The title of this article has a deliberate association with one used by my colleague Noura Al-Musalem for an article she wrote in the Al-Khaleej newspaper published form the UAE which was titled “A Woman Worth a Thousand Mustaches.” In the article she argued that the president of the Philippines, Gloria Arroyo, was bolder than most male politicians: She decided to withdraw her military forces from Iraq in response to an appeal by the family of Angelo dela Cruz, the Filipino truck driver taken hostage by Iraqi militants, to save his life, even though he was a simple villager and despite Uncle Sam’s threats of serious consequences.
Her decision definitely called for courage since it risked the anger of the coalition forces desperately looking for more reinforcements. They were not going to take kindly to retreats.
That was a difficult decision, no argument about it. But was it “manly” or was it the reaction of a woman in man’s trousers? This question, let me hasten to add, does not arise from any pre-conceived notion about women as predisposed to certain type of reactions. On the contrary, it is an attempt to review Arroyo’s actions on the basis of a principle set down by my colleague — that courage is man’s special domain and that any courageous action can come only from men.
The theory of man’s courage does not hold water even if we ignore the fact that those running the countries whose forces are in Iraq are not famous as courageous men.
And I will not go into the question of who is a man and who is a woman among the decision-makers of our time. The question that must be asked is: Is it not true that sending armies to war is a job that is normally associated with those with mustaches and keeping back men from war is considered “womanly” behavior?
Hence, it would be more correct to look at Arroyo’s action not as that of a man or woman, but as the logical decision taken by the president of a nation as demanded by the circumstances she found herself in, considering the size of her forces there — just 70 — and the humanitarian cause to serve which her forces were there? Their presence there was symbolic. Further, they were to be withdrawn in August anyway. So all that she did was to advance the withdrawal date by just 20 days and save the life of a fellow citizen.
She proved that she was a wise politician with a touch of brilliance and was adept at taking calculated risks. None of this has anything to do with mustaches. She spared the Philippines the consequences of a decision she herself had taken. She was the one who sent the forces there and she withdrew them when she found that the cost was more than what she or her nation could afford. She took this hard decision despite the fact that Washington was most important to the Philippines as its political, military and economic supporter. She may have also factored into the risk calculation the fact that Washington’s anger would be tempered by the fact that the Philippines had joined the coalition in the first place and was withdrawing only a few days before the agreed deadline.
As for being mustached, let us remember that if the term meant the readiness to take bold and risky decisions when the situation demanded them, this president of the Philippines and all her predecessors, man or woman, were all “mustached” when it came facing terrorists or kidnappers. The way the Abu-Sayyaf criminals were handled proves that. All successive presidents refused to negotiate or compromise with them on the principle that rejecting kidnappers’ demands was the right approach. Compromises, whenever tried, have worked as encouragement for more kidnappings, whether for political or financial reasons.
