GRP Wages War

19 Responses to “GRP Wages War”

1. Dean Jorge Bocobo on August 23rd, 2008 8:49 am

   I think we really must reserve the word “WAR” for conflicts involving sovereign states unless we want to adopt the neologism “war on terrorism” which would be fine with me. But as far as I am concerned suppression of the MILF is a police action to enforce the laws of the land against, murder, arson, kidnapping and hostaging as human shields and other criminal acts (including possible violations of the Human Security Act, even if it is a Terrorist Bill of Rights).

   I’m not just nitpicking words because it is the constant portrayal of this conflict as a war that obscures the moral high ground we must reach: Justice for all in a system of democratic equal protection that is blind to color, creed and gender.

   By treating it as war, we actually legitimize the MILF’s staunch refusal to disarm and negotiate in earnest. We must fight as much, if not more for the advantaging of the Bangsamoro people themselves than other Filipinos who would not fall into a new sultanate ruled by sharia law for Muslims only and a different set of laws for non MUslims or cases involving them both.

   This is the beginning of a system apartheid in which Moros would suffer the most from the likes of the MILF leaders who would be given a theocratic and likely terroristic state on a silver platter. And in which women could be stoned to death for adultery after being raped by their “dishonored” men.

   There ought to be one set of laws before which all citizens are equal. If we lose these battles on principle, we are sure to lose the “war” for our democracy.

2. cvj on August 23rd, 2008 10:50 am

   DJB, isn’t that being Orwellian, i.e. reserving the term ‘war’ only for conflicts involving sovereign states? After all, there is such a thing as Civil War.

3. Is it a war? « smoke on August 23rd, 2008 2:29 pm

   […] Is it a war? Posted on 23 August 2008 by rom Everyone and his favorite newspaper all proclaim that there is a war going on in Mindanao. But over in Filipino Voices - this collective I haven’t contributed to in a while - a nice discussion is shaping up about the use of the word “WAR.” […]

4. Dean Jorge Bocobo on August 23rd, 2008 2:35 pm

   Even Civil War really implies a conflict among states, but even George Orwell recognized that the control of Language was a problem of controlling minds. He was particularly astute at exposing the totalitarian oversimplification of language so as to eliminate differences in meaning due to nuance, context, and other fine distinctions that got in the way of the politically correct party line.

   Many of the folks who just love the term “all out war” find it profitable to portray the Rule of Law as an exercise in overwhelming military firepower against poor, defenseless helpless rebel whom they portray as nothing more than justifiably disguntled civilians fighting the root cause of their plight, instead of the terrorists and violence-prone sociopaths many of them actually are (like Commander Bravo).

   I for one completely reject the notion that the MILF represents anyone but its own small group of tarsila-bearing nobles and radical intellectuals schooled at Diliman and Jeddah, and warlords who have taken up arms against the government.

   They deserve to have the law imposed on them by the police. That’s all.

   I think that is because lots of people have perfected the art of moral relativism, of pointing to everyone being guilty of what they accuse each other of, so as to justify taking sides or condemning one or the other.

   The Orwellian critique was however against moral absolutism based on loyalty to the party and state, an opposite but equally terrible problem.

5. Ding G. Gagelonia on August 23rd, 2008 3:22 pm

   Sir Dean,

   I guess we can split hairs endlessly about whether to call what is happening in Mindanao police action, the enforcement of laws, the pursuits of bandits or what have you.

   But if the impact on the non-combatants, the civilians, women, children and the elderly, not to mention commerce and even domestic and foreign investor confidence, the end result is the southern Philippines being ravaged by conflict and of Filipinos killing Filipinos using WEAPONS OF WAR. So the whatever label we use the level of suffering, the social, and economic dislocation is the same.

6. cvj on August 23rd, 2008 3:26 pm

   DJB, ‘Civil War’ includes conflicts within States, e.g. the Spanish Civil War, although if successful they can also give rise to new states, e.g. if the Confederates won in the US Civil War.

   Could it be that part of our disagreement has to do with the dual meaning of the word ‘State’ as in a federal set-up such as the United States (e.g. like Utah or California) and a sovereign unitary state such as the Philippines?

