Fighting old ghosts: Cold War warriors head into Colombia for the wrong reasons--oil, money and politics. (Trade Talk).

By all appearances, war-weary Colombia represents a new U.S. military front against, of all things, communism.

The "Bush Doctrine" pushed by Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto Reich--Lt. Col. Oliver North's boss and an inside player in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan era-smacks of corporate welfare and a return to the days of East West battles.

Bush wants an extra US$439 million to provide military intelligence and parts to the Colombian armed forces following the collapse of 3-year-old peace talks and the resumption of all-out war by the Colombian government against the rebels. This is in addition to the 250 U.S. military advisers and 150 civilians currently in Colombia.

Previously, U.S. military aid and training under a $1.3 billion package called Plan Colombia had been limited to wiping out drug-producing crops, which finance the guerrillas and their right-wing paramilitary enemies. Administration lawyers are now looking for legal arguments to justify the new policy without violating federal law and a directive signed by President Clinton in 2000 that bars the use of U.S. intelligence in the conflict. "This is no longer about stopping drugs," warns U.S. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, a Democrat. "It's about fighting the guerrillas."

Bush also wants $98 million to train, arm and provide air support for Colombian troops to protect a 480-mile pipeline run by Occidental Petroleum Corp., which pushed for oil exploration on land belonging to the U'wa Indians. Why do U.S. taxpayers have to pay to protect a private U.S. company's interests in a foreign country?

Reich and other officials insist that the line between counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics has blurred. They argue that the 17,000-member Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) derives much of its income by taxing the drug trade. In a $10 million media campaign, first aired on Super Bowl night, a government ad warned that the $66 billion spent each year on illegal drugs in the United States helps fund terrorist groups such as the FARC.

President Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush as his vice-president took on leftist insurgents in Central America, and we all know what happened there: a protracted war that killed tens of thousands. Getting more deeply involved in counter insurgency in Colombia alongside a military with a worsening human rights record is a nightmarish reminder of the days when Washington supported Nicaragua's undisciplined contras and EL Salvador's repressive army, a body that murdered U.S. nuns.

Human rights groups have long complained that rogue members of the Colombian armed forces collaborate with death squads of the right-wing paramilitary officially listed by the United States as a terrorist group because it routinely massacres civilians it believes to be label sympathizers. Both rebel groups that bomb the Occidental pipeline--the FARC and the 5,000-member National Liberation Army--are also listed as terrorist groups. But hard-liners are taking advantage of the post-Sept. 11 climate as a pretext for their Cold War antipathy for leftist rebels.

The war against Islamic militants and the shadowy Al Qaeda is not the same as the war against Colombia's rebel groups, which emerged nearly four decades ago out of social and economic injustice. More U.S. involvement in the war means more civilians will die or be displaced. For every soldier killed in combat, six civilians die in this conflict from crossfire, assassinations or massacres carried out by the military, paramilitary groups or the guerrillas, according to the Center for Investigation and Popular Education in Bogota. Nearly 2 million ordinary Colombians--5% of the population-are now internal refugees.

U.S. efforts should push both sides back to the negotiating table, redirect military aid for economic development and pressure the Colombian government to clamp down on soldiers and paramilitaries suspected of violating human rights. The United States should be a force for peace, not war. It's a message lost on Bush's squad of Cold War warriors but, hopefully, not lost on ordinary Americans and their elected officials.

COMMENTS? WRITE: [e-mail]