History That Doesn't Suck - 108: G.O. 100, “The Water Cure,” & The Law of War in the Early-20th Century with Professor Ryan Vogel

Episode Date: March 28, 2022

The ugliest aspects of the Philippine-American War raised questions of legitimate warfare. Specifically, they required the US to think through a military code of conduct from the Civil War: General Order 100, or the “Lieber Code.” But what is the Lieber Code? How did it seek to rein in the worst of war atrocities, and where did it fail to do so in the Philippines? While we’re at it … what even was the status of the “Law of War” at the turn of the century, and how did it compare to the warfare of yesteryear, or help lay the groundwork for the development of the Law of War in the twentieth century? Greg sits down with his UVU colleague–former Department of Defense Senior Policy Advisor-turned-UVU Professor and Director of the Center for National Security Studies Ryan Vogel (yeah, big titles, and basically the real-life “Jack Ryan”) to tackle these questions. ____ Connect with us on HTDSpodcast.com and go deep into episode bibliographies and book recommendations join discussions in our Facebook community get news and discounts from The HTDS Gazette  come see a live show get HTDS merch or become an HTDS premium member for bonus episodes and other perks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Red One... We're coming at you. ...is the movie event of the holiday season. Santa Claus has been kidnapped? You're gonna help us find him. You can't trust this guy. He's on the list. Is that Naughty Lister? Naughty Lister?

Dwayne Johnson. We got snowmen! Chris Evans. I might just go back to the car. Let's save Christmas. I'm not gonna say that. Say it. Alright.

Let's save Christmas. There it is. Only in theaters November 15th. From the creators of the popular science show with millions of YouTube subscribers comes the MinuteEarth podcast. Every episode of the show dives deep into a science question you might not even know you had. But once you hear the answer, you'll want to share it with everyone you know. Why do rivers curve? Why did the T-Rex have such tiny arms? And why do so many more kids need glasses now

than they used to? Spoiler alert, it isn't screen time. Our team of scientists digs into the research and breaks it down into a short, entertaining explanation, jam-packed with science facts and terrible puns. Subscribe to MinuteEarth wherever you like to listen. Welcome to History That Doesn't Suck. I'm your professor, Greg Jackson, and as in the terrible puns. Subscribe to MinuteEarth wherever you like to listen. ad-free episodes, bonus content, and other exclusive perks, I invite you to join the HTDS membership program. Sign up for a seven-day free trial today at htdspodcast.com slash membership, or click the link in the episode notes. Welcome to History That Doesn't Suck. I'm your professor, Greg Jackson, and today we take a brief respite from our usual story-driven telling of American history to have a very interesting conversation with a dear friend of mine who happens to be an expert on the law of war.

And given that we've recently discussed General Order 100 in the Philippines, I thought this was the perfect time to bring Professor Ryan Vogel to History That Doesn't Suck. Ryan, do you mind saying hello to the good people? Hello there. Happy to be here. Ryan, let me get your impressive credentials out there so that everyone knows just what a pro you are. You earned your law degrees, not degree, but degrees, as one does, from American University and Georgetown. After that, you spent a decade, roughly, in Washington, D.C., working for the federal government, where you advised the Secretary of Defense and spent several years bouncing mostly at the Department of Defense. But you did a year with Department of State, and you've been to Guantanamo. That's true.

That's true. Many times, actually. And I'll just leave. No, you were there again in an advising role on legalities and detention. So you've had a very fascinating career before, of course, getting to your true pinnacle, which was becoming the founding director of the Center for National Security Studies at Utah Valley University and continue to teach courses on the law of war, which you've done at other universities before coming here. And I understand you have amazing colleagues now.

