I write better when I smoke. Don’t ask me to reduce it to a science.

2010 on my mind

As the situation in the south deteriorates by the hour, I cannot help but think that alot of the blame must fall on the President’s shoulders simply on first principles alone. As Commander-in-Chief, the responsibility for war and peace rests in her hands.

Now a Commander-in-Chief can be a shrewd general – like JFK was, when he beat down the hawks who wanted nothing more than to nuke Cuba – or he can be megalomaniac who believes himself the fount of all wisdom but is actually a mediocre general – like Adolf Hitler and Kim Jong Il. And they can be surrounded by generals and who can run the spectrum from brilliant to stupid. These generals can offer advice – both tactical and strategic – and the Commander-in-Chief can take it. But at the end of the day, it is the Commander-in-Chief’s decision making, her game plan, that takes precedence. After all, it is not for soldiers to reason why; theirs is but to do and die.

And they are dying over there in Mindanao.

Now it can be argued that the President is no soldier – but then again, neither was JFK. The truth is, being a soldier or not is beside the point because wars can be won away from the battlefield, and avoiding a war is a political game. In fact, the existence of war is conclusive proof of two things: somewhere, somehow, the political process failed; and that both sides have decided that they’ve run out of solutions and have had to resort to brute force to get what they want.

That’s exactly the problem in Mindanao right now.

No more solutions

It is widely said that the ongoing conflict in Mindanao springs from the failure of the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Homeland of the Bangsamoro.

The thing is this – the President’s men (and therefore the President herself) dangled the idea of the BJE in front of the bandits and sold themselves on the idea that it would work. This played them right into the bandit’s hands: by putting all their eggs in the BJE basket, the President’s men gave the bandits the opportunity to set up an ultimatum – give us the BJE or we start shooting again.

When the BJE was scuttled the bandits got their casus belli. Now admittedly its a flimsy rationale for the resumption of hostilities, but it is just solid enough to rile up the cannon-fodder and convince them that they’ve been shafted and therefore need to avenge their slighted pride. It’s Moro psychology 101, if anyone had bothered to check.

And that’s the point: the Commander-in-Chief is supposed to be able to take in the whole picture; to understand how various factors all contribute to the outcome. In this case, because the President’s men were allowed – perhaps even encouraged – to formulate a do-or-die solution, it is clear that there were critical factors that were ignored, not the least of which is the very well known tendency of Moros to exaggerate insults to their pride.

In hostage negotiation, one of the most basic lessons is to never say no to the hostage taker. But then again, this also covers situations where saying ‘yes’ sets you up to say ‘no’ later. Let me clarify: by saying yes to the idea of a BJE, the President’s men were committing to an outcome that was not in their control. It was stupid for them to imagine that the BJE would slip through unnoticed. More to the point, the President’s men simply failed to anticipate a negative outcome, i.e., the BJE would be challenged and stopped. So, by saying yes, to the BJE, they were blindly rushing into a future where – when the Supreme Court invalidates the MOA for instance – they would have no choice but to say no to the BJE. And there you go, they said NO to the hostage taker.

This turn of events led the hostage taker – the bandits – to now feel backed into a corner. The only way out of that corner would have been a MOA for the BJE. But with no MOA forthcoming, and the additional insult of the ARMM elections being conducted, the bandits embraced the belief that there would be no other solution than to come out with their guns blazing. No solutions. War.

Failed political process

Hand in hand with the loss of viable solutions – or perhaps the direct cause of it – was the failure of the political process. The peace talks – like a hostage situation – should have been more adroitly handled, and the do-or-die scenario would have been avoided. The damned talks have been going on since before I was born, for crying out loud, why was there a need to hurry? The do-or-die solution of the BJE was a desperation shot. One hailmary pass to secure a win. It was a bad gamble, but it was not inevitable or even reasonable; simply expedient.

And that was the failure of the political process. The political process was subverted by the insane legacy-building trip this administration has been on since the start of 2008. And so, instead of drawing out the talks some more, the government negotiators in effect laid their last card on the table, setting up the do-or-die situation that should’ve been avoided like the plague.

Could the President have affected this? Well, hell yeah.

If legacy building had not been prioritized over sound strategy, there would have been no need at all for a quick do-or-die solution. If the President had not boasted that the ARMM elections would be postponed, the added slight to MILF sensibilities would not have taken place at all and the situation in the south would not be as bad as it is now. If the Supreme Court had not intervened in a mere MOA, the process of creating the BJE could have been managed to the satisfaction of all – or if not to the satisfaction of all, then with a least a minimum of abrasiveness.

An aside on the SC ruling on the MOA: I have read neither the MOA nor the SC decision. However, it seems abundantly clear to me that a MOA is not a law but rather just an instrument recording a meeting of minds. Therefore, if the two parties agreed to work for a constitutional amendment, then they cannot be construed to have committed an un-constitutional act. If every intention to change a law were to be considered a contravention of that law, then no laws would ever be changed. It is only the worst form of squirreling that allows the argument that by agreeing to amend the constitution,the MOA signatories (and the MOA) itself have committed an unconstitutional act.

Brute force

The confluence of these two factors has led us to this brute force war. And for that, I accuse the President of being a lousy Commander-in-Chief who now has no choice but to put her soldiers and her people in harm’s way.


