 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| A New Persian Empire ?
By Antonio C. Abaya Written April 01, 2007 For the Standard Today, April 03, 2007 The stand-off between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the West (represented by the US , the UK and Israel ) may be compared to a similar stand-off between the Persian Empire and the West (represented by the Greek city-states) 2,500 years ago. Persia is the ancient name of Iran . At its zenith in 500 BC, the Persian Empire stretched over what are now Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Cyprus, Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and, of course, Iran, plus parts of what are now Greece, India, Kashmir and Southern Russia. In 480 BC, the Persians under their Emperor Xerxes attempted to conquer the Greek city-states, defeating the Spartans in the Battle of Thermopylae (celebrated in the current Hollywood blockbuster film 300) and sacking Athens , but were eventually driven back by the Athenian navy in the Battle of Salamis. It was to avenge the Persian destruction of Athens that Alexander, son of Philip II of Macedon and an admirer of Greek civilization, set out in 336 BC to conquer the Persian Empire, all the way to its far-flung outposts in the mountains of Afghanistan and the edge of the Libyan desert, until he turned back near what is now the port city of Karachi in Pakistan. In a classic payback, he ordered the destruction of Persepolis , the Persian capital. He died in Babylon in what is now Iraq in 323 BC, at age 33. (See my articles Alexander the Greatest, Parts 1 and 2, Dec. 8 and 10, 2004) The clash 2,500 years ago, between the freemen of the Greek city-states and the conscripted hordes of the Persian Empire may be seen as being replicated now in the stand-off between the democrats of the secular West and the wild-eyed mobs being fired up to a frenzy by the mullahs of Shia Islam and their new Xerxes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.. However, it must be admitted that the often tongue-tied and insurmountably shallow Texas cowboy George W. Bush does not quite measure up to the orator Demosthenes or the philosopher Aristotle (Alexander�s private tutor), who were the leading public figures in the Athens of that era.. But it was a clash of civilization 2,500 years ago, just as it is a clash of civilization now. Even the battlefield locales are the same, then as now: Iraq , Afghanistan , and, possibly soon, Iran , Turkey , Syria , Lebanon and/or Israel .. It may be in this historical context that one may have to view the current impasse between the Iranians and the British. On March 23, 15 British sailors and marines from HMS Cornwall, doing routine anti-smuggling patrol at the mouth of the Shatt-el-Arab waterway, between Iraq and Iran , were seized by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards for allegedly trespassing into Iranian waters. Iran has demanded an apology from the UK , absent which the Iranians have shown (so far) four of the British captives on Iranian TV, personally apologizing for their intrusion. The incident has been blown into crisis proportions, especially by the Iranians who, it can be assumed, do not start or blow up a crisis without any reason. So what could their reason possibly be? In an article datelined Dec. 21 2006, the American writer Robert Parry warned that �the first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of the war in the Middle East , as George W. Bush will be tempted to �double-down� his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel�s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say�.� (See my article Is Israel Doomed? Jan. 09, 2007.) In an article in The Sunday Times (of London ) last Jan. 07, also quoted in my article above, Uzi Mahnaimi and Sarah Bender wrote that �two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian nuclear facility using low-yield nuclear �bunker-busters,�� according to unnamed Israeli military sources. In a story datelined Jan. 19, Reuters quoted Wayne White, identified as a former US State Department intelligence analyst: �I�ve seen some of the planning. You�re not talking about a surgical strike. You�re talking about a war against Iran that would likely destabilize the Middle East for years�..We�re talking about clearing a path to the targets by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo-class submarines, anti-ship missiles that could target US warships in the Gulf, and maybe even Iran�s ballistic missile capability�.� The most likely scenario seems to be an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran �s nuclear facilities, while US assets in the Gulf, including two carrier battle groups already in place, intercept and destroy any Iranian retaliatory missiles against Israel . In the ensuing melee, any US ship or plane hit by Iranian counter-strikes would give the Americans the excuse to join in the aerial assault on Iran . The tactical goal would be the destruction of Iran �s nuclear facilities, the strategic goal would be regime change in Tehran . From the Iranian point of view, this is a very real threat against their national existence, not just against their nuclear facilities, which would justify any counter-measures that they can take to defeat, delay or otherwise frustrate that threat. Seizing 15 British sailors and marines would be a poor man�s, or a poor country�s, response to that threat. But effective only if they were to leak to international media that those 15 individuals, after making their pro forma apologies for trespassing, are going to be held prisoner inside Iran�s major nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and others. Neither the Israelis nor