The Great US-Colombian Conflict is Over!
Thoughts on an unnecessary confrontation.

CNN reports: Colombia backs down on accepting deportees on military planes after Trump’s tariffs threats.
Colombia has walked back from the brink of a damaging trade war with the United States, reaching an agreement on accepting deported migrants being returned on military planes, after a flurry of threats from President Donald Trump that included steep tariffs.
Colombia said Sunday evening it had agreed to “all of President Trump’s terms,” including the “unrestricted acceptance” of immigrants who entered the US illegally, after two US military planes carrying deportees were blocked from entering the country.
“We will continue to receive Colombians and Colombian women who return as deportees, guaranteeing them decent conditions as citizens subject to rights,” Foreign Minister Luis Gilberto Murillo said in a televised statement. He added that US deportation flights had resumed, and the Colombian presidential plane was being prepared to assist in repatriating citizens.
For the US’s part,
The White House also backed off its threat to impose tariffs unless Colombia “fails to honor this agreement,” adding other penalties, including visa sanctions and customs inspections of Colombian nationals and cargo ships, will stay in place until the first plane of Colombian deportees is successfully returned.
“Today’s events make clear to the world that America is respected again. President Trump will continue to fiercely protect our nation’s sovereignty, and he expects all other nations of the world to fully cooperate in accepting the deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States,” the White House said in a statement.
Several thoughts, in no particular order.
- Engaging in executive-level politics over social media is a bad idea. This goes for both Trump and Petro. There would have almost certainly have been no escalation/newsworthy “crisis” without social media to allow the near instantaneous exchange of threats, counter-threats, and insults.
- Of course, from Trump’s POV, it is was useful politics because it makes him look tough.
- The whole thing is ultimately much ado about not very much because, as I noted yesterday, it isn’t as if Colombia had been rejecting repatriation flights. This appears to all have been about using military aircraft and the treatment of Colombian nationals on those flights. The Brazilian government had similar concerns, such as concerns about handcuffs/shackles.
As per CNN:
Brazilian authorities said they found 88 handcuffed deportees on a US flight that mistakenly landed in a different city than its intended destination. Brazilian officials did not authorize the plane to continue on due to “the use of handcuffs and chains, the poor condition of the aircraft, with a faulty air conditioning system, among other problems,” and the migrants were transported to their final destination on a Brazilian Air Force flight.
More here via the AFP: Brazil slams US after dozens of deportees arrive handcuffed
- The Trump administration’s usage of military flights is clearly meant for symbolic purposes, as they have to be more expense and less efficient in general than the chartered flight that had been previously used. I will confess that I am not a logistics experts, so maybe I am missing something, but it struck me as a flex even before the conflict with Colombia arose.
- Trump is a bully, but he seems to mostly want to bully our allies (see, also, Canada and Denmark). Like most bullies, he isn’t such a tough guy when dealing with people who might punch back (see, e.g., Russia).
This will all be spun as a big win for Trump. And it clearly was a win. He got what he wanted in terms of the flights and this will all be seen by the MAGA faithful as an example of his prowess. But, the win is not big. It is actually quite small. I would note that he threatened a trade war to get something that he was going to get in some form or fashion, if not this exact fashion, by just engaging in normal communications with the Colombian government.
I wonder if Petro decided to change his maps to read “Washington District of Colombia.”
Just another day for the poopflinger chaos-agent in chief. What shiny, new thing will we see crapped on tomorrow? Stay tuned!
It’s important to understand Michael Hudson’s discussion of the upcoming balance-of-payments crisis in Latin America – and the rest of the world. This Columbian Affair is the first economic/political shot fired in that battle.
It is a fun side note that UMKC has on staff both Michael Hudson and Bill Black, the last guy who prosecuted a bank failure [Keating 5] to the result of seeing an executive doing jail time.
Call me crazy, but MAGA/Trump’s tendency to view relationships with allies through an asymmetrical win/lose lens doesn’t really seem like a good long-term foreign policy approach.
Line from the press release makes the whole point: “Today’s events make clear to the world that America is respected again.”
Of course, we’re not – the rest of the world is either pointing and snickering (China, Russians not named Putin, other opponent countries) or increasingly convinced we’ve lot our collective minds and that Trump is senile. I’m not sure he’s still going to be around by the end of 2025 but Amendment-25-ed into a rehab hospital before then.
Also: I’m reminded of American troops invading Grenada to rescue American students there during an episode of national civic disturbance. What was it called again? Thanks Wikipedia. It was called Operation Urgent Fury. Lasted three days while we took over the island, then left. There was a lot of “America is back! We’re Number One Again!” hype around that one too.
@Steven Taylor
That’s President Unnecessary Confrontation to you, sir!
@Not the IT Dept.:
It only lasted four days (October 25-29, 1983). You have to remember the context, though. We were ten years removed from a humiliating defeat in Vietnam. More recently, we’d experienced our hostages held for 444 days in Iran, with a failed hostage rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw/Desert One). And, just the month before, the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut. A military victory was indeed a huge mood-lifter.
Fun fact: Despite the overall success of the mission, it was widely viewed as a fiasco inside the Pentagon and by the Congressional oversight committees. It resulted in the sweeping Goldwater-Nichols changes of 1986.
@Matt Bernius: Agreed!
@Not the IT Dept.: I meant to comment on that line. It is just so much puffery!
@James Joyner:
But wasn’t the victory in Grenada akin to the Browns winning over a random Pop Warner team?
Gulf War I in contrast was really something. Iraq did have a large army, and decent air defenses. Granted their air force quit early, and they didn’t have much to call a navy. But the impressive parts were 1) building a large coalition of diverse countries, even some hostile to the US (ie Syria), and then wiping out most of Saddam’s military might while suffering few casualties*.
About Grenada, didn’t some commanders on the ground have to call their bases or the Pentagon on the phone to relay orders to nearby troops their comms couldn’t reach for some reason? I vaguely recall hearing of it at the time.
*This led to the illusion that all further military adventures would be painless. And that led to the massive stupidity in Iraq.
@James Joyner: FWIW, I worked with a guy who got injured in Grenada, as a grunt. He always resented the invasion being treated as some kind of joke.
Watch for a massive turn to China throughout South America.
Well let’s see. Just what did we win? The right to spend more money deporting illegal aliens by sending military flights rather than cheaper commercial charters? Do I have that right? I do?
Remind me to never let that guy negotiate for me. Oh. Oops.
@James Joyner: …a humiliating defeat in Vietnam…our hostages held for 444 days in Iran…And, just the month before, the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut…
I do remember the context but I don’t think your point is particularly persuasive. It was like invading a Club Med resort or kicking a puppy. The strongest, most powerful, wealthiest country in the history of the world should not need to invade dinky little nations that 95% of Americans can’t find on a map just because the military is feeling vulnerable and unappreciated. I mean, come on already.
@Gavin:
Interesting read, thank you.
@Jay L Gischer:
Things go back to what they were under Biden.
If you can0t improve on a policy, you can wreck it, back down, and present it as a massive win. Like a firefighter who sets a building on fire, then heroically puts it out.
@Matt Bernius:
If that piece Gavin linked is not too alarmist, the centrality of the dollar as a reserve currency etc. is jeopardised – not good for financing Federal deficits with debt instruments.
The rapist felon reminds me more of the Queen of Hearts in Disney’s animated version of Alice. they both have one reaction to adversity: anger. And they both have one remedy.
I picture Her Majesty the rapist felon shouting “Off with their trade!” at the least provocation.
@Not the IT Dept.:
I know a bit about that conflict from doing an intelligence case study in graduate school. While I think James hits on some of the points, the biggest factors driving the intervention were:
– Simple anti-communism. This was a coup by a Marxist-Leninist faction that overthrew and murdered the Prime Minister. This was probably justification enough for the Reagan administration.
– Coming just a couple of years after the Iran hostage crisis, the administration did not want to end up in a similar situation, where a hostile government that takes over in a coup uses Americans as pawns/leverage. Better to take action quickly than risk that potential was the thinking.
– The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) – I had to look up the name because I forgot, but they specifically requested US intervention to restore stability and order and counter the threat from the coup to other member states.
What James listed also were factors IMO.
@Jay L Gischer: How much are these military flights? Close to $1 million a pop?
Sounds like the grocery prices Trump pledged to fix on day one.
@Kathy:
The US military was a mess for many years after Vietnam. It was reorganized and reformed, and small wars, such as Grenada, helped provide the lessons learned that transformed the military into the lethal and effective force in Gulf War I. As James noted, Grenada – and the tactical and operational mistakes in that short conflict – helped spur Goldwater-Nichols, probably the most important and impactful military reform post-Vietnam.
@Not the IT Dept.:
Indeed. I vaguely remember comparisons to that effect.
And yet, there we were. And seem to be again, only substituting “President” for “military.”
