The Philippines agreed to withdraw its troops from Iraq in a trade for a hostage. Unlike the Spanish, who can at least suggest that their pullout is not directly linked to the terrorism which immediately preceeded it, the Philippine government explicitly caved in to terrorist demands and changed their foreign policy.
“We still consider the United States as our big brother in the security arena,” he said. “Our long-standing and maturing relationship with the United States will survive this hostage crisis. We will maintain our strong stand against terrorism in the face of this isolated event.”
I’m not sure they had a strong stand against terrorism, but explicitly changing your foreign policy in direct response to terrorism certainly doesn’t count as maintaining a strong stand.
Less than a week later we see this: Iraqi Rebels Get 6 New Hostages The report suggests that the reconstruction company is being threatened so that they will withdraw. I also suspect that this is aimed at the Egyptian and Indian governments in response to a request from the Iraqi government that they get involved in the reconstruction effort.
I can’t prove that these stories are explicitly related, but I am quite certain that when hostage taking is seen as a successful way to change policy, it will be become more common.
If you want to see the interesting things that the terrorists are making their victims say, see here
Most interesting quotes:
We want to go home, please help us so that we are not cut up into pieces because then you would bear the guilt of orphaning our children
…
Let the Egyptians know that I came (to Kuwait) on a three-month visa and they forced us to work with the Americans and the Jews
“the Philippine government explicitly caved in to terrorist demands and changed their foreign policy.”
Not sure moving up the planned withdrawal by one month counts as a cave. I don’t necessarily disagree with your post, but by not including relevant facts you weaken your case in my view.
Linked Stories
That was the boiled-down essence of what I was thinking, when I heard about the six hostages. Something worked once, maybe it’ll work again. And of course, there’s the implied threat that if you don’t fork over, you’ll find their heads in random freezers across the ME.
Insert usual regret at the way in which the coalition was formed and the way in which the Iraqi venture was sold here.
And, fwiw, I basically agree with the your post, Sebastian. Wish I could say that I hadn’t seen this coming.
Another spin on this is that the if our leadership regarding Iraq sucks, others are discouraged to stay involved in the same quagmire.
After all, the Israelis are struggling with an insurgency that uses terror — are we weak because we don’t militarily intervene in that terror fight?
I think the Phillipine situation was driven more by local politics. More points were scored with voters with this result since most probably care not at all about Iraq.
I agree that, in any case, the perception is key here. You never want to let terrorists/other various bad guys think that their tactics really are an effective way to meet disparate goals. Obviously other concerns can overcome this, but by itself it’s a big no-no with deleterious effects of future security.
What is worse is that this is going to encourage Abu Shyaff to employ similar measures in the Phillipines.
I think leaving one month before you were going to is absolutely a cave when you do so specifically in response to terrorist demands. Does the physical absence of Phillipine help cause a problem? Quite possibly no. Does the perception that terrorists can cause governments to cave to their demands cause a problem? Almost certainly yes. Compare it to the idea of ‘UN involvement’ in Iraq. Such involvement was never going to give us much in troops or money. The best contribution it would have been perceptual. This is basically the same, but in reverse.
“Another spin on this is that the if our leadership regarding Iraq sucks, others are discouraged to stay involved in the same quagmire.”
Whatever the merits of this argument in general, I don’t think it supports the idea that directly giving in to terrorist demands in response to hostage threats is a good idea.
What is worse is that this is going to encourage Abu Shyaff to employ similar measures in the Phillipines.
What, they haven’t been?
I can’t imagine what would dissuade them from what works.
Just as al Sadr gained tremedous support after winning the Falluja stand off with the US.
Success breeds followers of the strategy or the strategist.
Maybe some of the coalition, such as it is, has become weary of America’s strategy and strategist.
typos all over the place.
I agree with the general thrust of this post – there is definitely a direct link between the terrorist threat, and the Phillipine governments action – in this case, the threat worked. Which wasn’t true in Spain.
The same thing appears to be happening for Kenya.
This is going to continue to happen until the security situation is stabilized. The U.S. needs to use the diplomatic tools at its disposal to keep countries involved, but it is going to be hard without a defined mission for the other countries. Why should they risk their people?
But it is a very bad outcome, because terrorists will be encouraged. – all that can be done – is to work diplomatically to prevent these “leavings” – and not use arrogant “appeasement!” statements.
Didn’t they hand over 6 million bucks?
Talk about weakening a case and leaving out details… guess that’s 6 million examples of caving in.
I intentionally did not mention the monetary ransom–there is some doubt about whether or not it was actually paid.
I wouldn’t be surprised. But I didn’t want to muddy the water with something I wasn’t sure about–especially when I am sure about the entirely bad enough troop capitulation
“Just as al Sadr gained tremedous support after winning the Falluja stand off with the US.”
