Mamasapano incident: no closure, unless . . .

Several questions about the Mamasapano incident have been asked by lawmakers and many others. May I be allowed to ask the following questions relative thereto:

1. Why were 400 Special Action Force (SAF) commandos sent to Mamasapano to serve the warrant of arrest of only two terrorists? A composite team of about five would have been sufficient to do the job. Because of the size of the SAF group that entered the Moro Islamic Liberation Front-controlled territory without permission or coordination, the rebels thought they were being attacked so they fought back, resulting in the death of 44 SAF commandos. The MILF now claims that the widows of the Fallen 44 must accept that the encounter was legit and the MILF was acting in self-defense.

2. Why was it necessary for the commander of the blocking force to wait for an order to help the beleaguered SAF 44 who were being massacred?

3. Will the SAF accept the challenge of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters to a “rematch” before the latter would return the looted firearms, etc. of the Fallen 44?

4. Why were the military officers and government officials discussing with President Aquino in Zamboanga the bus bombing that occurred weeks earlier, instead of updating him about the ongoing fighting in Mamasapano, which needed the President’s immediate attention and decision?

5. What are the new definitions of the words “advice” and “order”? A police officer volunteered to say that they mean tactical command or suggestion. I didn’t know that Webster has just been recently revised.

Unless correct answers are given and accepted to the several questions asked, there will never be closure to the Mamasapano massacre.

—BERNARDO V. PERALTA,
retired accounting professor,
Cebu City