We own Iraq: The Shock Doctrine perfected

attributed to John Hay, McKinley’s UK ambassador, Lincoln’s faithful personal secretary, a Republican — may as well have dropped from Rumsfeld’s mouth in 2003. Hay of course referred to the Spanish American War, the Cuba episode which ended rather quickly as compared to the Philippine episode which filled out three of four years official hostilities in the Spanish colony, another four of Filippino “insurgent” combat, and another three decades of Filippino “guerilla” raids.

1898-1899, 1899-1902, 1902-1906, 1906-1946: This period is the template of US “free market” imperialism which the ancient Friedman was born (1912-2006). Excuse me for momentarily assuming a historiorantish pose 😉 to finger the cultural paradigm of US “authoritarianism” prefigured by events prior to Cheney’s birth.

You got yer uncanny casualty ratio, volunteer troops, atrocities [see Zinn] and veteran benchmarks 1: Over the first 3 years, 4,234 US dead and 2,818 US wounded; 20,000 Filipino regular and 200,000- 500,000 civillian dead

Just three decades after the Civil War, the regular Army numbered 28,000 soldiers patrolling the West and pulling garrison duty in 80 posts. The National Guard had the men — 114,000 of them. They were not highly trained, nor did they have good equipment. But they were available, even if the Constitution prevented them from fighting outside of the country. President William McKinley made them federal volunteers. Many of the participating National Guard regiments kept their state identities by reporting at full strength and then appointing their own officers. … The Army’s ranks swelled to 168,929 men in May. By August [1898], 274,717 men were in uniform.

N.B. US Library of Congress-Hispanic division (heh) estimates U.S. army strength in 1898 totalled 26,000, requiring the passage of the Mobilization Act of April 22 that appropriated for the first 125,000 volunteers, later increased to 200,000 and a regular army of 65,000.

You got yer US freedom-fried culumny 2:

McKinley settled $20M with Spain following the fall of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and occupation of Manila thanks to Filipino “allies” which had been engaged in war for independence since 1896. For a time, Britain, Germany and France deployed navies to the Pacific to catch America’s (south asian) crumbs.

The Treaty of Paris aroused anger among Filipinos. Reacting to the US$20 million sum paid to Spain, La Independencia (Independence), a newspaper published in Manila by a revolutionary, General Antonio Luna, stated that “people are not to be bought and sold like horses and houses. If the aim has been to abolish the traffic in Negroes because it meant the sale of persons, why is there still maintained the sale of countries with inhabitants?” Tension and ill feelings were growing between the American troops in Manila and the insurgents surrounding the capital. In addition to Manila, Iloilo, the main port on the island of Panay, also was a pressure point. The Revolutionary Government of the Visayas was proclaimed there on November 17, 1898, and an American force stood poised to capture the city. Upon the announcement of the treaty [of Paris], the radicals, Mabini and Luna, prepared for war, and provisional articles were added to the constitution giving President Aguinaldo dictatorial powers in times of emergency. President William McKinley issued a proclamation on December 21, 1898, declaring United States policy to be one of “benevolent assimilation” in which “the mild sway of justice and right” would be substituted for “arbitrary rule.” When this was published in the islands on January 4, 1899, references to “American sovereignty” having been prudently deleted, Aguinaldo issued his own proclamation that condemned “violent and aggressive seizure” by the United States and threatened war.

You got yer evangelical “American” business fervor captured by Hearst and Pulizer “yellow journalists” 3

Partially, this American desire was based on the American public’s ignorance. Many Americans assumed that the Filipinos were all “heathens”. Though plenty of Americans knew the Filipinos were Catholics, many Protestants, who considered Catholicism only barely removed from heathenism, still largely dominated political decision making in the US.

[…]

While Wall Street and business insiders like Mark Hanna had originally opposed the war, they all argued for the annexation of the Philippines. The Philippines, they said, had a population of 7 million people, which was a sizeable new market for American manufactured goods. Also, following Mahan’s theories, the Philippines would provide an American coaling station and naval base to protect US trade interests and maintain stability throughout Asian waters. With both the public and big business largely behind annexation, McKinley pushed for the acquisition of the Philippines.

culminating in the greatest moral dilemma EVAH TOLD! 4

“I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way-I don’t know how it was, but it came:

   (1) That we could not give them back to Spain-that would be cowardly and dishonorable;

   (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany-our commercial rivals in the Orient-that would be bad business and discreditable;

   (3) that we could not leave them to themselves-they were unfit for self-government-and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and

   (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.”

~~ Bill McKinley

I wonder, idly, how either of the Naomi’s incorporate this startling document concerning the “free man’s burden” in their analyses of mainline (neo)liberalism(s). I can’t recall a reviewer who’s mentioned it or compared the Philippine-Iraq playbooks recently.