[tshiggins]

I think you need to look at two separate issues, here. Firstly, of course, is a Latin American country that has had a difficult relationship with the United States, and as such has a government not willing to kow-tow to Los Estados Unidos. However, they also need enough of an economy that they can weather some pressure from Uncle Sam.

Secondly, I think you look for a country that has a problem that super soldiers, in particular, might be admirably suited to solve, in a way that more conventional weapons systems are not.

So, according to the Drug Policy Alliance, the three main producers of cocaine are Columbia, Peru and Bolivia, while Mexico and the Caribbean act as transportation corridors (Panama used to be the most important transportation corridor, but the U.S. scotched that, in the 1980s.)

So, Mexico is out for entirely too many reasons, as you already mentioned. They're right next to the U.S. border and they don't need any more headaches with the U.S. government than they already have. The cost-benefit analysis just doesn't work out, for them.

The Caribbean nations are all pretty friendly to either the United States, Britain, or European nations who are our allies -- except Cuba, which is its own thing. Cuba, as a general rule, isn't a huge transportation hub for drug trafficking to the U.S., and I'm not sure your Col. Ortiz would ever agree to work for the Castros, in any event.

(Wild-ass idea: would Col. Ortiz be the kinda guy who might think he could make himself indispensable to the Cubans, learn everything he could about how they operate, and then take over the place in a violent coup? I'd call that highly unlikely, since the Cubans, generally, like their country reasonably well, but as a plot it's pretty killer, even if it turns out that Ortiz is deluded.)

Anyway, that leaves Colombia, Peru and Bolivia as primary candidates.

The relations between the U.S. and Peru have been intermittently problematic, and the most recent low point occurred in 2000, following the tainted election of Alberto Fujumori in 2000. However, they've improved, since then and now the two countries work cooperatively on drug interdiction and economic development efforts.

Colombia remains problematic, not only because of the drug cartels, but also because so many leftist radical insurgents fund their revolutions with cocaine. Significant progress was made as the government negotiated an accord with the FARC guerillas, but a bit more than half the voters refused to support the peace treaty. However, after re-negotiation, a peace deal was struck and the FARC fighters began to disarm, a couple of months ago.

There are other insurgent groups in Colombia, but FARC were the biggest deal.

As for Bolivia, that may offer some potential. The country was long divided between a majority indigenous population and a minority criollo (Spanish descendants) group which controlled most of the economy. That started to change in the late 20th Century, following decades of violent conflict.

In 2005, socialist Evo Morales won election as president with an absolute majority of the votes in Bolivia -- which was unprecedented -- and his Movement for Socialism won a two-third majority in the both houses of the Bolivian National Congress. He immediately raised taxes on Bolivian petroleum companies (Bolivia is very rich in mineral wealth, of all sorts) and began to focus on social spending programs primarily geared toward helping the indigenous majority.

He also talks a lot about support for socialist ideology, and has voiced considerable criticism of classical liberalism, but his actual policies have actually followed a center-left approach to a mixed-economy capitalism with a strong social safety net. As such, the leftists in Bolivia criticize him for betraying the revolution, even though he strongly supports other leftist organizations throughout Latin America. Meanwhile, the traditional laissez-faire capitalists who formerly ran the country hate him for what they call his policies of wealth redistribution.

On top of all that, his family were poor farmers who made ends meet by growing coca, and Morales continues to advocate for the broad legalization of coca agriculture. The fact that he doesn't crack down on production of coca means many accuse Morales of tacitly supporting the cocaine trade as a way for poor indio farmers to make a decent living.

Any overt move by the United States to depose Morales would likely blow up in their faces, because he is that popular with the majority of Bolivians. However, anyone who owns a mine or an oil field in Bolivia has spent many sleepless nights since his election, worrying that he might do to Bolivia what Hugo Chavez did to Venezuela (even though Morales' policies are far more moderate than his rhetoric).

If Col. Ortiz is a reactionary, he may think the current U.S. administration isn't doing enough to overthrow Morales, who any "Real 'Murrican" would consider just another Latin American Commie bound to ruin his country, just as Chavez did. Under those circumstances, Ortiz may not be working for the government of Bolivia, but he may be working for the well-heeled oil companies and mine owners in Bolivia.

Conversely, if Col. Ortiz has a strong indio heritage in which he takes considerable pride, he may actually have chosen to support Evo Morales in his efforts to create what he considers social stability and economic justice to people of Bolivia.