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.
- HOPE lies in imagining a JEEPNEY-FREE Philippines - October 18, 2017
- Like squatters, jeepney drivers are national PARASITES - October 17, 2017
- The time has come to have a conversation about someone’s face - October 16, 2017
- How Jover Laurio (a.k.a. @PinoyAkoBlog) intellectually-bankrupted the Ateneo de Manila University - October 16, 2017
- Blade Runner 2049 features the consummation of personal AI - October 15, 2017