2 of 4

What probably happened, says Bonner, is that the Bush administration "selected Abu Sayyaf because it looked like a chance to win a relatively easy battle early in the war [against terrorism]. … In a broader sense, the United States may have wanted to strengthen its military presence here, and across Southeast Asia, which declined after the cold war."

Bonner writes that military officials from both countries "have heaped praise on the operation and the United States military mission here in general" in an effort to curb criticism. "'This was a successful operation,' declared Roilo Golez, national security adviser to the Philippine president. 'Enormously successful,' said a senior American official."

The Philippine media aren't buying it. "Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but there is no way in hell what happened … can be described a success," the newspaper Today editorializes. "It was at a very least a total flop and at the worst a profound human tragedy given the quality of the people who were killed: people who had dedicated their lives to serving others."

Daily Tribune columnist Ninez Cacho-Olivares agrees. "It is wrong for [President Arroyo] to congratulate the military for the botched rescue, because it gives the military the message that, faced with such situations, the hostages' safety can be sacrificed," she writes. She claims the effort was a conspiratorial ruse to get the U.S. to extend its military presence.

Even the Philippine military has had to back off its earlier crowing. "Was the operation a complete success? This is one of those questions where you encounter a grey area," said Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, who described Operation Daybreak as "not a complete success but not a complete failure, either."

In an op-ed piece in Today, however, Alvin Capino criticizes the criticism. "If the bleeding hearts cannot recognize the heroism and valor of our troops they should at least refrain from criticizing our soldiers who did what they could to resolve the crisis. … Disparaging the [Philippine military] at this time would only help the cause of the bandits and would draw attention away from their heinous and barbaric acts against their hostages and against those unfortunate to come their way."

Are the U.S. media anti-Catholic or afraid to appear that way?
A Honduran cardinal considered to be a serious candidate as the next pope has lashed out against the U.S. media, saying they have reported the Catholic abuse scandal with "a fury which reminds me of the times of Diocletian and Nero and, more recently, Stalin and Hitler."

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga told the Italian magazine 30 Giorni in an interview to be published this week that the "openly anti-Catholic" Ted Turner and major newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe, are persecuting the church because of its support for a Palestinian homeland and its stance against abortion and the death penalty.

He also defended Cardinal Bernard Law, who has been subject to questioning "with methods that recall the dark days of Stalinist trials of churchmen of eastern Europe."

Editor & Publisher is also raising questions concerning the news media's coverage of the Catholic church. In today's Ethics Corner Column, Allan Wolper asks, "When will the nun stories surface again?"

The article centers on the "nightmarish tales from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and the United States" of nuns who said that priests raped or seduced them and encouraged those who became pregnant to have abortions. The National Catholic Reporter broke the story last March.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

June (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46