chain of command

(“Arab Rider Attacked by Lion” by Eugene Delacroix, photo of a print published by the Art Institute of Chicago. )

What went down in Basilan?

Here are some questions I raised with a secondary source.

In the investigative report of Yvonne Chua and Luz Rimban, (published in the Inquirer last Friday), it was disclosed that the ceasefire committee ordered the men on the field to stop firing at the MILF forces. Such that, the government troops volleyed only six howitzer shells.

The ceasefire committee is not always physically convened as a body. In other words, at the time that the encounter was going on, they were in fact not physically convened. Did all of the members communicate with each other while the attack was going on, and then decide by consensus that the soldiers and fighters should stop firing? And if so, why was it only on one side? i.e., if it was a decision of the entire ceasefire committee, why was only one side, the government troops, ordered to stop firing?

Most likely, most probably, based on the fact that it was one-sided, it was not a coordinated decision of the entire ceasefire committee (you would have asked your counterpart to order to stop firing too.) Because it was one-sided, the order could only have come from the point-man of the GRP (government) in the ceasefire committee.

Who?

Who in the ceasefire committee called up the ground commanders to stop firing at their attackers? Who is the pointman of the GRP in the ceasefire committee anyway?

If it was given by the GRP pointman in the ceasefire committee: by what authority did he give the order? What is the position or rank of that person (presumably it was only one or two persons in the ceasefire committee and not the entire joint panel) in the chain of command of the military?

I know that the government panel in the ceasefire committee is under the command of the President (all government panels in peace talks are under the direct command of the Commander-in-Chief); and therefore, when a general ceasefire is in place, the ceasefire committee figures in the chain-of-command. But I’m thinking that this is on policy matters, for example, deciding whether any truce had been broken by any act.

But when actual shooting is going on, while bullets are whizzing past your heads, are you telling me that the ceasefire panel or one person therein, figures in the chain-of-command? And can give orders on maneuvers, deployment, reconnaissance, firing? Remotely? While he/ it is in the city, 200 miles away?

What went down in Basilan?

If in tactical operations and during actual active engagement, he/ it does not figure in the chain-of-command, why were his/ its orders (to stop firing) obeyed? Whom did he/ it invoke?

Based on my very limited experience with peace talks a long, long time ago, I noticed that the government panel operates directly under the command of the President. At least, that’s what I noticed. When the government panel was in Norway a lifetime ago, President Gloria in Manila even called up the cellphone of the head of the government panel (Bebot Bello) literally while representatives of both parties were talking to each other opposite wooden tables in a small conference room covered with white drapes, insulated from the snow outside ( he told us, while the President was talking to him!). At one point, we were made to wait for 36 hours by the government panel, we were holed up in a small hotel, we couldn’t go out because, they wouldn’t tell us what time they’d be done, 36 hours just for a small difference or change in a turn of phrase. Why? Was it because they had reading comprehension problems? Was it because they were vocabulary-challenged? It was because of different time zones! I concluded that they had to wait for officials in the Philippines to wake up so it took 36 hours for four or five words; or they just intentionally delayed it for some other reason.

And that’s what I mean when I said the government panel of any ceasefire committee operated directly under the Commander-in-Chief.

Or maybe under the Ermita- Esperon branch of government.

Whom did that government pointman in the ceasefire committee invoke, for the ground commander to obey him while his men were being killed in the field? By what or whose authority did he/ it issue that order? What is the place of that authority that he invoked in the chain-of-command?

I’m just curious, i really have no big interest either way with the two combatant-parties except for war atrocities (which should concern everybody) the legal provisions for which, were posted here a month ago (Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions); but here, just curious: Why did you (yes, i’m talking to you, the GRP pointman in the ceasefire committee) order your soldiers to stop firing, but you did not ask your counterpart in the MILF to issue a similar order to their fighters to stop firing? Why was it one-sided? Since you are in the ceasefire committee, wouldn’t you be in communication with your MILF counterparts? Isn’t that what you do everyday in the ceasefire committee: negotiate with your counterpart, talk to and bargain with your counterpart, backchannel with your counterpart? Why then, at the most crucial hour, you did not do what you habitually do everyday in the ceasefire committee, why did you not ask your counterpart to issue a stand-down order? Why would you give an order to stop firing but not ask the MILF counterpart to stop shooting, too? Just curious.

What really went down in Basilan?