It took quite a few bombings before there was any official action, but here we have it. An official government probe into the bombings that have been taking place in the Cordillera.
There are more bombings everywhere else; independent rights groups claim as many as 20,000 and counting. Here where we are, there’s a handful of them, some even believed to have used white phosphorus.
For the less initiated, there is a reason that sentence is horrible—using white phosphorus is one of the most inhumane ways to kill. Not that murder is humane, but using white phosphorus sticks out as particularly nasty.
In the least graphic terms possible, white phosphorus—which burns when it touches air—will burn you harder than an overheated deep fryer waiting for a batch of crispy pata. It is notoriously difficult to put out once it starts burning, and even if you somehow survive, if there is residual phosphor particulate on your person, it may very well reignite once it touches the air again.
If you’re lucky enough to not burn from the white phosphorus, then you are fortunate enough to only risk death via shock, hepatic or renal failure, central nervous system or myocardial damage. Simply being near the stuff can kill you four different ways.
Suffice it to say that these are fates you should not wish on anyone, though I also understand the ease with which the intrusive hostile thought sneaks into the mind. I myself find a small amount of catharsis imagining these on those who push others into suffering so they can benefit for themselves, an archetype of character that is all too frequent and easy to find.
So why is there a probe? Well, the Commission on Human Rights wants to make sure that Human Rights are still in Commision. It is against the Geneva Conventions not just to use white phosphorus, but to use airstrikes in general—the point is, indiscriminate attacks are not allowed. After all, you are supposed to only shoot at the enemy, and not the civilians in the area. They live where you march with a truckload of bullets and a mandate to “destroy the enemy,” an enemy so insidious that they are somehow both weakening day by day, but still the biggest threat to peace in the country. At the very least, keep them out of it.
Is it really too much to ask, that the peace we are fighting for be preserved where it can?
We can call them the great enemy all we want, but between the use of overkill—aerial strikes against a handful of men (don’t forget, half the narrative is that the great enemy is a vestige of its peak)—and the less-than-stellar identification of who actually is part of that great enemy (these journalists, for instance, that I know and respect from the bottom of my heart are too busy having the occasional beer at Luisa’s to be performing sedition)—how much can we trust that the innocent are not caught in the crossfire?
There was a soldier once in the United States armed forces who spoke about the extreme measures and violations of human rights that his country was committing on a regular basis to “terrorists” without due process and any proper investigation; “terrorists” who were locked up in Gitmo for years.
He spoke of how resorting to such extreme measures and tarnishing the country’s ideals of justice and honor were a show of weakness more than they were of strength. He was quoted as saying “as an American citizen who is not a coward, I would be willing to release every one of them tomorrow morning, and face them on the battlefield again if necessary.”
Standing up for our highest ideals, even when it requires accepting a certain amount of risk—that is what defines the glory of a country. While it may seem as if we are risking our bravest for no reason, think of what relying on indiscriminate warfare does—we are still putting people, in fact, even more people, at risk—and they are the ones who never chose to be part of this war.
No bombs. Peace is pointless if it is only for the ants in the smoking craters.
