US Troops To Enter Philippines Combat

[Dave H]

From AOL News

WASHINGTON (Feb. 21) - In a major expansion of American military involvement in the Philippines, hundreds of U.S. special operations troops will soon take frontline combat roles against Abu Sayyaf rebels, officials say.

Unlike previous arrangements in which U.S. troops played advisory roles out of the line of fire, the American and Philippine governments agreed to place U.S. troops alongside Philippine soldiers in direct combat, defense officials said Thursday. They spoke on condition of anonymity.

The joint offensive is expected to start in March, with the exact date to be determined by the Manila government.

About 350 U.S. special operations forces, mostly Army Green Berets, will be involved in the offensive in the Sulu Archipelago, with much of the effort focused on the island of Jolo, the officials said. They will be supported by about 400 more U.S. troops based to the north in the port city of Zamboanga.

It was not immediately clear how many Philippine forces would be involved in the offensive.

In addition to the U.S. special operations forces and the support personnel, a team of about 1,000 Marines aboard Navy ships off the coast of the Sulu Archipelago will be available to respond on short notice with air power, logistics help and medical aid.

The Marines are part of the Okinawa-based 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, and their lead ship is the USS Essex, based at Sasebo, Japan.

U.S. officials have said in recent days that they have new information showing a stronger link than previously believed between the Philippine rebels and other international terrorist groups.

The government of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said Monday that she had approved joint training with U.S. forces on Jolo, where some Abu Sayyaf rebels fled after the previous U.S.-Filippino effort last year to root them out of Basilan island, to the north of Jolo.

U.S. officials said the March offensive would go well beyond training to include direct combat roles for U.S. forces.

The purpose, one official said, is to ``disrupt and defeat the Abu Sayyaf group.'' He said the effort had no time limit and would continue as long as both governments agreed it was needed.

There are believed to be several hundred Abu Sayyaf rebels in the Philippines. Early this month the Philippine military announced it had greatly underestimated the number of Abu Sayyaf and warned it would take a long time to wipe them out.

A Department of National Defense report submitted to the Philippine Congress late last year placed their strength at 250, down from 800 in 2001. But Chief of Staff Gen. Dionisio Santiago acknowledged Feb. 5 that a recheck of military documents and figures showed a number closer to 500 - most on the impoverished island of Jolo.

Several terrorist groups, some with suspected links to al-Qaida such as the Islamic extremist network Jemaah Islamiyah, operate in the Philippines and there have been a series of deadly bombings, kidnappings and other attacks against both government and civilian targets. An Oct. 2 incident blamed on Abu Sayyaf killed three people, including a U.S. Green Beret in Zamboanga.

Pentagon officials say investigations following some of those attacks have turned up information indicating the link between the Abu Sayyaf and the Jemaah Islamiyah of Indonesia may be stronger than earlier believed.

[Lonny]

... in response to US Troops To Enter Philippines Combat, posted by Dave H on Feb 21, 2003

Ambiguities in the VFA

SOUNDING BOARD By JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, SJ

Does the VFA allow US combat participation? Says the Supreme Court: “The VFA permits US personnel to engage in ‘activities,’ the exact meaning of which was left undefined.”

We are told that talk about US forces participating in combat operation in Mindanao is nothing more than leaks which should not be taken too seriously. Moreover, we are told that our government will not do anything that will violate the Constitution. But some have already begun accusing government officials of treason for planning to allow US forces to engage in combat in Mindanao.

What is the score on this? The trouble is that both our treaties with the United States and the Constitution itself give much leeway to the government about “activities” in which US forces may engage. I guess it would be best to go to what the Supreme Court has so far said about activities of US forces in the Philippines.

We might start with the following paragraph from a 2002 decision: “Prior to the year 2002, the last Balikatan was held in 1995. This was due to the paucity of any formal agreement relative to the treatment of United States personnel visiting the Philippines. In the meantime, the respective governments of the two countries agreed to hold joint exercises on a reduced scale. The lack of consensus was eventually cured when the two nations concluded the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) in 1999.”

