Drakulita posts an email from Angelo de la Cruz’s niece in Hawaii. De la Cruz, the unfortunate Filipino hostage in Iraq, is alive as of yet, though still not freed, despite what the bungled reports may say. The hostage crisis has the Philippines conflicted and confused: was it wrong for Filipino workers and soldiers to join an American (circle preferred answer) [liberation/occupation]? If one believes the war in Iraq unjust, does rectifying the wrong with an early Filipino troop pullout justify acquiescing to terrorist kidnappers’ demands?

Inquirer’s appeasement editorials (obviously written by, or under the lead of, De Quiros, who practically apologizes for the kidnappers) would seem to bear out that justification, and I believe they advocate dishonor and cowardice. (Yes, I am cringing as I write that, as I sound like a polarizing far-right-winger.) Whether or not you believe in Iraqi WMDs, American imperialism, or George W. Bush, a commitment is a commitment. It is a commitment not just to America but to Iraq as well, and not just to American interests (“OOOIIILLL!!!” yells the headbanded activistippie) but to rebuilding Iraq as well. To renege on that commitment at this point is not only to dance when the terrorists say dance, but to abandon a country twice, thrice ravaged by oppression and war.

Am I being heartless for insisting on firmness to a dubious contract in the face of the beheading of an innocent worker by terrorists?

Update: Oh no. I saw the news just as I posted this: The Philippines blinked. Our moral to the rest of the world: “When it comes to the Philippines, terrorist kidnappings work!” How long before the next extremist group decides to see how high they can make the Philippines jump?