THE US TROOPS’ “UNCONVENTIONAL” PRESENCE:
Are US Special Operations Forces Engaged In An “Offensive War” In The Philippines?
by Herbert Docena (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism)
Peace Researcher 34 – July 2007
As soon as the US Marine convicted of raping a Filipina* was in the custody of US Embassy officials, the United States announced that it would push through with the Balikatan training exercises involving US and Filipino troops scheduled for February 2007. It had earlier cancelled the exercises to protest the Philippine courts’ refusal to release Lance Corporal Daniel Smith to US authorities while his case is on appeal.
* In late 2005 several US soldiers, in the country for one of the permanent series of “exercises” that provides the flimsy justification for the renewed US military presence, went out for some “rest and recreation” in the Americans’ old stamping ground of Olongapo (home to the former Subic Bay US Navy Base). They ended up being arrested and charged with raping a Filipina, identified only as “Nicole”. So, an unprecedented situation arose with American soldiers charged with a very serious, non-bailable crime. The US immediately invoked the Visiting Forces Agreement (passed in 1999, during Joseph Estrada’s Presidency) and demanded custody of the accused. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s government acquiesced, and they awaited trial in the comfortable surrounds of the US Embassy. The judge-only trial – there are no jury trials in the Philippines – was eventually held in late 2006 and, despite the obstructive approach of the Philippine government (which was supposedly “prosecuting” the GIs but made it very clear that it greatly preferred the whole thing to go away) one of the defendants, Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison. The US immediately whisked the other, acquitted, defendants out of the country, back to their bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa. US agents also tried to snatch Smith in the actual courtroom, following his conviction, but Philippine cops got him locked up in a local prison. There he sat for all of a fortnight, while a huge row raged about where he should be held. This was a historic situation – Smith is the first American GI to have ever been convicted of anything in the Philippines. The US government demanded him back in its custody and the Philippine government agreed, both citing the Visiting Forces Agreement. But Philippine courts showed a stubborn independence and ruled that Smith must be detained in a Philippine prison. The US then upped the ante and cancelled the high profile Balikatan joint military exercise in the Philippines until they got their soldier/rapist back. Gloria didn’t take much convincing – she issued an Executive Order transferring Smith to US custody (back to the Embassy) while his appeal is heard and he was clandestinely removed from prison in the dead of night in the holiday period between Christmas and New Year 2006. The US promptly uncancelled Balikatan. This whole squalid business greatly inflamed nationalist fervour across the whole Filipino population and the case of Daniel Smith and the broader issue of the Philippine/American relationship still has a long way yet to run. Ed.
Yet unknown to many, a contingent of US Special Operations Forces that had been stationed in the southern Philippines since January 2002 was clearly staying on despite the Balikatan exercises’ cancellation. While the US and Philippine governments maintain that these troops are not doing anything beyond training Filipino soldiers and conducting humanitarian projects, questions persist regarding their actual mission here. In 2002, a petition was lodged before the Philippine Supreme Court claiming the US troops about to be deployed here were going to war “under the guise of an exercise”. But while the Court agreed with the petitioners that US troops are indeed constitutionally banned from engaging in an “offensive war” in the Philippines, it held that whether they are actually going to do so was “a question of fact” that had to be proven first. Five years after the deployment and in the midst of the uproar over Smith, new and accumulated information on the actions of US troops in the Philippine south provide grounds for revisiting this question.
Distinguishing “Exercises” From “Special Operations”
It is important, however, to first draw a distinction between US soldiers who join the regular joint training exercises in various parts of the country and those who are part of the Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P). Media coverage and public discussion on the presence of US troops in the country have tended to lump those who take part in the JSOTF-P with those who take part in the exercises, but there are important differences.
For instance, while participants of the regular training exercises come from different branches and services of the US military, those under the JSOTF-P are drawn specifically from the Special Operations Forces (SOFs), or those units that, as their name implies, conduct “special operations”. According to the SOF’s own definition, “special operations” are those “conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments” and that require “covert, clandestine, or discreet capabilities”. The US Army Field Manual — a guide for military missions and procedures — meanwhile says that SOFs are the “force of choice” for “dynamic, ambiguous, and politically volatile situations”.
