After this exposure to diverse opinions and sentiments from Americans at all levels, this participant is beginning to sense this line prevalent: Americans must protect their community, and while they may differ on the US invasion of Iraq they stand by their troops. But even then, President Bush will have to validate, maybe at the polls, his reasons for going to war.
At this point, we dare say that President Bush, if he is keen on getting reelected, better start preparing a neat getaway from Iraq before it develops into Vietnam-II.
In the meantime, the urgent demand on him is to minimize casualties and expenses. A stiff rise in Americans killed in action may trigger an embarrassing stampede out of Iraq.
We seven East Asian program participants toured Tuesday the memorial and museum built on the site. One cannot but be affected by the graphic presentation of scenes and memorabilia from the bombing, probably the worst in the living memory of most Americans.
In a discussion later at the State capitol, we heard again the line we mentioned at the beginning of this column, with personal variations from the American officials present.
A Vietnam veteran, McCarter agreed with our observation that President Bush better start planning a neat disengagement before the now-unconventional war deteriorates further into another Vietnam debacle.
Gov. Brad Henry himself, who is out of state in a meeting with his counterparts, was reported by his chief of staff Gerard Adams, to have expressed to Mr. Bush in a meeting at the White House his misgivings about going to war.
The chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, which is in Iraq assessing the situation, has just said that in his estimate, the US troops may have to stay in that embattled country for five years.
The point gains validity in view of the fact that US troops and technicians are now in virtual control of every inch of ground in Iraq and have full access to any facility they may want to check for weapons.
Since we arrived in the US on June 12, we’ve not met anyone who has a satisfactory response to our basic question of why the US presumed to have the right to invade another sovereign country halfway around the globe that did not pose an imminent threat of an attack.
We were told substantially the same thing in earlier meetings in Washington, DC, with officials of agencies monitoring not only currency movement but also the global trafficking in drugs.
We understood from these officials that the US government was ready to help secure funding for any equipment or hardware, such as computer networks, to facilitate the monitoring of bank accounts to enforce money-laundering laws.
Although they would not directly say it, we sensed that the problem they have encountered in the Philippines was one of enforcement. The law is there, but there seems to be a conspiracy (our opinion) among those adversely affected to go slow on enforcing it too restrictively.
Of course the name of Sen. Panfilo Lacson never cropped up in sensitive meetings such as those we’ve had. But we were not surprised reading in the Internet about Lacson’s being dragged out again for a variety of accusations, including his alleged tie with drugs operations. The supposed drugs link is, in turn, being tied to his alleged substantial secret foreign currency deposits abroad.
Long before we left Manila, a key member of a prominent law firm in Makati told us that they had organized enough evidence to indict Lacson and wipe him away from the political scene.
Aside from the evidence they have prepared, he said they would also bring back some of the witnesses who had testified against Lacson but had left the country for still unexplained reasons.
ePOSTSCRIPT: You can read Postscript in advance by going to our website www.manilamail.com. While there, you can easily access all previous columns and research on topics discussed in Postscript. While we’re abroad, please send email to fdp333@yahoo.com, although we still access our manilamail@pacific.net.ph mailbox.