Palparan in the cross hairs

Let me say up front that there can be no legal shortcuts in the fight against the communist insurgency. "Extra-judicial killings," an oxymoron in my book since I don’t see how killings can be other than judicial to be legal (as in capital punishment, carried out in accordance with law), certainly cannot be countenanced in a society that claims to adhere to the rule of law and democratic principles.

But having said that, I also think it’s high time we made clear to ourselves, if to no one else, what objectives and marching orders should be given to the military in the counter-insurgency effort. The dilemma, and the penchant of some for oversimplification, is I think personified by the virtual crucifixion of now retired Major General Jovito Palparan — the man, who is condemned as a "butcher" by leftist radicals, and whom the New People’s Army, calls a "dead man walking."

In retirement, the man is now required to explain his actions during his active service which he himself characterizes as marked by two features: first, a record of "success" in his various assignments insofar as the fight against insurgency is concerned and, second, a candid, perhaps too vocal, "outspokenness" (his term, before the Melo Commission) against the communist movement.

To his admirers, Gen. Palparan is nothing less than a symbol of steadfast resistance against a hated ideology. Many question his methods, few doubt his zeal. If the NPA makes good its threat to kill him, what impact will that have, I wonder, on thousands of military men who are still fighting what is widely reputed to be the last existing communist insurgency in Asia.

Despite our best instincts, we still labor under the illusion that the fight against the communist insurgency is a traditional war, with massed formations doing battle in frontal clashes. Sure, we’ve heard all about this "new age" of asymmetrical war, the kind seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We’ve also read all about guerilla warfare and how its practitioners are taught to control the timing as well as the situs of attacks, and how guerillas must always take the initiative and attack small units of the enemy in superior, if not overwhelming, numbers.

What do we think our military is facing out there right now, even as we in Metro Manila pontificate and call them all incompetent, if not worse, for sustaining greater casualties than the enemy, losing assault rifles, or supposedly showing lesser resolve than a more determined foe?

And yet, do we mourn for the soldiers killed, or their families left behind? No. We’re told they are simply the predictable consequences of an open conflict.

Citizen Palparan, when he was in the active service had the audacity to accuse the so-called Legal left, including those serving in Congress, of being effectively identical with their armed brethren.

In this he was joined by Police Deputy Director General Avelino Razon, the head of a much maligned Task Force Usig, who is busy explaining why there aren’t more perpetrators of "political killings" apprehended, charged, tried and thrown in jail to rot for life. In one recent Viewpoints episode, Razon accused his "Compadre," Rep. Satur Ocampo, of being a "front" for the armed insurgency. Ocampo dismissed this charge, while admitting that he had not changed his ideological convictions, but stressed that he was at least waging his battle through legally-sanctioned parliamentary struggle.

Palparan also complained in that same program that the same people who would protest vociferously during the day about military abuses would be the same ones encountered at night bearing arms against lawmen.

I don’t know about that, but if I had my druthers, I would much rather prefer engaging the communists and other Leftist radicals in open and legal debate, just as we see in Italy, South America and other countries where communist or socialist political parties contest elections. Many such parties have won power, such as Evo Morales in Bolivia and Hugo "Bush-is-a-devil-I- can-still-smell-the-sulphur" Chavez in Venezuela.

The difference, Palparan and Razon agree, is that in countries where communists contend in "democratic" elections, no armed insurgency exists and the debate is, yes, on ideology and future directions in government. In the Philippines, they claim, our central problem is that while a "legal" Left is allowed to say what it wants, it has an armed component which maintains hostilities against a government it is sworn to unseat.

The joint purpose of these two groups, the legal and the armed, is to maintain and escalate a "revolutionary situation" in the country. In this, they are supported by civilian cadres and fellow-traveling activists in academe, labor, farmers’ groups and the church.

And if you think all this is mere rightist fear-mongering, I would commend to you Joel Rocamora’s 1994 book, "Breaking Through," particularly his account of the national democratic movement’s use of the "united front" during the growth years of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the NPA.

When you discuss with military men, both active and retired, their fight against communist insurgents, it seems clear that to many of them, those who claim "abuses" or "vigilantism" are armchair, amateur toy soldiers who are clueless about realities out there where the fight is going on.

What they consider successes are branded political killings. Legitimate "counter-intelligence efforts" are hampered because of suspicions that they use extra-legal methods such as "safe houses" and lengthy, if not permanent, "disappearances." And yet, they insist, their adversaries are under no such constraints.

Something’s wrong here somewhere. And it may begin with some fundamentals: Do we still consider communism to be a threat to our way of life or system of government? Or do we consider this ideology, like Soviet Russia, to be a thing of the past? Do we look at an exuberantly capitalist China and declare, with confidence brimming, that Maoism is dead?

Some aren’t too sure. Many wear military uniforms and claim that they have engaged in a no-nonsense analysis of the concrete situations facing this country. The fact is, there are many Palparans out there, who regard themselves as patriots who must save this country from the naïve and the benighted. If we think Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan’s retirement signals the extinction of his kind, you’re kidding yourself.