Source: US Military Special-Ops Team, and Not the Colombian Army, Carried Out Hostage Rescue in Colombia

The source of information for the Narco News story published last night about the hostage rescue in Colombia this past Wednesday contacted us to clarify a few details about the operation.

A total of two helicopters were involved in the rescue mission; however, one of those helicopters, for logistical reasons, did not land at the meeting place where the hostages were being held, the source says. The second helicopter was held back, on the ground, at a nearby location.

The helicopter that did land at the site in Colombia where the 15 hostages were gathered under FARC guard contained a total of 13 people - one nurse, one medical doctor, and 11 crew and military personnel (all disguised as humanitarian workers). The source says some of those 13 people were Colombians.

However, the source still maintains that up to six of those 13 individuals were U.S. special-operations personnel, as reported previously, and that the entire operation was carried out with the active involvement of the U.S. military in cooperation with the Colombian government.

The source also clarifies that the cover for the rescue mission was a joint French and Swiss humanitarian group.

The source adds that for political reasons, in order to justify all the U.S. military aid now going to Colombia, the Bush administration has been steadfast in pushing a media narrative purporting that the rescue operation was carried out completely by the Colombian government.

The New York Times published a story yesterday revealing that its sources claim the Defense Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Command did provide at least surveillance assistance in the effort to rescue the hostages. The Times story also states that the newspaper's sources requested anonymity "because they were not authorized to speak on the record and the Bush administration was adamant about giving the Colombians the credit."

 

 

Read original story here, or previous thoughts by Al Giordano on McCain's real reason for visiting Colombia.

So the government forces pretended to be neutral humanitarian workers negotiating for release of the hostages. That pretty well finishes off the ability, the credibility, of humanitarian organizations to negotiate for release of hostages anywhere, at least without offering proof that they're who they say they are? Did these government forces masquerade under the name of an actual organization? With or without the cooperation of that organization? This would really take negotiating for hostages off the table (even if the negotiators actually represent the humanitarian organization). "No negotiations for hostages" has long been the mantra of hard line imperialists, especially U.S. and its minions. That planeload of soldiers the governments brought to the scene of the negotiations certainly doesn't help the credibility of future government negotiators. It's enough to make a body think it was all a big show to sabotage all future hostage negotiations. And how is it that a large insurgent organization, over 40 years on the job, could operate with such lax security as to let all those soldiers into the mix? And let the operation just fly out of its control? And only two armed guards? Obviously, they planned to release the hostages. No need for the elaborate military operation. A dozen soldiers in close quarters with the two FARC guards, totally in control, chose to “beat the shit” out of them? Wow! The possible explanations for doing this are legion, and they all make the U.S. and its ally look quite bad. What's the connection with Betancourt's next run for the presidency? It's been a big week for Americans going into other countries to do police work. Let's hear it for the 4th of July!

Bill, the story was written by the AP. Apart from that, the facts are very interesting. The U.S. did provide support in getting rid of Pablo Escobar. It's conceivable - and the money outlined in the AP story point to this - that a heck of a lot of U.S. collaboration went into the rescue. The training for the mission was certainly meticulous. But, the MI 17 helicopters are flown by Colombians - their government owns many of those. Not saying that a U.S. pilot cant fly one, but the Colombians have way more practice, so the pilots would probably be Colombian. That said, I don't think it's a best practice to have the rebels totally surrounded by the Colombian military. The rebels would have been smart enough, if the mission failed, to retreat with the hostages, or they would have killed them. That would have been quite another headline. I also cant believe the Swiss report about the $20 million payout to FARC to release Betancourt and Co. That amount, for one, is way too small for THE prize hostage (though perhaps to the rebel group that was marginalized from central command, it would have seemed like quite a lot). So, I can't believe the Swiss report. But the AP report makes sense. That the government spent $250 million trying to find the hostages, and who knows how many millions more on this particular mission, makes sense. More than the hostages lives are at stake. It looks good for the U.S. abroad (so $250 million or more is a drop in the bucket) that Americans are rescued alongside others by another country. A U.S. ally is also given an image boost. A lot of factors, and far more than meets the eye! I can believe that the Colombian military was very competent and capable of such a mission.

