Jungle of Snakes (9 page)
Authors: James R. Arnold
Back on December 18, 1901, General Chaffee had written, “I can’t say how long it will take us to beat Malvar into surrendering,
and if no surrender, can’t say how long it will take us to make a wilderness of that country, but one or the other will eventually
take place.”
25
Indeed, the remaining hard-core guerrillas faced bleak prospects. Their supporters and relatives were in prison or living
in the protected zones, where they were unable to plant and harvest and faced famine and disease. Instead of sending the guerrillas
money and food, the former supporters sent messages begging them to surrender. Outside of the protected zones, too little
strength remained to prevent the Americans from destroying the countryside.
During February, guerrilla demoralization spread. Some bands killed their officers and surrendered. Others abandoned their
weapons and went into hiding. American troops hounded Malvar, forcing him to be “constantly on the move.”
26
Malvar’s fighting courage was now at odds with his intellect, which told him that continued re sistance was futile. His friends
and former soldiers begged him to give up. When his wife fell dangerously ill, he sent Bell a letter requesting a suspension
of hostilities. Upon receipt of Bell’s pledge of fair treatment, Malvar surrendered on April 16, 1902. The remaining insurgents
quickly followed suit.
A dedicated
insurrecto
leader who resisted until the end was interviewed after his surrender. When asked what caused his forces to disperse and surrender
he replied, “They could get no money to spend or food to eat and they had no clothes to put on.”
27
Likewise, another guerrilla officer related that his command had been doing well until “the American troops began to reconcentrate
the people” while continuing their relentless hunt.
28
American interrogators asked one insurgent, Norberto Mayo, why he had surrendered. Mayo spoke for many who had pledged to
resist until winning in dependence: “They surrendered for various things; some because they were tired of staying in the field;
some through fear and because they lost hope; because some of them had been injured or lost their health through life in the
field; and some because their families obliged them to surrender.”
29
The Cost of War
THEN AND THEREAFTER THE VICTORY achieved by policies of J. Franklin Bell was controversial. His concentration policy had successfully
isolated Malvar’s guerrillas from the noncombatants. During a four-month campaign, four Americans soldiers were killed and
nineteen wounded. The insurgents suffered 147 killed, 104 wounded, and 821 captured, and 2,934 surrendered.
1
For many Americans the testimony of Malvar’s brother-in-law, who was also a province commander, vindicated Bell’s strategy:
“The means used in reconcentrating the people, I think, were the only ones by which war could be stopped and peace brought
about in the province.”
2
However, there was the troubling fact that Bell’s policies also caused the deaths of about 11,000 civilians.
The problem of civilian deaths emerged by mid-January 1902 when it became apparent that civilians concentrated inside the
protected zones faced famine. One American station commander reported that 30,000 civilians had been herded into an area that
normally supported 5,000. Bell understood that General Order 100 decreed that the occupying army provide for the occupied.
Accordingly, Bell issued orders to make the people cultivate crops inside the zones. He ordered the importation of a tremendous
quantity of rice to feed civilians. He ordered his subordinates to bring food from outside the zones back to the towns. At
the time he worried that these measures “might possibly create in the minds of some an impression that greater leniency in
enforcing” past policies was desired.
3
Not so, he hastened to assure his subordinates.
American food distribution efforts failed to stop the dying. Large numbers of people still went hungry because of the confluence
of multiple factors: a natural plague had decimated the water buffalo, the draft animal indispensable for agricultural pursuits;
American troops had slaughtered surviving water buffalo wherever they found them outside the zones; the imported rice was
thiamine-deficient polished rice that compromised people’s immune systems; field commanders found it difficult to transport
food from remote mountain hiding places back to the towns and often ignored this part of Bell’s instructions.
People inside the zones did not starve to death. Rather, the lack of food and the poor nutritional value of what food there
was weakened them, making them susceptible to the real killers: the anopheles mosquitos. The mosquitos normally preferred
water buffalo blood. Deprived of their usual prey, they turned to human targets, which, by virtue of Bell’s concentration
policy, they found con veniently herded in dense masses. Malaria killed thousands. In addition, overcrowded conditions and
extremely poor sanitation promoted the killing transmission of measles, dysentery, and eventually cholera. Civilian deaths
in Batangas were an unintended consequence of Bell’s policy of concentration and food destruction.
