Basing for the US

What constitutes a military base? There will be debates about this even if the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement, when the final text is released to the public, categorically states that there will be no basing arrangement for US troops.

The MLSA has undergone several drafts (and continues to be revised) so pros and antis better make sure they are arguing about the same draft or at least the same provision. The original was patterned after similar arrangements the United States has with about 80 other countries, so the Americans more or less have an idea of what the MLSA is supposed to be. And they are pretty sure it does not involve military bases.

"We’re not interested in any basing," Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of US forces in the Pacific, told me the other day in Basilan. Karen Kelley, press attaché of the US Embassy, added, "It’s a no-brainer."

* * *

But what constitutes a base? Do storage facilities for military equipment constitute a base? Will facilities built for joint military exercises, such as the just concluded Balikatan 02-1 in Basilan and Carat war games in Luzon, constitute basing?

The term "facilities" is even murkier. Americans built bigger versions of nipa huts for their housing in Basilan during Balikatan. They used prefabricated materials to set up training centers in Zamboanga City. Do such structures constitute military facilities banned by the Constitution?

Should the MLSA specify the physical dimensions and materials used for facilities built incidental to joint military exercises? How should the document be worded? Wood and prefab are OK; concrete and steel are a no-no. Anything that can house a Galaxy transport plane is out, but one that can accommodate a Pave Hawk helicopter is fine.

* * *

While we’re splitting hairs over US basing, there are Philippine soldiers who could only wish that the Americans would leave some of their facilities and equipment behind. Military officers told me the other day in Basilan that the Americans were taking back with them everything in their temporary camps that could be dismantled. You have to admire the Americans’ skill in this task: they’re dismantling even those massive Chinook helicopters.

You can’t help feeling sorry for our soldiers when you see the American military equipment. I flew out of Basilan last Wednesday on a Pave Hawk chopper, and inevitably compared my previous bumpy rides on our Vietnam War-vintage UH1H or Hueys. There was a world of difference, even in the helmets worn by the GIs and the belts that kept me safely strapped to my seat on the Black Hawk. Even the C-130 transport plane that Admiral Fargo uses may look the same as our C-130, but the US aircraft is better equipped and has stronger armor.

Ideally, such materiel should be provided by our own government to our soldiers. But knowing that we can’t afford it, our soldiers are opting for the next best thing: foreign military assistance.

Don’t think our soldiers like having foreign soldiers in their turf. Sure, our soldiers welcome the US assistance and training. But all the military officers I’ve met say they don’t want foreigners to do the fighting for them.

* * *

I could sense our military’s frustration when I asked the Philippine Army commander in Basilan, Col. Alexander Aleo, to comment on the residents’ fears for their safety upon the departure of US troops. Why, even IBON, the foundation tagged by President Arroyo as a communist front, has released the results of a survey showing that American presence in the country gave Filipinos a feeling of safety.

While top Philippine and US military officials have made glowing assessments of the results of Balikatan, Aleo told me, "I give it passing marks."

He insisted that no American ever participated in combat operations against the Abu Sayyaf, and even the much-touted assistance in surveillance equipment was minimal. But he welcomed the training and extra equipment, and he acknowledged the psychological impact on residents’ feeling of safety.

Still, Aleo insists that the biggest credit for driving the Abu Sayyaf out of Basilan should go to the Philippine military. Aleo took over the Basilan command on Jan. 14 this year. Two weeks later, when I visited Lamitan — the town where 10 farmers were rounded up last year by the Abu Sayyaf and decapitated beside a chapel — Aleo told me they could neutralize the terrorists within three to six months.

Last Wednesday, six months after we met, he was happy to point out that the Abu Sayyaf was gone from Basilan, as he had predicted. Give the military three more months, he said — this time without the Americans — and he would restore the residents’ confidence in their own Armed Forces.

I can only say: Good luck.

* * *

Basilan residents are missing the GIs not only because of the feeling of safety they have brought to the province but because of the kind of work they have put in to improve the infrastructure. When I went to the island a few days before the start of Balikatan, the circumferential road was mostly dirt and stone. There was no airstrip. The lack of roads and bridges made it easy for the Abu Sayyaf to melt into the dense jungle after perpetrating atrocities.

Now there’s an airfield that can accommodate a heavy C-130. Near the runway is the completed circumferential road. You’ve seen the pictures of the bridges and other public works projects built by the Americans in what in this country is considered record time.

Again, all these projects should have been undertaken by our own government. Relying on foreign assistance hardly makes for a strong Republic. In fact it can weaken a Republic if we do it long enough. Sure, we must form alliances, and I’d pick the US as an ally anytime to countries that sponsor terror or follow the communist way. But if we want to be a genuine partner of a nation as powerful as the United States, we have to strive to make our nation strong.

If we have a strong republic, there could be so much less fretting and hand-wringing over the presence of US troops and facilities on Philippine soil. Or even over the signing of the MLSA.