The number of participants in the training exercises is also publicly disclosed prior to each exercise. In the case of the JSOTF-P, however, this information has been withheld. Various media reports place the number of troops deployed to the southern Philippines between 160 and 350, but it isn’t clear what the actual figure is for a specific period. US Embassy spokesman Matthew Lussenhop has said that it “wouldn’t be above 100”. But US Lieutenant Colonel Mark Zimmer, JSOTF- P Public Affairs Officer, also said it varies “depending on the season and the mission”.
Many of the exercises are conducted inside military training camps or other designated training areas, and are done so with no specified target or enemy in mind. By contrast, the JSOTF-P has been operating in an area in which combat with forces seen as hostile to the Philippines government has ensued and is still ongoing. The exact coverage of its area of operation remains unclear, but the JSOTF-P has been explicit in targeting “terrorists,” in particular the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)*, and lately, the Jemaah Islamaiah, both of which are listed as “designated foreign terrorist organisations” by the US State Department.
* Abu Sayyaf Group. This bona fide terrorist group (they are not Muslim separatists, but the latest in a long line of pirates and bandits who have terrorised their fellow countrymen and neighbours in the far South for centuries) is a classic example of “blowback” – a Frankenstein monster of armed Filipino mujahedin created by the US Central Intelligence Agency in the 1980s to fight America’s proxy jihad against the Russians then occupying Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden is the most famous of those Muslim terrorists who have “blown back” into the faces of their 1980s’ American creators. This tiny band of criminals, confined to the southernmost islands and the southernmost part of Mindanao, are now the flimsy reason for the Americans to get a foothold back in their old colony and for Bush to have proclaimed the Philippines to be the “Second Front in the ‘War on Terror’”. Ed.
In truth, from the very start, US and Philippine officials announced that the deployment was part of the US-led “global war against terror”. The JSOTF-P’s deployment here was even labelled by the US military as “Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines” (OEF-P), signifying that the nature and the goal of the deployment was in the same league as the original “Operation Enduring Freedom” – the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
Finally, the regular training exercises are close-ended and usually last for no more than a week or two, after which the participating units return to their home bases. But the JSOTF-P’s stay has been indefinite. Contrary to the 2002 assurance by then National Security Adviser Roilo Golez that the US troops would “be gone” after six months, the troops remain. US and Filipino officials are mum about any exit date. In a March 2006 interview, Captain Eddie Paruchabutr, then JSOTF-P information officer, could only say: “It’s continuous as long as we are allowed to stay”.
In writings meant principally for internal US military consumption, JSOTF-P members reveal how they actually understand the nature of their mission in the Philippines. For example, in an article for the US Army Combined Arms Center’s Military Review journal, the first Commander of the JSOTF-P, Colonel David Maxwell said their mission was “to conduct unconventional warfare in the southern Philippines through, by, and with the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to help the Philippine government separate the population and destroy the terrorist organisation”. Their key tasks included “denying the ASG sanctuary,” “surveilling, controlling, or denying ASG routes,” and “surveilling supporting villages and key personnel”.
In an apparent rebuff to the Supreme Court, Maxwell also pointed out that — contrary to the Justices’ reading — the Philippine Constitution “does not prohibit combat operations”. According to Maxwell, the “correct reading” of the charter would show that it proscribes only the stationing of forces, not combat operations. Reappointed as JSOTF-P Commander in October 2006, Maxwell described the operations he led as being conducted “under the guise of an exercise”.
