Napeñas: A fall guy, a scapegoat, or a sacrificial lamb?
Three speeches of the President, namely, first, before the religious leaders headed by ally Brother Eddie Villanueva, second before the PNP Academy, and third, in the PMA graduation, the President and commander-in-chief of all armed forces, has washed his hands, three times, and pointed to the sacked SAF Commander General G Napeñas as the proximate cause of the Mamasapano debacle. In so doing, the President seeks to cleanse himself of command responsibility, and by omission, has virtually cleared his beloved General Alan L Purisima, resigned PNP chief. Three times PNoy declared that had he been informed of the realities on the ground, he would have aborted the mission. He repeated the oft-mentioned Napeñas' failure to coordinate. In so doing, the President has adopted the MILF's line of argument as well as the AFP's line of defense. He has openly, explicitly and unequivocally disowned the general whom he and General Purisima secretly authorized to embark on such a risky mission. Napeñas was accused of "pambobola" and derided as "tatanga-tanga." The Filipino people know by now that this mission to get Marwan was hatched, planned, and given a go-signal in Malacañan. Napeñas was chosen. That has been testified to and has never been denied.
The mission had the blessings of the highest echelon of leadership, and even with the participation of the US. This was confirmed by the BOI Report. Knowing fully well that the armed forces are better armed and are better prepared for combat in such a perilous terrain, the President and Purisima agreed on the secret mission. They chose the SAF, instead of the AFP to execute it. They know the competence, or lack of it, of the unit and the Commander. Then, when it failed, it is now Napenas' sole fault and responsibility. Is this what we expect of a leader? Do the people believe that Napenas was acting on his own without the minute-to-minute guidance and instruction from above?
Had that mission succeeded, the President and Purisima would have claimed the glory. But when 44 SAF troopers were massacred in great carnage, it is only Napeñas' sole responsibility. Well, they say that success has many fathers while failure is an orphan. But what do all these finger-pointing to Napeñas achieve for the good of the nation? The orphans and the widows' grief are not assuaged. The wasted lives of the fallen 44 are never revived. The people, whom he calls the bosses, become angrier and more agitated that the leader refused to accept responsibility. This kind of leadership, denying one's own subordinate, is, in the words of General Napeñas, the highest form of betrayal.
What is the difference among a fall guy, a scapegoat, and a sacrificial lamb? A fall guy usually knows and agrees that he is being used to take the bullet for a superior. Purisima is a fall guy in part. He is aware that part of his role is to take all the ''slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes'' so that his commander-in-chief would appear clean and immaculate. A scapegoat knows but does not agree. On the other hand, a sacrificial lamb does not know, much less agrees, that at the end, he would be sacrificed. He is clueless about his fate and his commander is using him to go scot free. Now, whether Napeñas is a fall guy, a scapegoat, or a sacrificial lamb, only the President and Napeñas would know. And perhaps, Purisima.
- Latest
