Blogging on Meds

With Iraq’s five-year anniversary passing today, the war is finally getting some face time in the press, albeit via G.W.’s insistence that the world is a far better place than it was five years ago. Sure, hundreds of thousands of dead people, (but one of them is Saddam!!), and a busted economy are awesome! He’s right though, we as Americans ARE safer. Safer than Iraqis.

With 60% of Americans ready to see a timetable for withdrawal without preconditions, and both Clinton and Obama ready to give them one, it seems likely that regardless of how the surge is working, the Dems should be able to take the White House. However there is historical precedent to perhaps cause some worry.

America found itself in a similar situation 108 years ago in the Philippines. We were forcibly occupying a country for “their own good,” despite unpopularity at home and an insurgency fighting a guerilla war on the ground. 1900 was an election year, with McKinley facing the anti-imperialist William Jennings Bryan.

Going into the election, the U.S. pacification program was showing some signs of success. Their “policy of attraction” where they rewarded acquiescent Filipinos with high paying government positions created an image of progress, while simultaneously frustrating the revolutionaries who were surrendering to U.S. forces at a growing rate.

The leader of the Filipino revolutionaries, Emilio Aguinaldo paid attention to the American media and election coverage.Hopeful that a Bryan victory would end the war, he decided to do his own grass-roots campaigning. During the two months leading up to the election, the guerillas doubled the amount of attacks against U.S. forces, ceased surrendering, and sent home 25% more U.S. casualties. At the same time, Aguinaldo began a campaign of terror against those Filipinos who had supported U.S. policy with the revolutionaries now publicly executing their own people.

Aguinaldo was certain that this increase in violence would strengthen the anti-imperialist movement, see Bryan elected and end the war. He grossly misjudged the situation, and American voters (who, like today had actually cited the economy as their biggest concern) put their faith back in McKinley to wage the war as necessary, (including burning villages and forcing Filipinos into concentration camps).

This is certainly no prediction, however Al Sadr’s Shiites and Al Qaeda’s Sunnis -I just proved I am smarter than a presidential candidate- are surely paying attention to our election. Would they make the same miscalculation as Aguinaldo? Would American opinion shift if they did? It is hard to imagine the same result today, however most of us live in the New York/California/New England/Third World bubble where we assume voters are smarter than to put up with anymore of this.

It’s certainly worth thinking about.

*I know historical analogies are overused and full of holes, and this is no exception. I am aware of the huge differences in the two situations, (i.e. the length of war, the accuracy and speed of information available and the fact that McKinley was an incumbent), but I think it should give pause to some of our assumptions.

**Also, this story has been popularly used to justify the “opposing the war gives aide and comfort to our enemies” argument. I defy that sentiment. Please do not think for an instant than an unquestioned or unopposed war would end with less death.