The Court next pointed to the proximate cause of American presence: “The entry of American troops into Philippine soil is proximately rooted in the international antiterrorism campaign declared by President George W. Bush in reaction to the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001. On that day, three (3) commercial aircraft were hijacked, flown and smashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C., by terrorists with alleged links to the al-Qaeda (‘the Base’), a Muslim extremist organization headed by the infamous Osama bin Laden.”

The more remote cause dates back to the Mutual Defense Treaty. In the Court’s words, “The holding of Balikatan 02-1 must be studied in the framework of the treaty antecedents to which the Philippines bound itself. The first of these is the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT for brevity). The MDT has been described as the ‘core’ of the defense relationship between the Philippines and its traditional ally, the United States. Its aim is to enhance the strategic and technological capabilities of our armed forces through joint training with its American counterparts; the Balikatan is the largest such training exercise directly supporting the MDT’s objectives. It is this treaty to which the VFA adverts and the obligations thereunder which it seeks to reaffirm.”

The validity of the VFA was upheld by the Court in 2000. “The VFA provides the ‘regulatory mechanism’ by which United States military and civilian personnel [may visit] temporarily in the Philippines in connection with activities approved by the Philippine government.”

In other words, it is the VFA which should tell us whether US soldiers may engage in combat on Philippine territory. Does the VFA exclude US combat participation?

Let me again begin answering that question by quoting from the Supreme Court: “The VFA permits United States personnel to engage, on an impermanent basis, in ‘activities,’ the exact meaning of which was left undefined. The expression is ambiguous, permitting a wide scope of undertakings subject only to the approval of the Philippine government. The sole encumbrance placed on its definition is couched in the negative, in that United States personnel must ‘abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of this agreement, and in particular, from any political activity.’ All other activities, in other words, are fair game.”

The Court further added: “After studied reflection, it appeared farfetched that the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the word ‘activities’ arose from accident. In our view, it was deliberately made that way to give both parties a certain leeway in negotiation.”

The Court followed this with a question and a wry observation: “That is not the end of the matter, though. Granted that Balikatan 02-1 is permitted under the terms of the VFA, what may US forces legitimately do in furtherance of their aim to provide advice, assistance and training in the global effort against terrorism? Differently phrased, may American troops actually engage in combat in Philippine territory? The terms of reference are explicit enough. Paragraph 8 of Section I stipulates that US exercise participants may not engage in combat ‘except in self-defense.’ We wryly note that this sentiment is admirable in the abstract but difficult in implementation.”

Finally the Court made a conclusion: “In our considered opinion, neither the MDT nor the VFA allows foreign troops to engage in an offensive war on Philippine territory.” To bolster this conclusion the Court quoted from the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”

All of these, of course, raise important questions which the Court did not answer. (1) Would US participation with Philippine forces in antiterrorist campaigns be considered “offensive war” or defensive strategy? (2) Would it violate “territorial integrity and political independence” if done in conjunction with the defenders of Philippine territorial integrity? (3) Would it be “inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,” which stands foursquare against terrorism? The Supreme Court will probably have more wry observations on these questions.

[Ray]

... in response to Allowing US combat troops in PI ?, posted by Lonny on Feb 23, 2003

Like I said, there is no way that the government is going to let us go in there and shoot Filipinos and kill off the Abu’s. I think Glo would welcome having us go in and finish off the Abu Sayef for her simply because I don’t think she trusts her own military to do the job, but unfortunately it isn’t up to her. The Senate and the Supreme Court won't stand for it.

My guess on public opinion would be about a 50-50 split in favor of US troops going into combat over there, with strong support in Mindanao where they are scared to death that the gov’t will give away half the island in some stupid peace deal with the Muslims. The other half are too caught up in national pride to let it happen because it would be an insult to the Philippine military and a perceived loss of sovereignty to allow the U.S. come in and “fight their battles for them”. Besides, the church is now apparently joining forces with the leftists to oppose the U.S.

According to late news, the “combat” story was all a big misunderstanding, if you can believe that :-)

Ray

-----
The Manila Times
Monday, February 24, 2003

Palace threatens to drop Balikatan
By Ma. Theresa Torres and Joel San Juan, Reporters

THE Philippines will call off the Balikatan in Sulu if the United States insists that its troops take part in combat missions against the Abu Sayyaf.