   War also does not mean having to automatically see the other side as ‘poor, defenseless rebels’. I can also agree with you that Bravo and his group are terrorists and violence-prone sociopaths even if i consider what’s happening as war. We can consider them guilty of War Crimes under the Geneva Convention.

7. Dean Jorge Bocobo on August 23rd, 2008 11:14 pm

   Clearly, I am no King Canute and cannot hold back a sea of wanton, willful or perfectly legitimate usages of the word war in a word war with cvj.

   But since we seem to already have reached the Iberian Peninsula, I can only helplessly reiterate the incongruity of calling the action against this Commander Bravo and his sidekick Umbra Cato as “war”. Why, it even insults the Spanish Civil War to bear the comparison.

   But rather than be labelled “Orwellian” or give Ding cause to think I’m enthusiastic about hair splitting and word games, I shall concede the floor to those who insist on calling what is going on in Mindanao as a “War”. or even, an “All-out War” or whatever adjective is needed for the desired effect.

8. Ding G. Gagelonia on August 24th, 2008 6:44 am

   DJB, Am a bit perplxed by the phrase “desired effect.” No debate really but rather a common desire for Filipinos to be anchored on the stark reality and not be lulled into taking what obfuscation the government of the day is using to mask its incompetent if not imperial handling of this affair, without the concerned sectors buying into the approach which, if necessary, could have been done confidentially.

   The government is already saddled with a massive credibility problem born out the unresolved questions as to its legitimacy and refusal to be accountable for its past actions. We all need to rally behind the peace effort but GMA should not make it hard for us to do so.

9. cvj on August 24th, 2008 1:26 pm

   That’s a kind of ad hominem, isn’t it? - Rom

   No, it isn’t. Even granting your assessment that my usage of ‘Orwellian’ was a misleading use of the word (an assessment i don’t agree with as explained in the next paragraph), that still does not qualify as an ad hominem fallacy because Ad hominem is an attack on the person which i did not do.

   Rather, what i took issue with is his strictly limited definition of ‘war’ which i considered Orwellian in the sense that it is his attempt to manipulate language for political purposes.

   Oh, gawd, uncle. I’m not gonna write an entire treatise on what constitutes a civil war for you. Look it up in wikipedia or something. - Rom

   You really want to take this route?

   And incidentally, just calling something one thing doesn’t necessarily make it so, eh? - Rom

   Whether or not what is happening in Mindanao is already Civil War (or something leading towards that) was not my primary issue. As i mentioned above (at 12:04am), my primary purpose in bringing up Civil War is to provide a counterexample of a type of war that is not between sovereign states in order to show that DJB’s definition of War was too limited.

10. Dean Jorge Bocobo on August 24th, 2008 4:09 pm

    cvj,
    I did not really offer a definition of war, just a plea for “proportion” and “perspective”. I’ve already conceded the error of my ways in trying to gain Orwellian control over others and the meaning of a three letter word that everyone lays claim to.

    But I am curious. How would you characterize the situation in Mindanao of the last week or so: war? all-out war? civil war? police action? revolution? terrorist tantrum?

    are there any categories that don’t belong to either war or peace?

    (It would be okay too if you were just playing word games and don’t really want to be precise at this point.)

11. Ding G. Gagelonia on August 24th, 2008 4:38 pm

    DJB,Rom,cvj,

    This Black Sunday in Maguindanao, Cotabato, and Lanao Norte up to 100 Moro fighters are reported to have died in the latest clashes while up to 50,00o families are said to have fled their homes.

    Whatever adjective, whatever label applies here, the situation is getting bad, really bad. My own prayerful thoughts go to friends in Datu Piang and Iligan, along with Tacurong City.

12. Dean Jorge Bocobo on August 24th, 2008 8:29 pm

    Ding,
    I share the sentiment and know what you mean, but “prayerful thoughts” are often reduced to wishful thinking by the realities of Mindanao. Whatever we call such a violent conflict, the worst thing about it is that no side ever wins. The MILF can’t win because it doesn’t actually have a critical mass behind its violent methods or ultimate goals. The govt can’t win because NO govt can win militarily against a determined guerilla movement. The Vietnamese proved that long ago, and Al Qaeda has even taken the offensive. Popularity and moral ascendancy are NOT necessary for the protracted wars and indefinite survival of such movements.