I've heard that. Yeah. Yeah. A few in particular. Right. Right. So all that said, Professor Vogel. Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you for joining me. Of course. All right. So as I queued up and as attentive listeners will know from the last episode, General Order 100 came up during the Philippine-American War or the Philippine War or the insurrection,

all legal terms that we can kind of dive into at some point. But as that came up, General Order 100, everyone listening should remember that it originates from the Civil War and it codified the rules of engagement. But let's go back a click even before that. Can you tell us why was this even needed? I mean, what was warfare like before this Abe Lincoln signed 1863 order? Right. And it's a great question because before order number 100, there were no codified written down laws of war. What you had was customs and usages and norms that had existed and had developed over

centuries. So you go way back and you have things like the just war doctrine or just war theory that originated in the Christian tradition, or you had the Sharia law that talked about different aspects of how prisoners should be treated and what tactics can be used against certain types of people during warfare. You have what you see over time is a whole history of development of the law of war. And by the time you get to the 17, 1800s, you start to have more of a established custom and tradition there, but still no codified law, still no treaty out there like we have today. Right. As you say that, you know, I think through some of the courses I teach and things that we've, well, we've discussed as well at other times on campus, my mind initially goes to, you mentioned Sharia, I think of Muhammad in 630 when he takes

Mecca. And by the tribal laws that were essentially, you know, in effect at that time, he had the right to make everyone in the city his slave, and he chose not to do that. That's part of one of the big keystone, you know, aspects of the last few years of Muhammad's life. He dies two years after that. But it was a big deal because he broke from what was the norm and what by our thoughts today would not be okay, right? We wouldn't imagine an army that's winning enslaving the city. And yet this was a very noteworthy, different thing for him to say, hey guys, you know what we're not going to do? Enslave the people that we've defeated.

Yeah. And the law that came from that tradition was in many ways more progressive than the European traditions that existed at the same time, the codes of chivalry, which were mostly codes that protected norms that protected knights fighting against other knights, but didn't protect the other classes, including, of course, the enemy, right? It wouldn't include protecting the enemy. So, in a way, the traditions that came from Muhammad and the Islamic law were more ahead of where European laws would be around that same time. Sure. And as you mentioned that, I do think about, you know, part of the Crusades was actually

wanting, European monarchs wanting to get troublesome knights out of Europe. Right. That was all part of the gig. And when they got to the Middle East, it was kind of a no holds bar. Okay. So we've gotten norms. It's like the pirates movies from Disney, right? Guidelines.

Yeah. Right. Loose guidelines. Yeah. Right. Loose guidelines. Well, and importantly, and I think we'll cover this too, the guidelines only covered certain classes of people. Even into the 17s, 1800s, there were whole classes of people that just were not protected by any sort of norm and custom. And that includes people that were not affiliated with a state, you know, a state actor. They weren't part of a state military. Sometimes that would even be people that didn't fight like a state military. So guerrillas and, you know, other insurgent type groups.

Well, as you say that, my thoughts go to the American Revolution. Right. Right. So we've got our colonial Minutemen and made famous, I guess you could say, in more in the last, what, a decade or two by Mel Gibson's film, The Patriot, which I'm going to go ahead and say is not the film you want to watch for historical accuracy. But they definitely make a big to-do out of that. Mel Gibson single-handedly wipes out a whole British unit, as one does. As one does. Yes. Just, you know, trees apparently are all you need and you can do that. So the British, I mean, they would have looked at, they did.

They looked at the colonists and said, you're not fighting fair. Right. Right. They viewed them as unshibble risk. They viewed them as even uncivilized for engaging in what we would call guerrilla warfare and other, again, in our modern language, we'd call them asymmetric approaches. Basically, the approaches that a weaker opponent would use in order to fight a more sophisticated and superior enemy, which is what the British

empire was compared to the American colonies back in the 1770s. All right. So clearly we're establishing what we're talking. We're talking tradition. We're talking- Yeah. Customs. Yes. Norms. Nothing that's totally set in stone. And that is why Lincoln goes to Franz Lieber, who is a professor at princeton university and says hey uh we need something that is uh tangible we need we need you to go out and collect these customs and norms that exist out there he's not making these things up he's gathering them and putting them in a single document and lincoln has a variety of reasons to do this one he wants some