Presidential Spokesperson Ignacio Bunye yesterday raised the possibility that the joint military exercise, scheduled for next month, would be scrapped, saying President Macapagal-Arroyo wants to uphold the Constitution.

The Charter expressly forbids foreign troops from fighting in Philippine soil.

Last week, an official of the Pentagon was quoted as saying that the 700 or so ground troops that will take part in Balikatan will join Filipino troops in hunting down the Abu Sayyaf.

Bunye denied the official’s statement, saying that American soldiers will only train and advise their Filipino coun­terparts.

“I can assure you, there will be no joint military exercises if the US insists on a combat operation (because) the President wanted a military exercise that is in accordance with the Constitution,” Bunye said.

Section 25 of the Constitution’s Transitory Provision provides that “after the expiration in 1991 of the agreement between the Philippines and the US concerning military bases, foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose and recognized as a treaty by other contracting state.”

Even the Supreme Court allowed Balikatan 02-1 in Basilan last year on condition that US troops only provide training and advice to Filipino soldiers.

Bunye said the conflicting views on the role of American troops underscore the urgency to come up with the Terms of Reference for the Balikatan in Sulu.

“It is important that we have new terms of reference where there will be a full disclosure of its contents in which the parameters of the participation of the US troops will be defined,” Bunye said in a radio interview.
Bunye said the two governments have different definitions of the term “support.” As enunciated by US Presidential Spokesman Ari Fleischer, support that would be provided by the US government means sending combat troops to the Philippines.

Bunye said the Philippine government understands support to mean advice and training.

“Our interpretation is that they would provide training and advice to Filipino soldiers. The US troops will be under the operational supervision of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. We will not allow them to participate in the actual combat operation,” he said.

Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes yesterday left for Washington to meet with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and discuss the details of Balikatan.

In a press briefing just before leaving, Reyes made it clear the Philippine government will be the one to decide how the exercises will be conducted.

“You know the exercises will be conducted on Philippine soil, so the Philippines will be the one to decide what will happen. The President will decide what will happen and what will be allowed to happen,” Reyes said.
During the Balikatan in Basilan, US troops were prevented from joining actual combat missions against the Abu Sayyaf but allowed to fire back at the enemy in self-defense.

House Minority Leader Carlos Padilla doubts if the US soldiers would refrain from engaging the Abu Sayyaf once they are in Sulu.

“If they are not combat troops, why are they sending us privates and soldiers? Why not generals and experts who could really assist our soldiers?” Padilla said.

He noted that the same tactics were employed by the US when it first sent military advisers to Vietnam, only to deploy thousands of troops as the war escalated.

Rep. Rolex Suplico (Iloilo) sees no problem with having American soldiers in Mindanao, as long as they do not take part in the fighting.

“I think there’s no harm if these Americans will not join in a combat. But just the same, we have to be cautious because Muslims and Americans have historical differences,” Suplico said.

Over the weekend, Muslim and Christian leaders vowed to oppose the Balikatan in Sulu, but vowed to support American initiatives for development in Mindanao.

Some 500 Muslim and Christian leaders, including Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao Gov. Farouk Hussein, Maguindanao Rep. Didagen Dilangalen, and Rep. Gerry Salapudin, met in the first ever Mindanao Summit of Muslim Leaders in Davao City to formulate a common stand against the recent hostilities in Central Mindanao and the arrival of American troops in Sulu.

Contrary to the claims Secretary Reyes made before the Congres­sional Oversight Committee on the Visiting Forces Agreement that local leaders wanted the Balikatan held in Sulu, Pimentel said they were in fact against the exercises and more so now because of the possible violations of the Constitution.

“They must have something more to mind why they wanted to hold the Balikatan in Sulu and it’s not just the Abu Sayyaf,” Dilangalen said.

But Pimentel said that while the Muslim leaders opposed the Americans holding the Balikatan in Sulu, they resolved to support the peace and development initiatives of the Americans in the south.

They were apparently referring to the infrastructure developments and the English language teaching program of American soldiers in Basilan.

