http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030220/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_philippines_2 "The deal marks a major escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Philippines. About 350 U.S. special operations forces, mostly Army Green Berets, will be involved in the offensive in the Sulu Archipelago, with much of the effort focused on the island of Jolo, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. They will be supported by about 400 more U.S. troops based to the north in the port city of Zamboanga."
Interesting. Thanks. Can we now surround this thread with four or five others whining about how the USA isn't doing anything in the war on terrorism?
"We" or the media? Honestly, does anyone on here feel educated enough about what's going on in the Philippines to make any substantial comment on this recent news? (OK, dumb question, as that would stop half the posts in this forum) I don't, anyway.
Well, we haven't seen Osama's bloody, severed head appear on CNN yet, so it's obvious we aren't serious about the war on terrorism.
In expanding the war on terror to an island in the southern Philippines renowned for its lawlessness, U.S. troops will face deadly risks and the same Muslim unrest that led American Gen. John Pershing there a century ago, sparking invention of the Colt .45 pistol. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...1/ap_wo_en_ge/as_gen_philippines_jolo_risks_2
I'm not going to pretend I've read up on this issue, but should I be alarmed that apparently everything we do abroad is going to be phrased as "fighting terrorism"? For all I know, the Philippine rebels are bad guys, but I think the Bush doctrine explicitly said we were fighting terrorist groups of global reach. Without that distinction, we're in danger of one day fighting the Muslim equivalent of the Viet Cong.
You may not be far off Dan. Abu Sayyaf and the other groups in the Philippines are a pretty nasty bunch, prone to bombings and kidnapping/executions. However, The New Republic ran an article (requires registration) about a month ago that questions the value of the increased military aid we are sending to SE Asia. The main thrust of the article is that because of the dismal human rights records and rampant corruption of these militaries we may end up doing more harm than good. As we become increasingly tied to armies that can't tell legitimate opposition groups from true terrorists we end up creating the conditions likely to lead to more terrorists. It contrasts this with what the author sees as a more productive course of increased law enforcement ties to help modernize woeful SE Asian police forces and intelligence services.
We're strategically positioning ourselves to take over the Spratley Islands. I think there's supposed to be oil there, or something. Why couldn't you figure that out?
Yeah I thought about that, but it would bring us into direct conflict with China. US corporations would never let that happen because they want full access to the Chinese market. By the way, does anyone have the latest word on that oil pipeline through Afghanistan that everyone said was the real reason for our intervention there?
my humorless speculation There's an additional concern. The Philippines are predominantly Catholic, having been colonized by Spain, with a Muslim minority in the South. Putting it too simply, the problem started with the association of these two religious populations in a state whose boundaries were defined by colonial interests. Many of the Muslims in southern Philippines feel they have more in common with the Muslims too their south, in Indonesia, and many just want a separate state. In my (marginally informed, half-assed, take it with a grain of salt) opinion, they don't really look like they have the potential turn into the Viet Cong--they're smaller, the logistics of running an insurgency in an archipelago are greater (than for the Viet Cong), and their islolated by the religious barrier from the majority of the country and thus have no where near the same population base. Plus, the current Philippine government has far more legitimacy than the gov't of S. Vietnam ever did. However there is Indonesia, with the world's largest Muslim population, immediately to the south. This might alienate many of them, which would put the secular administration in a difficult position if President Megawati supports us, which would make a more religiously oriented regime in Indonesia more likely, which would... So, I'd like to see some explanation as to why they feel that using the US military to respond to terrorism is the best option here. However, at the very least we're cooperating with the legitimate government, which I hope will count for something. Incidentally, Wolfowitz was very highly regarded by all the Indonesians I spoke to about him (I was there when he was ambassador). Unless they were just being polite, that's a fair indication he's very aware of the political intricacies of the region. I'd love to hear his rationale for going in. Although I'm afraid I heard it last night.
Thanks bungadiri. Your short history of the Philippines fits pretty closely with what little I know. I agree that Abu Sayyaf and company are unlikely to truly emulate the Viet Cong, however I think that Joshua Kurlantzick makes a pretty convincing argument in the TNR piece that aiding the military may backfire on us. I find Indonesia to be an even more interesting case. From what little I know it seems we have in the past been pretty close to the Suharto/Sukarno dictatorships and their rather brutal record because they were anti-Communists. Then in the 1990's we cut off most ties as a response to the mess in East Timor, and now we are jumping right back in with the military to fight terrorism. Though as you say hopefully the legitimacy of Pres. Megawati's government will count for something.
Whatever pays more, baby. Plus, the capitalists that have the ear of policymakers will push through; right now, its the energy folks...those enthralled with selling shit noone needs that doesn't work to 1 out of every 6 people on the planet may lose out...
Remember also that the Philippines were a US protectorate from 1898-1946...with that kind of history, we're likely to to just a little bit more for Manila than we would for, say, Turkmenistan.