The NY Times got it all wrong.

It judged the Philippine government's withdrawal of its contingent in Iraq upon a limited measure of whether or not it was prompted by the terrorists' demand. I may never know the real motives behind President Arroyo's decision but I am sure of one thing - it was wrong for the Philippines to have participated in a war that lacked moral and legal basis. If at all, the hostage-taking only represented an ultimatum to the Philippine Government. Demand and clamor for the withdrawal of the Philippine contingent were present prior to the hostage-taking of Angelo de la Cruz, the demand being predicated upon the fact that it was wrong for the U.S. to have led and for the Philippines to have supported the war in Iraq. And what made the war in Iraq wrong? I need not cite the exaggerated American intelligence report. The Americans should know more of that than we do. Just take a look at what became of Iraq after the war and you'll see what America and its allies had done. No, the Philippine withdrawal was not driven by the terrorists' demand. Rather, the Philippine President was forced to see the light by this evil thing that happened to Angelo de la Cruz. Sometimes, we humans like to wait to be confronted by evil in order realize what graver evil we have been causing. No, the terrorists in Iraq did not score victory with the Philippines' withdrawal of its "token" contingent. The Philippines corrected, though belatedly and under an extreme circumstance, a wrong initiated by the American government. As a reward, the Philippines saved one of its own. The NY Times editorial is nothing but a testament to the fact that it is not easy to correct a wrong.