One of the major dailies reported today that Uribe spoke to Bush ten days in advance of the operation occurring, which would make it seem more likely that it was timed to support McCain's visit, right? also... http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/07/04/afx5184293.htm... "FARC Leaders Were Paid to Millions to Free Hostages: Swiss Radio" Kind of like Reagan saying we don't negotiate for the release of hostages, in the days of Iran-Contra?

AJ said: Bill, the story was written by the AP.

I think you're referring to the AP story that ran in the New York Times, filed the same day Narco News filed it's story — a few hours prior to Narco News' story, it seems, based on the date stamp now on that AP story. I did not see that story until after my story was filed, but it is not the same story ... far from it as I will explain.

Low in that AP story, there are references to the DIA and US Special Ops Command's involvement with surveillance and reconnaissance in advance of the rescue, based on anonymous sources as well, but the story does not reference U.S. special ops being involved in the actual rescue operation.

The Narco News source did say that was the case, and also provided details not in the AP story, such as the prisoners being handcuffed before being put on the helicopter, a fact that has since been proven true via the rescue video, released by Colombian officials days after Narco News' initial report.

Ask yourself: How could the Narco News source know that detail, if the source was not clued into the facts on the ground at the time of the rescue?

At a press conference timed with the release of that video yesterday, the Colombian Defense Minister, Juan Manuel Santos, said the following [as translated by an interpreter]

"This mission was 100 percent Colombian. ...The United States was informed 10 days, a week, before the mission. ... They [the US] were concerned about the risk of the people in captivity ... The United States also kept an airplane in the area as a type of intelligence ... but they did not participate in any form in the mission."

So it seems that now even Colombian officials are admitting U.S. involvement (in the most slippery way) after pretending on a world stage that this was entirely a Colombian operation. They just can't bring themselves to concede that U.S. boots were on the ground at the rescue site itself — but strangely will concede they were in a U.S. aircraft nearby.

That information about the aircraft in the area also wasn't in the AP story, but it was provided to us early on the morning of July 4, prior to the release of the video, by the Narco News source -- as reflected in this update to our original story.

That update also clarified more details of the highly compartmentalized rescue operation, which had occurred less than two days prior at that point.

From that update:

A total of two helicopters were involved in the rescue mission; however, one of those helicopters, for logistical reasons, did not land at the meeting place where the hostages were being held, the source says. The second helicopter was held back, on the ground, at a nearby location.

 

The helicopter that did land at the site in Colombia where the 15 hostages were gathered under FARC guard contained a total of 13 people - one nurse, one medical doctor, and 11 crew and military personnel (all disguised as humanitarian workers). The source says some of those 13 people were Colombians.

However, the source still maintains that up to six of those 13 individuals were U.S. special-operations personnel, as reported previously, and that the entire operation was carried out with the active involvement of the U.S. military in cooperation with the Colombian government.

None of that information is contained in the AP report. So to say AP had the same story is not accurate. 

What the AP story says is that the U.S. government "helped with surveillance that positively located the hostages within the past year using satellites, aircraft and ground reconnaissance — and had tracked them since then."

And since the three U.S. contractors were captured in 2003, according to the AP report, the U.S. spent "$250 million" on various efforts trying to find them.

The AP also reported on the FBI involvement in the hostages' case, a fact Narco News reported more than a year ago. See this link.

But the AP, in the second graph of its story, still claims, absent attribution that: "In the end, it was a daring operation by Colombian military intelligence agents that finally rescued the American trio from leftest rebels" — reinforcing the Bush administration's narrative.

Our story on July 3, states: "The source claims the rescue mission was a U.S.-led operation with Colombian support — as opposed to the reverse, as has been widely reported by the U.S. media."

So, as you see, AP did not have the same story, just elements of the story Narco News reported. As a reader, it's up to you to critically assess what to make of all this, though. 

