The Emergence of American Amphibious Warfare, 1898–1945. David S. Nasca
and disadvantages in its new geopolitical position thanks to amphibious warfare, it also faced potential political and social hurdles that were not yet fully anticipated in the afterglow of victory in the Spanish-American War. This war, which was initially presented as a good thing for the American people, turned out to be a long, drawn-out, open-ended war that required a significant investment of American lives and resources. Not only did the Philippines become an irritating sore to the American diplomatic community, it also served as a major issue within political and social circles that led to discussions about the United States’ belief in its own exceptionalism and also about how the American republic would preserve its principles and beliefs as a major power in a new, brave world.130 Warren Zimmermann points out from the perspective of some of the anti-imperialists, especially idealistic and powerful industrialists such as Andrew Carnegie, “He feared that annexation would threaten American security…. He also worried that expansion would change the character of America itself by embracing untrustworthy aliens, foreign races bound in time to be false to the Republic in order to be true to themselves.”131
Political Implications of Amphibious Warfare
Victory in the Spanish-American War, gained through amphibious warfare, introduced the United States as a world power; however, America’s elevated geopolitical position had unforeseen political consequences that later became part of American electoral issues and debates. Graham A. Cosmas points out, “The United States liquidated Spain’s colonial empire in the Caribbean and the Far East and began her march to world power. In that period, the [United States] suddenly confronted the task of waging trans-oceanic campaigns and securing and ruling an empire.”132 In addition, it created political situations in which the American occupational force found itself in militarily or morally impossible situations that questioned the purpose and legitimacy of the United States’ policy in those territories. Finally, it awakened segments within American society that led to the formation of new political movements and parties that sought to address these new geopolitical concerns and actions being sanctioned by the United States. In essence, these new overseas obligations questioned the very definition of the United States’ principles and the future direction of its political institutions.
The possession of overseas territories taken from another foreign power introduced challenges that the American republic did not foresee. The establishment of overseas government institutions in the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico was often at odds with governing those areas’ large indigenous populations. Zimmermann observes that the United States was “grappling with the core contradiction inherent in the U.S. seizure of the Philippines and Cuba: Americans may have seen themselves as liberators, but they were regarded by large elements of the local populations as oppressors…. They are alien to American sentiment, thought, and purpose.”133 Differences between the American occupiers and the indigenous populations imposed natural obstacles in regard not only to culture and language, but also to a fundamental understanding of the local politics and issues that concerned those peoples. These distant countries had little desire to become American territories, but wanted to instead become independent nations that were free from the influence and domination of a foreign power. In the case of Cuba and the Philippines, the United States’ failure to withdraw its military forces and transfer governmental authority in preparation for independence created both shock and outrage. The failure of the American political system to work with the indigenous political factions resulted in those factions reorganizing themselves in preparation for engaging in a long insurgency against the American occupation.
The inheritance of a colonial empire triggered political debate within both executive and legislative branches. For the executive branch, President William McKinley, as well as future presidents, was responsible for the security and governance of Cuba and the Philippines. Facing pressure from certain political factions in Congress and American society, the executive branch played a balancing act to appease all interests. For imperialists, the executive branch catered to the possibility of the Philippines and Cuba staying within the sphere of the American influence; while for anti-imperialists, it hinted that these territories were being prepared for eventual independence. Meanwhile, Congress was divided about the best course of action for handling these new American acquisitions. While it was understood within U.S. political circles that Cuba would eventually become an independent, sovereign nation, the Philippines was another matter.
Occupation was not the original objective of the American political and military leadership during the Spanish-American War. The Philippines came under the control of the United States as a geopolitical necessity because the archipelago was about to collapse into chaos and become prey to the Germans and Japanese. The landing of American ground forces was merely a stopgap measure until the United States’ political leadership could figure out what to do with the islands. When Spain relinquished control of the Philippines to the United States, congressional members were split on the future of the island chain. Some argued for retaining it as an American territory where it would be pacified and developed to such an extent that it would eventually become a state of the United States. Others did not believe in keeping the Philippines, but instead argued for either immediate or eventual independence. The territorial future of the Philippines was based essentially on the fundamental principles of what the United States stood for in the world and what its relationship should be with future territories that could come under the control of the American republic.
The debate within Congress was exacerbated by the Philippine Insurrection against the American occupation, which began shortly after the Spanish-American War. The Filipinos, under their revolutionary leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, fought against the American forces when it became apparent that the United States had no intention of granting the Philippines its independence and leaving the country. The Philippine-American War soon raged in a series of bloody engagements outside Manila and throughout the main island of Luzon. After Aguinaldo’s forces were crushed and the insurgent leader captured, the insurgency broke apart into small units in order to continue resisting and harassing the American occupation from other smaller, more isolated islands.134 In order to deal with the insurrection, the United States employed more men, weapons, equipment, and money to clear, hold, and build stability in the Philippines in order to win the hearts and minds of the Filipino population.
Despite systematically clearing the Philippines of insurgents from the islands by using its ground, naval, and amphibious capabilities, the American occupation force and the United States had to deal with several political issues. The American republic first had to establish a stable, legitimate government in the Philippines that could provide basic security and services to the Filipino population. In laying the foundation of governmental services and infrastructure for the island, the United States had to recruit thousands of specialists, contractors, servicemen, government workers, and scientists who could perform the groundwork in setting up a viable, legitimate government that the native population could trust. More importantly, in establishing an island government, the United States needed the Filipinos to be willing to participate in the political system. However, political cooperation in the islands was going to be difficult to achieve, because the Philippines’ indigenous population included more than twenty major ethnic groups and countless smaller tribes.135
The language and cultural barrier of an exotic population, combined with the difficult geography and extreme weather of the Philippines, created conditions that tested American political and military leadership. Disease, typhoons, poisonous plants, dangerous animals, and hostile Filipino peoples all combined to take their toll on the occupational force. In doing so, the friction and frustration of handling the overwhelming difficulties and barriers of the Philippine islands inevitably led to abuses and reprisals, therefore creating an “us versus them” relationship. Despite the appointment of progressive governor generals with competent civilian administrative staffs that oversaw the construction of roads, railroads, hospitals, telegraph lines, schools, universities, sewer systems, and police and fire departments, the Filipino population in certain parts of the island chain continued to resist American governance and waged long, often brutal, campaigns against the American military, as seen in Balangiga, Mabitac, Paye, and Samar.136
Despite the development of the Philippines and the use of amphibious operations to secure more islands in the archipelago, the United States’ political and moral authority in the Far East was slowly