we might make, is to make our deployed forces more agile..." at the same time clarifying that "...the purpose of any type of adjustment in our forces is to project a greater strategic effect."

We believe that these comments only at US troops involved with NATO, but that they speak of a military policy for all US forces, which will reign during the current decade.

---

..

Paraphrasing--

The author talks about how US military organization is designed to cover the entire globe as well as outer space, to cover any possible contingency. He states that this pattern began with the US idea of "manifest destiny", and that it is a continuation of the British tradition of projecting force to strategically important points.

He notes that despite advances in aviation, naval transport is still by far the best option for large amounts of troops and equipment.

He notes that the US was able to deploy more than 15,000 troops in 60 days to Haiti, without there existing in that country any infrastructure to house or support them logistically. This same number of troops is the total number of volunteer soldiers in Argentina's military.

He talks about the "Base Closure and Reallignment Commission" and the processes and procedures involved with that.

He mentions the three main classes of US bases-- Principal Operating Bases, Advance Operational Installations, and Cooperative Security Installations.

He explains that Cooperative Security Installations are the type of bases that the US maintains in sovereign nations on the basis of a mutual (or in the case of Cuba, not so mutual) accord. They have less operational capacity than other classes of bases, and vary in size.

He the specific types of bases found in a long list of specific locations throughout Latin America, and some in other parts of the world.

He states that often it has been observed that host countries do not have so much control over the use of US bases on their territory. That their attitudes often vary between voluntary, enthusiastic cooperation, and a sullen response to coercion.

He talks about the Granada invasion, which a number of sovereign island nations took part in as part of the Joint Task Force. He states that while no reliable information is available on the current state of these military ties, that it is reasonable to think that the same groups of island nations could be used in positioning a possible invasion of Venezuela.

..

Quote:

---

With regard to the troops in Paraguay, the US military sources we consulted deny that the the US seeks a permanent presence, and says that this is all the result of bilateral accords for joint military excercises and exchanges and that these troops will not extend their activities beyond a limited timeframe.

Still, the Paraguayan government has given broad jurisdictional immunity to the US soldiers, something that does not happen in any of the other countries where the US holds excercises regularly. They will have basically the same status usually given to diplomats. We should take into account that the accord lasts through December 2006 and is extendable.

The permanent presence of forces all over the world and in special zones of conflict, the capacity to project large amounts of short-term force in geographically distant locations. The immediate use of military power in any situation affecting its vital interests.

The growing political and social instability in some South American countries, the need to strenghten the territorial integrity of with stable, democratically elected governments, and the low priority which the region still has currently-- all these things allow us to conclude that the US might increase its permanent military presence in selected countries to secure the advance bases, which would eventually house forces of great magnitude to operate in coordination if it became necessary.

All this might be the response to a lack-of-governability scenario in countries that significantly favor the activities of terrorist elements, narcotraffickers or criminals, or perhaps that threaten the free regional flow of energy, or that do not contain effectively the spread of internal chaos to neighboring countries.

---

..

Anyway, I think the author's analysis and conclusions are fairly logical-- it does not seem impossible that the US could intervene militarily in Latin America some time in the future. This small deployment to Paraguay is interesting and might be a herald of things to come.

DA

Notes on my translation: You may notice that the prose at some times seems a bit wordy or obtuse-- this is largely just the Spanish style of writing and expressing ideas. Spanish-speakers are not known for concision, and sometimes don't really like to get down to the point ~;) For what it's worth, some phrases make a bit more sense in Spanish, which may be a fault in my translation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Don't worry Soulforged when we take over your name will be on the protected scrolls ~D

---

Oh i wouldn't be surprised after all that Manu Ginobili did for San Antonio Spurs ~;) .
BTW gracias Del Arroyo, si sos latino (como sospecho) entonces ¡Viva Latino América carajo! (y el tequila, y la caipirinha y las mujeres argentinas ~D )

Wonder how all this military spendings is going to financed and how the American voters are to be convinced over the advantage for them to have soldiers all over the globe.....

