Colombia's military presented bombardments that killed minors as operations with "zero collateral damage" in official reports, raising questions about accountability and transparency in the country's ongoing armed conflict.
The revelations, reported by La Silla Vacía, expose a gap between military rhetoric and battlefield reality—a pattern that threatens both Colombia's peace process and civilian protection in conflict zones. Official characterizations of operations as having "zero collateral damage" appear to have excluded the deaths of minors present in targeted areas.
The issue strikes at the heart of Colombia's post-conflict transformation. The 2016 peace agreement with the FARC ended five decades of guerrilla warfare, but military operations continue against remaining armed groups—the ELN, dissident FARC factions, and criminal organizations. How the armed forces account for civilian casualties, particularly children, in these operations reflects whether Colombia is truly transitioning from decades of conflict.
International humanitarian law requires armed forces to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to minimize civilian harm. Children in conflict zones present particularly complex questions—some may be recruited by armed groups, but international law still affords them special protection. How military forces classify and report casualties involving minors reveals their commitment to these principles.
The reporting discrepancies matter for multiple reasons. They affect domestic accountability—whether military commanders face investigation for potential violations. They influence international perception of Colombia's human rights record. And they shape peace process implementation, as rural communities' willingness to trust state institutions depends partly on military conduct and honesty.
Colombia's defense establishment faces pressure from multiple directions. Military commanders confront ongoing security threats from armed groups operating in remote regions. Human rights organizations demand accountability for civilian casualties. And the peace agreement requires security forces to operate differently than during decades of open conflict—prioritizing protection over body counts.
Previous scandals have tested military accountability in Colombia. The "false positives" affair revealed that army units killed civilians and presented them as guerrillas to inflate success metrics—a practice that led to prosecutions but also exposed institutional problems. Whether current reporting practices around bombardments represent similar systemic issues or isolated incidents remains unclear.
The government's response to these latest revelations will indicate its commitment to transparency. Colombia's defense minister and military leadership must clarify how casualties are classified and reported, particularly when minors are involved. Independent investigation mechanisms, strengthened under the peace agreement, should examine specific bombardment cases to determine what actually occurred.
Regional context matters too. Across Latin America, security forces face questions about human rights compliance, from police violence in Brazil to military conduct in Mexico's drug war. How Colombia handles accountability for civilian casualties in military operations may influence broader regional standards.
Civil society organizations and international observers have long monitored Colombian military operations in conflict zones. These groups provide crucial oversight, documenting incidents and pressing for accountability when official reports appear incomplete or inaccurate. Their work becomes more vital when official channels fail to provide transparent information.
The Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), Colombia's transitional justice court, has jurisdiction over conflict-related crimes committed before 2016. But military operations against remaining armed groups fall into a gray area—neither clearly covered by peace agreement mechanisms nor subject to regular criminal courts in practice. This accountability gap leaves open questions about who investigates when military reports prove inaccurate.
International humanitarian organizations emphasize that accurate casualty reporting serves military interests as well as humanitarian goals. Armed forces that acknowledge mistakes and investigate incidents build credibility with civilian populations, while those that deny or minimize casualties lose trust essential for intelligence gathering and cooperation.
In Colombia, as across post-conflict societies, peace is not an event but a process—requiring patience, investment, and political will. That process depends fundamentally on truth-telling. Military forces that present operations with civilian casualties as having "zero collateral damage" undermine the trust and accountability necessary for sustainable peace.
The coming weeks will reveal whether Colombia's government treats these revelations as isolated reporting errors or as evidence of systemic problems requiring institutional reform. For communities in conflict-affected regions, and for families who have lost children to violence, the military's commitment to honesty matters as much as its operational effectiveness.
Colombia has made remarkable progress since 2016, transforming former conflict zones and reintegrating thousands of ex-combatants. But that progress remains fragile, vulnerable to violence and vulnerable to the erosion of trust that occurs when institutions fail to acknowledge uncomfortable truths. How the country handles accountability for military operations will help determine whether peace process gains endure or give way to renewed cycles of violence and impunity.
