An Analysis of the US Counterinsurgency Plan - Research Paper Example

 An Analysis of US Counterinsurgency Plan Abstract This paper explores published articles on the Strategies Of The United States To Repel Counter Insurgencies In The War Between United States And The Philippines in 1898 to 1902 and that of United States and Vietnam 1950 to 1975. The articles which are extracts from history showed similarity of strategies used by the U.S. super power in both wars which are fifty two years apart. The study also showed the shared experiences of both countries in the success of non-conventional means of fighting that the United States was not capable of. It will be proven that counter strategies need commitment, understanding and patience to win a war and not necessarily guns and power in order to lead and win. Keyword: insurgents, counter insurgency, Vietnam war, Philippine war, United States. An Analysis of US counterinsurgency plans Introduction A review of the counter insurgency plans of the United States in the wars between the Philippines in 1898 to 1902 and that of Vietnam in 1950 to 1975 is presented. It will bring to light the similarity of strategies of insurgents used by both countries in both wars which are many years apart in history. The study presents highlights of experiences of war and counterinsurgency measures taken by the United States to repel them. Reasons of war are given to justify its existence that showed world power as a priority of government. It will be shown that not all wars can be won by power alone, but other peaceful measures that could work as well. Lessons from history could serve well as a guide to future plans of insurgency control. Part 1. Philippines-US War Historical account The conflict between United States and the Philippines in 1899 to 1902 is an aftermath of the US war with Spain that was done in Manila. (onWar.com, n.d.) America’s objectives in the Philippines. The purpose of the United States in attacking the Philippines, according to Grimsley, M.(1996) is to wipe out Spain’s squadron forces as a bargaining position for a negotiation. After defeat of Spain, Grimsley said the United States is burdened by occupation of the newly acquired territory. United States, at the start had no permanent intention of acquiring the Philippines but thought that Philippines was totally unprepared to be left alone, and came up with annexation plan. United States ended up paying $20 million to Spain and signed up the Treaty of Paris, to rise above the Spain’s objection on annexation. (Grimsley, M.) In a separate study, the objective of the United States in exercising control in the Philippines was shown as to provide security and order while the country is in the possession of the United States. The desired result is to have a stable, peaceful, democratic and independent Philippines that is allied with the United States. Included in the US plans are the improvement of the country’s infrastructure, education and development that would lead to democracy, and the overall plan of annexation to US. (“Emergence to..”) 1. Security and political campaign Background of Filipino insurrections. According to the historical accounts of Deady, T. (2005) the Filipinos had been under the Spanish colonization since the 16th century, but Spain concentrated only in using Manila as a center for its transoceanic trade and not for the internal development of the regions. During that time, Deady said the decentralized form of government was observed, with the Spanish authorities concentrating in Manila while rulings in the countryside were left to the Spanish clergy and to the elites. This system collapsed in the mid 18th century when Spanish started to come to the island to invest on agricultural crops that created tension between the elites in the government and the people. In the mid of 18th century, Filipino reform movement emerged seeking equitable distribution of the economic and political power. Such was the beginning of Filipino uprising against the Spanish regime that continued on till the Americans came. Several leaders emerged, and one of them was Emilio Aguinaldo who became the leader of Filipino insurgents. (“Emergence of…”) b. The war 1898-1902 The coming of the Americans. Records from “Emergence to..” showed that initially, relations between the Americans led by Gen. Dewey and Aguinaldo were warm. However, upon orders from the US Navy Sec. Long on May 26 ordered Dewey to avoid alliance with revolutionaries. Aguinaldo believed that there was a de-facto agreement existence with Dewey and him, because Dewey even distributed arms and ammunitions to insurgents and did not object on Aguinaldo’s proclamation of Philippine independence on June 12 and claim of being the president of the Republic on June 24.(“Emergence to..”) The Americans and Filipino insurgents fought the Spanish together until the Spanish conceded to end atrocities with a token fee from US, then freed Manila. But when the Filipino insurgents tried to claim Manila, they were turned back by the Americans, and this is where the conflict between US and Philippines began. (“Emergence to..”) The outbreak of war. The Treaty of Paris officially transferring the sovereignty of the Philippines to United States was signed on December 10, 1898. (Deady, M.) At this point, Deady said tensions increased as Filipinos refused to recognize the Treaty. The Treaty was ratified by US Congress in February 1898 and the policy then was “benevolent assimilation”. The reason that sparked the war on February 4, 1899 was unclear; some said that it was due to the hot temperance of General Aguinaldo, or the intent to embarrass the US on the eve of signing of the Treaty (“Emergence to..”) According to this article, ”a Nebraskan soldier fired at a Filipino patrol who refused to answer his challenge”. Soon after, an open fighting began a struggle which was fully prepared by Aguinaldo. Aguinaldo’s war preference was to do war in unconventional terms, but his advisers wanted to do the struggle in organized and well trained system, which Filipino soldiers were not accustomed to. The first struggle was done in an organized way.