The commander-in-chief
In many countries, the President also serves as the commander-in-chief of all armed forces. So when he executes an order, the generals are expected to obey, lest they face sanctions or even the military's version of a civilian court, a court martial. Insubordination or mutiny is not taken lightly in the military. I would assume the same is true for the Philippines.
In a recent speech, President Duterte stated that Islamic militants will be bombed by the Navy and Coast Guard, even if they have hostages with them. "Sorry, collateral damage, better not get yourselves kidnapped" was all he could say. This is in light of the recent incident where eight fishermen were brutally murdered by suspected Islamic militants while at sea. As if victims had a say, or even a choice not to get kidnapped.
I can understand Duterte's frustration at the continued problems brought about by groups such as the Abu Sayyaf. I for one would like to see the day when the ASG is finally crushed, with no opportunity to regroup or re-emerge. But intentionally risking the lives of innocent civilians to attain that goal just isn't the right thing to do.
AFP spokesperson Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla said that there is no explicit order for the AFP to do exactly what Duterte "blurted out." He also adds that ground commanders have the final say in carrying out whatever orders may arise from the President. In other words, many factors also come into play when carrying out orders and directives, with the armed forces always considering the lives of the innocents. Collateral damage to a minimum. The AFP does value life, according to the spokesperson.
In World War II, Hitler made many errors as commander-in-chief of his army, especially in his campaign to seize the USSR. Despite misgivings by his generals, they obeyed what he wanted, for fear of facing his wrath. The Germans eventually retreated from the Eastern front, after suffering numerous defeats and setbacks. Hitler of course, blamed the generals.
What if President Duterte issues a specific order to do exactly what he already stated? Are civilians now in grave peril, just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Will the military start shelling known ASG strongholds or camps, even within the vicinity of civilian settlements? Will the Navy start shelling boats, even with hostages on board? Will the "sorry, collateral damage" explanation suffice for the families of those who will eventually be killed?
Asking forgiveness for an untoward incident is much different from asking forgiveness for an intentional one. The sincerity of the latter is hollow, even callous.
While everyone wants to see militants crushed, no one wants to be killed just for the goal to be achieved.
We can only hope that the ground commanders Gen. Padilla were referring to always make the right decisions. It's bad enough to become a hostage. It is much worse to be intentionally killed by "friendly forces."
- Latest
