Third Party & Independents: Archives

David:

I believe that what the Philippine government is doing is horrendous. They have shown the world that just like the Spanish, they will allow terrorists to control their actions.

The policy should be that every time a terrorist takes a hostage, that country sends 500 more troops. Now THAT policy would have the right effect.

The problem is this: you might just save the one person’s life, but you imperil other lives by your actions. Why do you think so many groups have “no bargaining or no ransom” policies.

Martin and Gracie Burnham were captured by Abu Sayaf terrorists in the Philippines. Their mission agency did not waver from its policy of not bargaining. In their words, to bargain MIGHT have saved Martin Burnham’s life, but it would have put every single other missionary in their organization at greater risk.

When making these kinds of decisions, people need to look at the bigger and longer viewpoint. It can be hard to do so, but it is nonetheless right.

Regarding the not enough John’s: I’m sure the headlines would somehow blame Bush…..lol.

joebagodonuts, caving in to terrorist demands is not advised. But, too, it is never a black and white decision to be made. If it was self-evident that the effort in Iraq was reducing and eliminating terrorism in the world and thus, securing the future of the Phillipines against terrorism, it might be a much easier decision to sacrifice one life for the security of many more in the future.

However, that evidence is absent. It is not self-evident that the Iraq occupation is defeating terrorism. The evidence is, from our own state department as well as a host of other agencies and experts, that the Iraq conflict is exacerbating and growing terrorist numbers in the world. Thus, the decision to save a life now in an effort that appears to be increasing terrorism in the world, is hardly black and white, nor easily made. I cannot fault the ethical decision the Filipinos have made. There is no question it will be used by the terrorists to further their cause. But, then, the very occupation of Iraq by the U.S. is the greatest furtherance of terrorist’s growth, and thus makes the Filipino decision almost irrelevant, in my opinion.

Ciggy, you mean something like, ‘Bush cuts to states leave Boston Johns wanting’ ?

Plausible ! :-)

LOL, Dave, at the freudian slip of the name.

But I’ll take credit for the idea anyway. Peter Jennings is slipping if he hasn’t found a way to blame Republicans for the lack of sufficient outlets for Democrat caca.

Ted Kennedy alone will be spewing a mountain of it. Two of them if his speech goes overtime.

Ciggy and joebagodonuts. My apology for the name crossing. I figure I have lost about an hour of my life typing joebagodonuts - so, from now on I am going to reply to joebagodonuts as jbod. That will eliminate my reluctance to type his name and avoid subconscious tendencies toward one shorter and simpler, like Ciggy.

Thanks to you both for increasing the levity around here. It is refreshing.

David:

I fear you have smeared Ciggy’s character far more than mine by your namecrossing. I can only hope that Ciggy recovers from the shock and dismay. You might consider just calling me Joe, but…as I’ve been called far far worse than Jbod, that will suffice as well.

I have to disagree with you on the Filipine issue. I understand your point about not sacrificing another life to what they might see as a bad cause. But you also say that “There is no question it(the caving in to terrorists) will be used by the terrorists to further their cause.”

Had the Philippine govt made their choice of their own accord, I could respect their decision, even if I disagreed with it. But to cave in to terrorism not only doesnt protect them nor the rest of the world, but it actually hurts them. Terrorists now know the strategy to use with the Filipino government.

Is it hard to imagine that Abu Sayaf or other terrorist organizations won’t recognize this strategy. The government has now shown that kidnapping works, and that terror works. How many more kidnappings will there be as a result, and how many more lives will be put at risk?

No one used to mess with the Russians of the 1950-1970’s—-no skyjackings etc. Why?? Because the Russian policy towards the kidnappers was essentially this: “You have taken some of our people, and we will now kill you. We MIGHT lose some of our hostages in the process, but you kidnappers will die.”

While brutal, this policy of NON-negotiation worked, since it taught kidnappers that they would never ever be successful using that tactic.

If the coalition countries used this kind of strategy, by telling the terrorists that for every kidnapping, they would INCREASE the number of soldiers in Iraq or wherever, the terrorists would soon see the folly of kidnapping.

As it is, Spain and the Philippines have shown the terrorists just how well kidnapping can work.

David, I’m not uncompassionate for the victims. I simply feel that the Filipino strategy, while possibly saving THIS victim, creates far more victims down the road. It is my compassion for them that leads me to my strategy.

JBOD,
The Phillipines have their own terrorist problems in their own homeland. I can imagine the Filipino people saying to their representatives “Why are we risking our people in Iraq for that American war where the insurgents and terrorists target the U.S. as their enemy when we have our own terrorists we must deal with here at home?”

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Let us say the Phillipines invade Malaysia because they view Malaysia as a potential terrorist threat in the future next week. The Filipino government asks us for troops and logistical support to assist them with their war, in which, we know the Malaysians will target U.S. forces as a means of coercing their withdrawal.

Would Bush pull troops from Iraq to help the Filipinos? Would he risk making our troops targets in some other country’s war? Could he hope to be reelected by adding to the list those who would target our troops at all cost for intervening in other nation’s disputes?

This is why I don’t fault them. One of the mistakes this administration continues to make is lumping all insurgents and terrorist groups under one umbrella. The Filipinos can easily distinguish between al-Queda which constitutes a potential threat to the Phillipines, and the insurgents in Iraq, who do not. Given the Malaysian terrorists had no interest in the U.S. as targets provided the U.S. did not involve themselves in their war with the Phillipines, would it make sense for us to add to our list of terrorists targeting our own people? It certainly wouldn’t to at least half the voters in this country. I suspect the percentage is much higher in the Phillipines, and they have a democratic election system as well.

Your arguments make sense to me only if I ignore the differences between terrorist groups and who they view as their enemies. The insurgents/terrorists in Iraq will not be enemies of the Phillipines if the Filipino’s withdraw. This is precisely why Bush can’t sell the Iraq war to a much larger coalition or acquire anything more than token international troop presence in Iraq by other countries other than Britain. Bush sold the Iraq war as part of the war on terrorism, but, the evidence for his case has fallen out from under him.

I predict we will see further withdrawals from the coalition over the next 8 months as political pressures come to bear on the governments who have participated from their own constituencies who challenge the rationale of continuing to make the Iraq war their war in light of the fact that Iraq posed no imminent regional threat nor even a terrorist threat prior to our invasion. The only rationale for remaining is fear of economic sanctions from the Bush administration, and that fear will have less and less legs as the losses to coalition forces mount.

One can try to argue to the people of the coalition nations that though our facts proved wrong the invasion was still just, but, it really has no meaning today in the face current troop losses by coalition forces. The voters have the facts and they no longer support their bearing losses in Iraq. Our own government now admits that the bulk of fighting and attacks against us in Iraq are NOT from terrorists, but, from internal Iraqi insurgents. The basis of threat from Iraq toward coalition nations no longer exists.

David:

Criminals are criminals and terrorists are terrorists. Yes there can be different types and different networks. But the terrorists operating in the Philippines have just learned a great lesson: if pushed, the Filipino government will cave, therefore, push away!

Your Malaysian terrorists would now know that kidnapping is a workable strategy with the Filipino government. This would put many now innocent people at risk.

For an example, look at what happens in South America. There are many diverse countries with diverse groups of criminals. Yet many of them use the strategy of kidnapping for ransom. The reason they do this is that it works. If it didnt work, they wouldnt take the risk to do it.

Too many liberals in my opinion cannot see the bigger picture. We all want to save the one guy who is in danger NOW, but if doing so puts even more people in danger later, then has it truly been worth it.

An example from WWII: My stepfather was a new lieutenant in the Philippines with an outfit in direct contact with Japanese forces. One night on patrol, he had a coughing fit, but finally stopped. The next day, one of his men told him that had he not stopped he would have given their position away, but that he probably would have been killed by his own men first.

You see, they understood that he was putting the lives of 50 men in jeopardy by giving their position away. A liberal would only see the direct result of the one life. It makes sense to pay attention to both.

The withdrawal of Spanish and Filipino forces from Iraq is symbolic, and represent straws grasped at by the insurgent forces in Iraq.

It’s also what you get when you “internationalize” a conflict—fielding a symbolic force exposed to symbolic attack.

If the enemy were symbolic, the symbolic force approach would be appropriate. But the enemy is clandestine, and the way to fight them is with clandestine forces.

Sun Tzu time:

The enemy must not know where I intend to give battle. For if he does not know where I intend to give battle, he must prepare in a great many places. And when he prepares in a great many places, those I have to fight in will be few. For if he prepares to the front, his rear will be weak, and if to the rear, his front will be fragile. If he strengthens his left, his right will be vulnerable, and if his right, there will be few troops on his left. And when he sends troops everywhere, he will be weak everywhere. Numerical weakness comes from having to guard against possible attacks; numerical strength from forcing the enemy to make these preparations against us.

Martin and Gracie Burnham were captured by Abu Sayaf terrorists in the Philippines. Their mission agency did not waver from its policy of not bargaining.

No, they had Bush deliver the ransom for them.

The U.S. government facilitated a ransom payment to Al Qaeda-linked terrorists in the Philippines last week for the release of an American couple but the two have not been freed, Fox News has learned.

Thanks for bringing that up joe. :)

JBOD, I disagree on the lesson you think the Filipino terrorists have learned. They read the same news the electorate does in the Phillipines. They may suspect that kidnapping and death threats will work against their own government to further their terrorist objectives in the Phillipines, but, they are likely to learn on the very next incident, that that is not the case. The Phillipines are in all likelihood NOT going to negotiate with domestic terrorists unless there are exceptional circumstances. There is sufficient support from the Filipino people to warrant not negotiating with internal domestic terrorists.

As I said in the beginning, these are complex and NOT black and white situations without context. Each terrorist threat and demand must be considered in its context and in terms of the short and long term benefits of each possible course of action. It is rigid and irresponsible to prejudge all terrorist actions in one light deserving of only one response and ignoring context, consequences, and welfare of the people.

Israel said they would not negotiate, they did. The U.S. said it would not negotiate, we did. The general policy is and should be, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists”. But, the public good and welfare must be considered in determining the best course of action in each and every case.

In politics and governments, there are no absolutes and that is as it should be in an environment in which decisions must be made based on virtually infinite variables and large numbers of possible outcomes resulting from a number of courses of action. If simple black and white political and governmental rules were the answer, we would have Utopia by now, don’t you think? :-)

David, Abu Sayeff terrorists have now learned that kidnapping for ransom, while it didn’t work under the Clinton administration, does now work under an appeasing Bush administration.

This national security policy is officially and completely out of control. It’s as if Bush is begging for the left to take over in November.

jbod, your rationale that if we always refuse to negotiate, terrorists won’t try. Think about it jbod, how many murders, kidnaps, molestations, drug users, etc. etc. etc. are deterred by the prospect of failure? One out of maybe 10 might be deterred. These folks are ready to die trying in some cases. You really think they study history or American policy text books first to decide what their chances are of success before engaging in a terrorist act? ALso, what have the terrorist planners to lose, they aren’t going to be on the front line negotiating.

Rigidity in position, is not a strength - it is a weakness. Even tall buildings of concrete and steel survive high winds and earthquakes by being flexible.

There is the flexibility of strength, as applied by a serpent; and there is the flexibility of weakness, like the writhing of a prey creature in a serpent’s mouth.

The rationale given by the administration in the Fox News article, for providing the ransom money, was to facilitate tracking the terrorists by tracking the flow of the money. I personally think there are better ways to track terrorists than that, but I also imagine that if I were in a terrorist organization and suspected that ransom money could be tracked back to me after a hostage had been ransomed, I wouldn’t sleep well at night.

There may be something afoot to make strength appear to be weakness, that I previously hadn’t considered.