Colombia-style Paramilitarism Arrives at the Texas Border

Print Share on LinkedIn Comments More
The Three Percenters are one of the militias reported to be on the Texas border. In this screen shot of a promotional video (embedded above), they advertise their high-powered weapons and tactical gear.

The Three Percenters are one of the militias reported to be on the Texas border. In this screen shot of a promotional video, they advertise their high-powered weapons and tactical gear.

Armed militias continue to take ground positions along the Texas-Mexico border under the pretext of curtailing illegal crossings into the United States and protecting Americans from drug cartels.  These masked militia members carry semi-automatic weapons and wear tactical gear.

This is a development even the most ardent proponent of border security should reject.  A look at the history of paramilitary “militias” in Colombia provides an illustration of the terrible consequences that could follow if leaders in Austin and Washington allow this to continue.

Beginning in the 1960s, left-wing guerrilla rebels, primarily the Cuban-inspired ELN and Marxist-based FARC, controlled large parts of Colombian territory.  By the late 20th century, some estimates showed that guerrillas groups were the de facto authority in as much as 40 percent of the country.  In areas under their control, guerrillas used their military strength to demand “taxes” from their subjects.  For example, they required ranchers to pay a fee for each head of cattle.  For every fee that went uncollected, the guerrillas would kill one head from the herd.

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) insurgents in 1998. Photo courtesy of the Institute for National Strategic Studies. Public domain image.

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) insurgents in 1998. Photo courtesy of the Institute for National Strategic Studies. Public domain image.

Enter the militias. Colombian ranchers fed up with extortion recruited “self-defense” paramilitary militias made up of mercenaries, ranch hands, and employment seekers.  They carried arms and protected land and cattle from the guerrilla groups.  The purpose seemed innocent enough, and a diverse coalition of Colombians gave their acceptance, from empathetic property owners to the government that could not protect citizens and property.  Emboldened by the initial acceptance, the paramilitary militias expanded from defending ranches to attacking guerrilla groups.  The Colombian government, particularly the Armed Forces, turned a blind eye when the deadly clashes resulted in guerrilla casualties and sometimes even provided intelligence and support to the paramilitaries.  The paramilitary militias were achieving where the government military had failed.

The paramilitaries’ audacity grew.  More guerrillas were killed.  Then the paramilitary militias started killing non-combatants under the pretext that the targets were guerrilla sympathizers.  The paramilitaries massacred entire villages of peasants.  It was murder.  By the time reports of these atrocities in the countryside reached the urban population and public opinion turned against the paramilitary militias, it was too late for dissent alone to stop their inexorable rise to power.  Eventually the paramilitary militias reigned supreme over territory once held by the guerrilla groups.

Unlike the guerrillas, however, who were at least constrained from astonishing excess because they needed to foster ideological sympathizers at home and abroad, the paramilitary militias had no concern with perception.  With the power of the gun and the confidence of conquerors, the paramilitary militias flaunted their status: they levied taxes, took what they wanted, built up weapons stockpiles, and entered the drug trade.  They splintered off from the role as protectors of ranch territory.  They were a full-fledged extra-judicial fighting force with the benefit of handsome connections they had developed with the “legitimate” Armed Forces since their inception.

This is why the San Antonio Express-News’ report that includes photos that “show a Border Patrol agent providing directions to a vehicle of armed militia members,” should set off alarms in Austin and Washington.

What started as tacit acceptance of defensive militias in Colombia turned into full-blown complicity with a criminal organization. In the war against the guerrilla groups, the paramilitary militias became surrogates for government forces who were more than happy to take advantage of an extra-judicial force.  They flourished on the margins of the law and ended up squarely in violation of the law.  And it all began as an easy fix for protecting territory, the same justification we now hear from militias on the Texas border.

The problem is that non-governmental forces, such as militias, do not operate under the rules and regulations of a democratic society.  They do not have a structure to control rogue members.  They are not subject to the rules of war nor do they answer to an elected commander-in-chief.

The United States must control its border.  There is no question of that.  There are a number of options on the table to satisfy that responsibility.  What should be certain is that armed non-governmental militias should not be one of them.  The bloody lessons of Colombia make that indisputable.

*Featured/top image: The Three Percenters are one of the militias reported to be on the Texas border.  In this screen shot of a promotional video (embedded above), they advertise their high-powered weapons and tactical gear.

Related Stories:

Border Refugees Seek Justice on Dolorosa Street

DREAMing of a Goal: Each Immigrant Has a Story

Mayor Castro and Business Leaders Call for Immigration Reform

A Day to Celebrate San Antonio’s Refugee Communities

Fight Crime, Not Immigrants

Reflections of a DREAMer, Embracing her Uncertain Future

15 thoughts on “Colombia-style Paramilitarism Arrives at the Texas Border

  1. This self-appointed paramilitary police activity would not be tolerated in an urban area, why is it OK here? Because the faces under the masks are assumed to be not brown or black, that’s why. They’re pointing their guns at the brown skinned children. I repudiate this and ask legitimate law enforcement to put a stop to it now.

  2. Wait until these peckerwoods start facing real dangerous groups at the border like drug cartels instead of desperate unarmed child immigrants. Then we’ll see how much they still want to parade around with their guns & camo.

  3. To settle all these Second Amendment squabbles, we shouldn’t try to intuit what the creators of the constitutional amendments meant by this or that term. Instead, we should work in absolutes– by making a list of all the existing weaponry from that era and limiting today’s gun enthusiasts the right to carry those guns. Let ’em open carry a Blunderbuss.

  4. Meh! Just people behaving and acting like, ugh, people. In this day and age their behavior and actions should not alarm but instead should create discourse that seeks to understand the cause. An argument referencing the Colombian Paramilitary is unnecessary.

    This is just more reactionary rhetoric meant as fodder for partisan division and the intellectual elitist.

  5. You wrote in your article that “The problem is that non-governmental forces, such as militias, do not operate under the rules and regulations of a democratic society.” I understand the premise your writing from but our governmental that is regulated by a democratic society keeps refusing to act. They refuse to fix the porous borders of our country. Our government may operate by the rules and regulations of the law but they surely don’t operate with rules of logic and commonsense. Our Government continues to send millions in foreign aid to Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras (http://www.foreignassistance.gov/web/RGAIntro.aspx). We have done so for years in order to help them to fix their problems but immigrants continue to flood our borders. So now American tax payers get to pay twice?

    The state of Texas should be acting to protect their own border not militia men from across this country or the failing US Government.

  6. OK Karen brilliant idea. Now stop typing on a computer and break out your period authentic printing press to espouse your view. Oh you don’t think it should apply to the first too?

  7. If something as plainly worded as the 2nd amendment causes you such fits then surely you must think something as fabricated as the right to abortion must be limited to 18th century technology too right?

  8. Nice article. Also I really like that big gun the guy in the middle has. I wonder what tactical operation they have planned that requires such an exquisite piece of equipment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *