In the end, will the soldiers once again ‘vote’ with their guns? - BY THE WAY by Max V. Soliven

Year after year, in the spirit of upholding "democracy", we keep repeating the mantra that, under our Constitution, civilian authority must be maintained over the military. Lip service, I’d say, in the wake of the continuing argument over how many generals, "retired" generals, and other officers are now demanding the "resignation" of President Estrada – or pledging to support him as Commander-in-Chief under the nation’s organic law.

Under the rule of law, we are constantly being reminded, every soldier takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. This means supporting the nation’s legitimate leader. The militant and the indignant – who are demanding that Estrada "resign" or else be swept out of office by a resurrection of People Power so-called, in the same full-throated manner – are declaring that the armed forces will back up "the people" and not the "President." Which is which?

Nobody knows at this stage where the "decision" will fall. Honorable officers who served their country well, such as retired General Rafael "Rocky" Ileto and retired General Fortunato Abat, are calling on President Estrada to "resign." Other officers, disagreeing, insist that these officers don’t speak for the Armed Forces. Nobody will know, however fervent their conviction, until a crisis puts the military to test where the loyalty of the Armed Forces will lie. Ileto and Abat cannot be sneered at in a cavalier manner, as the Palace does, as men whose views no longer count in the military since it has been years since they commanded troops. This is wrong. There is a reverence for "Old Soldiers" who fought this nation’s wars with dedication and distinction that persists among young warriors who never served under them – but remember their deeds. Abat, for one, not only battled sundry enemies of this country, but he lost a son, a young officer, fighting insurgency in the Visayas.

On the other hand, there are also dedicated men in the military, officer and private alike, who feel that abandoning a Commander-in-Chief who is still in office is a disloyal and treacherous act.

It is both the magic and despair of democracy, it must be said, that Presidents are elected by a majority or even just a plurality of qualified voters, whether poor or rich, intelligent or stupid. One man or one woman, one vote. That is the guarantee of equality in a society which honestly strives to be egalitarian. It is not a perfect way of choosing a leader (in fact it’s flawed, since the "popular", not the gifted or even the courageous – talents which rarely coincide – are the ones who win most ballots).

There may be such a thing as a "quality vote", but in truth it is the votes cast by all qualified voters, even those who lack quality or education, that decide the contest. This is, after all, the way our Founding Fathers have chosen. Constitutions can be amended, of course, but only with great effort, as the last few years have shown, with Cha-Cha, FVR’s "people’s initiative", and more recently Erap’s own failed stabs at Charter Change, falling by the wayside.

And yet. And yet, for all the pronouncements and posturings of our lawyers, everybody – whether anti-Erap or pro-Erap – is publicly conceding (even if in a furtive manner) that the military hold the key. There’s history and Realpolitik behind this. For 20 years the Armed Forces kept Ferdinand E. Marcos aloft, during the martial law years even propping him up on a Throne of Bayonets. When the EDSA People Power "revolution" erupted, with hundreds of thousands of civilians standing bravely at the barricades, the Armed Forces abandoned Marcos. Up to now, we stubbornly refuse to admit what won for us in those four fateful days of February 1986: the fact that the troops joined the revolution and made common cause with the barricaders.

Having covered insurgencies and a number of wars, this writer is always uncomfortable with the admission that "soldiers" are as essential to the upholding and defense of democracy as fire extinguishers and fire hoses are to putting out fires. As everybody knows, neither fire extinguishers nor firemen are appreciated until there’s a conflagration.

This nation, though, was born when the barefoot battalions of the Katipunan and the tattered ranks in rayadillo of our Revolutionary Army raised their bolos, bamboo spears and rifles, first in the revolt against Spain, then to resist American invasion. Soldiers fought the battles of Bataan and Corregidor, and subsequently a persistent and grinding guerrilla war which ended in Liberation, when another Old Soldier, Douglas MacArthur, redeemed his promise to return. Since Independence, our Armed Forces and our Constabulary have been unremittingly "at war", coping with rebellions at home from north to south, or going overseas to Korea, South Vietnam, and – more recently – East Timor.