The al Sadr Shiite uprising of the poor of Sadr City who moved into Karbala, and the Sunnis of Fallujah who, mixed with foreign fighters, were enraged at civilian deaths, were 90% two separate phenomenon. This statement is much like declaring Hitler won great prestige for his success at Pearl Harbor.
What, they haven’t been?
Abu Syaff has done a few kidnappings, true. But I feel that this latest incident is going to encourage them to step things up.
I’m not sure they had a strong stand against terrorism, but explicitly changing your foreign policy in direct response to terrorism certainly doesn’t count as maintaining a strong stand.
Bush claimed to have explicitly changed the US’s foreign policy in direct response to terrorism.
😉
Yes, I know which way you meant it, and fwiw I agree that it doesn’t pay to give into terrorist demands: as the Spanish explicitly did not, as it appears the Phillippines explicitly are – though given that they were planning to pull out in a month anyway, it’s not difficult to see why the decision was made to move up the pull-out and hope to save the lives of the hostages.
It’s also indicative of how much Iraq is seen as exclusively America’s problem – a case of “you broke it, you fix it”, I think.
“If you want to see the interesting things that the terrorists are making their victims say”
Forced Labor
Ditto
Again, maybe same but there is more
Sorry. Couldn’t resist. You can find my previous comment on this in your archives
“It’s also indicative of how much Iraq is seen as exclusively America’s problem – a case of “you broke it, you fix it”, I think.”
I really don’t see how paying ransoms is a case of you broke it, you fix it.
Abu Syaff has done a few kidnappings, true. But I feel that this latest incident is going to encourage them to step things up.
Fun factoid: there are a number of seasons in the cultures of Mindanao — monsoon season, harvest season &c — and apparently, in some regions, there’s an official “bandit season”: the time to go raid and kidnap your neighbors. How’s that for a time-honored tradition?
I have stolen from you, Bob, with credit, here.
I don’t mean to be rude, but why exactly would the US have to kidnap Indians for kitchen duty? Isn’t that kind of a banal thing to kidnap somebody for?
Gary
My apologies. I don’t believe your correction refutes the point of the message though.
While you’re in a correcting mood maybe you’d like to write to Michael Rubin at NRO for making this statement:
“For militant Islamists and potential Jihadist recruits, the senators’ statements reinforce the notion that Americans will reward violence, just as did the Spanish electorate in the wake of the March 11 train bombings. While headlines may scream doom and gloom, more telling is the reaction of the Iraqi street. Muqtada al-Sadr’s uprising and the fighting in Fallujah and Ramadi have put Iraq to the test. And Iraqis have passed with flying colors.”
Documents Related to the Iran/Contra Affair
Reagan Orders Marines Out of Lebanon
U.S. pulls troops out of Saudi Arabia
And god knows what other little secrets our government hasn’t been caught at.
Before everyone gets down on the Philippines, they better believe there is not ONE way to deal with terrorist. The Philippines does not have the elaborate diplomatic channels that Iran, Saudi Arabia, United States, Russia, United Kingdom, and China and other major player nations have. So they do not get to hide and lie about the way it deals with terrorist.
I’m sorry, are you arguing that the Iran deal and the Lebanon pullout were good things, that did not encourage further terrorism, or are you arguing on my side?
And the circumstances of the Saudi Arabian pullout–to move them into Iraq, are just a little bit different than the other two. Especially since your article suggests (which is news to me) that it wasn’t a total pullout from Saudi Arabia.
Hide and lie about how they deal with terrorist? Hmm, you would think from your comment that you might have missed the invasion of Afghanistan?
“I don’t mean to be rude”
I simply posted cites, ultimately Associated Press articles, without even commenting on the credibility of the sources. I didn’t, and still don’t, quite know what to make of it. When I saw the quotes from the Egyptian, they rang a bell, and the stories are similar enough to be interesting. Speculate, disbelieve, ignore, whatever.
I think the United States deals with terrorist in a myriad of ways. “We never deal with terrorist!” is a lie, we deal with all kinds of terrorists in all kinds of ways.
(The Lebanon pull out was a wise decision, the arms for hostages was out of control)
No, I do not agree with your post. Most of the nations, who have sent troops to a growing civil war in an occupied country, told their people it was a peace mission at the end of a war. And even then, huge majorities of those citizens were against the deployment. I think the Philippines are more worried about the Philippinos spread through out the Middle East and their own homegrown terrorist than with the brilliant strategic concerns and arcane philosophies that come out of Washington.
THALL SHALL NOT MAKE DEALS WITH TERRORIST!!
indeed.
Oh Sebastian,
seeing as you are a supporter of the American administration, shouldn’t you be more concerned with the fact that foreign civilians are being kidnapped on a regular basis in a country America ostensibly occupies?
Seems to me that that is a bigger story than Phillipino cowardice.
Then again, if you were to demonstrate some courage of your own – say by putting your money where your mouth is – you might inspire us all.
“Then again, if you were to demonstrate some courage of your own – say by putting your money where your mouth is – you might inspire us all.”
Ad hominem. You lose.