It’s simple, really. A crime was committed. Filipino
policemen are dead. The criminals remain at large. And so the only
question really worth asking is this:
Who is going out to get them?
There is irony in how so many Filipinos nowadays find the idea that “peace” is a “normal” entitlement.
I suppose it is because a lot of those “new age” types who form among
the noisiest cliques in the national “debate” are parrots raised on
popular but nebulous slogans like “give peace a chance” and “make
love not war” — fashionable statements that have been all but ingrained
in the minds of today’s free-range Cerelac-fed babies.
Unfortunately, the reality outside of The Matrix
is different. If people haven’t noticed yet, the planet’s mightiest,
most prosperous, and most culturally-virulent societies were built upon
the blood that legions of their young warriors spilt on the battlefield.
They are the most war-like civilisations in history with centuries of
martial tradition behind them — the Germans, the Japanese, the Chinese,
the British, and, what has been called the single greatest achievement
of European civilisation, the United States of America.
The martial symbols and traditions of these societies are legend and
continue to be held up as models of achievement in the science and art
of motivating, organising and projecting fighting capability. They
continue to wield armed forces that can mobilise and deploy at full
force over thousands of miles of land and sea within hours an order is
given.
Peace is made possible because of the existence of a recognised superior force. War, on the other hand, tends to erupt when one or the other “side” detects parity on the other.
The reason the criminally terrorist Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF) “leadership” has taken to heart the ridiculous notion that it is
in a position to “negotiate” today is because it detects a palpable
weakness in the Philippine government. That the Philippine government
was willing to negotiate with them as equals to begin with
irrevocably emboldened this brutally-treacherous enemy. The Philippine
government dropped the ball by violating the global community’s biggest
no-no:
Never under any circumstance negotiate with terrorists.
The Philippines’ premiere talking heads make the issue more
complicated than it really is. They say there is a difference between
criminals and “revolutionaries”. Ordinary Filipinos, however, see things
a bit more clearly. To most of us, we see only a bunch of bad bad men illegally bearing arms who went on a cop-killing rampage. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?
Because, we are told, we need to sing along with the very dead John
Lennon and “give peace a chance”. If I recall right, Lennon was also
shot by a bad man with a gun. Go figure.
The adage most attributed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is, I think, the best of them and I see no shame in copying it: They always get their man. If there is anything that motivates any police force worth their salt, it is capturing cop killers.
Most of us are quite sure that Filipino policemen are itching to see
the day they drag a hog-tied Islamic terrorist into a precinct and bark
the venerable Robocop’s immortal words: Book him. He’s a cop-killer.
The trouble is, the soul of the national “debate” is being sucked dry
by a raft of pointless Congressional “inquiries” into the case; while,
in the meantime, the MILF grows bolder. With every day that no ultimatum
backed by the threat of state-sanctioned violent force from the
Philippine government is delivered to these crooks, their sense of
entitlement grows to ever more deadly national security-threatening
levels.
Peaceniks who command the lion’s share of media air time are quick to
point out that it is easy for armchair “keyboard warriors” to talk
about going to war. What is funny about that argument is that these are
the same morons who assert that the Philippine military is subject to civilian authority.
So here’s the thing then: let civilians do what they do and military
folk do what they do. Civilians philosophise about war. Military people
make it happen. I don’t see any conflict between the two.
For argument’s sake, just the same, perhaps it is worth going down the path of exploring the deeper
reasons why Filipinos balk at the idea of “dying for their country”.
What is happening today actually provides a confronting reality to help
us understand the nature of the real answer to that point. Recent events
have proven that 44 young officers can die in the service of their
country, after which (1) the leader of the nation will not be bothered
to show up at the right times to lead the nation’s grief, (2) pointless
“debate” will prevail when a clear course of action is already staring
us in the face, and (3) benefits of the doubt will overwhelmingly favour
the enemies rather than the friendlies in that “debate”.
Most importantly, the enemy was invited to a table of equals
despite decades of perpetrating the killing of hundreds of thousands of
young Filipinos who were serving their country. Perhaps our men in
uniform and those wearing badges do, indeed, deserve the snappiest
salutes — because they are willing to die for a country that does not
deserve their deaths.
At the very least, Filipino civilians should place a bit more honour
around the whole point underlying the existence of the armed services — war. There is honour in war and only temporary fattening false comfort in “peace”.
While we are at it, let us consider that pride in one’s country is propped up by only one pillar; and that is achievement.
Craig Nelson introduces his book Rocketmen, with the story of a
1969 United States Senate briefing (shortly after Apollo 11 landed Neil
Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon) where Fermilab physicist Robert
Wilson is asked how a $250 million atom smasher he proposes be built
will contribute to the security of the United States. Wilson responded
by saying that it will contribute nothing, but that the American
people’s capacity to undertake endeavours like those is what makes the
United States of America worth defending.
That was a physicist asking Uncle Sam for 250 million in 1969 US
dollars to build a particle accelerator for research purposes. Asked
why, he gave a convincing answer in no more than one sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment