Some Lessons Learnt from the Manila Hostage Crisis View Comments
Here’s a list of important points that could have avoided heavy civilian casualties, but it’s always easy to point fingers after the milk is spilled.
On Tuesday, the BBC News website posted an article enumerating the numerous flaws that the PNP has committed with regard to the handling of the hostage incident. The article was based primarily on the observations of a renowned security analyst in the person of Charles Shoebridge, who has worked for counter-terrorism operations of the British Army and the Scotland Yard.
Here are Shoebridge’s primary talking points on the said story:
1. Determination — “They (police officers) showed great courage to go on board. It’s very
crowded, just one aisle down the middle of the bus. But once you get on board, it’s not unexpected you are going to be fired at. Squads like this have to be made up of very special people, specially trained and selected for their characteristics of courage, determination and aggression. In this case they acted as 99% of the population would have, which was to turn round and get out. They didn’t seem to have the necessary determination and aggression to follow the attack through.”2. Lack of equipment — “They had no ladders to get through the windows. They smashed the windows but didn’t know what to do next… They almost looked like a group of vandals. Their firearms were also inappropriate — some had pistols, some had assault rifles. Ideally they would have carried a short submachine gun, suitable for use in confined spaces.”
3. Lost opportunity to disarm the gunman — “The negotiators were so close to him (hostage-taker Sr. Insp. Rolando Mendoza), and he had his weapon hanging down by his side. He could have been disabled without having to kill him.”
4. Lost opportunity to shoot the gunman —”You are dealing with an unpredictable and irrational individual. The rule should be that if in the course of negotiations an opportunity arises to end the situation decisively, it should be taken.”
5. Satisfying the gunman’s demands — “A promise extracted under force is not a promise that you are required to honor. Nobody wants to give in to the demands of terrorists, but in a situation like this, which did not involve a terrorist group, or release of prisoners, they could have just accepted his demands. He could be reinstated in the police – and then be immediately put in prison for life for hostage taking.”
6. Televised proceedings — “The gunman was able to follow events on television, revealing to him everything that was going on around him. This was a ‘crucial defect in the police handling’ …the police should always consider putting a barrier or screen around the area, to shield the scene from the cameras and keep the hostage taker in the dark.”
7. No element of surprise — “It was clear to the gunman what the police were doing at all times, not only because the whole incident was televised, but also because they moved ‘laboriously slow’ …the police did not distract him”
8. Safeguarding the public — “When you saw the camera view from above, it was clear there was little command and control of the public on the ground.”
9. Using the gunman’s brother to negotiate — “Relatives and close friends can be a double-edged sword (in a hostage-taking incident)… While they may have leverage over the hostage taker, what they are saying cannot be easily controlled.”
10. Insufficient training — “In some parts of the Philippines, such as Mindanao, hostage taking is not an uncommon occurrence, so the country has some forces that are well trained in the necessary tactics. The detachment involved in Monday’s incident clearly was not.”
Read the full story on Manila Bulletin.
