Quote Originally Posted by Ray View Post
Well, I thought it was being advocated, quite forcefully that the Philippines was very chary about US deployment in the areas of Philippines.
It would be silly to ascribe any such opinion to "the Philippines" generically.

There's a small but very vocal minority that opposes any military interaction between the Philippines and the US. (On the other end of the spectrum, there's a small minority that still wants the Philippines to be the 51st state of the US.)

A much larger group is ok with limited interaction (ship visits, exercises, non-permanent deployment) but opposes permanent bases. That group has sufficient influence that permanent basing is generally regarded as an untouchable idea politically.

There are also people who support greater military interaction, including bases.

As in most countries, there's substantial diversity of opinion. I would say that overall there's a sense that the US is not entirely to be trusted, and that close relations with the US carry certain risks. Some think those risks worth taking, others don't.

One refrain that's appearing consistently these days is that the Philippines should not depend on the US as its sole or primary source of military equipment. Look, for example, at the comments on the numerous articles floating around dealing with the recent transfer of another Coast Guard Cutter. There's a lot of irritation over the US decision to remove some armaments (Phalanx CIWS and 2 25mm chain guns) before the turnover, and it's often noted that the US seems reluctant to provide armaments that are competitive even with those of regional peers, let alone China.