Post by VeeVee on Jul 24, 2008 6:02:19 GMT -5
Sent in by Ivan Dizon
--------------
Filipino war's lessons for Iraq
A century ago, success seemed unlikely in an unpopular war — that is,
until the tide turned. Can the shift in the Philippines show the way
forward today?
By Michael Medved
The handsome young Democratic nominee is the most spellbinding orator
of his generation, promising dramatic change to correct economic
injustice and bring an end to a bloody, unpopular war.
Republicans
deride him as a showboating demagogue with scant governmental
experience and place their faith in a gruff, battle-tested veteran
who asks for public patience to fight the war till victory.
Meanwhile,
halfway around the world, anti-American insurgents have recently lost
thousands of fighters to desertion and improved U.S.
tactics, but they
believe they can exploit their enemy's war weariness.
The guerrilla
fighters, therefore, intensify their gruesome attacks as part of a
conscious effort to influence the November election on behalf of the
Democratic "peace" candidate.
Though contemporary Americans will assume the above description
applies to Iraq and the 2008 campaign, it's also an accurate summary
of the situation leading up to the fateful election of 1900 and the
darkest days of our four-year war against insurrectionists in the
Philippines.
This nearly forgotten conflict deserves renewed attention today since
the parallels with our present predicament count as both eerie and
illuminating.
For one thing, the United States lost 4,234 troops on Filipino
battlefields — a close match to the raw number killed in Iraq. But
with a national population less than one-fourth what it is today, the
war in the Philippines took a far greater toll on the nation: the
equivalent of some 17,000 battlefield deaths today. Moreover, the
struggle 100 years ago claimed the lives of at least 200 , 000
Filipino civilians in a nation of just 7 million, for a relative
impact vastly more devastating than even the darkest casualty
estimates of Iraqis.
Initially, the military achieved an almost effortless, "mission
accomplished" takeover of the Philippines (as part of our Spanish
American War) but policymakers found no good alternatives for the
Asian archipelago and stumbled into a violent occupation for which
they had never properly prepared. From 1898 to 1902, 126,468 U.S.
troops served
in the jungle struggle, but commanders always seemed short of men.
In 1900, the inexperienced but charismatic "anti-imperialist"
Democrat who challenged the war was 40-year-old William Jennings
Bryan, "Boy Orator of the Platte." He had emerged from obscurity (and
only two brief terms in Congress) through a single electrifying
speech at the Democratic convention, four years before. The tough,
fight-it-out Republican was William McKinley, a hero in his youth
(three decades
earlier) in the Civil War.
Like 2008, the nation's leading celebrities decried the "senseless"
bloodletting and focused on alleged U.S. atrocities. Mark Twain
expressed disgust at tales of massacres and torture (including the
infamous "water cure"), suggesting a redesign of the Stars and
Stripes "with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced
by the skull and crossbones." He shared anti-war sentiments with
former president Grover Cleveland, reformer Jane Addams, industrialist
Andrew Carnegie, labor leader Samuel Gompers and others.
For the most part, America's volunteer troops maintained high morale,
resenting anti-war activists back home because they understood this
agitation encouraged the enemy. Maj. Gen. Henry Lawton, a Medal of
Honor winner for bravery in the Civil War, grumbled that "if I am
shot by a Filipino bullet, it might as well be from one of my own men
… because … the continuance of fighting is chiefly due to reports that
are sent out from America." Lawton received just such a fatal bullet a
few weeks later when he was picked off by an insurgent sharpshooter
while leading his men in the Battle of Paye.
Nevertheless, voters ultimately turned against anti-war politicians
and gave the GOP ticket of McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt a resounding
victory. Less than seven years later, with the insurrection crushed
and the archipelago pacified, Filipinos convened an elected
legislature, the first such body in Asia. In 1946, after many
Filipinos fought the Japanese alongside American troops, the islands
achieved final independence.
The U.S. succeeded through generous policies during the occupation as
much as through courage on the battlefield. Max Boot described U.S.
efforts in his sup erb book The Savage Wars of Peace:
"Soldiers built
schools, ran sanitation campaigns, vaccinated people, collected
customs duties, set up courts run by natives, supervised municipal
elections, and generally administered governmental functions
efficiently and honestly. A thousand idealistic young American
civilians even journeyed to the Philippines to teach school in a
precursor of the Peace Corps."
Manuel Quezon, first president of the Philippines'
"autonomous
commonwealth" in 1935, once served as a major in the insurgent army
and lamented the American kindness that undermined the
insurrection: "d**n
the Americans! Why don't they tyrannize us more?"
Our failure to
"tyrannize" our Iraqi allies could similarly destroy the chances of
the Islamist terrorists who oppose us.
The outcome in today's Middle East remains uncertain, but our painful
Philippine experience a century ago suggests that a positive result
is still possible through a combination of public patience,
battlefield brilliance and compassionate determination to provide
better lives and freedom to the far-away people who became the war's
chief victims.
Nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Medved is the author of
the up coming book The 10 Big Lies About America. He is a member of
USA TODAY's board of contributors.
--------------
Filipino war's lessons for Iraq
A century ago, success seemed unlikely in an unpopular war — that is,
until the tide turned. Can the shift in the Philippines show the way
forward today?
By Michael Medved
The handsome young Democratic nominee is the most spellbinding orator
of his generation, promising dramatic change to correct economic
injustice and bring an end to a bloody, unpopular war.
Republicans
deride him as a showboating demagogue with scant governmental
experience and place their faith in a gruff, battle-tested veteran
who asks for public patience to fight the war till victory.
Meanwhile,
halfway around the world, anti-American insurgents have recently lost
thousands of fighters to desertion and improved U.S.
tactics, but they
believe they can exploit their enemy's war weariness.
The guerrilla
fighters, therefore, intensify their gruesome attacks as part of a
conscious effort to influence the November election on behalf of the
Democratic "peace" candidate.
Though contemporary Americans will assume the above description
applies to Iraq and the 2008 campaign, it's also an accurate summary
of the situation leading up to the fateful election of 1900 and the
darkest days of our four-year war against insurrectionists in the
Philippines.
This nearly forgotten conflict deserves renewed attention today since
the parallels with our present predicament count as both eerie and
illuminating.
For one thing, the United States lost 4,234 troops on Filipino
battlefields — a close match to the raw number killed in Iraq. But
with a national population less than one-fourth what it is today, the
war in the Philippines took a far greater toll on the nation: the
equivalent of some 17,000 battlefield deaths today. Moreover, the
struggle 100 years ago claimed the lives of at least 200 , 000
Filipino civilians in a nation of just 7 million, for a relative
impact vastly more devastating than even the darkest casualty
estimates of Iraqis.
Initially, the military achieved an almost effortless, "mission
accomplished" takeover of the Philippines (as part of our Spanish
American War) but policymakers found no good alternatives for the
Asian archipelago and stumbled into a violent occupation for which
they had never properly prepared. From 1898 to 1902, 126,468 U.S.
troops served
in the jungle struggle, but commanders always seemed short of men.
In 1900, the inexperienced but charismatic "anti-imperialist"
Democrat who challenged the war was 40-year-old William Jennings
Bryan, "Boy Orator of the Platte." He had emerged from obscurity (and
only two brief terms in Congress) through a single electrifying
speech at the Democratic convention, four years before. The tough,
fight-it-out Republican was William McKinley, a hero in his youth
(three decades
earlier) in the Civil War.
Like 2008, the nation's leading celebrities decried the "senseless"
bloodletting and focused on alleged U.S. atrocities. Mark Twain
expressed disgust at tales of massacres and torture (including the
infamous "water cure"), suggesting a redesign of the Stars and
Stripes "with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced
by the skull and crossbones." He shared anti-war sentiments with
former president Grover Cleveland, reformer Jane Addams, industrialist
Andrew Carnegie, labor leader Samuel Gompers and others.
For the most part, America's volunteer troops maintained high morale,
resenting anti-war activists back home because they understood this
agitation encouraged the enemy. Maj. Gen. Henry Lawton, a Medal of
Honor winner for bravery in the Civil War, grumbled that "if I am
shot by a Filipino bullet, it might as well be from one of my own men
… because … the continuance of fighting is chiefly due to reports that
are sent out from America." Lawton received just such a fatal bullet a
few weeks later when he was picked off by an insurgent sharpshooter
while leading his men in the Battle of Paye.
Nevertheless, voters ultimately turned against anti-war politicians
and gave the GOP ticket of McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt a resounding
victory. Less than seven years later, with the insurrection crushed
and the archipelago pacified, Filipinos convened an elected
legislature, the first such body in Asia. In 1946, after many
Filipinos fought the Japanese alongside American troops, the islands
achieved final independence.
The U.S. succeeded through generous policies during the occupation as
much as through courage on the battlefield. Max Boot described U.S.
efforts in his sup erb book The Savage Wars of Peace:
"Soldiers built
schools, ran sanitation campaigns, vaccinated people, collected
customs duties, set up courts run by natives, supervised municipal
elections, and generally administered governmental functions
efficiently and honestly. A thousand idealistic young American
civilians even journeyed to the Philippines to teach school in a
precursor of the Peace Corps."
Manuel Quezon, first president of the Philippines'
"autonomous
commonwealth" in 1935, once served as a major in the insurgent army
and lamented the American kindness that undermined the
insurrection: "d**n
the Americans! Why don't they tyrannize us more?"
Our failure to
"tyrannize" our Iraqi allies could similarly destroy the chances of
the Islamist terrorists who oppose us.
The outcome in today's Middle East remains uncertain, but our painful
Philippine experience a century ago suggests that a positive result
is still possible through a combination of public patience,
battlefield brilliance and compassionate determination to provide
better lives and freedom to the far-away people who became the war's
chief victims.
Nationally syndicated radio talk host Michael Medved is the author of
the up coming book The 10 Big Lies About America. He is a member of
USA TODAY's board of contributors.
