You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
We wouldn't pull out early to save hostage: Downer
2004-07-26
Australia would not pull its troops out of Iraq even a week early to save the life of an Australian hostage, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today. Mr Downer stood by his criticism of the Philippines for pulling out of Iraq, saying he had to send the right message to terrorists that Australia would not give in to their demands.
"Do we look like Filipinos to you, mate?"
Asked if that meant keeping troops there for an extra week rather than saving the life of a hostage, Mr Downer said yes. "Yes, because if you give in to the terrorists in one particular case, as I say all you're doing is empowering and emboldening them," Mr Downer told the John Laws radio program. "You've seen since the Philippines withdrawal, you've seen a spate of hostage-taking in Iraq. And well, why not? If these terrorists want to achieve certain objectives and they know by taking people hostage they can achieve them, it's the cheapest and easiest way to do their job."

The national security adviser to Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo yesterday lashed out at Mr Downer's criticism of the Philippines for withdrawing from Iraq to save the life of kidnapped truck driver Angelo de la Cruz, calling him narrow minded.
Must be a relative of Taaarayysa's.
But Mr Downer said while he did not enjoy criticising another country, it was vital to send a strong message to terrorists. "All sorts of people have had more than their fair share of comment about what we've done in Iraq," Mr Downer said. "And I don't think that I'm prepared to accept that on the one hand we can take a terrible hammering from some people, but on the other hand it's wrong for us ever to criticise what someone else does.

"It's not nice to criticise other countries, and we don't particularly. I don't do it unless I absolutely think it's necessary. ... But on the other hand I've got a responsibility to the Australian people first and foremost, and I must send out the sorts of messages that I judge are going to have the best impact in terms of protecting our people. ... And they're not a guarantee. They're just going to help."

Mr Downer conceded Mr de la Cruz would probably have died had the Philippines not withdrawn its troops but said more than one life was at stake. "I hope the tough line that I ... have taken generally, I hope that the sorts of statements we've made will make it less likely that our people will be taken hostage," he said. "Because what terrorists know is that they will not get anything out of the Australian government if they do something as egregious as take one of our people hostage. That's the message we want to send. There's no point in taking them hostage."
Another example clear Aussie thinking.
Posted by:Steve White

#28  Rafael, you'e right in that it wasn't a big loss wrt to military strength. 52 Filipino soldiers aren't the equivalent of 52 US Marines, 52 Argyles, or 52 Polish troops. And the US didn't protest strongly about the withdrawal. Maybe it was figured they'd be more useful guarding Arroyo or something.
Posted by: Pappy   2004-07-26 11:19:32 PM  

#27  Well, in the face of the other arguments, my point has little weight. What more is there to say. The Philippines bit the big one (or whatever the expression is). I wish them luck.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-07-26 10:19:04 PM  

#26  #25-It's a beautiful thing and not easy to do.
Posted by: jules 2   2004-07-26 9:38:11 PM  

#25  That might be the first time I've ever seen someone willing to change their mind when provided with a compelling argument online.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-07-26 9:23:13 PM  

#24  Way to go Raf.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-07-26 8:48:53 PM  

#23  Regardless of the 52 measley soldiers being withdrawn, it is the apparent psychological victory being handed to the terrorists

Well, OK, I concede this point as well. Now I feel thoroughly defeated.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-07-26 8:40:36 PM  

#22  The Philippines' six million went straight into the hands of the terrorists.

Actually somewhat less than six million. Figure most of what the Philippines paid out disappeared along the way.

Still, pulling 52 people out of Iraq is no biggie.

Fifty-two troops, Fifty-two hundred troops, or one ambassador. The damage is done. Once one drops to one's knees, one will be expected to in the future.


Posted by: Pappy   2004-07-26 8:24:30 PM  

#21  #19-"There may have been tacit approval on the part of the US, as there seems to be a bigger outcry from the Aussies than the Americans."

I really haven't seen the coverage of the $6,000,000 covered anywhere except here, so I am not sure I can draw the conclusion that Americans don't care as much as Aussies. They don't know.
Posted by: jules 2   2004-07-26 8:19:27 PM  

#20  To jeopardize their relationship with the US is stupid enough, given that they have a huge problem at home.

Agreed.

But I wonder how much consulting was done with the US admin beforehand.

There had to be some consulting done. Arroyo knows better than to bite the hand that holds a shield over her nation. I can only assume she got a monumental case of the stupids. As TS(vg) already pointed out, the OFW issue will tend to spotlight this one instance of special treatment. Arroyo's move constitutes a phenomenal blunder and I do not doubt there will be American foreign policy repercussions.

Raphael, you seem to minimize what I call "the bloody coattails effect" of ostensible compliance with terrorism. Although in this particular case, it is outright compliance. Regardless of the 52 measley soldiers being withdrawn, it is the apparent psychological victory being handed to the terrorists that far outweighs any problematic worth of the Philippine military's presence in Iraq.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-07-26 8:13:09 PM  

#19  Ok, I concede your point about the $6 mil. Still, pulling 52 people out of Iraq is no biggie. More of a PR failure on the part of the Philippines, and exceedingly stupid for them in the long run.

To jeopardize their relationship with the US is stupid enough, given that they have a huge problem at home. But I wonder how much consulting was done with the US admin beforehand. There may have been tacit approval on the part of the US, as there seems to be a bigger outcry from the Aussies than the Americans.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-07-26 7:26:05 PM  

#18  The Philippines' six million went straight into the hands of the terrorists. Not to a NGO, not to a fund raising front. It warrants a lot more stark criticism than the routine censure due the Saudis for their usual complicity.

Anybody begging on the street could have pulled off a 9-11 with the cost of a (one-way) ticket, and some box cutters.

No they couldn't, Rafael. It required a lot of logistics to train the pilots and sequester them in America long enough to make the plan work. The 9-11 atrocity was not a walk-in-off-the-street sort of operation. Estimates were that it ran about $500,000, ergo the half-dozen figure of mine.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-07-26 6:52:11 PM  

#17  Very good Zenster. $6 mil is an average week of fundraising in Saudi Arabia for the Palestinian cause. Not to mention the amount of money flowing east from America itself, for example.

Anybody begging on the street could have pulled off a 9-11 with the cost of a (one-way) ticket, and some box cutters. It was not a sophisticated or expensive operation. Is this penetrating that brainbone of yours?
Posted by: Rafael   2004-07-26 6:34:40 PM  

#16  #10 In the grand scheme of things, 52 troops and $6 mil means absolutely nothing.

Rafael, you are out-to-lunch on this one. SIX MILLION DOLLARS COULD FINANCE ANOTHER HALF DOZEN 9-11 ATROCITIES. Any of this penetrating that brainbone of yours?
Posted by: Zenster   2004-07-26 5:29:58 PM  

#15  Rafael,

The problem really isn't the loss of 52 men; its the 6 million dollar payout. The Phillipines did this with Abu Sayaf (sp?, I think that the Al Qaeda operation in the Phillipines) and that organization went from 300-500 to 2500 virtually overnight with better weapons and IEDs. That six million will probably kill alot of people.
Posted by: Chemist   2004-07-26 4:39:02 PM  

#14  K - LMAO.
Posted by: Matt   2004-07-26 3:55:32 PM  

#13  To the tune of "Waltzing Matilda"

Once an evil terrorist tried to cow Australia
But might as well have talked to a tree
For the FM said that one must not feed the crocodile
For the whole world needs to be free

Can't cow Australia, can't cow Australia
Can't cow Australia it is plain to see
For the FM said that one must not feed the crocodile
For the whole world needs to be free
Posted by: Korora   2004-07-26 3:48:10 PM  

#12  99 and the hostage lives and a ransom payed?!

I know it can get ridickerous because this isn't math. It's how do you face down the evil thing. You certainly don't pay it off, feed it, or compromise with it. UNLESS your are no longer in a position to defy it.

Then you sue for peace or whatever you can do to save what is left of your pie. If the evil thing has the advantage, your pie is gone and you kneel or die.

Jihadies have the western culture as their evil thing and they think they can defeat it. That includes Canada, Greece, The Phillapeans, all of it. One of its methods is to use our PC good will against us, terroize us, kidnappings, proliferation of WMDs and the like.

It must be defeated, no kneeling, no feeding it. Only destroy it. Screw the WoT thing. It's a war on Jihad.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-07-26 2:42:27 PM  

#11  Hell, 1's a tragedy 200's a massacre, 1 million is a statistic.

Was that Unca Joe said that?
Posted by: Shipman   2004-07-26 2:30:48 PM  

#10  What's the cutoff?

Well, 200 is a sizable contingent. So is 100. Anything less than that is negligible as a force, so I would probably pull them out.

In the grand scheme of things, 52 troops and $6 mil means absolutely nothing. I would expect my government to make this deal in a similar situation, provided that this is a one time thing (and granted, it never is).

What is not excusable is that the Philippines are not new to hostage taking and extortion by terrorists. They have dealt with these things on their home turf. But perhaps, this may explain why they did what they did: perhaps this is how they deal with terrorists at home.

if a Canadien gets taken hostage while in Afganistan, should Canada pull out or pay the ransom?

With 600 troops in Afghanistan, I'd say the hostage is on his own. No ransom either.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-07-26 2:19:31 PM  

#9  Rafael, if a Canadien gets taken hostage while in Afganistan, should Canada pull out or pay the ransom? I don't think Canada is that far gone. Arroyo deserve all the scorn being sent her way. Let her reap the love of her people for doing the womanly thing.
Posted by: Lucky   2004-07-26 1:27:22 PM  

#8  So Rafael-are you saying that the number of hostages taken determines the correct course of action? If they had had 52 people there? 520? How about 5200? 52,000?...What's the cutoff?

It isn't the number of Philippine people in Iraq that matters, nor how close to leaving they were. It is their placation of terrorists that matters. Period.
Posted by: jules 187   2004-07-26 11:28:02 AM  

#7  Philipeans deserves no slack in this issue - you cannot succumb to terrorist..they do not do it at home ... it's all politics
Posted by: Dan   2004-07-26 11:25:54 AM  

#6  Arroyo's spineless is going to get a lot more people taken hostage and killed...not to mention giving the terrorists more ideas on how to raise some fast cash.

And Downer is also absolutely right to give it back to the critics. Bush should do the same...Look at what Arnie did by calling the Dems what they are: girly-men. People love him even more for speaking the truth.
Posted by: RMcLeod   2004-07-26 4:50:36 AM  

#5  "And I don't think that I'm prepared to accept that on the one hand we can take a terrible hammering from some people, but on the other hand it's wrong for us ever to criticise what someone else does."

It's nice to see a politician get up on their hind legs like that. Much more dignified than the usual poses. I concur with DPA, get it out in the open right from the start. Make it policy, so there's no temptation to break it in the field.

That six million dollar Philippine ransom is going to help kill a lot more people. Quite possibly, some ordinary Australian citizens will succumb to regional terrorism financed by their payment. Alexander Downer has every right reason to criticize Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and to do so fiercely.
Posted by: Zenster   2004-07-26 2:20:20 AM  

#4  Rafael, they got the spanish to run...
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-07-26 1:00:55 AM  

#3  It would have been tested anyway if they could get their hands on an aussie. It was smart to say it up front because it will prepare the aussie public for that being the governments decision.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American   2004-07-26 1:00:21 AM  

#2  "Yes, because if you give in to the terrorists in one particular case, as I say all you're doing is empowering and emboldening them,"

True. But the Philippines had only 51 people in Iraq to begin with. Not a big deal. Cut them some slack. If the terrorists confuse this with the idea that they can bully the bigger contributors in Iraq, then that's the terrs' fuck up, not anyone else's.
Posted by: Rafael   2004-07-26 1:00:17 AM  

#1  Er, it might have been smarter not to say this up front, lest they be "tested" unnecessarily.....
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2004-07-26 12:49:28 AM  

00:00