@DK: It’s a sort of imbedded cost fallacy. Trump wants to look tougher than the last guy and imagines that military flights “don’t cost anything” because “I’m paying for the plane already.”
@just nutha: Ah. I see.
That kind of cost-benefit analysis is not going to lower the price of groceries, housing, healthcare, gas, and electric bills. Nor will the release of 1,500 J6 Republicans reduce crime.
The US imports 30% of its coffee from Colombia:
Arabica Coffee Prices Hit New High on U.S., Colombia Tariff Spat (WSJ)
Trump Republicans ran on immediately addressing and fixing such issues, but thus far all we’re getting is trolling, Nazi stuff, international drama, and a cabinet of unqualified addicts and pervs. Our breakfast eggs and coffee are getting more expensive under Trump, this is not what was promised.
Hehe.
One crucial factor to remember when contemplating why Trump took this or that action: he’s completely lost his marbles.
I just went to rollcall.com and pulled up the list of transcripts of Trump speaking and randomly grabbed a recent one. Here are some excerpts:
From the next transcript in the list:
This does not sound like a man in possession of his wits.
@DK:
I suspect the military flights are much more expensive, but I don’t have the data. Military transports are also limited assets, so using them for unnecessary options is a waste of a valuable resource. There’s a reason why the military contracts with commercial providers to fly US troops overseas. Most everyone who deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan went over on what’s called the “rotator” – consisting of old, crappy passenger planes operated by a contractor.
There are other issues as well. Military transport aircraft don’t have, for example, hardened cockpits like commercial aircraft. If you’re transporting deported criminals or people who do not want to be transported, then that represents a security/hijacking risk that requires having armed personnel on board or possibly, as has been reported, restraining passengers.
@Andy:
Assuming that the “passenger” are the really violent criminals that DJT insists, I would anticipate them to be shackled to hard points in the bay, not simply handcuffed.
BTW, Are the convicted criminals (those currently in US jails) being picked up by ICE?
@Bobert: And bear in mind that taking people out of prisons and evicting them means they are not going to serve their time. I assume that since they haven’t been convicted of a crime in their destination country they can’t be imprisoned.
@Bobert:
From what I read this morning, no, they’ll be subject to ICE roundups upon release.
@DK: Ayup. But he’s already admitted that lower prices would be “nice,” but he can’t do much because lowering prices is “really hard.”
Apparently, he can’t do hard stuff.
@Not the IT Dept.: This is all that matters. A good chunk of the country thinks he’s a huge winner. It’s the same thing with these immigration raids, btw. Everyone on the left if pulling their hair about how disruptive they are, but half the country loves it.
@Andy:
I understand testing at small scales to identifies failures and improvements, if any. But making a big deal out of such tests strikes me as weird.
As to the costs of these flights:
Military aircraft are typically heavier than civilian ones (most times), because the former are built more rugged for various reasons. These range from handling rough airstrips, to performing higher g maneuvers (as when evading a missile), to taking enemy fire, even to flying lower to evade radar. Heavier aircraft use up more fuel, they pay somewhat higher landing and parking fees. And who knows what deals and credit, if any, the USAF has with airports in the region.
On the other hand, a charter that doesn’t pick up passengers or cargo for the return leg, is just wasting money. So I surmise a repatriation flight costs the government for the round trip.
Cost is a minor consideration for military flights, be they transport, surveillance, or combat, because the primary consideration is to achieve mission objectives. Cost is the major consideration for civilian passenger flights.
@MarkedMan:
Which of course raises the question what is the objective of incarceration. If the goal is removal from society (for the benefit and safety of society) that’s one aspect. If the goal is to act as a deterrant, (how’s that working BTW), that’s another aspect. But if the goal is punishment what benefit does society derive from that and why should society pay for the maintenance of punishment centers.
OTOH, if the goal is really to protect society from the evils of these criminals, what better way than to expell them from the society we are trying to protect.
@Andy:
Dang. The more you live, the more education you are provided. Off to do some reading between work stuff.
@Bobert: I think you are minimizing the punishment aspect. People who have been wronged want punishment for those who wronged them. In the past, except for crimes against the state, this punishment was done by individuals, but that often led to escalation, innocent bystanders getting hurt and a sense of unfairness since the rich and powerful could avoid punishment. In modern times the government has taken over the task of punishing, in exchange for less chaos.
@Kathy: “If you can0t improve on a policy, you can wreck it, back down, and present it as a massive win.”
Many years ago I wrote an episode of the show I was running that would be a pilot for a spin-off series starring Fred Dreyer, who had led Hunter for eight years and was still something of a star.
One morning I stopped by the set on my way to the office to discover that production had shut down and we hadn’t gotten a single shot off in hours. I asked the director about it, and he told me that Fred had developed major problems with the scene and he was now rewriting it.
I spoke briefly to Fred and he informed me that there was something fundamentally wrong with the scene I’d written, and he was tearing it apart and rewriting it. And because of Fred’s implicit power of being the star and the explicit power of being huge and scary and crazy there was nothing we could do but wait.
Finally Fred was finished. He had rescued the scene. He gave us his new pages… in which he had put back every original line in its original order, but changed (I believe) one word.
But there was one huge difference with the scene. Because the other one I had written… and this was written by Fred. And all it cost us was two hours of shotting time.
So there are lots of things Trump is going to do that are going to feel really familiar to me…
@Bobert:
I think it works quite well. During the course of most people’s lifetime there are times when they may want to punch someone in the nose, or swipe a nice looking item from the store, or not comply with court orders. The fact that this could result in jail and therefore disgrace prevents most people from even contemplating such things. The fact that there are chronic criminals doesn’t mean that punishment in general isn’t effective, it just means its not effective for them.
@Bobert:
The usual civics lesson is that the justice systems works towards three goals: deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.
Retribution is evident. The other two are highly contested. Rates of released convicts who commit further offenses should point towards their effectiveness.
There’s this journalist in Mexico, Sergio Sarmiento, who wrote a lot of editorials on crime. One theme he returned to often, state the odds of being caught and convicted mattered most for deterrence than the severity of the penalty. It makes perfect sense, but I don’t think he ever backed it up with data.
That is, beyond the common practice of looking around for traffic cops before gunning it at the yellow light or taking the illegal turn.
@Kathy:
The invasion of Grenada was not “testing.” It was combat, and a large number of Americans were killed and wounded compared to the scale of the operation. Many, if not most, of those deaths weren’t necessary, plus there were other weaknesses the conflict exposed that would be huge problems in a larger war if they weren’t addressed.
Combat experience matters a great deal. Since combat is literally a life-and-death situation, mistakes are punished very hard, which creates strong incentives to make corrections. A big part of the reason that the US military is unparalleled in certain capabilities is not only because we’ve invested in them but also because we’ve refined the techniques, tactics, and procedures over decades of actual combat. Grenada was an important part of that, even if it wasn’t considered a big conflict.
As for the aircraft, military aircraft aren’t directly comparable to civilian passenger aircraft. They are different tools with different missions. You can make a comparison on a cost-per-flight hour basis and then adjust to cost per flight hour per passenger to get a rough idea of operating costs, but those aren’t all costs and I don’t know what those numbers are. The bigger issue for me is that C-17s are a relatively scarce resource; we aren’t buying any more of them, and using them for unnecessary missions is a waste.
@Kathy: Urgent Fury was a disconnected mess, with different services not supporting or collaborating. It was as if the NFL team in this analogy players were all running their own plays against the Pop Warner team. A win, but a needlessly messy one.
@Andy:
You test aircraft by flying them, and you test military doctrines and equipment by fighting.
@Not the IT Dept.: It was more about sending a message to Castro’s Cuba, which was still playing the Cold War game of aggressively extending their and the USSR’s version of Marxism within the Western hemisphere than it was about Grenada. We call it the “Cold War” but it had a significant amount of hotness within it.
@Matt Bernius:
Dogs have pack leaders, chickens have pecking orders. Trump just insists on being treated as the alpha rooster of the so-called “Free World”. He’s not going to have anyone openly laughing at him at the UN or G7 this time around.
A week into his presidency, Trump has proposed the following:
– genocide in the Gaza Strip;
– forcible acquisition of Greenland;
– making Canada a state;
– exiling repeat criminal offenders to another country;
– building an Iron Dome over the entire USA.
All while firing people left and right, suspending foreign and domestic programs which directly affect the health and welfare of millions of people, and making so many threats it’s impossible to keep up with them. Apparently he finally absorbed what Steve Bannon meant by “flooding the zone with shit” to the extent that everyone is so overwhelmed they lose track of what is actually happening beneath it all.
One early example, which seems to have slipped under the radars of both Democrats and financial journalists in America:
@Ken_L: An iron dome? Maybe I’m a have to follow Trump news closer.
Nah… too much kaka to wade through to find the really funny, ridiculous sh!t.