(“Emergence to..”) Deady said that counter-insurgency tactics employed by the Americans were the following: 1. The use of conventional war strategy. The lack of proper training in open war conditions of Filipinos soldiers made it easier for the Americans to defeat them. Results were 2,500 Filipino fatalities and 250 Americans died. Deady observed that American army strength was more forceful than the Filipino soldiers in open war, but was unsuccessful when tried in the outskirts where most of the fights were held. Americans were able to drive the Filipino troops out of the capital. US had at that time a little troop (26,000 soldiers) to pursue the Filipino troops further in the outskirts. Americans were also not accustomed to the surroundings as in May, 60% of the troops got sick, and the US Army had to ask for reinforcements 2. Committed strength and reinforcements. In March 1899, the US congress approved the sending of more troops to the Philippines, adding 65,000 to its army strength and 35,000 volunteers exclusively for the combat in the Philippines. (Deady) Deady narrated that the arrival of the new forces crushed the Filipino Republican Army, and the US occupied Luzon. 3. Strict order. Deady recounted the strict order of GO 100 in December1900 wherein 23 provinces in Luzon were placed under military control. Under this strict order, the conventional warfare of the US ruled over the guerilla warfare. There was no Prisoner of War status, and the army would leave the village only when there was no more struggle. Village people were responsible if they were found giving solace to guerillas, and to this, villages were burned, hostages taken, and insurgents were hanged. Between 1901 and 1902, reconcentration was done wherein resettlements were created. The population was separated from guerillas. Neutralities were not allowed, and only those who favored the Americans were declared not guilty. Prisoners were hanged in lot to let them pay for the killings of American soldiers and Filipino loyalists. The grim recount of Grimsley in the implementation of GO 100 stated that “on January 1902 sweep: American soldiers killed "men, women and children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino . . . was little better than a dog."(Mark Grimsley 2003) In another instance,:Grimsley recalled the order of BG Jacob W. Smith, an American officer, ordered a subordinate to do the following: "I want no prisoners. I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the better it will please me. I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.” The age limit declared for the killing was ten years old. (Mark Grimsley, 2003) This story created quite a sensation in the US, and Smith and his subordinates were court marshaled and Smith was found guilty. In spite of this, he was considered a hero when he went home to San Francisco by fellow soldiers, Grimsley said. The non-conventional warfare plans of Aguinaldo. According to OnWar.com, Aguinaldo felt they were in no match with conventional tactics of the US army; they used the guerilla warfare which they were successful. This required a de-centralized operation which functioned well in the social and political framework of Filipinos. In this concept, Aguinaldo did not retain operational control but remained to be a political symbol. Aguinaldo’s plan was to draw out the conflict, hoping that it will create public awareness, weaken the Americans, and finally a pull out. Economic campaign Grimsley said the Americans believed that they can win allegiance of the Filipinos through other peaceful campaigns and started to initiate the needed reforms thru education, better political controls and reforms. a. Education – freedom from illiteracy – The American soldiers were ordered to teach children basics of literacy often conducted in an informal classrooms. (Grimsley) b. In the text of Grimsley, Otis considered the military resistance ended when they defeated the Filipino insurgents during conventional confrontation and considered remaining Filipino army as bandits but this was wrong notion as attacks of insurgents continued. c. Grinsley continued to recount that after Otis, McArthur replaced him, and implemented better control, using “carrot and stick” to isolate guerillas from the population. Various tactics were used such as continued reforms, support for a moderate Filipino political party, and population reconcentration. Meanwhile, resistant guerillas were treated with severe official policy. Other strategies used to find hiding guerillas were better intelligence, bribes and innovative techniques. Taft Policy. I think that the most important part of the transition is the coming of Taft to Manila in Spring of 1900, to study the Philippine situation. His findings which he sent to US were: Most Filipinos are tired of war. McKinley's reelection would cause nationalist resistance to fizzle. Needed: a local constabulary, a new