    But the narrative we tell ourselves and the public in order to make sense of these terrible events decisively affects our subsequent attitudes, decisions and actions. So let me try to take up the question I asked CVJ. Here is a way of looking at events:

    It’s the aftermath of a kidnapping in which we are all still hostages held at gunpoint by the MILF wanting their own nation-state at our expense and because of what supposedly our ancestors did to get Spain’s protection from their ancestors. The MOA-AD was a “promisory note” for the eventual ransom pay-off. Since GMA could not deliver, the kidnappers are killing off some of the hostages. Because that ransom payment wasn’t going to get paid, the kidnappers decided to kill and burn and use as human shields some of the 90 million hostages. And of course they are also using the Moros as human shields by hiding in Muslim communities now.

    I guess that is my “literary” description of what is going on, and the reason why I don’t think the term “war” or any of the variants offered describes the situation very well, and never has.

13. cvj on August 24th, 2008 8:44 pm

    DJB, imho it’s war without the adjectives.

14. Philman on August 24th, 2008 9:52 pm

    cvj and djb,

    Let me keep this simple for you pundits: before there were nation-states, WAR (i.e. the waging of hostilities aginst an enemy) was between brothers, families, tribes, empires, etc.

15. Noel on August 25th, 2008 3:42 am

    Commanders Bravo and Kato unilaterally (and in disrespect of the MILF Chairman) took it upon themselves to attack the villages, kill civilians, loot homes, take civilian shields.

    Kabalu and the MILF leadership can not even tell Kato and Bravo to return to central-headquarters (to discuss military strategies or whatnot), so they say they will not do what they can not do (relieve Kato and Bravo of their commands).

16. Dean Jorge Bocobo on August 25th, 2008 7:13 am

    cvj,
    Words like “war” and “peace” are not ordinary words. As powerful memes, they are always used (or they use you) for some “desired effect” (this is also my explanation of that usage, Ding).

    When we use a word like war to refer to a situation like Mindanao then, what is the “desired effect” that we want?

    In my case, if I were an Orwellian controller, I would definitely want the word war to have a desired effect, namely to mobilize ALL the resources of the country in order to win that war and defeat the enemy. If we are at war, whether offensive or defensive, victory is not only the central objective, it is the most merciful one. In this sense, and as the evidence begins to mount in that direction, we may soon reach the consensus that it is actually a war on terrorism.

    Again as memes, we use certain words like these for a “desired effect”.

    Why do you prefer to use the word “war” to refer to the action now? What is your desired effect?

17. Ding G. Gagelonia on August 25th, 2008 8:23 am

    Thanks, DJB Most appropriate that you describe ‘war’ as a meme. When Dawkins first introduced the work, it did provoke wide discussion and enriched the language. Am trying to jog my head as to the appropriate contextual translation of meme would be and ‘matalinghaga’ comes to mind. But to your point again on “desired effect.” I think to those now at the front lines, the “effect” of the current ‘disturbance is really beyond words as to the trauma it is etching into their consciousness and the rest of us.

    BTW, sir, really itching to have coffee with you now, soon.

18. cvj on August 25th, 2008 9:26 am

    DJB, when i called what is happening in Mindanao as ‘War’, it was not to achieve a desired effect. It’s more an assessment of what kind of situation is prevailing i.e. war, not peace. I do acknowledge the existence of a continuum between ‘peace’ and ‘war’. (And I wouldn’t necessarily buy into the ‘War on terrorism’ narrative.)

    BTW, slightly OT but i’m interested to get your take on this matter - if ‘war’ and ‘peace’ are loaded words, how then do you separate an ‘Orwellian’ from a non-Orwellian usage. Or do you think, when it comes to these loaded words, we’re all Orwellians now?

19. AdB on August 25th, 2008 9:48 am

    Must say I agree with DJB “By treating it as war, we actually legitimize the MILF’s staunch refusal to disarm…”

Leave a Reply