U.S. State Dept. Steps Up Support of Bolivian Counterdrug Ops, Despite Morales' Rise to Power
Although the U.S. Embassy in La Paz will buy the trucks to replace old ones, a closer look at the planning document reveals that the planned acquisition is not just a routine matter. Rather than simply replacing an aging fleet of off-highway 4x4s, the new fleet of vehicles will heighten the capability of counterdrug forces to transport personnel and supplies during these expanded operations, many of which will take place in rural regions of the country where President Morales spent most of his life living and working among coca growers.
It’s unclear where the Morales Administration stands on this escalation of U.S. supported operations, considering that the Morales campaign had run on a platform opposing U.S.-backed eradication of the Bolivian coca leaf, the primary ingredient used to produce cocaine. He has pledged to hold a national referendum enabling the Bolivian people to decide whether to allow the continued but limited harvesting of coca for domestic consumption. Meanwhile, Morales has simultaneously vowed to crack down on cocaine cartels that traffic the drug internationally.
Though the vehicles will be capable of maneuvering through environments ranging from “deteriorated urban environments” to “densely forested areas,” the document indicates that Bolivian troops will use them primarily in rural regions having little or no transportation infrastructure. Specifically, it says:
These vehicles will play a significant role in moving personnel and equipment from NAS support sites to remote locations, across terrain that is inaccessible by most vehicles. The vehicles must be able to negotiate steep hills, valleys and man-made objects that are typical of the obstacles encountered in their various operating environments...It is of the utmost importance that the vehicles provide a stable and safe platform for moving equipment and personnel into and out of operation areas. In addition to transporting equipment and personnel, the vehicles may be used by security personnel patrolling remote areas in a force protection role, and the vehicles must be capable of being deployed quickly in response to threats.
Additionally, the NAS document says the trucks will be capable of hauling any combination of passengers and cargo weighing as much as one metric ton: “This is required so that the vehicles will be able to transport operation essential equipment and personnel during extended duration operations.” NAS indicated that the operations will take place “in rural areas and smaller cities and towns, where deeply rutted and unpaved roads are the norm [and in] remote and mountainous regions, which are accessible only by difficult-to-drive, twisting, narrow and unpaved roads that border on 3,000 to 5,000 foot drops. “
The State Dept. is accepting bids on the 90-vehicle package until Feb. 17. The bid-winner will ship the vehicles to La Paz in two installments on unspecified dates.
Email this page
Updated URL
Submitted on January 28th, 2006 by Stephen PeacockTrucks to Bolivia
Submitted on January 29th, 2006 by John F. EdenThis is another example of the principle that technology is not benign... a truck can be as destructive as a tank. These people need to be armed with a bit of monkey-wrenching techonology... there is information they could use to help protect themselves.
Total Agreement
Submitted on January 29th, 2006 by Stephen Peacockdebate
Submitted on January 29th, 2006 by John F. EdenBureaucracy or policy?
Submitted on January 31st, 2006 by Bill ConroySeveral things come to mind on this that might require a few phone calls.
The fact that the truck bid is being posted does not necessarily mean the contract will be fullfilled. In other words, maybe this was in the works before Morales took office and the State Department might find it ultimately can't deliver on the contract given the change in administration.
It's also possible an existing agreement with Bolivia is in place that predates Morales' election, and this is a way of turning up some pressure points by pressing that agreement -- with the help of those in the Bolivian military who benefit from the arrangement. After all, new trucks are nice toys.
The real question is whether existing U.S. policy in the region has caught up with the change of government in Bolivia -- and vice versa. It does take some time to implement new policies, particularly when conflicting interests see it to their benefit to maintain the status quo to protect their positions. (Bolivia is a democracy and it's government does involve bureaucracy.)
And I also don't know what the Morales' administration's precise policy will be going forward with respect to eradication -- and whatever it is, it is likely only in the process of filtering down to all levels of the government. Remember, Morales has always made a distinction between criminal narco-trafficking and legitimate coca plant cultiviation.
It might be interesting to at least contact the contract point people on this to see how long it's been in the pipeline and whether they anticipate a change of course due to the recent change in government.
Bureaucracies, in my experience, are very slow to react to change, and once taxpayer dollars are in the hopper to be spent, they are usually spent, even if it makes no sense in light of changed circumstances.