Which leads me to think of 2010. I can do nothing about this Commander-in-Chief’s failure, but I can do something about who the next Commander-in-Chief will be. So, I’ll focus on that and make sure that 2010 is ever on my mind.

The next President must not be as one-dimensional as this one. It’d be good if he’s an economist, but he cannot be just a bean-counter. He must understand all facets of statecraft, including the waging of war. Sun-Tzu said something like that and he wasn’t wrong.

The next President must be, in equal measure, a hawk and a dove. He must know when to apply force and not wait for the eve of apocalypse as this President has. He must strive always for principled peace and he must work to strengthen the political power of restive groups like the Bangsamoro. By bringing them into the political arena, solutions can be worked out through words in the halls of power, rather than with guns on the battlefield.

In Ireland, this happened when the Sinn Fein joined the political game; the IRA laid down their arms and peace became possible. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the peace easily becomes permanent; but at least it gets a chance.

The next President must not trust his alter-egos overmuch. While the ability to effectively delegate is the mark of a good leader, the inability to oversee the exercise of delegated power is a badge of incompetence.

I could prolly go on and on, but I don’t want to be too utopian. These three imperatives are enough basis for me to choose come 2010.


Filed under: 2010 watch, politics, , ,

10 Responses

  1. […] far as making sense of events, As blogger smoke asks what many are asking: was the President even thinking? The thing is this – the President’s […]

  2. […] far as making sense of events, As blogger smoke asks what many are asking: was the President even […]

  3. cvj says:

    Trillanes – Tamano! or Tamano-Trillanes! (I do realize they do not meet the age requirement in 2010 but i think they meet the above criteria.)

  4. rom says:

    cvj: you sound starstruck, uncle. what has tamano done to show that he’s the right timbre? come to that, what has trillanes done apart from throw expensive tantrums … hmmm. considering gma’s presidential snit the other day, maybe trillanes is qualified. he certainly knows how to throw a tantrum.

  5. cvj says:

    Rom, i compared them with your checklist above and they qualify in all respects. In addition…

    Trillanes was right about Gloria way back in 2003 (Oakwood) and also in 2007 (Manila Pen). He’s not the type to hedge his bets, he is being detained because of his beliefs and, so far, he has not folded from pressure coming from the Admin. And ‘knowing how to throw a tantrum’ does not hurt either.

    Tamano has demonstrated integrity and was part of the Opposition’s successful Senatorial campaign in 2007.

  6. rom says:

    cvj:alright, i understand why you like trillanes. i don’t agree that he’s presidential timbre, but …

    Tamano demonstrated integrity? How? By being SPOKESMAN for the opposition? LOL! Spokesmen say what they need to say to advance the cause of their principal. Spokesmen demonstrate integrity when they slam their principals for doing wrong. Unfortunately, when they do that, the cease to become spokesmen and quickly join the ranks of the ‘otherwise employed.’ ROFL!

  7. cvj says:

    Rom, re: Tamano’s demonstrated integrity, he turned down an offer to be a Team Unity Senatorial Candidate. From Ellen Tordesillas.

    Malacañang offered him P50 million outright contribution to his campaign plus a condominium. He was also not to worry about TV ads, transport and hotel accommodations in provincial sorties. Adel turned down the generous offer much to the disappointment of his mother, who is close to Gloria Arroyo.

  8. rom says:

    cvj: comeON uncle. you know as well as anyone that a palace endorsement is a kiss of death to any politician’s career. and tamano is what? 35 or something? he’s got a long way to go. he didn’t show integrity as much as he showed smarts, uncle. what’s fifty million compared to something like 40 plus years of political life?

  9. cvj says:

    Rom, ‘smarts’ is also a plus point. After all, their relative youth has not prevented the likes of Defensor, Recto, Montano and Zubiri from seeking palace endorsement. I do sense that Tamano has ambition but i don’t consider that a negative. I also won’t condemn him for something that he has not done yet.

  10. rom says:

    cvj: agreed on all points. but then again, i won’t give him credit for something he hasn’t demonstrated unequivocally yet, either.

    on defensor, recto, etc … if they had jumped ship, would that have been integrity? ‘course not. that would be rats deserting a sinking ship.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

RSS Short Puffs

  • Re-election 31 December 2008
    Maceda sez Erap consulted Narvasa and others, and they told him that the 1987 Consti prohibits only the INCUMBENT prez from re-election. Former prezzies, by their definition, face no such prohibition. But in the same breath, Maceda also sez that they know an Erap candidacy will be the subject of a disqual case – but […]
  • Escalation 30 December 2008
    I still think the Pangandaman’s shouldn’t have retaliated even if dela Paz threw the first punch. But is anyone really surprised at the escalation in the story-telling on both sides? BTW, I think we can dispense with the age angle nao.
  • Etiquette 29 December 2008
    Unless you’re spoiling for a fight, assume that the writer has some basis for what she writes. Don’t make like a lawyer and ask retarded questions in an attempt to lay the foundation for whatever point you’re trying to make.
  • Anne 28 December 2008
    Anne Curtis won best actress? Against the likes of Marian Rivera and Diana Zubiri? So what?
  • Baler 28 December 2008
    Watching Baler tomorrow. Will it be worth it?

Locations of visitors to this page

Archived Maps:
Politics & Government - Top Blogs Philippines

My site is worth $119.
How much is yours worth?

%d bloggers like this: