Philippines model for Iraq?

By Paul

Does U.S. war in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century provide an example of how Americans can win in Iraq? Jon Wiener says no;

“The Philippine war was part of the Spanish-American War of 1898, in which the U.S. promised to bring democracy to the Filipinos by freeing them from the Spaniards. But, as Ricks says, things there "began badly" when a powerful Philippine resistance movement challenged U.S. troops — "like Iraq in 2003." In 1902, after three years of guerrilla fighting, the United States declared victory, although American forces remained in the country for decades, administering it first as a colony and then as a commonwealth. The Philippines was granted independence in 1946 — after almost five decades of U.S. military occupation (interrupted by World War II). Today it's a functioning democracy.

The problem with this version of history is that it doesn't look closely enough at what happened in the Philippines.

First, it neglects the massive differences between the Philippines in 1900 and Iraq in 2006. The guerrillas in the Philippines fought the Army with old Spanish muskets and bolo knives; today's insurgents in Iraq employ sophisticated improvised explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades and heat-seeking shoulder-fired missiles that can shoot down helicopters. And combat in Iraq takes place in a fully urbanized society where "pacification" is much more difficult than in the mostly rural islands of the Philippines.

Also, the Filipinos who fought the U.S. Army at the turn of the 20th century had no outside allies or sources of support. Today's Iraqi insurgents are at the center of a burgeoning anti-Americanism that has spread throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, with supporters in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

And of course today there's also the media. Images of resistance fighters in Iraq, and of the victims of American attacks, are broadcast hourly throughout Iraq, Arab and Muslim countries and the rest of the world. Compared with the Philippines guerrillas of 1900, the Iraqi insurgents are much stronger and more capable and have a much broader base of support that extends beyond national boundaries.

There is also the matter of the atrocious "winning" conduct of the U.S. in the four years of the Philippine war. The U.S. did not count Filipino casualties, but historians today estimate 16,000 deaths for the guerrilla army and civilian deaths between 200,000 and 1 million — a horrifying toll. American tactics included massacres of civilians, "kill and burn" operations that resulted in the destruction of entire villages and starvation of the countryside that created the threat of famine, all exacerbated by a cholera epidemic."

Related;
Legal Quandaries in Iraq
The Iraq-America Freedom Alliance (IAFA) is a coalition of American and Iraqi organizations and individuals committed to fostering goodwill between our nations' citizens and winning the war on terror.
Retaliation Alleged for Teaching on Iraq War
Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003
Putting the Iraq War on Trial; An army officer who refused duty in Iraq goes to court with a novel argument: he had a duty to disobey because the war is illegal
Seven Questions: Back to School with Bob Kerrey
Rumsfeld Accuses Critics of Appeasement of Fascists
The misguided logic of the "long war"
Arabic T-shirt sparks airport row

-- August 30, 2006 9:59 PM |

Comments

friend9 wrote:

One important feature is left out: Memory. In the Philippines, the memory of what happened to their people--especialy in more remote areas--has been entirely lost. After many years of close association with the United States, Filipinos tend to remember the good aspects of the association of the two people (and there are many good aspects, no doubt), but few of the bad. And the reason may be the utter lack of communication between regions and islands, and the lack of technology and "memory enhancing devices" like video, television, cameras, or even reporters and credible news stories in those days (between 1902 and, say, 1940). Not only is the memory lost, but to some extent it was eradicated, leaving in its place a false history that seems to have been mostly positive when, in fact, for decades--in most parts of the Philippine Islands--it must have been profoundly negative . . . but cannot be remembered. Whole stories--beginning to end--are gone forever because no one was able, or no one was left to record them . . . except American soldiers (etc.), who were duty bound NOT to tell what happened. Compare that to Iraq: They will likely NEVER forget what happened. As bad as their despotic ruler was, will they ever simply forget what we justified by exaggerating a threat for reasons that even the American people can't comprehend? The millions of hours of documentary evidence, news accounts, emails, photographs, and the stories of survivors who fled to other areas will reverberate for decades--even centuries if we last that long wityhout blowing ourselves to bits. We don't have to debate WHETHER the AMerican misadventure in Iraq will be remembered . . . it CANNOT be forgotten. What we should be wondering is what will happen as a result of that memory and the resentment and hatred it will engender for generations yet to come. The best we can hope for is some miserable, even more loathsome situation from which we--the US--can try AND SUCCEED to save the Iraqi people. But even such a valliant effort would fall flat if we were perceived--as we almost certainly WOULD be--as the cause of the mess fropm which we save them . . . in which case we'll be right back where we started, wondering why they all hate us so much for something that happened long before any of us were even born. The way American Whites look back on slavery and the discontent of Blacks in American society (as one similar kind of lingering problem leftover from stupid, selfish, and ill-advised American policy. friend9

-- April 13, 2007 3:25 AM ∞

Post a comment