----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 11:48 AM
Subject: [Binoskubo] FW: [pmaclass90] US has bowed down to
terrorists before
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 7:26
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
[pmaclass90] US has bowed down to terrorists
before
----- Forwarded by RAINIER
DELASLLAGAS/DMCN on 07/22/04 07:16 AM -----
US has bowed down
to terrorists before
By Raul J. Palabrica
FOR giving in to the demand of the Iraqi kidnappers of Angelo
de la Cruz
instead of following
the United
States' no-negotiation policy
with
terrorists, the
administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
has
become a pariah in the US
Department of State. The decision to pull out
the Philippine humanitarian contingent from that embattled
nation was
described by the
Department of State as a capitulation to terrorism
that
sends the wrong signal to
terrorists all over the world.
The Washington Times, a newspaper that is known to mouth the
line of
whichever political
party is in power in the United States, commented
that
"Manila's act of
cowardice... proves to terrorists that kidnapping
and
executing innocent civilians
can successfully pressure government to cave
in to their demands."
Not surprisingly, Australia, which its prime minister,
John Howard, has
declared as the
right hand of the United
States in this part of the
world,
echoed the American line
with a passion reminiscent of a former ward
hungry for the attention of its old colonial
master.
Singapore, through the government-controlled The Straits Times
newspaper,
similarly condemned
President Arroyo's decision to put a premium on De
la
Cruz's life. The move was not
surprising; the city-state had no choice but
keep in step with the United
States and Australia on this
issue.
Sandwiched between two
militarily powerful Muslim countries, Indonesia
and
Malaysia, that resent its arrogant attitude toward its
neighbors,
Singapore needs the protective mantle of the United States and Australia
in case push comes to shove.
In accusing the Philippine government of weakness in dealing
with De la
Cruz's kidnappers,
the United
States has conveniently forgotten that
it
had violated several times
its much-ballyhooed policy of not negotiating
with or giving in to the demands of
terrorists.
The most
prominent example of caving in to terrorists by the US
happened
in 1979 when Iranian
militants seized the US
embassy in Iran. The
world's
strongest military power
was helpless in obtaining the release of 66
(later 52) diplomatic personnel. An ambitious rescue mission
collapsed
even before it
started. No amount of saber-rattling and threats of
retaliatory action could free the hostages. The ordeal ended
two years
later under an
arms-for-hostages deal that saw the delivery of
sophisticated war materiel to Iran (then
engaged in a protracted war with
Iraq) in exchange for the release of the
hostages.
They were freed
just hours after US President Ronald Reagan's
inauguration
on Jan. 20, 1981.
The swap was secretly forged by Reagan's operatives
even
while President Jimmy
Carter was still in office. Like a dramatic
Hollywood movie, the hostages returned home as Reagan entered the
White
House and Carter retreated
to his peanut farm in Georgia in
humiliation
over his failure to
protect the American personnel in Iran.
As expected, Reagan's political enemies cried foul over the
clandestine
operation. But the
Reagan administration was quick to justify its
action
by saying that the safety
of the hostages was paramount to all other
policy considerations. The sellout to Iranian terrorists was
well received
by majority of the
American public.
Fear of
further loss of lives also persuaded the US government to
give in
to terrorists when a car
bomb smashed into a US marine
barracks in Beirut,
Lebanon, in October 1983 killing 231 American
servicemen.
The troops had
been sent to Lebanon to prevent it from becoming
a
battleground between
Palestinian militants, who were backed by Arab
countries, and the Israeli army. The United States
maintained its military
presence
in spite of repeated threats by Palestinian terrorists to
bomb
them out of
Lebanon.
In April 1983, terrorists rammed a truck loaded with
explosives at the US
embassy in Beirut, resulting in the death of 63 people,
including 17
Americans. The
action did not faze the US government. It said it would
not
bow down to the terrorists'
demands to pull out its troops from that
country.
Six months later, after the worst casualty record of American
soldiers on
a single day, a
distinction that still stands up to the present,
Reagan
immediately ordered an
immediate withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon.
The policy of standing up to terrorism was promptly
forgotten.
The move drew
strong support from the American public. Never mind if
the
action meant breaking an
international commitment, what mattered most to
the US leadership at that time was
keeping its troops away from the deadly
attacks by Palestinian
terrorists.
The same
scenario was repeated in Somalia in 1993. Upon the request of
the
United Nations, the first
President George Bush sent 25,000 soldiers to
that African country to prevent massive starvation of its
populace brought
about by
anarchy. The warring tribal chieftains in that
impoverished
nation made it
extremely difficult for the UN to undertake its
feeding
program. The
US troops were tasked with
maintaining peace and order as the
UN tried to stave off mass starvation of the
Somalis.
As things turned
out, the Somali militia was not scared of the
American
soldiers and their
sophisticated weapons. In November 1993, a ragtag
army
of Somali terrorists killed
18 US Rangers who were part of a contingent
assigned to arrest a local
warlord.
In a pace that
compares to what American comedian Jay Leno described
as
the speed with which the
Philippines withdraw its humanitarian
mission in
Iraq, then-president Bill Clinton pulled back the remaining
US troops
in
Somalia. It didn't matter that the move represented a capitulation
to
terrorists and stained
American prestige in the international community.
What counted most to the US government
was the safety of its soldiers.
Now, who has the habit of giving in to the demands of
terrorists?
-------------------
