thedrifter
02-25-03, 06:33 AM
02/25/2003
U.S. must specify role in Philippines
By OUR OPINION
Last week, the Bush administration announced rather casually that it was sending a contingent of 1,750 troops to the Philippines, where they were expected to engage in combat operations against an Islamic terrorist guerrilla group.
This is a significant step, and one hopes that this operation was better thought out than the method of its announcement.
Last year, 1,300 U.S. troops trained and advised the Filipino army in a successful operation to end Abu Sayyaf’s campaign of killings and kidnappings on the island of Basilan. Under the rules of engagement, the American advisers could only fire in self-defense.
Now, the remnants of Abu Sayyaf, about 200 or so, have decamped to Jolo, and the Philippine government has asked for American help in clearing them out of that island too. The U.S. troops committed to that operation consist of 350 Green Berets, who, the administration says, will go on combat operations; 400 troops in support; and 1,000 Marines on standby aboard ships offshore.
The Jolo operation could well be more difficult than last year’s. The island is notoriously lawless, and its largely Muslim population is resentful of the better off, mostly Christian islands. And, according to accounts, there is a lingering resentment of American troops for their suppression of insurrections on Jolo early in the last century.
U.S. military support for the Philippines can be justified on several grounds — as support for a friendly democracy with whom we have long-standing historical ties and as part of a broader war on terrorism. Abu Sayyaf is believed to have ties with al Qaeda through other Islamic extremist groups in Southeast Asia.
However, over the weekend the exact nature of the mission became somewhat complicated when the Philippine government said explicitly that U.S. troops would not be involved in any combat operations. Officials said the Americans would be there purely to work as trainers and advisers. This difference seems more than just a simple matter of missed communications. More than 1,700 soldiers and Marines would seem to constitute a lot of advice.
The Bush administration needs to specify precisely why and under what circumstances we have committed troops to the Philippines. And if the administration in its typically secretive way refuses to say, then Congress should step in and ask the hard questions.
Sempers,
Roger
© 2001 Jacksonville Daily News.
U.S. must specify role in Philippines
By OUR OPINION
Last week, the Bush administration announced rather casually that it was sending a contingent of 1,750 troops to the Philippines, where they were expected to engage in combat operations against an Islamic terrorist guerrilla group.
This is a significant step, and one hopes that this operation was better thought out than the method of its announcement.
Last year, 1,300 U.S. troops trained and advised the Filipino army in a successful operation to end Abu Sayyaf’s campaign of killings and kidnappings on the island of Basilan. Under the rules of engagement, the American advisers could only fire in self-defense.
Now, the remnants of Abu Sayyaf, about 200 or so, have decamped to Jolo, and the Philippine government has asked for American help in clearing them out of that island too. The U.S. troops committed to that operation consist of 350 Green Berets, who, the administration says, will go on combat operations; 400 troops in support; and 1,000 Marines on standby aboard ships offshore.
The Jolo operation could well be more difficult than last year’s. The island is notoriously lawless, and its largely Muslim population is resentful of the better off, mostly Christian islands. And, according to accounts, there is a lingering resentment of American troops for their suppression of insurrections on Jolo early in the last century.
U.S. military support for the Philippines can be justified on several grounds — as support for a friendly democracy with whom we have long-standing historical ties and as part of a broader war on terrorism. Abu Sayyaf is believed to have ties with al Qaeda through other Islamic extremist groups in Southeast Asia.
However, over the weekend the exact nature of the mission became somewhat complicated when the Philippine government said explicitly that U.S. troops would not be involved in any combat operations. Officials said the Americans would be there purely to work as trainers and advisers. This difference seems more than just a simple matter of missed communications. More than 1,700 soldiers and Marines would seem to constitute a lot of advice.
The Bush administration needs to specify precisely why and under what circumstances we have committed troops to the Philippines. And if the administration in its typically secretive way refuses to say, then Congress should step in and ask the hard questions.
Sempers,
Roger
© 2001 Jacksonville Daily News.