the Americans will dare bomb these facilities knowing that there may be one, two, or three British naval personnel being held prisoner in each site.. Would the Iranians hold them prisoner for weeks or even months until they achieve their goal, whatever that may be? Why not?. On Nov. 4 1979, demonstrating students in Tehran seized the US embassy and held 54 staff members hostage for 444 days, including a personal friend, Anne Swift, who was posted in Manila before Tehran and was a member of our sailing group at the Manila Yacht Club. Would the British and their allies mount rescue operations to pluck their personnel from captivity? Highly unlikely, since they would not know exactly where their sailors and marines would be held on any given day. Besides, the Americans tried to rescue their people on April 24, 1980 but the enterprise was a disaster: two of their helicopters collided in a sandstorm, killing eight US Marines and wounding five others. The plan had to be aborted. In the medium-term, the Americans and the Israelis may have to accept that Iran is or will soon be a regional nuclear power that they can no longer push around. A new, scaled-down Persian Empire that cannot be conquered except by a new Alexander the Great, who does not yet exist, and probably never will.. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in www.tapatt.org and in acabaya.blogspot.com. . POSTSCRIPT. Just a few words after watching the extraordinary April 4 press conference by the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the end of which he announced the totally unexpected (even by British officials) bombshell, that the 15 detained British naval personnel have been pardoned and would soon be set free. His rambling peroration, that covered the common spiritual roots of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and the injustices committed by the British and, later, the Americans against the Iranian people, from the time oil was discovered in Iran in 1908, cleverly put Iran and himself on a high moral ground. He described the amnesty for the seaman as a humanitarian gift to the British people, timed with the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed and the coming of Easter. He expressed sorrow that the Brits had strayed into Iranian waters, that the lone female captive had to be thousands of kilometers away from her child, and he voiced the sarcastic hope that Tony Blair�s government will not punish the 15 for confessing to their intrusion. It was a masterful theatrical performance, but the bottom line remains: Will the Americans and the Israelis proceed to bomb Iran , as planned? ***** OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �New Persian Empire ?� More Reactions to �Is Turkey European?� More Reactions to �How Not to Win� Be careful about what you say that this new empire can't be conquered. The only reason why Iran is so strong is because the global community is either too accommodating or too afraid to do something about it. The Persian Empire was defeated because centuries ago democratic free men who took a stand against the despots who flaunted their power and threatened to enslave them. The heroic stand at Thermopylae as well as the victories at Marathon, Salamis and Platea remind us that power-hungry despots or theocratic extremists will never succeed and if they do it is only because good people failed to act or worse we let cowards block the efforts of those who are willing to stand up to this bullying. \ The liberal world's efforts to create a peaceful and "politically correct" order has robbed it of its courage to fight this new threat. If only civilian leaders would stop dictating or restraining democratic armies from taking the necessary actions, this would not have happened. World leaders want to maintain harmony, turn a blind-eye to this atrocities. Apart stating the reasons for this difficulties, you could at least call upon the international community to take action rather than just heighten their fears, because if you leave it at that, we all will live in fear. Warner Fernandez, (by email), April 04, 2007 PS Use Epaminondas instead of Alexander, he was not a conqueror the first true liberator who freed the slaves of Messania and gave them back their homeland and I suggest you read the book "The Soul of Battle" by Victor Davis Hanson. It tells why democratic armies triumphed over despotic tyrants. Ike MY REPLY. Sounds like a commercial for George W. Bush and the neo-cons. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, I saw the movie "300" some few weeks ago. A very good movie about those fearless Spartans fighting against those thousands of Persians. However, the president of Iran , Mahmoud Ahmadinajad (some called him Joe to make it easy to pronounce) didn't like the movie. He complained that the movie showed the Persians as bad people, as murderers. Anyway, the movie was a box office hit here. Most of my friends here think that the guy is the personification of Satan, the prince of darkness. Your article is well-laid, well written and well analyzed. Thanks for the good work, Tony. Best regards, Agustin Bacalso, (by email), April 04, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Tony. Based on Russian military intelligence, they said that USA or Israel would launch an air strike on Iran on April 6. Hope they are wrong. Bobby Tordesillas, (by email), April 05, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, SENSATIONAL! My kind of article. I am thoroughly fascinated with your erudition and insight. But then.... My only complaint was your description of Britain and the U.S. as democracies, what with the whittling away of rights (in this country anyway), the use of torture, transferring