ON JULY 4, 1902, President Theodore Roose velt, who became president after McKinley’s assassination, declared the Philippine
Insurrection over and civil government restored. Roosevelt did make a caveat regarding Moro territory, a handful of southern
Philippine islands dominated by an Islamic people, but in the general glow of victory few noticed. He issued a fulsome thanks
to the army, noting that they had fought with courage and fortitude in the face of enormous obstacles: “Bound themselves by
the laws of war, our soldiers were called upon to meet every device of unscrupulous treachery and to contemplate without reprisal
the infliction of barbarous cruelties upon their comrades and friendly natives. They were instructed, while punishing armed
resis tance, to conciliate the friendship of the peaceful, yet had to do with a population among whom it was impossible to
distinguish friend from foe, and who in countless instances used a false appearance of friendship for ambush and assassination.”
4
Roosevelt’s effusive praise not withstanding, the brutality of Bell’s campaign along with Smith’s crueler campaign fought
on the island of Samar brought a Senate inquiry into army misconduct. On May 23, 1902, a senator read a letter purportedly
written by a West Point graduate serving in the Philippines that described a
reconcentrado
pen with a dead line outside. A “corpse-carcass stench” wafted into the writer’s nostrils as he wrote. “At nightfall clouds
of vampire bats softly swirl out on their orgies over the dead.”
5
Roosevelt pledged a full investigation. His adjutant general established the principle for the investigation: “Great as the
provocation had been in dealing with foes who habitually resort to treachery, murder, and torture against our men, nothing
can justify . . . the use of torture or inhuman conduct of any kind on the part of the American Army.”
6
The subsequent investigation provided sensational allegations supported by extensive testimony. It became clear that torture
had taken place and everyone knew it. One major candidly wrote a comrade, “You, as well as I, know that in bringing to a successful
issue [the war] certain things will take place not intended by the higher authorities."
7
Numerous witnesses testified to the use of the “water cure.” A veteran composed “The Water Cure in the P.I.,” sung to the
tune of “The Battle Cry of Freedom,” one verse of which went:
We’ve come across the bounding main to kindly spread around
Sweet liberty whenever there are rebels to be found.
So hurry with the syringe boys. We’ve got him down and bound,
Shouting the battle cry of freedom.
8
The shooting of unarmed men and the execution of wounded and prisoners also proved to be commonplace. A Maine soldier in the
Forty-third Infantry wrote to his local newspaper that “eigh teen of my company killed seventy-five nigger bolomen and ten
of the nigger gunners . . . When we find one that is not dead, we have bayonets.
9
”The official War Department report for 1900 revealed how widespread was the practice of finishing off wounded insurgents.
The U.S. Army had killed 14,643 insurgents and wounded a mere 3,297. This ratio was the inverse of military experience dating
back to the American Civil War and could only be explained by the slaughter of the wounded. When asked about this during the
Senate inquiry, MacArthur blithely explained that it was due to the superior marksmanship of the well-trained U.S. soldiers.
10
MacArthur, like the other senior commanders in the Philippines, had issued orders and guidelines against coercive behavior
while acknowledging that sometimes field conditions required extraordinary behavior. The senators accepted this explanation.
In the end, the Senate inquiry documented frequent American excursions outside the bounds of behavior permitted by the laws
of war while whitewashing the conduct of the officers in charge. This conclusion satisfied Roosevelt, who had promised to
back the army wherever it operated lawfully and legitimately. Thereafter, Roose velt kept faith with the hard men of the Philippines.
During his administration he named Adna Chaffee and later J. Franklin Bell to the army’s highest post, chief of staff of the
U.S. Army. For Chaffee it represented an unprece dented climb that began as a Civil War private. For Bell, it represented
vindication after the humiliating Senate inquiry.
Anatomy of Victory
The collapse of the organized insurgency in the Philippines removed the islands from the forefront of American consciousness.
The tactics employed to squash the guerrillas disillusioned Americans and most were happy to forget about the distant islands
as soon as possible. Thereafter American history recalled the sinking of the battleship
Maine
, Teddy Roo-se velt’s Rough Riders, and the “Splendid Little War” against Spain. Yet the Spanish-American War had lasted only
months, while the Philippine Insurrection officially persisted for more than three years and involved four times as many American
soldiers. Regardless, few Americans paid attention to what had transpired in the Philippines until forty years later when
a new event, Arthur MacArthur’s son Douglas’s doomed defense of the islands against Japa nese invasion, superseded all else.
Subsequently, even military historians largely disregarded the Philippine Insurrection until American involvement in Vietnam
compelled renewed interest in how to fight Asian guerrillas.