The French philosopher Jacques Maritain was never more right than when he said that "in history, often, all that stood between civilization and the barbarians was a platoon of soldiers."

Let me say it then. Nobody can speak for the Armed Forces, just as nobody – whatever the discordant and angry voices now raised contend, and whatever the numberless poll surveys say and I mean NOBODY – can rightly claim to "speak for the people." My rule of thumb, and perhaps I’m wrong, has always been: The louder the shout, the flimsier the foundation of an argument.

I can only say that, while the military can go astray (as it did during the years of martial law when they thought they were following the orders of a true President and Commander), they will, in the final accounting, realize their error and do what’s right. In February 1986, coming to the reluctant conclusion, and I say "reluctant," that Macoy had betrayed the nation after 20 years of hegemony and thus lost the legitimacy to rule, they bolted the dictator’s camp and joined us in ousting the tyrant.

If President Estrada is convicted in the current Impeachment trial, then there’s no question. The military will enforce his departure from office. But if he is acquitted or exonerated by the Senator "judges," it is, by the same token, the duty of the military to uphold that decision. The Armed Forces will then either stand firm against the certain waves of protesters and outraged mobs that will take to the streets, or else break ranks and join the "rebellion."

It all depends on where the soldiers’ sense of honor and commitment leads them. Having been a "prisoner" of the military in the first months of martial law, and having been rigidly "supervised" by them in the succeeding years, I still have confidence that our soldiers will find – in their hearts – the right path to follow.

* * *

It’s a sorry spectacle to witness: Texas Governor George W. Bush, who lays claim with some logic to being the President-elect, and his Democratic Party rival, Vice President Al Gore, disputing this and demanding that more "recounts" be made. If it were not a rather insulting comparison, I would liken the situation in America today similar to two dogs quarreling over a bone. And what a bone! The leadership of a powerful nation of 272 million Americans, and, virtually, the leadership of the "Free World."

America has already lost much in terms of self-confidence and self-image, not to mention prestige abroad, owing to the bitterness and the ridiculous appearance of this conflict. Its stock markets have been devastated, the Nasdaq crashing to its worst performance in memory. A watching world is either aghast or mocking. And yet, this has always been, in a sense, the American way: Confusion and blundering at the beginning, a toughening of spirit and a closing of ranks in the end.

They’ll get this sordid matter sorted out – finally. But not before the rest of this planet, alternately envious, admiring, and derisive of America, enjoys a loud guffaw over it.

Considering on how much today’s Americans in the Florida face-off are behaving like Filipinos, I am reminded of how our histories and lives have been so intimately intertwined, in a bumpy love-hate relationship.

We’ve been discussing our military in this article, so let’s turn to theirs to emphasize the dimensions of this relationship. Since the Americans decided to annex the Philippines, snatching our short-lived independence from us when our Revolutionary leaders thought we already had it in our grip, it’s fascinating to note that America’s most famous generals and statesmen originally served in the Philippines.

Take the man who led America’s biggest force of that day – 400,000 US troops launched against the Germans on the Western Front in Europe in 1917 – Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing. It was not a command which had originally been destined for Pershing. He had been put in charge of it only because that country’s best known soldier, Gen. Frederick Funston, was struck down by a heart attack six weeks before the United States declared war on the German Kaiser.

Remember those names: Funston, then a colonel, had been the man who captured our Revolutionary President and General, Emilio Aguinaldo, in Palanan – through a ruse. The Hearst press had built him up, as a consequence of this daring feat, into a hero. Funston was not noble in his sentiments, as Martin Walker, World Policy Institute (New York) senior fellow and former asst. editor of the British daily, The Guardian, points out in his remarkable book, America Reborn (Alfred A. Knopf, New York 2000). Funston, in the fight against our Filipino army, had vowed to "rawhide these bullet-headed Asians until they yell for mercy and not block the bandwagon of Anglo-Saxon progress and decency." Wow. What nasty sentiments.