At the same time, Pimentel said, they decided to urge the government to stop the military’s offensive against the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in Central Mindanao, which they squarely blame on Reyes.
-----

[Dave H]

... in response to Allowing US combat troops in PI ?, posted by Lonny on Feb 23, 2003

Hi Lonny,

I read an intersting quote attributed to Manuel Quezon:
"Better a government run like hell by Filipinos than one run like heaven by Americans." Quezon didn't live long enough to see his wishes have come to pass... I'm sure most people on the bottom of the food chain in the Philippines would disagree. Pride and hunger go together like oil and water.

Dave H.

[Nathan]

... in response to Allowing US combat troops in PI ?, posted by Lonny on Feb 23, 2003

Lonny,

  Thanks for the thoughtful analysis...I do wonder why the left is so dead set against really taking out the ASG?
Of course most of them live in Manila, so they could care less about other Filipinos- like usual. Leftist protestors
from Manila made it down to Zamboanga this last year to protest the then visiting US forces. As drove thought town from the Airport, locals threw rocks and garbage at them.
The AFP does not have the equipment, training, or it seems, the moral fiber to take out the ASG. I suspect that any public opinion poll taken on this issue in the Philippines would show wild support for having US forces work with the AFP in this case

[Dave H]

... in response to Re: Allowing US combat troops in PI ?Goo..., posted by Nathan on Feb 23, 2003

Hi Nathan,

I believe that the leftists realize that if the ASG and radical Muslim terrorist groups are neutralized or eliminated in the Philippines, more resources are available to go after the PNP and other leftist groups.

I also believe that most Filipinos support having US forces joining Filipino troops in combat against the ASG. Especially Filipinos living in the Bisayas and Mindanao! Unfortunately, all we ever seem to see in the media are leftist protests in Manila.

Dave H.

[Esiang]

... in response to Strange Bedfellows!, posted by Dave H on Feb 23, 2003

It's true crazy leftist people in Manila, they should try to live downtown Zamboanga or Basilan he..he..
all the crazy politicians just doing blah blah..blah..blah....blah...blah...blah..blah...

The untrusted Military people especially the officials, for so long couldn't defeat ASG and all other crazy rebels?

[Ray]

... in response to US Troops To Enter Philippines Combat, posted by Dave H on Feb 21, 2003

Dave,

I don't think the leftists in the Philippine government would ever stand for that. I see that the government over there is already playing it down.

The first time a U.S. soldier killed a Filipino, no matter what kind of murdering, raping, kidnapping, baby-killing animal that might be, about half of the country would be in the streets protesting till the cows come home.

From what I've seen in the last week or so, I don't think the people on this planet are anywhere near ready to take this war on terrorism seriously. I'm afraid it's going to take some big chemical or biological attacks in Europe and maybe a nuclear bomb or two in some major cities to wake some folks up. They are still wishing that terror attacks will just go away.

Ray

[Dave H]

... in response to Doubt it..., posted by Ray on Feb 21, 2003

[This message has been edited by Dave H]

Hi Ray,

I'll believe it when I see it! I guess it all depends on the right dollar amount. On the bright side, GMA is a lame duck President. Last I heard she didn't have plans to run for reelection. So she doesn't have to worry so much about trying to be popular. I got a Marine Corp. recruiting packet in the mail today. Do you think I can lie about my age? LOL

Dave H.

[Ray]

... in response to I Hear You!, posted by Dave H on Feb 21, 2003

I'm sure that Glo is all for it, but I believe that the Philippine Senate has to approve it, which I don't think will ever happen (at least not this year). BTW, do lame ducks fart just as loud as regular ducks?

Dave, those Marine Recruiters expect you to lie about your age. I'll bet most of them lied about their age when they joined up :-)

Maybe if you apply on line and include that picture on Jeff's site, they will accept you without a physical ROFL!

Ray

[Dave H]

... in response to Sure..., posted by Ray on Feb 22, 2003

Hey Ray,

...much about lame ducks. But, I know dead ducks swell up and go pop. It is worse than any duck fart! I saw a kid run over a dead, swollen duck with his bike once. You can bet he never did that again!!! =8oO

Maybe GMA will declare marshall law for a few months...what do you think? I doubt it too...

Dave H.

[Esiang]

... in response to US Troops To Enter Philippines Combat, posted by Dave H on Feb 21, 2003

I hope Abu sayyaff and all islamic rebels should be finished, no peace negotiations (crazy  style of them).