Maxwell’s description is shared by members of the 1st Special Forces group who wrote a history of their unit’s engagements in the Philippines for Special Warfare, the bulletin of the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. According to their own account, their unit took part in “the ongoing unconventional warfare operations…”. Dr CH Briscoe, the Command Historian of the US Army Special Operations Command, interviewed soldiers “who participated at all levels of operations”. In 2004, he wrote how their mission “transformed from unconventional warfare to foreign internal defence and development”. The ensuing ground campaign, said Briscoe, was best described by referring to the “counterinsurgency model”. Eric Wendt, also writing for the same publication, cited the Joint Task Force’s actions as “a superior example of successful counterinsurgency”. Similarly, Cherilyn Walley, another US military historian, noted how the Special Forces in the country turned “from performing tactical missions to implementing the counterinsurgency model that had been practiced by the American military in Vietnam” (in the 1960s & 70s’ war. Ed). An analyst writing for the National Bureau of Asian Research meanwhile observed, “[A]lthough US training of Philippine forces in both Luzon and Mindanao is labelled counter-terror, in fact, the effort seems to be more counterinsurgency against the paramilitary forces of the Abu Sayyaf and the MILF [Moro Islamic Liberation Front]”.
The terms “unconventional warfare,” “foreign internal defence,” and “counterinsurgency” are rarely, if at all used, by US and Filipino officials in publicly describing the JSOTF-P’s work. But they are the words of choice of members of the US military writing on their own mission in the Philippines. In US military jargon, “unconventional warfare” and “foreign internal defence” are among the key missions of SOFs. Considered their raison d’etre, “unconventional warfare” refers to all those operations that SOFs conduct “through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces which are organised, trained, equipped, supported, and directed in varying degrees by an external source”. This covers “guerrilla warfare, subversion, sabotage, intelligence activities, and unconventional assisted recovery”.
The operations under “foreign internal defence” refer to those activities conducted “to organise, train, advise, and assist host-nation military and paramilitary forces”. According to the US Army Field Manual, this mission’s goal is to ensure that the kind of assistance the United States gives to its host’s troops “support US national interests”. “Counter-insurgency” covers all those “military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions” performed by a government to defeat internal enemies.
“In The Thick Of It”
US and Philippine officials portray the US troops role as passive “advisers” indirectly engaged in the operations from a distance. But reports indicate that their role has been more active and direct. From the beginning, the US troops were authorised under the terms of reference between the US and Philippine governments to fire back if shot at. Under this arrangement, US Special Forces have “intentionally ventured into known Abu Sayyaf territory in an attempt to reassure locals while also dissuading the rebels from operating openly, as well as possibly tempting them to confront the Americans militarily,” noted an analyst with the Washington DC-based Center for Defense Information.
Even as “advisers,” Briscoe observed that the “guys were in thick of it” and were anxious to “get in the fight.” He said the US troops “expected to shoot or to be shot”. Such an expectation would not seem misplaced for, as one writer for a war veterans’ publication pointed out: “Though the Philippines’ Constitution prohibits foreign soldiers from fighting within the island nation, US troops are exposed to the same risks they would see in combat”. In fact, in a June 2002 incident reported by the Los Angeles Times and confirmed in the Army magazine, US Marines exchanged gunfire with alleged ASG members. Another incident reportedly had at least one US soldier “killed in action,” though not during a patrol. In March 2006, a Huey helicopter carrying US troops to Sulu was attacked by unidentified assailants.
US officials describe the Special Forces’ role as “training, advising, and assisting” Filipino troops. During the on the job training against hostile forces, giving advice, helping, and actually being part of the action may well have overlapped. As Walley explained in her 2004 Special Warfare article: “Security assistance missions preclude the trainers from being combatants or from performing duties in which they are likely to become combatants. But the trainers’ credibility and effectiveness as teachers mandated that they accompany the AFP troops on their graduation exercise, of which combat was an integral part”. Briscoe, for his part, pointed out that while their primary role was to train, their “unspoken” mission later changed to include “facilitating the rescue” of ASG hostages. He said this entailed assuming a more assertive and central role in the planning, decision-making, and execution of the operations.
At first, the US troops were allowed to operate only at the battalion level, which left them frustrated. At one point, several US media reports said, former US Pacific Command Chief, Admiral Dennis Blair, “tried to get too aggressive” while others in the military pressed for a “longer and more intense mission”. JSOTF-P Commander Maxwell also argued that confining the troops at the battalion was a “strategic error.” But the then US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, later authorised US troops to operate at the company level and join patrols “as often as possible.” This set up is similar to the US war in Afghanistan, where Special Forces troops joined and commanded 120-member companies of the Northern Alliance (the Afghan rebel army which was the Americans’ ally in defeating the Taliban government. Ed.).
And so in June 2005, local residents told journalists that US forces had joined the Philippine military in their operations against Abu Sayyaf members in Maguindanao province in mainland Mindanao —even when no training exercises or civil projects had been announced. A P3-Orion plane was seen flying over the area. In November of that year, the AFP launched operations allegedly against the Abu Sayyaf, even as those who were fighting back claimed to belong to the Moro National Liberation Front, a group whose 1996 peace agreement with the Government had frayed but which was not tagged a “terrorist group” by either Manila or Washington.
Eyewitnesses said US troops joined the Filipino soldiers in operations at the immediate vicinity of the fighting. US soldiers were seen aboard military trucks with their Filipino counterparts and in rubber boats, mounting heavy artillery, operating military equipment, removing landmines, or evacuating casualties. Throughout the clashes, a spy plane — which locals said had been flying over the skies for months — hovered above the area where fighting was ongoing.
US officials dismissed these reports as “absolutely not true”. Asserted JSOTF-P Public Affairs Officer Lieutenant Colonel Mark Zimmer: “We are not in any way involved in military operations conducted by the Philippine Armed Forces”. Other military officials and reports, however, support the claims of the witnesses. The Filipino commander during the November 2005 operations, General Nehemias Pajarito confirmed that US troops were indeed at the vicinity of the fighting, but that they were just repairing water pipes while hostilities were ongoing. Another Filipino colonel attested that he had requested the US troops’ help in clearing landmines.
The US troops’ role in evacuating troop casualties had previously been reported and confirmed by the US military itself. In 2002, a US Air Force magazine reported that US soldiers “helped infiltrate and extract ground forces” in the Philippines. In subsequent operations in September 2006, a Filipino military spokesperson also confirmed that US troops assisted in evacuating soldiers.
As for their role in spying, in February 2006 local residents in the south recovered an unmanned US aerial vehicle that had crashed. A US military spokesperson then said the spy planes were used for “humanitarian” projects, but other US officials, including a general, have since stated that these have been used to hunt down targets. A report to the US Congress also said P-3 aircraft provide “intelligence and communications support” to the AFP. In September 2006, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita himself acknowledged that US troops were using surveillance equipment to track down the ASG. That the surveillance was meant for combat had been confirmed as early as 2002 by then National Security Council adviser Golez, who was quoted as saying US pilots on surveillance flights could “call in air strikes” if they spot ASG fighters.
In at least two reports, the Philippine Star has noted the US troops’ use of “unmanned planes, electronic tracking devices, eavesdropping mechanisms, experimental laser beacons, and a full range of US intelligence gadgets”. Such use attests to the “special reconnaissance” mission that is a forte of Special Forces troops. According to the Army Field Manual, the mission’s objective is “to confirm, refute, or obtain — by visual observation or other collection methods — information on the capabilities, intentions, and activities of an actual or potential enemy”.
In these operations, the Special Forces were aided by the US Central Intelligence Agency, which has admitted in one of its annual reports that it supported the Joint Task Forces by using “human intelligence” and through other technical operations. The former Philippine Ambassador to Washington, Albert del Rosario, also confirmed the establishment of an “intelligence fusion centre” staffed by both US and Filipino troops and the setting up of satellite equipment.
Moreover, US soldiers have apparently enjoyed a special vantage point inside Philippine military headquarters during operations (during the rescue of Abu Sayyaf hostages, for instance, some US soldiers were reportedly stationed in the Philippine military command post). What their role in decision-making is exactly and how they relate with Filipino officials they supposedly “advise” is not known. US soldiers, however, are legally barred from being put under the command of foreign officers. And in at least one incident, Briscoe said, the US commanders “steer(ed) the AFP leadership” into supporting a particular plan of action. To describe what is going on as “unconventional warfare” may not be farfetched, since the US military itself defines such missions as those in which US troops “direct” indigenous forces.