* * *

"It was a filthy war," Walker wrote, "marked by atrocities on both sides, with American prisoners buried alive and Filipino villages burned and their inhabitants put into concentration camps."

Pershing, then a captain, was one of the 75,000 Americans in the occupation force. "It remained something of a family affair," Walker continued. "Pershing served under Gen. Arthur MacArthur, father of the young Douglas MacArthur, whom Pershing would decorate and promote to brigadier general on the battlefields of France.

Aside from being a soldier (graduating from West Point) Pershing found time to earn a law degree from the University of Nebraska. His good fortune was to have served with a young budding politician and officer, Teddy Roosevelt who led his Rough Riders in a charge up Kettle Hill at San Juan in Cuba, supported by a captain named John Pershing and his regular cavalry and his Buffalo soldiers of the Tenth Regiment. (For every one of the 286 Americans killed in battle in Cuba, 14 died of disease).

If Pershing had not known Roosevelt so well, he would have been left to rot as a military commander in Mindanao where he found that his men’s Krag rifles were not powerful enough to stop a Moro juramentado in his tracks, so they resorted first to dum-dum bullets, then "invented" the .45 caliber pistol. It was the American marching song that, in Zamboanga, "the monkeys have no tails," and "Damn, damn, damn the Filipino/Civilize him with a Krag."

However, Pershing did not languish in the boondocks (an American word derived from our bundoks or mountains) very long. Pershing knew how to make the best of his political connections.

"A trim and stern-jawed bachelor of forty-five in 1905," Walker points out, "known as a tough disciplinarian who would share the most rugged conditions with his troops, Pershing married the daughter of Senator Francis Warren of Wyoming." President Teddy Roosevelt attended the ceremony, then – having a soft spot for his comrades in arms from his "glorious charge up San Juan hill" (not to be confused with North Greenhills in San Juan). Commented Walker: ". . . The following year, he (Roosevelt) broke with military tradition to leap Pershing over eight hundred more senior officers and promote him directly from captain to brigadier general."

Yes, sir. "Deep selection" was practiced over there as, occasionally, happens in the Philippines.

Pershing was not the only fair-haired boy of Roosevelt. His fellow Cuban veteran, Leonard Wood, an army surgeon who rose to command the Rough Riders, was made military governor of Cuba and then commanding general and Governor General in the Philippines. In 1910, Wood was appointed army chief of staff. He later clashed with another ex-Philippine official, President William Howard Taft (after whom Taft avenue is still named, the last unchanged street in Manila). It was Taft’s contention that "there is not the slightest prospect of war in any part of the world in which the United States could conceivably have a part." He began to dismantle the army, and therefore, when war broke out with Mexico in 1910, General Wood had the devil of a time mobilizing a full division of troops to "watch" the Mexican border.

In April 1917, when America joined World War I in Europe, the US had a regular army of only 5,000 officers and 123,000 men – under General Pershing, with another 8,500 officers and 123,000 men in the National Guard. Within 18 months, their numbers were to increase twentyfold. Notes historian Walker: "Indeed, by the end of the war, US forces had lost more men as casualties than they had troops when war broke out."

By the end of the war, under Pershing, 2,086,000 American troops were under arms in Europe, in thirty combat divisions.

We know, of course, that subsequent leaders like MacArthur and General Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower (later to become US President) served in the Philippines.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that Americans "like" the Philippines. For instance, if Bush is finally confirmed as President, he’ll have as his Vice President Dick Cheney who doesn’t like us at all. He is still smarting from the fact that when he visited Manila as the US Secretary of Defense, then President Corazon C. Aquino snubbed him completely. Cory absolutely refused to see him, although Cheney had requested an appointment with her. Gee whiz.

Don’t fret, Dick – and mind your heart problems! Cory is snubbing Erap, too.