people to other countries to be tortured, the ruling "my way or the highway" philosophy, the overextension and misuse of Executive power, and ignoring the large majority of citizens today in all manner of policy making, etc. Perhaps the adjective used should be "what were once democracies" or "are abusive democracies" if accuracy is called for!! I've circulated it among my coterie of "Persian" friends and colleagues to see their raven locks (if not sporting a current crew cut) go straight up! One of them is romancing on the Turkish coast next to the naval armada, another is expecting to arrive in Iran to visit his family shortly and possibly to be closer to the coming exciting events, while the smart one has gotten asylum here in America because of Gay persecution and is far, far away from the ensuing calamity. It was great being with you sans mass of other friends to explore deeper levels!! My love to you all, Alan Klaum, (by email), San Francisco CA , April 05, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr, Abaya; The answer to your question regarding an attack on Iran 's nuclear infrastructure is a qualified yes. You did not directly address the salient issue... Israel and her problem with Iran . If the Iranians develop and deploy a deliverable nuclear weapon, that in and of itself is not reasonable grounds for an attack on Iran 's nuclear infrastructure. After all, several nations less than friendly with the west have nuclear weapons but none of them are likely to risk using those weapons because of assured subsequent destruction. Iran , on the other hand, that is, Iran 's government, has repeatedly made it very clear for decades that upon acquiring a deliverable nuke, it will strike Israel . This government vehemently denies the Nazi Holocaust happened. This government identifies Israel as an agent of Satan and a target of all true followers of Allah. This government apparently believes that Allah will intervene and protect Iran or it is willing to sacrifice the people of Iran to do the will of Allah. Obviously Israel is very aware of this posture. The US and the UK cannot afford to allow Israel to strike Iran or any other Islamic state with nukes of any sort as the economic consequences for the world, and particularly oil importing Third World countries such as the Philippines , would make what happened in 1974 look like a Sunday picnic. You make reference to "nuclear bunker busters". Such weapons are very unlikely to be used as there are now conventional munitions that are as effective for bunker busting due to increased explosive and penetrating power, and most particularly accuracy, without the massive collateral effects of a nuke. Any government that uses nuclear weapons to start a war will be a world pariah. Note the treatment the US gets from some quarters regarding the use of atomic bombs on Japan . This treatment ignores the consequences of not using those bombs, that is, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American, British, allied and possibly Russian soldiers and the death of millions of Japanese if an invasion of Japan had been carried out. Harry Truman understood that not using a weapon that could end the war without an invasion would have been political suicide and devastating to the American nation. If the west waits until Iran or some terrorist group has and uses nukes on Israel , then Israel will retaliate with nukes. The potential consequences are horrifying to contemplate. The notion of President Bush "doubling down" to save the situation in Iraq is plausible but unlikely to be the primary motivation for a preemptive attack on Iran 's government and nuclear infrastructure. John Long, (by email), Seattle WA , April 05, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony: Sanctions against Iran would be just as effective or even more effective than bombing of its nuclear facilities in deterring Iran from developing its atomic weapons. When Israel bombed Iraqi nuclear facilities suspected of making atomic weapons, it was because the international community did not join in protest against the development of Iraqi nuclear weapons. Hence Israel had no choice but to bomb Iraqi nuclear facilities suspected of developing nuclear weapons. However, the UN has shown an active interest in preventing rogue states from developing nuclear weapons. The UN has protested North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons and has threatened sanctions against these nations if they will desist from heading on UN protests. Hence there is no need to bomb either North Korean or Iranian nuclear facilities suspected of developing nuclear weapons. Sanctions would probably be as effective or even more effective in deterring these nations from developing nuclear weapons. In the case of Iraq , it is different. Iraq has launched an aggressive five-year invasion of Iran which killed 500,000 soldiers and civilians on both sides. In spite of the protests of Islamic nations and the UN, she invaded Kuwait without any formal declaration of war. In fact, the first Gulf War became formally a UN war because both the Organization of Islamic Countries, the counterpart of the Islamic UN, and the UN unanimously condemned the invasion. Iraq was given almost a year to pull out her troops from Kuwait but Iraq stubbornly desisted, giving no choice except for the UN to invade Iraq . Because of Iraq 's stubbornness, the first cold war between the United States and Iraq occurred during the imposition of the no-fly zone in Iraqi territory. In order to break the no-fly zone imposed by the United States on a piece of Iraqi territory, Iraq fired hundreds of missiles against American warplanes enforcing this no-fly regulations