Which previous war does our current Iraq war most resemble? The replies run the gamut of American history, from our Revolutionary War, invoked last week by President Bush, to our long struggle in southeast Asia, as expressed by a sign in the back of a local taproom: “Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam.”
Another common comparison is our Civil War. Many northerners doubted that the South could ever be subdued by arms, especially as casualties mounted in the summer of 1864. But President Abraham Lincoln remained steadfast, and on May 10, 1865, President Andrew Johnson stated that “armed resistance to the authority of this government in the said insurrectionary states may be regarded as virtually at an end.”
The analogy continues, since there was a decade of military occupation after that “Mission Accomplished” statement. Also, there was a terrorist insurrection, perhaps best epitomized by the Ku Klux Klan, that lasted for about a century.
But a long-forgotten conflict might offer an even better analogy: the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the ensuing Philippine-American War that continued after the Spanish surrender.
Both conflicts started under flimsy pretenses after years of tension. In 2003, Iraq was supposedly developing weapons of mass destruction and supporting the al-Qaeda terrorist network. On Feb. 18, 1898, the U.S.S. Maine was reportedly sunk by a mine in Havana’s harbor.
One justification in both wars was to liberate people from oppressive and brutal regimes. It was Saddam Hussein in Iraq, where indigenous rebellions had been quashed, and the Spanish with their concentration camps in Cuba, where indigenous rebellions had been put down.
The direct military action terminated quickly. The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, and Baghdad fell to American forces on April 9. On May 1, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations.
The United States declared war on Spain on April 20, 1898, and by August, Spain was negotiating a surrender that ended its rule over Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.
Why the Philippines? America had sent a fleet to Manila to prevent the Spanish fleet in the Pacific from reinforcing its ships in the Caribbean. Then ground troops were sent in.
For years before 1898, Filipinos had fought against Spanish rule. The insurgents, led by Emilio Aguinaldo, at first assumed the Americans had come to help them fight the Spanish. But after the Spanish surrendered and the American soldiers stayed, the insurgents fought the U.S.
The struggle dragged on for years, generating controversy and criticism at home with revelations of torture by American forces operating against the insurgents. Gen. Frederick Funston said critics should be “hanged for treason.” Mark Twain, a fervent critic, replied that he was “quite willing to be called a traitor – quite willing to wear that honorable badge.”
Another critic, Colorado Sen. Henry M. Teller, praised Aguinaldo as “a worthy leader” and said the Philippine war was “damnable” and “a disgrace to us.” He was promptly accused of “flat treason.” Colorado re-elected him anyway in 1902.
The Philippines gained independence in 1947, while American military forces remained there until 1992 – almost a century after the first soldiers arrived.
There are many differences between the wars, of course. But overall, “the splendid little war” of 1898 seems to fit well with Iraq. And that’s rather ominous, given how long America was in the Philippines.
Ed Quillen of Salida (ed@cozine.com) is a former newspaper editor whose column appears Tuesday and Sunday.
