Troops to the Philippines

[andyfox]

I had previously thought that those running foreign policy for the Bush administration had some of the great minds of the 1940s. Now I see they have adopted the thinking of the 1890s as well.

[Zeno]

A salutation-speech from the Nineteenth Century to the Twentieth, Taken Down in Short-Hand by Mark Twain



" I bring your the stately named Christendom, returning bedraggled, besmirched and dishonored from pirate-raids in Kiao-Chow, Manchuria, South Africa and the Philippines, with her soul full of meanness, her pocket full of boddle, and her mouth full of pious hypocrisies. Give her soap and a towel, but hide the looking-glass."

Mark Twain, New York, Dec. 31, 1900


Good ol' Mark did a bit of ranting against what he considered America's (and other countries) excessive "imperialism" or as he puts it, "The Blessings of Civilzation" during the late 1800's and early 1900's. Twain's essay, " To The Person Sitting in Darkness" is a prime example and very interesting to read.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"Shall we go on conferring our Civilization upon the peoples that sit in darkness, or shall we give those poor things a rest? Shall we bang right ahead in our old-time, loud, pious way, and commit the new century to the game; or shall we sober up and sit down and think it over first?"

[MMMMMM]

andyfox, what are you talking about?

The US troops are there to help the Philippine military hunt down the notorious, kidnapping, murderous, terrorist group call Abu Sayyaf on the island of Jolo. Abu Sayyaf kidnaps people on the high seas for ransom, commits murder and other terrorist acts--and may have ties to Jemaah Islamiyah and al Qaeda. They're as much a group of kidnappers/thugs as they are terrorists.

I say wipe the creeps out--and if the Philippine government wants our help, great! The sooner Abu Sayyaf is dealt with, the better for everyone.

What's your concern here, anyway? Less than 2,000 US troops will be involved. I'm afraid I don't understand your objections.

[marbles]

Agree with you, M. If we're going to declare war on terrorism, we have to go after Abu Sayyaf. Any other course of action would be illogical.

The only concern I have is what our role BECOMES once we've set up shop for a year or two. These missions tend to change directions over time; what started out as a manhunt of some criminals could, over time, turn into another case of big brother America "supervising" a smaller country.

I don't think that is going to happen in this case, but I'm sure that's the concern of the liberal argument. And given history, I'd consider it a legitimate one.

[MMMMMM]

Condidering that Subic base was closed in 1992 and our massive military presence withdrawn from the Phillipines, I fail to see how less than 2,000 troops sent to an archiplelago island called Jolo for the specific purpose of helping the Filipinos deal with Abu Sayyaf even remotely portends anything on a much larger scale.

[marbles]

"I fail to see how less than 2,000 troops sent to an archiplelago island called Jolo for the specific purpose of helping the Filipinos deal with Abu Sayyaf even remotely portends anything on a much larger scale."

--I agree. As of today, it looks like nothing more than us hunting down some criminals. As such, it's an action consistent with our war on terror, and I agree with it. Our intentions and actions to his point look fine to me. I'm just saying that it's not guaranteed to remain that in the long-run.

[Billy LTL]

Somehow my previous post got lost.

Bush is rewarding his pal Arroyo for her support in the war on terror. That's what friends do I guess. It's not as if the Abu Sayyaf aren't worth hunting down like rabid dogs.

But Gloria faces a small problem. It is against the constitution of the Philippines for foreign troops to fight on that country's soil. Advisors and trainers are okay, warriors are not. So far Ms Arroyo has not come out and said "They are only here to train our troops again." Interesting.

Even more interesting is that Dubya may be looking for a new place to relocate those U.S. military personel now serving in South Korea. Seeing how badly he has screwed up with the NorKors.

[andyfox]

"These missions tend to change directions over time; what started out as a manhunt of some criminals could, over time, turn into another case of big brother America "supervising" a smaller country."

That is what I''m talking about. The history of the United States going into other countriews to wipe out the local "bandits" is a sorry one. We did the same thing in the Philippines in the "Spanish-American" War.

[nicky g]

Given that American policy is to establish presences in areas of stategic interest, mainly the Middle East and South-East Asia, I doubt those troops will be leaving soon.

[MMMMMM]

Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. I get the feeling you are expecting the worst--and quite possibly needlessly.

[andyfox]

If I'm expecting the worst, it's because history teaches me so.

[Clarkmeister]

"Well I guess we'll have to wait and see. I get the feeling you are expecting the worst--and quite possibly needlessly"

That sums up my feeling about your Iraq opinion. And we've already had ten straight years where nothing has happened to back up the "quite possibly needlessly" part.

[MMMMMM]

It's quite possible to play Russian roulette for an extended time without having any problems. And 9/11 didn't happen until recently.

[Clarkmeister]

LOL, we are blaming Saddam for 9/11 now? Heck, lets blame him for Cancer while we are at it.

Despite the US allegations of him having and producing all these WMD the fact remains he has done absolutely nothing for a decade. If he wanted to do something, he would have already. In fact, all our posturing and war mongering might be the one thing that FORCES him to use WMD where otherwise he might not have.

[andyfox]

I also think our "diplomacy" will beget self-fulfilling prophecies. Bin Laden's recent statement is an example of this.

[MMMMMM]

bin-Laden is a crackpot who called on the US, Israel and Great Britain to convert to Islam--or else.

Are we to now extend the perverse Chomsky dogma (of blaming basically everything on the US) to even the bad actions of our adversaries? We are at fault when we are at fault--and we are at fault when we make them do bad things.

Any chance that maybe bin-Laden is just off his rocker and that his beliefs and policies are at fault?

[andyfox]

There was no evidence that Bin Laden was in bed with Hussein until Bin Laden resurfaced recently to exhort his followers to temporarily align themselves with the regime in Iraq, since the enemy of his enemy becomes his friend. This is what I meant by a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I am not blaimg us for everything. Of course both Bin Laden and Husssein are crackpots.

[MMMMMM]

I misunderstood your use of "self-fulfilling prophecy"--sorry.

I know you don't blame us for everything--but Chomsky seems to come pretty close to doing just that.

[brad]

what are odds bin laden tape US propaganda? (cia lie, etc.)

[Vehn]

How in the world can this guy be alive and free today?

[MMMMMM]

Probably because we trusted in the Pakistanis or Alliance fighters to guard the other side when we had him corralled in Tora Bora. Money talks and Muslim brotherhood is thicker than water.

[brad]

its documented fact that the military had bin laden in their sights (predator drone aircraft) but CIA wouldnt allow an attack (a la in yemen where car was blown up by predator aircraft).

my opinion is that bin laden is probably 'on ice' somewhere ready to be brought out. literally.

[MMMMMM]

I recall that as being Omar, not bin-Laden, who was in the convoy which was in their sights.