But it is an interesting item, and merits closer scrutiny.
I'm With You 100%
Submitted on February 2nd, 2006 by Stephen PeacockYou are absolutely right; the fact that this initiative was launched (specific to an "intent-to-procure" a contract to deliver the trucks, that is) the week after Morales' inauguration does not imply a change-of-heart by him or his cabinet. As you said, bureaucracies are notoriously slow, and it's a safe bet that this has been in the planning stages perhaps before Morales was even elected.
However, since I obtained the "pre-solicitation notice," as it is known, the very week Morales assumed office, I found it necessary to connect the two events insofar as timing is concerned. Even though I may have unintentionally hyped this timing, upon writing this piece I found it compelling enough to tie the procurement and the inauguration together.
I view it as a consciousness-raising endeavor, both for the State Dept. as well as the Government of Bolivia -- either it will go forward as planned, or someone in power will say, "This cannot take place." Either way, the public needed to know that -- at some level and at some time in the recent past -- the State Dept. was keeping a relatively low profile in planning to step up operations in Bolivia.
Your input, as always, is greatly appreciated. Regarding a call to the appropriate government-contracting contacts, I have to admit that I couldn't get those folks ever to call me back even when I was down the street from Pennsylvania Avenue, never mind while sitting on a hill in the middle of nowhere in rural Pennsylvania, as I'm doing now! I'll save myself the toll call.
Bush Moves to Cut U.S. Military Aid to Bolivia
Submitted on February 9th, 2006 by Benjamin MelançonAnd now for something completely different: Does anyone out there in the NarcoSphere, especially resident reportorial geniuses Bill Conroy and Jeremy Bigwood, have any advice for getting through to sources, official or unofficial, at government agencies?
Who wouldn't love to see someone, anyone, try to explain the requests for guns, planes, trucks, and advisors Stephen Peacock unearths day after day?
Back to the topic at hand: counter-drug aid appears to stay quitely in place, but military aid aid is to be slashed.
A Journalistic Tip
Submitted on February 13th, 2006 by Stephen PeacockIn the meantime, here's a quick tutorial for those who are curious or unaware. Start by contacting the Media Affairs (or Public Affairs or some other equivalent) unit of a targeted agency or department, and express your need to talk to someone about the particular issue at hand. If no one appears to be calling you back that day, call again before the close of business to reiterate your request to interview an agency representative who can address you concerns.
Public relations flacks, particularly at the government level, often lack the information you are seeking -- but, it should be noted, they sometimes are very eager to connect with you the right contact (depending on which entity you're calling, of course; I have found DoJ flacks to be useless, whereas -- perhaps surprisingly -- DoD flacks are generally capable of [eventually]hooking you up with someone to interview).
Here's the clincher: the key is not to continually rely on Public Affairs time after time for info. The key is to get the names, phone numbers and e-mails of the higher-ups, and develop a relationship with them that will enable you to someday call that person directly and skip right over the PR flacks. Some folks will never defy the rule that Public Affairs MUST be the first point of contact for all media inquiries. Others are willing. You'll have to make that differentiation, which won't be difficult in light of their positive or negative response.
Depending on which publication you are writing for, your editor may or may not allow you to use anonymous sources. If you are afforded that opportunity, quickly tell your source everything "is on background and not for attribution." In other words, you won't use their name or use direct quotes that they may utter. They may allow you to refer to them in your article as "a knowledgeable governmment source" or even "an FBI [etc.] source." Clarify what they will allow, without belaboring the point, or else you risk freaking them out and they panic, suddenly advising you that everything they said was on "deep background," meaning that you will have to confirm that information elsewhere -- they pointed you in the right direction, and the rest is up you. That's better than nothing, but it's half a loaf at best. Now you must start all over with someone else, better prepared but pressed for time.
I hope that helps. I would take that approach with everything I do, but considering that the economy stinks -- particularly in rural Pa. where I live -- I'm consumed with working part-time while fortunately selling (rather than donating) articles to various publications occasionally.
debate at last
Submitted on February 15th, 2006 by John F. EdenGlad to see people finally have been noticing the implications of the original post - I've been off the net a bit - unfortunately I have to work too! - so missed this earlier, but seems it's continuing to kick up some action. I look forward to further posts!