The Full Range Of Operations
In denying that US troops are engaged in “actual combat” in the Philippines, US and Philippine officials have sought to reduce the coverage of the definition of the phrase to only those actions that involve the direct application of force. This implies that US troops could be considered as engaging in combat only when they themselves personally pull the trigger and fire guns at their enemies. Yet while US troops have actually found themselves in this position, US public information officers continue to stress that their actions are confined to performing “non-combat” roles, such as training or undertaking humanitarian missions.
But even as US and Filipino officials take pains to publicly draw distinctions between US troops’ missions, the US military apparently does not. As its own Army Field Manual states: “Military power is not limited to acts of violence and overt hostilities to achieve strategic objectives”. This view, says the Manual, is particularly valid for US Special Operations Forces. It adds: “The principles of war apply to the full range of operations, specifically where the use of force is more selective and where restraint and non-lethal aspects of power are dominant”.
The US military also defines “civil-military operations” or CMOs, including the construction of deep wells, roads, and school buildings, as well as medical and dental missions as a “group of planned activities in support of military operations that enhance the relationship between the military forces and civilian authorities and population and which promote the development of favorable emotions, attitudes, or behaviour in neutral, friendly, or hostile grounds”. Testifying about their CMOs in Basilan, former US Pacific Command Chief, Admiral Thomas Fargo, said these “acted as force multipliers for US and AFP operations because the programs separated the citizens of Basilan from supporting the terrorist threat”.
The goal is not just to earn the locals’ sympathy, but also to extract information necessary for combat. As one military writer pointed out, the humanitarian projects’ underlying aim is “not simply to provide feel good projects that achieve positive perceptions among the local populace”. He added, “The purpose is to utilise the correct… carrots… that will yield actionable intelligence that can be used to target and destroy the insurgent infrastructure…”.
After the carrots come the sticks. Or as Wendt put it: “After the infrastructure has been identified and exposed by the local population, its members can be killed or captured”. Even infrastructure projects — the extension of airport runways, construction of piers and jetties, road paving, and so on — which have won over many local authorities have larger military goals. Pointing out how they enabled troops to move around more quickly, Walley says these projects “benefited US trainers and advisers and contributed to force protection”. They are also useful for meeting the troops’ supply and logistics needs. Likewise, training AFP troops serves US combat-related goals. In US military terminology, indigenous troops act as “force multipliers” in projecting power and in achieving US military objectives but — as the Army Field Manual says — “with minimum visibility, risk, and cost”. To put it another way, AFP members are trained so they can be put out front and first in line when the enemies start firing.
“Long-Term Low-Visibility Presence”
Rather than just lone-standing missions, the US troops’ actions in the Philippines are part of a comprehensive and wide-ranging transformation of the US military organisation and its global posture. In fact, their interrelated missions conform to the overall US military strategy, as articulated in various official documents, including the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the National Security Strategy (NSS), the National Military Strategy (NDS), the National Defense Strategy (NDS), and the National Strategy to Combat Terrorism (NSCT), among others.
At one level, the deployment of troops in the Philippines is in keeping with Washington’s determination to “focus decisive military power and specialised intelligence resources to defeat terrorist networks globally”. This is because the challenge to US interests, as seen by US strategists, no longer comes just from state but also non-state actors, especially those taking shelter in states incapable of controlling their own territory. Says the NSS: “America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones”.
This “failing state” label has been increasingly pinned on the Philippines, with former US Embassy officials describing Mindanao as “a doormat for terrorism in the region” or as the “next Afghanistan”. Faced with these kinds of threats, the NSS asserts: “The fight must be taken to the enemy, to keep them on the run”. In this fight, the lines between a defensive war and what the Supreme Court terms “offensive war” are blurred, if not indeterminate. For as the NSCT points out: “[T]he best defence is a good offence”.