tax structure, public works, judicial reform and universal education in English (Mark Grimsley 2003) This recommendation in the study I believe is patterned after the US economic society. Soon after, in September 1900. Taft assumed responsibility as a legislator in the Philippines His commission was authorized “to raise taxes, appropriate funds, fix tariffs and set up law courts.” (Grimsley) A professional rivalry existed between the two officers as McArthur was jealous of the authority granted to Taft, Grimsley said. McArthur remained military governor, while Taft was appointed Chief Executive. Eventually, McArthur was stripped of political powers thru budget control. In July 1901, McArthur was named governor. Filipinos did not appreciate steps of reforms initiated by the Americans, for instance, when meticulous sanitations were instituted. Grimsley said that Filipinos did not like the policy of prohibiting vices such as gambling, drugs and prostitutions.. Filipinos, who were used to dishonest and pliant police officers, were shocked to find that new courts were swift and honest. Taxes were abolished or minimized, but collections were honest, but were still protested by many Political campaign In Grimley’s account, the US adopted a “basic policy of attraction” wherein Americans encouraged the elites to cooperate with them to counter Aguinaldo’s insurgency campaign. This policy created a feeling on the Filipinos as they were able to participate in the colonial administration and removed the perception of US imperialism. As the system went on, the Filipinos eventually were able to govern themselves under minimum US supervision. (Grimsley) In 1900 US role in the Philippines was the transition from military to civilian rule. According to Deady,T. (2005) in his study about the Philippine-US War, the US policy transferred control of each province from the jurisdiction of the Military Governor to the Philippine Commission. Filipino membership in the Commission was also increased; administrative responsibility was also transferred to the commission. Under the administration of William Howard Taft in 1901, local governments were organized, elected officials were under close supervision of American supervision. The party aspired independence thru a peaceful and democratic undertaking and negotiated for surrender of remaining insurgent leaders. The Military government established civil government, instituted laws, built roads and schools, and put into action civic activities to prove that US will fulfill its promise of democratic and guided transition (Deady, T.) The political party Many Filipinos in late 1900s believed that the way to a stable and modern government is alliance with the United States. Grimsley illustrated this desire of the Filipinos for statehood when in late 1900s, the elites formed a pro-American political party called Federalists who wanted to modernize the Philippines along the American views. The party ascribed to capitalism, separation of state and church, and a universal education. This group believed that the government must develop into a mature and modern institution and looked upon the U.S, as a coach, and sought statehood. However, this did not materialize as the events of war took over and eventually was over.(Grimsley) Part II. The US-Vietnam war. 1. History The U.S. –Vietnam War is the longest war that the United States ever got involved with. According to Digital History that narrated history of armed conflicts of the U.S., It is also the costliest in terms of human lives, properties and economy. In the Digital History records, the long conflict of Vietnam and France is the root cause of Vietnam war. France was forced to leave Vietnam after 100 years of colonial rule. In this record, it was shown that the Communist forces of Vietnam defeated French army in a mountain post. As France became convinced that they could no longer hold on to Vietnam, both countries agreed to a treaty called Geneva Peace Accords that ended their war. The delegates to the Geneva Conference could not come to terms in the proper treatment of Vietnam because of outside pressures from Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China. Eventually, the delegates agreed to temporarily divide Vietnam until such time that an election would reunify the two Vietnams, thus the creation of communist North and anti-communist South Vietnam. Meantime, an election was held in 1956 in South Vietnam putting into power Ngo Din Diem, who solicited US support on the content\ion of threat from take-over of North Vietnam by force.(Digital History) In Digital History, it was shown that Diem was not popular and many were against his government. With gathered support from US, Diem began counter-attack to the North. With the CIA help, Diem identified those who are against him that resulted to thousand arrests. His reign could be considered as abusive, and anti-democratic as he passed Law 10/59 that “made it legal to hold someone in jail if they were a suspected Communist without bringing formal charges”. Because of his actions, Buddhist, intellectuals and students sided with the Communists. (Digital History) At this stance, the US President Kennedy was concerned on the status of Diem’s rule, whether it was peaceful or democratic and wanted to review its policy on Vietnam’s support, however, this was overtaken by succeeding events of Communists attacks. (Digital History) Communists’actions. At the start, North Vietnam was working for a peaceful political reunification. Digital History