Now, given what has been reported by both AP and Narco News, what's more believable:

1. That Colombian officials, after opening their nation's doors for years to heavy U.S. activity (surveillance, etc.) and allowing millions of U.S. dollars to be spent in pursuit of these hostages in Colombia, all of a sudden, decided unilaterally to plan a rescue mission, only informing the U.S. government 10 days prior to that mission?

2. That, with the United States' vast intelligence and on-the-ground special operations capabilities already deployed and in play, Colombia agreed to assist the United States government months ago (after U.S. intelligence had "positively located" them) in carrying out a complicated and risky operation involving the lives of three high-profile Americans and a French citizen?

Even absent the information provided by Narco News' source on this (who claims the latter scenario is the right answer) using your own powers of critical reasoning, how could you not conclude that the second option has the heavy weight of probablility on its side?

I would choose option 2 in a heartbeat! As to the crew members posing as Italian and "International" humanitarian workers, clearly it would be far more likely that troops from a more internationalized army - say, special operations from the U.S., as they have what, more than 30 personnel in Colombia anyhows? - posed as those workers. I think Robert D. Kaplan (controversial as he may be) had mentioned in his books and articles from Atlantic Monthly that U.S. trainers have been participating in training operations since the advent of Plan Colombia. It can't be much of a stretch to imagine them on that very same plane, as has been reported here at Narconews. I can also see why the administration would want Colombia to assume all credit for the operation - it just looks excellent for Colombia internationally, and is somewhat of an embarassment for Presidents Chavez and Correa, and is a boost to Colombia's image within Latin America and Europe, and no doubt a boost of good news for the Colombia free trade agreement in the U.S. Congress. Colombia's military in human rights reports looks worse this year vs. last year, which is not sterling, and has often been infiltrated, if I am not mistaken, by the drug lords. I had been referring to the link to the New York Times, which was a link to the AP story in the New York Times, not that what was reported in the AP on the New York Times included information from Narconews. Clearly, Narconews' information is distinct and unreported by other news outlets. I actually got in contact with Mark Bowden, who wrote the book Killing Pablo, to see if he was going to do a little digging on the rescue mission of Ingrid Betancourt and the U.S. hostages from Northrup Grummon, because there is just a lot more than meets the eye. I am glad Narconews is pursuing this story. I also really enjoyed the reporting on the other story regarding the DEA leaks out of the U.S. embassy and the "Bogota Connection." That was fascinating! Thank you for the high standards and for doing a thorough checking of the information. On an unrelated note, I didnt know if Narconews had done any work on the interesting positions of former drug czar General Barry McCaffrey. However controversial and who knows what else he may be, he seems to be advocating some real programs that would actually help drug addicts in the U.S. - now, I know McCaffrey is less than trustworthy on a lot of subjects relating to the drug wars, but that position was interesting for a former gung ho drug war advocate.

am glad the hostages were freed. I don't like authoritarianism, whatever the stripe.

Don Henry Ford, Jr. - Do you really think that anybody isn't glad to see any hostage freed anywhere on earth? Your implication that anybody posting here doesn't is annoying for annoyance's sake. Big effing deal: You agree with everyone else here, even as you try to imply that you have a superior position. Take a chill pill for such howling moral righteousness, please!

I doubt the FARC was too happy about it.

So who the hell were these guys working for? Why were they there to begin with?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20275.htm By Mike Whitney 14/07/08 "ICH" -- -- It was a perfectly executed rescue mission and they pulled it off without a hitch. A small group of Columbian military-intelligence agents, posing as aid workers on a humanitarian mission, touched-down in the heart of rebel territory, gathered up Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages, and whisked them away to safety while a small army of rifle-toting Marxist guerrillas looked on dumbfounded. The tale of the daring rescue by Columbia's finest was immediately splashed across the front pages of newspapers around the world. Finally, the Bush-Uribe combo could point to a decisive victory in the seven year-long war on terror. Score one for the good guys in the ongoing struggle against the forces of evil.

There's just one problem; the story isn't true.

(more at the link)

A good friend is my nearest relation. A good marksman may miss.