without hitting any American plane in the 12 years that it was imposed. Every Iraqi plane flying in these no-fly zones were immediately shot down by American warplanes. The purpose of the no-fly zone imposed on Iraqi territory was to enable the Americans to test actually the capabilities of Iraqi air defenses to attack American planes. Since Iraq was unable to hit any American plane in spite of the hundreds of missiles that Iraq fired on them, it was evident that Iraq did not possess the necessary technology to withstand any American invasion. The show of open American military technological prowess only infuriated Saddam Hussein. He determined to teach the Americans a lesson they would never forget. The September 11 attack on the United States was calculated to shock the Americans to no end and to give them that lesson that Saddam Hussein wanted them never to forget. (There is no proof whatsoever that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. which was carried out by the al-Qaeda under Osama bin Laden. As an Islamic fundamentalist, Osama had no reason to collaborate with a secular Islamic leader like Saddam, whom he hated. Of the 19 known 9/11 bombers, 15 were Saudis. The others were Lebanese, Jordanian, Yemeni and UAE citizen. ACA) Thus it became evident to the Americans that all sanctions would prove useless to Iraq to make her more sensible. Invasion became the only imperative. The use of suicide bombers by Iraqi insurgents against the Iraqi civilian population only shows that extremist in Iraq do not care about the safety and welfare of her own people. They are driven by the death mentality. They will not hesitate to destroy any Western city with their atomic weapons even if it causes the death of their own nation in return. It is nothing but a forced suicide of a nation made all in the guise of repelling foreign invaders and avenging ancient wrongs. Very truly yours, Ramon A. del Gallego, (by email), April 05, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww An article written by a racist / fascist who believes that west is civilized since 2500, forgetting the fact that was the west who fought two world wars killing millions of their own people and others. And forgetting the fact that was the west who colonalized poor nations , insulting their bodies and spirit. An article written by a man who calls Alexander as Great because he invaded Asia and Hitler (I am sure you believe) criminal as he invaded Europe . A man who think that Athens was a democracy because a few thousands Nazis of that time had the right to vote and millions of salves living without that right like animals. An article which truly represent the self imposed ethno centric and intellectual bankruptcy of the majority of western intellectuals. A civilized person will never hurt even an animal and those who hurt human beings could not be called civilized. Think for a while and perhaps it can change your views like some great European scholars like Zino and Hegel. Saleem Shah, [email protected], April 05, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: I suspect that those 15 British marines and sailors purposely strayed into Iranian waters, possibly on orders from British Prime Minister Tony Blair himself who, in turn, got his instructions from President George W. Bush! Probably at the root of this deliberate provocation of Iran was a secret ploy to find the excuse or the justification for a joint US-British force to destroy those Iranian nuclear facilities in a so-called "surgical strike." Recall that President Bush has more than once declared to the whole world that to him a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable." Recall further that around March of 2003, President Bush had more than once declared to the whole world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was pursuing a program to make nuclear bombs, was buying uranium from Niger, had ties to Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaeda--and thus posed an imminent threat to the United States, a threat which was of course "unacceptable." Recall, finally, that on the basis of faulty or even doctored intelligence, unilaterally President Bush attacked Iraq preemptively. It now develops that President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was made long prior to September 11, 2001. Yesterday, however, those 15 British marines and sailors were suddenly and unexpectedly given their freedom by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Whatever reason or reasons he gave for freeing them, my suspicion is that the real underlying reason was Iran's fear of being attacked by the US and Britain jointly. Iran is bent on joining the Nuclear Club. Expert opinion now holds that with 3,000 centrifuges now in operation, Iran could possibly be producing nuclear bombs after just two years! It is quite possible that Iran for now has frustrated whatever plans Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush may have hatched for Iran . But nobody knows what these two friends may still have in mind during the dying days of George W. Bush's controversial tenure as U.S. President. Mariano Patalinjug, (by email), Yonkers , NY , April 05, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww It was a propaganda coup for Iran-- nothing more, nothing less!!!! The games that Titans play are sometime beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals. John Bull and Uncle Sam were outmaneuvered this time 'round. Alexander Po, (by email), April 06, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Well, that is the problem with leftist theories..., they can be proven wrong in an instant such as in this case! Serafin Dudeo, (by email), April 07, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Happy Easter. As of this writing, the British sailors have been released by Iran but the behavior of the British soldiers are being questioned by other military authorities; their reason for surrender was uncharacteristic in the light of the current conflict in the Middle East.If they were Americans, an international incident would have occurred and another war theater would have been created. Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, (by email), New York City , April 07, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thank you again for your very perceptive article. For all of the posturings by the global players in the Middle East , things are not what they appear to be. There are signs of turmoil within the Iranian establishment and indications are that the headline-grabbing populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is provoking a counter-reaction from those who think his posturings are hurting the economy and further alienating Iran from the West. While the resentment is growing, opposition has yet to swell into a political movement. That "masterful theatrical performance," (as you so beautifully put it) in the unexpected decision to release the British seamen was not solely Ahmadinejad's but carried the implicit imprimatur of the Supreme Leader, AyatullahAli Khamenei, as some believe. The nuclear deal that Bush signed with India last year will only strengthen Iran 's resolve to become a nuclear power. Why would Iran give up a right to enrich uranium that Bush has now conceded to India . No matter the threat of sanctions or a military strike, most believe the Iranians will not suspend their enrichment program. Neither do many observers believe that the United States is in a position to engage in yet another misadventurous war, given the tenuous state of its military and the purgative mood of the American public. Jess San Agustin, (by email), LaPlace , Louisiana , April 08, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, You might have been aware that your friend, ( Elizabeth ) Ann Swift who was then the Chief of the Political Section of the US Embassy in Tehran , was a CIA officer under diplomatic cover. Think and speculate. Jim Angleton, (by email), April 08, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Once again thank you for re-educating me on history. The Battle of Thermopylae became more than mere Marvel comics extraction (but did the movie suggest a gay Xerxes?). What I was hoping was for you to give a "real" reason underneath the "moral ground" why Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadineijad pardoned and planned to set free the British Naval personnel. Being a cynical person, I fear the act is more than a celebration of Prophet Mohammed's birthday. I still suspect Iran will still be bombed. Pura Flor Isleta, (by email), April 09, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, That Iran , a fundamentalist Islamic State, will not kowtow to the US is probably as unchangeable as George W. Bush becoming a Democrat! What I fear is that given the fundamental differences between Iran and the West represented by the US and UK based on non-negotiable basic principles, a conventional confrontation is not too far off down the road! Since the fundamentalists will never see it like the Westerners do, a military confrontation becomes a real possibility and no longer just a diplomatic tool. Then, as in Iraq and as the Pope just rightfully observed, there is nothing in Iraq but carnage! Hope you had a most meaningful Holy Week! Regards, Col. Dennis Acop, (by email),USMA 83, April 09, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hello Tony! Without the Bomb, Iran and its oil will forever be vulnerable to the unwelcome machinations of US and Britain , and Iran will someday end up a mess like Iraq , thanks mainly to US and Britain . If I were the Iranian president, I will push for the Bomb. Having said that, I will also add that I will be more diplomatic and circumspect in acquiring the Bomb, ala India and Pakistan . No need to alarm anybody in this pursuit. The case of the British sailors sounds like an SOP for US and Britain when they want to pick up a fight. "Kumita na ito!" is the phrase that comes to mind. US provoked Spain to attack the USS Maine in early 1900s and used this as an excuse to invade the then- Spanish colonies of Cuba and the Philippines . Britain used the same tactic in starting the infamous Opium War with China, to force the latter's citizens to continue using British-supplied opium (a crime which to my mind ranks with the mass kidnapping of Africans and selling them to slavery, again perpetrated by the same tandem of British and Americans). The Philippines should stay clear of the conflict between Iran and the West. We do not belong to the West, despite the illusion of some Filipinos about being "westernized". In fact, we have much to gain if we maintain cordial relations not only with the West but with Muslim countries, particularly Iran , which is oil-rich and which has never harmed us, as far as I know. Iran , with its long history, is a civilized country unlike America which does not have any qualms at destroying a country, stripping it of its resources, and controlling it afterwards like a puppet (Think Philippines!). Herminigildo Gutierrez, (by email), April 13, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to �How Not to Win� The government should handle the matter very seriously and with precision. Any comedic errors will lead to devastating blows. Remember, communists have allies and members in the media, too. You wrote: �Did Malaca�ang and President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo know anything in advance of this caper? Perhaps not, in the same way that President Marcos probably did not know how his military was planning to welcome Ninoy in 1983. which suggests that President Arroyo does not have full control over her lieutenants, especially over the police and the military.