recounted that in 1956 to 1960, the Communist Party failed to cause the collapse of Diem thru exerted political pressure. Finally, after all attempts of peaceful negotiations failed, the southern Communists convinced the Communist Party to adopt a violent measure to guarantee the downfall of Diem. Then, in January 1959 the communist Party approved the use of revolutionary violence, political and armed struggle to bring down Diem. This effort brought to the mobilization of a broad based front to work against Diem and the creation of the National Liberation Front. Anyone against Diem was invited to join. The creation of the NLF and its attacks to Saigon was doubted by Washington as a ploy of Hanoi, though NLF claimed they were anti-communists. From the start of the Vietnam conflict, till the end, 5 US Presidents have been involved in planning the strategies of the war. First was Pres. Truman who, in 1950 sent “35-man military advisory group to aid French fighting to maintain colonial power in Vietnam” (InfoPlease.com) Next was, Pres. Eisenhower who was in the Peace Accord (Digital History). Third, was President Kennedy who was worried over Vietnam’s situation and sent a team to find out its real status and to assess its requirements. The advisers’ reports were divided, one recommended for U.S. withdrawal in Vietnam because it is a “dead-alley” while the other advised for an increase in military, technical and economic aid to stabilize Diem. The advisers further recommended the crush of the NLF. (Digital History) President Kennedy followed none of these advises, but took a middle route wherein he increased level of support through machineries and would not intervene with troops. This strategy, according to Digital History, did not work well, as Diem reported to Washington growth of NLF forces that led to the control of the countryside. To counteract the strikes of NLF, Washington and Saigon instigated a bold campaign of counter-insurgency strategy wherein they rounded up villagers and put them in hamlets to isolate villagers from NLF. Villagers were found to be the source of NLF support. According to Digital History, many villagers resented this policy and were considered to be one of the causes of the further growth of the NLF and deterioration of peace. By late 1963, according to Digital History, it was already evident that NLF gained success and the reign of Diem was on the verge of collapse. In December 1963, with the blessings of the United States, Diem was overthrown by his own generals. Diem and his brother was assassinated on November 1,1963. Three weeks later, President Kennedy was also assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Whether this is co-incidental or not, the reason has never been proven. (Digital History) The war stretched to the administration of President Johnson who was more aggressive and prone to military actions. He was provoked into action when suspected Communists attacked two U.S. ships anchored in Tonkin Gulf in August 1, 1964. It was supposedly followed by another Communist attack on August 4, 1964. Pres Johnson immediately asked from Congress authority for expansion of military support. While Washington was debating on the correct approach of counter insurgency, the NLF, in 1965, again attacked two US Army installations in South Vietnam. In retaliation, Pres. Johnson ordered for a sustained bombing missions over North Vietnam. (Digital History) According to Digital History, the bombings and additional combat troops sent by the US to Vietnam caused the Communist Party to change its strategy and moved to a “protracted war strategy” whose objective was to create an idea that the US could not win a military war, and to create unfavorable conditions that could ensure victory. The Communist believed that the US had no clear war strategy, and that country would get tired of the war, and eventually demand for negotiation. This prediction of Hanoi was based on the military stalemate in 1965 and their protracted new strategy. As the course of the war went on, Digital History said that the idea of mobilizing more human and material resources to Vietnam was protested by Americans. The life in America began to be affected by the war in Vietnam, as volunteers were gathered to fight in Vietnam. Anti-war protests came from all over US, and the greatest protest gathering was held in August 1968 in Chicago wherein hundreds of thousands of people came to protest American intervention of the war in Vietnam as well as to the leaders of the Democrats who supported the plan. In 1968, article about “The Vietnam overview” saw in history that more coordinated attacks were done by the NLF in the cities and the situation had gone “from bad to worse”. The offensives of the CP were designed to embarrass Johnson administration and force it to a negotiation. However, negotiation was still far away because the Communists suffered many casualties and the massacre and death of many anti-communists in the south angered Hanoi’ supporters. (“The Vietnam…”} The Vietnam Overview article also talked about the sad announcement in 1968 of President Johnson that he was no longer interested to a bid for re-election. The happy news was, the hinted end of the war as Pres. Johnson said that he was willing to sit down in a negotiation table The next US President, Nixon, had an advocacy towards Vietnamization, withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam, and pinning down of the responsibility of their own fight to Vietnamese. In effort to slow down the flow of soldiers and supplies of North Vietnamese, US President Nixon sent American troops to destroy Communists camps in Cambodia, who at that time maintained neutrality in the conflict of two Vietnams. (The Vietnam..”)) The periods of 1968 to 1973 saw the efforts towards negotiations to end the conflict. In January 1973, an agreement was finally reached, thereupon, American soldiers were withdrawn from Vietnam, and prisoners were released. In 1975, South Vietnam surrendered to North Vietnam, and finally North and South Vietnam were reunited.