As a result, the QDR calls for a shift in emphasis “from conducting war against nations — to conducting war in countries we are not at war with” — a category that fits the Philippines. US journalist Seymour Hersh has written about a presidential order that allows the Pentagon “to operate unilaterally in a number of countries where there is a perception of a clear and evident terrorist threat”. He didn’t name the countries, but the description of some of them again covers the Philippines: “…friendly to the United States and are major trading partners”. He also said, “Most have been cooperating in the war on terrorism”. In these countries, the United States will strive to work with willing governments, but it reserves the right to act alone and pre-emptively if they so refuse. One analyst described the new strategy thus: “countries that harbour terrorists, either by consent or because they are unable to enforce their laws within their territory, effectively forfeit their rights of sovereignty”. According to a memorandum prepared by former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Richard Myers — who had earlier been reported as pushing for deeper involvement in the country — the Philippines has been included in the list of “emerging targets for pre-emptive war” of a new US military unit authorised to conduct clandestine operations abroad.
A New Form Of Entrenching US Bases In The Philippines
Beyond pursuing “terrorists,” however, the SOF’s stationing in the Philippines is an important component of the US military’s evolving global positioning. As the United States embarks on the most radical realignment of its worldwide presence since World War II, the aim, according to the QDR, is “to develop a basing system that provides greater flexibility for US forces in critical areas of the world, placing emphasis on additional bases and stations beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia”. This includes the need to “provide temporary access to facilities in foreign countries that enable US forces to conduct training and exercises in the absence of permanent ranges and bases”. It also entails a change in emphasis “from static defence, garrison forces” — such as those the United States had in Subic and Clark — “to mobile, expeditionary operations” as exemplified by the operations of the JSOTF-P in Sulu.
While discussing the current realignment of US military presence, then US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had confirmed plans to establish “nodes” for Special Operations Forces in Asia. In 2004, then US Pacific Command head Admiral Thomas Fargo also announced their intention to expand SOF presence in the region by setting up more “cooperative security locations (CSLs),” or military installations to which the United States will have access, in Asia. The Overseas Basing Commission, an official body that reviews the US overseas military infrastructure, has confirmed the Philippines is among the Asian countries where such CSLs are being developed. In November 2002, the Philippine and US governments signed the Mutual Logistics and Servicing Agreement that, according to a military publication, made the Philippines a “supply base” of the United States.
In these plans, Special Forces hold a special place. More than other units, SOFs have usually been the contingent to count on to “gain or maintain US access to strategically important foreign countries”. In fact, another military contingent also composed mostly of Special Forces — the Combined Joint Task Force — Horn of Africa, US — was also established in Djibouti in 2002. With its mission and objectives very similar to the JSOTF-P, the Task Force has been described as a “model for future military operations”.
These small and inconspicuous units fulfil the stated need of “maintaining a long-term, low visibility presence in many areas of the world where US forces do not traditionally operate”. And as Briscoe noted, the deployment in Sulu has “established an acceptable American military presence in the Southeast Pacific…”. In other words, the JSOTF-P may not only be conducting war within the Philippines, it may have also entrenched a new form of US bases in the country.
Herbert Docena is with the Focus on the Global South, a policy research institute. This article is based on a 40 page special report published by the Institute. It can be downloaded from http://www.focusweb.org/pdf/unconventionalwarfare.pdf
Documentary 2006 / Colour / 30 mins / Philippines
This documentary contextualizes the issue of US military presence in the country within the long and bitter history of conflict in the south. Countering the reductionist frame set by the narrative of the “global war against terror,” it examines the historical conditions that led to the emergence of the Moro separatist movement and the subsequent rise of the Abu Sayyaf. It dissects the government’s contradictory attempts to downplay its threat while at the same time justifying escalating military operations in the region.
Against this backdrop, the documentary then probes into allegations of US military involvement in the war.
Filmmakers: HERBERT DOCENA and ANNA ISABELLE MATUTINA
Producer: FOCUS ON THE GLOBAL SOUTH
Narrator: JAIME FABREGAS
Animation: BON LABORA
Additional Graphics: FREDIE ABRIL
Post-Production Assistant: SHERLYN TALACTAC