� My comment: Your paragraph above will put a psychological effect (in a negative way) on a�becoming tough� president. This is the reverse psychology of being a president and a defense chief rolled in one� months ago:) There are two things to consider here. It could be either: 1) PGMA knew it but halted by these comedic errors of this 3am transfer and due to technicalities of SC (Satur�s petition); 2) It could be that PGMA didn�t know it and some outside forces (who hates PGMA) trying to undermine/knock down PGMA�s regime little by little through this �who�s in control� issues. Uncle Sam�s FVR�s �who�s in control in the military bluff� worked really really great on EDSA I. Anyway, who knows about today. Yes, the government and its military should eradicate communists ASAP for they gained a lot of media popularity/mileage and political power. Sometimes, CPP-NPA-NDF political �legal� powers at congress are scarier than their arms department. If they can grab more and more seats, the arms will surely follow. Not the other way around. More seats, meaning, they can make a president into a lame duck or forced to compromise in line with their agenda. Look at Bush right now, �Democrats controlled� congress gives him a great hurdle/headache. You wrote: Compare this with Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad. In the mid- �90s, a Muslim fundamentalist sect, the al-Arqham, had become very popular and had hundreds of thousands of members, their own madrassa schools, their own business enterprises. When he received news that al-Arqham was training a group of 300 (yes, only 300) armed fighters in the jungles of predominantly Muslim southern Thailand , Mahathir, himself a devout Muslim, outlawed al-Arqham, closed its schools, seized its business assets, without signing any �peace agreement� with anyone, and arranged with the Thai government for the extradition to Kuala Lumpur of the al-Arqham leader, whom he promptly threw in jail. End of problem. My comment: He�s great! But our government? They tend not to finish a project. For example, the �government-funded� planting of trees, the administrators burn the plants after few months while still collecting for the monthly maintenance funds for the plantation. The inspectors are being paid too. So, landslide and mudslide will still continue� onli in the Pilipins. Defeating the communists is a must and they must end ASAP. The Muslim rebels gained more control, more recruits with more powerful arms and support/aid. In the future if not stopped and if without superpower intervention, these two problems will even become stronger. CPP-NPA-NDF as more brainy leaders while Muslim rebels as more fanatics to come. Both are scary and powerful opponents. But the Abu Sayaff should have been finished years ago when the military encircled the building where they�re hiding� but cash magic made them escape and not only that, they did it in a �red carpet� fashion. Where are those military generals and commanders today, in their resorts? Why do they magnify a small group called Abu Sayaff into local and international media circus? Less than a thousand members? C�mon, it has to be a lame military and intel. And we need U.S. help for this? Onli in the Pilipins! If we can�t eradicate small Abu Sayaff, how much more CPP-NPA-NDF (~7,000 members), MILF (~10,000 members), MNLF (~10,000 members), etc. Can you imagine if all have super weapons on hand? And all that against our polis �batota� and �pito�. Military rifles are being used for rent for bank robbers and even sold to the leftists and people with private armies. Onli in the Pilipins! Everything is tied up to money, power, control, utang na loob and corruption� If the ombudsmen will take their jobs seriously and bravely, overflowing rebel recruits and problems will be lessen. Lacson (drugs� mother superior), Singson (jueteng is waiting), Honasan (puppet/economic killer), Trinalles (puppet/economic killer), Richard Gomez (monkey brains), Ceasar Montano (monkey brains), Pacquiao (stupid than the monkey brains) in Congress and Senate? Meaning, more communists and Muslim rebel recruits! And votes will definitely go to the leftist candidates who have brains, by the way. Onli in the Pilipins! Thanks, idol! LF, [email protected], March 22, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Enjoyed reading your article, and I am sure that all you say is correct. That is except for one bit. (I think that you have done it again Tony). Instead of saying: "The fact that 26.3 percent of the electorate (versus an estimated 7 percent of the population deemed influenced by the Communists in the 1980s) are planning to vote for Communist front party-list organizations this May shows eloquently the bankruptcy of our American-style liberalism that has given the Communists the freedom to organize, mobilize and proselytize against the state, while their armed component, the New People�s Army, wages a bloody revolution to overthrow that state. This turn of events would not have been allowed in South Korea , Taiwan , Singapore , Malaysia , Thailand or Suharto�s Indonesia ." I suggest that more appropriate wording would read: "...........shows eloquently the bankruptcy of our MIS-INTERPRETED American-style liberalism that has given the Communists the freedom to organize, mobilize and proselytize against the state, while their armed component, the New People�s Army, wages a bloody revolution to overthrow that state.This turn of events would not have been allowed in South Korea , Taiwan , Singapore , Malaysia , Thailand, Suharto�s Indonesia OR THE USA!" John Adams, (by email), United Kingdom , March 25, 2007 MY REPLY. In my article Our American Heritage. (Feb. 20, 2007), I explained this as follows: �When I referred/refer to �American-style liberalism�, I meant/mean American liberalism as filtered through the unique prism of Filipino Malay personal and social traits, which have often led to permissiveness, laxity, failure to enforce laws, reluctance to accept rules and regulations, a tendency towards anarchy, usually excused on the grounds that such an attitude is more �democratic��.� wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Thanks. I forwarded your article to our Academy Cavaliers Forum, a group of PMA graduates at Yahoo consisting of about 300 officers. See you one of these days. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Hector Tarrazona, (by email), March 25, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Great article, great assessment! One would only wish your views will be published on a wider scale! Please do keep us on your distribution list Kind regards, Johannes Jahns, (by email), March 25, 2007 BEing human Foundation, Inc. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony, Maybe the best thing to do is do not let anyone who is not paying taxes to vote. Like jeepney drivers, street vendors and those who don�t yet have work. Let the TIN card or Tax paper be presented on the polling place before be listed in the voters list. After all they should not have stakes in this government. But to make people vote wisely, the government should increase income tax to 40%, like EU countries have. Ciao, Alex Yalung, (by email), Taiwan , April 09, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, As a soldier, I have fought against the communist insurgency. From the experience, I took away with me the following: First, counterinsurgency must be development-led rather than AFP-led. The bullet is not the answer to millions of our countrymen who do not enjoy the same quality of life that the elites enjoy. Addressing the root causes of the insurgency is. Second, when we become like the enemy, we ARE the enemy. Ultimately, there really are no double standards. Those who live by the sword perish by the sword. Third, let us re-think and re-assess who the real enemies are. Are they the poor farmers trying to eke an honest living tilling the soil out in the scorching heat of the sun in the fields? Or are they the ruling elites or corrupt bureaucrats, technocrats, generals, whoever ... who exploit the imperfections of the socio-politico-economic system for their own ends and those of their ilk and therefore unwittingly produce just such an insurgency? Fourth, no one is above the law -- not even and most especially people in government! Fifth, Although Clauswitz wrote that war-fighting is merely an extension of politics by other means, inherent in this belief is the basic principle that those who wield political power are either legitimate appointees or representatives of God or the people. Sixth, moral principles even and especially in the military are sacred -- because it is soldiers who are authorized by society to take human lives; therefore, doing so must be done with honor. Doing so without honor makes the military man the co-equal of murderous criminals. Seventh, Peace is ultimately a better, more effective policy option than war. Vietnam , Iraq , Afghanistan , other insurgencies worldwide ... consistently paint the ultimate lesson to be learned that a search and destroy body count strategy is a failed strategy. It does not advance anything except the individual careers of ambitious, unprincipled men and women. Eighth, the way to fight an insurgency is yes to fight the armed components whenever and wherever they are seen hurting innocent civilians -- but still with duty and honor and integrity. Despite the harshness of the operating environment, moral and legal principles must never be compromised. I have been under superior officers who come out with the lamest of excuses -- that we could not beat the environment. I thought we were simply too weak to follow the dictates of our conscience and principles taught in the academy. Ninth, being part of the problem is not being part of the solution. And finally, that ceasing to be a soldier was the best way I could help end the insurgency. I subscribe to Rizal who advocated that education is the key to the Filipino's survival as not only a race but a nation-state. Today, there still appears to be more of the Bonifacios among us than the Rizals. I am a teacher now -- my greatest lesson learned from the Philippine insurgency campaign. Col. Dennis Acop, PhD, USMA 83, (by email), April 09, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww More Reactions to �Is Turkey European?