By 1902, officers who served in the Philippines came to a near unanimous conclusion that commitment to a policy of attraction
had prolonged the conflict. Colo nel Arthur Murray expressed a combat soldier’s view. When he first assumed regimental command,
Murray opposed punitive measures because they caused innocent people to suffer and turned potentially friendly people into
insurgents. His experience on the ground changed his mind: “
11
If I had my work out there to do over again, I would do possibly a little more killing and considerably more burning than
I did.” Most officers concluded that the key to a successful counterinsurgency was decisive military action employing severe
policies of chastisement. To their minds, the Filipino insurgents had given up the fight for the same reasons Robert E. Lee
surrendered: both were unwilling to endure the pain that continued resis tance would bring. As an inhabitant of Batangas explained
in an interview decades after the conflict had ended, “When the people realized that they were overpowered they were forced
to accept the Americans.”
12
When the Americans invaded in 1899, victory depended upon the suppression of violent opposition to the United States by replacing
the control exercised by the Philippine revolutionary government with American control. The American solution had three components.
First was to persuade the Filipinos that they were better off under the American vision of their future. This effort came
quite naturally because Americans sincerely believed it. In American minds, the Spanish had exploited the islands. The revolutionary
government continued both the exploitation and the entrenched, Spanish-style inefficiency and corruption. The Americans had
no particu-lar insight into Filipino “hearts and minds.” Without any extensive thought, they assumed that Filipinos—indeed,
all reasonable people—wanted what Americans wanted. So both military officers and civilian administrators worked hard to make
real physical improvements to show the Filipinos that their future was brighter under American rule. This notion guided the
policy of attraction.
The second component of American pacification emerged when American leaders realized that attraction alone was insufficient.
The military had to devise a way to end the insurgent hold on the people. In some areas the Americans were able to exploit
ethnic, religious, or class differences to enlist native support. With the help of collaborators, the Americans identified
and eliminated insurgent operatives. But in areas where resis tance was the fiercest and the fear of insurgent retaliation
too high, collaborators did not appear. So the American pacification effort forcibly separated the insurgents from the people
by concentrating them in the so-called protected zones.
The third component of American pacification was military field operations. The field operations were essential to prevent
guerrillas from massing against isolated American outposts and to deny them opportunities to rest and recover. Naturally most
officers preferred such operations because they better represented the war for which they had trained. Likewise, their soldiers,
particularly the volunteers who had come seeking adventure and fighting, preferred “chastisement” to attraction. As one lieutenant
noted, the American soldier was a poor “peace soldier” but a mighty “war soldier.” Victory in the field came from the skilled
practice of recognized military craft: scouting, march security, aggressive small-unit action. The American three-part strategy
was like a tripod: without any one of the three legs it would collapse.
On a strategic level, the Philippine Insurrection highlighted the vital role of the civilian population. An insurgency could
not be suppressed as long as the insurgents readily blended into a supportive general population. Accordingly, the army used
a variety of measures to control the population while destroying the insurgent infrastructure, the shadow government. This
destruction could not progress without Filipino assistance. In most areas, the people waited until they saw that the American
army could protect them from insurgent terror before they supported the Americans. In southern Luzon, J. Franklin Bell found
ways to compel civilian collaboration by extreme force, thereby proving himself to be, in the words of Matt Batson, “the real
terror of the Philippines.”
13
An analysis of how the Americans won must recognize notable weaknesses and blunders committed by the insurgent leadership.
Simply stated, the man at the top, Emilio Aguinaldo, was an inept military commander. After losing a conventional war to the
Spanish, Aguinaldo and his subordinates adopted the same approach to fight the Americans. The result was an unbroken chain
of tactical defeats that wiped out the best insurgent units. Only then did Aguinaldo opt for what always was his best strategic
choice, guerrilla warfare.
The
ilustrado
class chose not to appeal to latent Filipino nationalism because they feared losing their hold on society. Consequently, the
revolution of 1898 did not change the lives of most Filipinos. For centuries Filipinos had been forced by the Spanish to accommodate
a colonial culture. Before the revolution a local elite had controlled the peasants’ daily life. The transition from Spanish
to revolutionary government did not change this essential fact of life. The Americans came and made their own, but hardly
new, set of demands. Now both the revolutionary government and the Americans levied taxes, administered justice, and used
force as the ultimate suasion. A Filipino, poor or rich, assessed his prospects and either picked a side or tried to stay
removed from the fray. The most adroit straddled both sides, portraying themselves as supporters of whichever side presented
the most immediate peril. In the words of Glenn May, one of the conflict’s foremost modern historians, for an insurgency “to
win any war with lukewarm public support is difficult enough; to win a guerrilla war on one’s own soil under those circumstances
is virtually impossible.”
14