No lo soy 'uey, pero he viajado algo por ahi. Nunca llegue a Argentina, pero he conocido a algunos paisanos tuyos, y se que en Guadalajara se conoce Argentina por su carne, y en Mexico DF por sus mujeres ~;)

Pero consiganse un Chavez a ver si me impresan (??) al ejercito y asi nos vemos por tu casa ~D

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

No lo soy 'uey, pero he viajado algo por ahi. Nunca llegue a Argentina, pero he conocido a algunos paisanos tuyos, y se que en Guadalajara se conoce Argentina por su carne, y en Mexico DF por sus mujeres ~;)

Pero consiganse un Chavez a ver si me impresan (??) al ejercito y asi nos vemos por tu casa ~D

DA

---

Si los mejicanos pueden decir eso pero es porque nunca vieron a una argentina. Bueno Chavez es amiguito de nuestro gobierno, asi que cuando quieras... ~D ~D

No, digo que si se conoce a las argentinas, que ya hay mucho argentino en el capital mexicano por la exmigracion desde argentina en los ultimos años.

Si eso es porque expulsamos a las feas. Translation: Yes that's because we expell the ugly ones. ~D.
Anyway i'm more concerned with what will happen if the authorities change in USA or if terrorism apears here and they start to enter unchecked inspired by the "manifest destiny" and cause havoc on civilians that have nothing to do, like happened on Irak. I think that the problems of a nation belongs only to that nation.

News flash! The U.S. has had military advisors and observers in South and Central America since Eisenhower (atleast, possible before; but Ike loved sending in the Marines - as you know).

I attended two military funerals of men (a Colonel, and a Captain) lost in South America (regions classified - "their respective helicopters crashed", mechanical failures) in 1969 on seperate occassions. A personal friend was assigned to the Contras as a military trainer (and unofficial leader) - a former Ranger. [Note: he wrote a book that was published and then banned as being "classified material" by the Reagan administration]

They are our closest neighbors, and if they need our assistance - so be it. Though the Contra thing was just wrong.

:balloon2:

I dunno Kafir. Not that I am well-read on the subject, but the Contras did force elections which removed the Sandinistas.

Having visited Nicaragua though I do think there is some local resentment towards us there. What's really interesting is that both near the northern and the southern border people still hang blue and red flags in the trees. Wherever someone hangs a Sandinista flag someone else comes and hangs a Contra flag even higher, and vice versa.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

News flash! The U.S. has had military advisors and observers in South and Central America since Eisenhower (atleast, possible before; but Ike loved sending in the Marines - as you know).

---

Way before Eisenhower. Several Presidents sent troops and other types of help down to South American - The Panama Canel and the creation of Panama is an examble of earlier involvement in South American Politics.

Quote:

---

I attended two military funerals of men (a Colonel, and a Captain) lost in South America (regions classified - "their respective helicopters crashed", mechanical failures) in 1969 on seperate occassions. A personal friend was assigned to the Contras as a military trainer (and unofficial leader) - a former Ranger. [Note: he wrote a book that was published and then banned as being "classified material" by the Reagan administration]

---

Well I am sure we can probably get the book through the freedom of information act. But I bet it comes with a whole lot of black lines throughout its pages.

Quote:

---

They are our closest neighbors, and if they need our assistance - so be it. Though the Contra thing was just wrong.

---

Yes indeed the Contra thing was wrong, but Sandinistas were worse in my opinion. So while our actions were not noble - and maybe we should not have been involved at all - I am glad the Sandinistas are not in power any longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

News flash! The U.S. has had military advisors and observers in South and Central America since Eisenhower (atleast, possible before; but Ike loved sending in the Marines - as you know).

---

Oooook Kafir, but did you read all my pesime translation. It sais that there's no other case with such an immunity to the USA military (they've status of diplomatic emisaries- 400 privates!!-, wich means that they can't be judged on Paraguay, they only will be judged in any case by USA laws). And i was just pointing the situation on the irrestricted power that USA military is gaining around the world, for those that don't know it. If you know it,well for you.