It’s one thing for Captain Ed to jump to the conclusion that the Philippines is going soft on terrorism; it’s another for Michelle Malkin, of Filipino descent, to get it wrong. What appears as “wobbly” to us is standard-operating procedure in the Philippines: when something goes wrong, Filipinos like to sit down and talk about it first, but usually come out just as bullheaded as they came in. “Policy review” is another word for beaurocracy, and it is a necessary step to appear to the rest of its populace — which is not as politically apathetic is most of Middle America is — that the government is a “thoughtful” organization that engages is well-considered action. Whether this is a sign of weakness to Jihadist terrorists is not a question; whether it will “endager us all” is.

Remember, this is the same Philippines whose capital megalopolis has received numerous bombings in the past, with demands ranging from conversion of the rest of the country into Islam, or secession of Mindanao as an independent Islamic state. Last time I checked, the Philippines is still a Christian nation and Mindanao is still part of the country. I doubt things are going to change any time soon.

The Philippines is not going soft on terrorism; it is, however, employing the same tactic it has always done. “Negotiations” with the Abu Sayyaf terror group almost always end in nothing; during such negotiations, manhunts for their leaders continue with extreme prejudice. I would also like to address what Miss Malkin linked to as “vacillation,” an article wherein the Philippines is stated as not allowing US troops in a combat capacity in the Philippines: the history of the Philippines leads itself to xenophobia and Filipinos are highly suspicious of foreign military powers — especially of Americans — engaging in combat operations there.

Now, whether any of these details are relevant to the issue at hand, is a matter of opinion that you’ll have to weigh for yourself.