� Dear Mr. Abaya, Kemal Mustafa Ataturk introduced social and political reforms in his country, encouraging his people to be like Europeans (as did Peter the Great of Russia in St. Petersburg centuries earlier). The fez (sign of serfhood) was out, hat, coat and necktie in, the veil (sign of woman's inequality) was out, nylon stockings in (vogue). When Ataturk died, the military resisted counter-reforms and insisted that the trend toward Europeanization continue. But the tide of Islam rose too strongly for the army to resist and Muslim clerics began turning the country back to pre-Ataturk days. In answer to your question, therefore: No, Turkey is not European. But let me ask you this: does a country have to be European to join the EU? (In my opinion, yes. ACA) If not, why ask the question at all? (Because Turkey straddles the border between Europe and Asia and is therefore in a grey area. ACA) If Turkey passes the minimum requirements of admission, Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. If admitted, who knows, Turks may just be wanting and waiting for Ataturk's ghost to appear and really westernize them. Lionel Tierra, (by email), April 11, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hello Tony! Of course Turkey should not be admitted to the EU. It's no more European than Mohammad Ali is a WASP, despite his fame, money, and the small percentage of white blood in his veins. Turkey is different from EU geographically, culturally and religiously. Generally, no one marries somebody who is that different from him/her. I read with interest the e-mail of retired colonel Tarrazona calling on the "cream of the youth of the land", i.e. PMAyers, to unite and become a "respectable and powerful group." While I agree with his intentions, I disagree with his primary vehicle for realizing these, the PMAAAI. Based on what I read from papers, I think PMAyers are no less larcenous and power-hungry than the rest of us, politicians included. They are not more endowed with virtues nor are they less corrupt than any other group, say Congressmen or Senators (Think General Garcia!). If we are to advance as a country, we have to choose the right leaders and be law-abiding and productive individuals. Who was it who said that he could have changed the world had he only begun by changing himself first? I think he is absolutely right Herminigildo Gutierrez, (by email), April 11, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Anyone who studied world geography and world history will surely recognize Turkey as Asian and not European. It was referred to as Asia Minor . When topics of history shifted to the Roman Empire and to the new European kingdoms after the fall of Rome , Turkey (then known as Asia Minor, Anatolia , Galatia , Lydia , etc) and the rest of the Middle East was lost to oblivion, only to rise in new prominence with the rise of Islam. The European portion of Turkey was then known as Byzantium or Byzantine Empire ( Eastern Roman Empire ). Asiatic Turkey will later be partitioned by the rival Turks Seljuk and Ottoman. Ottoman Turkey overran the Seljuk and Eastern Europe (and even parts of Russia ) and much of the Middle East and North Africa . Modern Turk society have secularized and embraced Western ideas, and always tried to be European. But historically and culturally, Turkey is Asiatic. Bush and Blair may want to admit Turkey into the EU to punish long-time allies for not supporting the war in Iraq, but perhaps another motive is to drag Europe into a greater role in the Middle East in support of a member (Turkey) which may be the pawn to wage an unholy crussade against Syria and Iran. By the way, even the powerful USA is not European and not a member of EU and therefore has no right to push Turkey into membership in a club wherein it is not a member. Felipe Rommel Martinez, (by email), April 13, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Mr. Abaya, Of all the Jun Ducat comments submitted, I counted only four who focused their comments on Jun Ducat's "message." .The rest zeroed-in and aligned their line of fire on the "messenger," and not the message. "If the shoe fits, wear it." Pierre Tierra, (by email), April 11, 2007 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww It seems that Ducat did not put the children in harm's way. Those are his kids in his own school. He gave them a head-start. It seems that he just wanted to dramatize the plight of those kids and the poor who are in dire need of support for survival and all other needs in Maslow's hierarchy, including education. Singson the opportunist, of course, tried to steal the show. There are lots of critics that would hang Ducat, but let's think about it. Ducat had the nerve and we did not. Ducat acted on their needs by having a school for them, and did we care to even donate books or donate classrooms (considering the fact that there are lots of Filipinos who are better financially endowed than Ducat)? The fact of the matter is that such Ducat nerve caused the corrupt officials a global embarrassment. Also it caused many of us embarrassment, too, for it says a lot about us Christians or Catholics, who did not lift a finger to address the needs of our people. We are so comfortable in our lives that we could not care less about our brothers. Now, of course, we call him crazy, we want to incarcerate him, we are so self-righteous and we want to punish him or wring his neck the way GMA's secretary of injustice would have it. It's not like Ducat held hostage kids who were entirely strangers to him. He had investments in those kids that we did not have. Now, it seems that majority of us now tend to believe the lies that the GMA goons had been spreading around. We have allowed our people to listen too long to the lies and Satanic verses from the Palace that they would like to believe everything peddled by GMA. Look at how Singson tried to steal the show by jumping on that bus. Look at how GMA took advantage of the situation, by playing Godmother to the kids. The picture she painted is just another attempt to becloud the issues of hunger and want that Ducat tried to disclose for the whole world to see. If there is anyone who wanted media attention, and you do not see TUTA, look and think again. If we do not see it, then we, more than Ducat's kids, need an education, if only to (see) the difference between substance and form. Aurora Riel, (by email), North Carolina , April 11, 2007 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |