WHAT are we doing in Iraq anyway? The 4,000 or so Filipinos
working as cooks and drivers may be there because of
reconstruction's employment opportunities, but the 51 soldiers
and policemen serving with the US-led coalition forces?
They are there because of the Arroyo administration's voluntary
membership in the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
Any attempt by Malacaqang or the Department of Foreign
Affairs to justify our modest military presence in Iraq as a
means of supporting the international community at large must be
rejected for what it is: nonsense. We are in Iraq because the
Arroyo administration supported the US-led invasion. The
government may have paid precious lip service to United Nations
resolutions before the invasion, but when push came to shove, it
chose unilateral American assertiveness over collegial UN
caution.
This is the reality in which, with a terrible suddenness, the
nation has turned its attention to the fate of a Filipino truck
driver working for a Saudi Arabian firm doing business in Iraq.
The other day, Angelo de la Cruz was taken hostage in or near
the city of Falluja, ground zero of the Iraqi insurgency.
Falluja has seen some of the fiercest fighting in Iraq since US
President George W. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier to
declare the war mission dutifully accomplished. But the recent
US decision to withdraw from Falluja has turned the city into a
"safe haven" (in the words of the former top American general in
Iraq) for terrorists and insurgents. It has also offered the
insurgency, quite literally, a rallying point.
Whether the Iraqi insurgents can be said to follow a common
strategy remains arguable, but the hostage-taking tactic can be
easily understood: They want to sap the will of both the
American public and the international community, by waging a war
of attrition against both US troops and foreign workers. The war
will last until the insurgents run out of hostages.
De la Cruz's hostage-takers, the obscure Khaled Bin Walid
Brigade, has threatened to behead him if the Philippines does
not pull its troops out within 72 hours. It cannot be an idle
threat; Iraqi insurgents have taken dozens of foreign hostages
since April, killing an Italian (Fabrizio Quattrocchi), an
American (Nicholas Berg), and a South Korean (Kim Sun Il). The
last two were decapitated.
The hostage-taking came at a critical time: The Philippine
contingent's tour of duty ends on Aug. 20, and the Arroyo
administration had not yet decided whether to extend it or bring
the troops home.
Now the administration is under the gun. It will be loathe to
invite comparisons with the resoluteness of the South Korean and
Japanese governments. South Korea did not only refuse to
withdraw its 600 troops in Iraq; after their hostage was killed,
it decided to send an additional 3,000 soldiers. Japan, which
suffered a hostage-taking crisis last April, also did not order
a pullout. (The three Japanese hostages were released four days
after their deadline.)
But the issue is not about steadfastness. It is about the
national interest.
In a word, we were duped into supporting the US-led war. The
national interest requires that we make amends for our naiveti,
and demand an explanation and better behavior from our ally, the
United States.
To date, not a single weapon of mass destruction has been found
in Iraq. Not a single piece of substantial evidence has been
found to positively connect the regime of the brutal dictator
Saddam Hussein with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
On the other hand, proof that the United States launched the
invasion on less-than-solid evidence has accumulated. The US
commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, for instance, has
found many disturbing discrepancies in the accounts of the
various American intelligence agencies. Leading media
organizations have issued dramatic mea culpas for their pre-war
coverage, which allowed the cowboys in the White House to gather
an Iraqi invasion posse without too much resistance.
The time has come to stand tall in the community of nations.
Let's admit we were mistaken in accepting the US view, and
withdraw our troops. Then, like the Japanese, negotiate with the
insurgents to spare the life of one more innocent abroad.
WHAT are we doing in Iraq anyway? The 4,000 or so Filipinos working
as cooks and drivers may be there because of reconstruction's
employment opportunities, but the 51 soldiers and policemen serving
with the US-led coalition forces?
They are there because of the Arroyo administration's voluntary
membership in the so-called Coalition of the Willing.
Any attempt by Malacaqang or the Department of Foreign Affairs to
justify our modest military presence in Iraq as a means of supporting
the international community at large must be rejected for what it is:
nonsense. We are in Iraq because the Arroyo administration supported
the US-led invasion. The government may have paid precious lip service
to United Nations resolutions before the invasion, but when push came
to shove, it chose unilateral American assertiveness over collegial UN
caution.
This is the reality in which, with a terrible suddenness, the nation
has turned its attention to the fate of a Filipino truck driver
working for a Saudi Arabian firm doing business in Iraq. The other
day, Angelo de la Cruz was taken hostage in or near the city of
Falluja, ground zero of the Iraqi insurgency.
Falluja has seen some of the fiercest fighting in Iraq since US
President George W. Bush landed on an aircraft carrier to declare the
war mission dutifully accomplished. But the recent US decision to
withdraw from Falluja has turned the city into a "safe haven" (in the
words of the former top American general in Iraq) for terrorists and
insurgents. It has also offered the insurgency, quite literally, a
rallying point.
Whether the Iraqi insurgents can be said to follow a common strategy
remains arguable, but the hostage-taking tactic can be easily
understood: They want to sap the will of both the American public and
the international community, by waging a war of attrition against both
US troops and foreign workers. The war will last until the insurgents
run out of hostages.
De la Cruz's hostage-takers, the obscure Khaled Bin Walid Brigade, has
threatened to behead him if the Philippines does not pull its troops
out within 72 hours. It cannot be an idle threat; Iraqi insurgents
have taken dozens of foreign hostages since April, killing an Italian
(Fabrizio Quattrocchi), an American (Nicholas Berg), and a South
Korean (Kim Sun Il). The last two were decapitated.
The hostage-taking came at a critical time: The Philippine
contingent's tour of duty ends on Aug. 20, and the Arroyo
administration had not yet decided whether to extend it or bring the
troops home.
Now the administration is under the gun. It will be loathe to invite
comparisons with the resoluteness of the South Korean and Japanese
governments. South Korea did not only refuse to withdraw its 600
troops in Iraq; after their hostage was killed, it decided to send an
additional 3,000 soldiers. Japan, which suffered a hostage-taking
crisis last April, also did not order a pullout. (The three Japanese
hostages were released four days after their deadline.)
But the issue is not about steadfastness. It is about the national
interest.
In a word, we were duped into supporting the US-led war. The national
interest requires that we make amends for our naiveti, and demand an
explanation and better behavior from our ally, the United States.
To date, not a single weapon of mass destruction has been found in
Iraq. Not a single piece of substantial evidence has been found to
positively connect the regime of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein
with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
On the other hand, proof that the United States launched the invasion
on less-than-solid evidence has accumulated. The US commission
investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, for instance, has found many
disturbing discrepancies in the accounts of the various American
intelligence agencies. Leading media organizations have issued
dramatic mea culpas for their pre-war coverage, which allowed the
cowboys in the White House to gather an Iraqi invasion posse without
too much resistance.
The time has come to stand tall in the community of nations. Let's
admit we were mistaken in accepting the US view, and withdraw our
troops. Then, like the Japanese, negotiate with the insurgents to
spare the life of one more innocent abroad.