(“The Vietnam…”) Political campaign The US, at the start had no interest in Vietnam and in the Southeast Asia. However, as it became clear that the US and Soviet Union in 1945 will take their own dominance, positioning and containment became important. Thus, at this time, the Domino theory was formed that stated if one state in a region fall into communism, then the surrounding states would fall as well.. This theory dominated the US policy during the threat of cold war and assisted South Vietnam to combat spread of communism. , Security campaign The US chose to support the campaign of Prime Minister Diem of South Vietnam in denouncing communists. US’ intention was to make South Vietnam a support of their containment theory. During the long years of war, Americans sent to Vietnam advisers, money and supplies but showed little effect. Five US Presidents sent increased involvement in the Vietnam War, but the Communists was formidable in their challenge. The question that is kept in mind, is Why did the U.S. won the war in the Philippines, and in Vietnam did not? In both wars, separated by years in history, both countries used unconventional tactics in resisting US attacks. Lesson from this, according to May, Glenn, (1983), is that being a super power is not a guaranty of victory. Economy campaign There was no economic recovery promised during the reigns of war. In althea readings searched, attention of the United States was focused on repelling the insurgents through combat, and in the later years, negotiations to end the war thru peaceful means and eventually, the reunification of warring factions of Vietnam. Discussions Counter insurgency is an action plan taken by a government to suppress the activities of rebels, guerillas and insurgents. It has to be implemented with political and economic changes that most often are not acceptable to the people and mostly to insurgents. Tactical strategies, both conventional and unconventional are done during the level of violence. Some are controlled and others are not. Counter insurgency is not easy for the country under siege, such as the Philippines and Vietnam, but is also much harder than for the United States who had to make plans for a country whom they had limited knowledge. Americans have very little understanding of the current situation of the culture and society of the people living in these countries. The Americans have committed the power, money and knowledge to bring, but they do not know exactly how to spend them under the circumstances. In our study, Americans viewed counter insurgency plans under a different perspective, that of the American way of life, which the countries under attack are totally unprepared. For instance, the strategy of gathering people in Hamlets was a successful British experience in Malaya but not in Vietnam. (“The Vietnam…”) Filipinos did not appreciate reforms in sanitation and control of vices, a culture which they were accustomed to. In the Philippines, the United States needed a “societal transformation” to win the war of insurgents. The US used a three pronged approach targeting the guerillas, elites and population. The lesson learned from these wars is that power is not the only tool required to win insurgencies since the United States was unable to use its vast power to totally win a war. It was also proven that no amount of battle, beatings and air attacks could persuade insurgents to give up their cause for fighting. The huge cost of war, lives and properties lost in Vietnam war did not buy North Vietnam and the war policy could be questioned whether it was necessary at all. w.c. 4386 List of References Deady, T. (2005).Lessons from a Successful Counterinsurgency, The Philippines, 1899-1902. Parameters, Spring 2002. pp. 53-68. Viewed 2 March 2010 from http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/05spring/deady.htm Digital History. (n.d.) “Learn about Vietnam”. Viewed 24 March 2010 from warhttp://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/vietnam/index.cfm “Emergence to World Power, 189-1902”. Chapter 15. American Military History. Army Historical Series, Office of the Chief Military History, United States Army Viewed 25 March 2010 fromhttp://www.history.army.mil/books/AMH/AMH-15.htm Grimsley, M. (2003). “The Philippine war: 1899-1902” Viewed 25 March 2010 from http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/milhis/phil.phtm Infoplease. (2000) “Vietnam War” Viewed 25 March 2010 from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001292.html May, Glenn A. 1983.”Why did the United States won the Philippine American War, 1899- 1902”. Viewed 25 March from http://www.jstor.org/pss/3639072 Onwar.com (16 December 2000) Philippine-American War: 1899-1902. Wars of the World. Armed Conflicts Data. Viewed 25 March 2010 from http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/philippines1899.htm “The Vietnam War: an overview”. Vassar College. Viewed 25 March 2020 from http://vietnam.vassar.edu/overview.html Read More