discipline and um you know the upper hand the moral high ground in the war against the South. But also it's something to show to the outside world, right, that we're a country that's ahead. You know, we're a country that's forging new ground. And this is something that exists out there in theory, but we're putting it into practice in our own military doctrine. Okay. Now I want to go deeper on that, but before we do, can we go a little bit deeper on our boy friends? Professor Lieber. Why is Lincoln going to this guy? Well, he comes from this tradition. He himself fought in the Napoleonic Wars. He had seen war up close and personal. He had sons that were engaged in the Civil War, one on the Union side, one on the South side, not terribly uncommon in those days. One of them was killed in action. The other one was gravely wounded. Another son goes on to become the judge advocate general for the US Army. So he is steeped in this tradition. He's in the mix. It's personal to him. But he also comes from that Germanic tradition of total war. This idea that war is hell and that it should be. It should be hell.

Because what the Germanic tradition espoused was that if you made war too humane, it would be more common. If you made war atrocious and horrific, then it would be less common. And whether that's true or not, this was a tradition that a lot of legal law of war theorists at the time espoused, and he was definitely one of them. Well, now, as you mentioned that, it does draw my mind back to the Napoleonic Wars, which you mentioned that he fought in, and it's probably worth noting. I mean, these wars, they start with the French Revolution. And some of my listeners will remember the episode on the Statue of Liberty. And I indulged my French history a little bit. We did talk a titch about it. But those wars, which start with Europe, essentially,

well, the monarchs of Europe descending on France because the last thing they can let their own peasant population learn is that French peasants could overthrow their monarch and establish a republic. And that's not a good look. That's a rascally model to allow. Exactly. So the monarchs of Europe by and large attacked France. And then of course, France had a general who kind of got a little aggressive himself after the fact, Napoleon, and that bled into the Napoleonic War. So from the 1790s all the way up until 1815, Vienna, where the five great powers of Europe, France, Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria. In fact, I will note briefly, the Holy Roman Empire has ceased to exist. Napoleon has stamped it out of existence. And that's again, a dramatic, the Holy Roman Empire is neither holy nor Roman. Not really even an empire. That's kind

of a longstanding joke amongst historians. Wish I could take credit for that one, but I feel I should own that. Point being, it's radically changed Europe. It's been absolutely devastating in terms of the total war that was waged. So Vienna is this great massive piece, partly to really never want to see that sort of war again. Everyone who's sitting down, there's no romanticized notions of what war is. And they redraw the map of Europe in such a way as to balance. This is their, we're talking, sorry, I don't want to get too far away from the legal stuff. But just to kind of set up a little bit more where France is coming from, they set up a balance between the five great powers that in theory they hope will prevent any one empire from ever emerging as a superpower that can in the law of war, it's because there's been some horrific war or series of wars that really grabs the attention of people with exactly what you said, which is weventions. But well before that, the Hague Regulations and the early

versions of the Geneva Conventions and these other events, they come from the aftermath of conflicts that were deemed too horrific to allow to happen again. And so the Napoleonic Wars are part of that tradition. It's interesting for Americans, when you talk about the beginning of the development of the law of war, it's order number 100, which is what we're talking about today. If you talk to Europeans, it's the Battle of Solferino. You had a Swiss businessman who just happened to be traveling through the Italian countryside and was in Solferino during the time of a major skirmish there, it affected him in a profound way. And so he wrote a book about it and roughly equivalent, I guess, in just sheer influence on the European continent to Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin here in the United

States. Everyone's read it. Everyone's aware of it. The book is called In Memory of Solferino. And it kickstarts what would be called the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Committee of the Red Cross Movement. So that happens at the same time that across the sea, you're getting order number 100 and the American Civil War. And so you have these two traditions that are largely concerned with the same thing, which is governing warfare, right? How do we make warfare more humane, more respectful of not only the combatants, but the civilians that are affected by it? And you have these two traditions happening or starting at the same time on both sides of the pond. Okay, that's all fascinating to me. The Battle of Solferino, we're now tapping into the,

well, the movement towards Italian unification. That doesn't happen until 1870. But what I find fascinating about all of this is the peace that I'd mentioned a little bit earlier in 1815, Vienna, that's the start of the concert of Europe. In 19th century Europe is, well, it's considered by and large to be a century of peace, more or less. Wars here and there, but for Europe, for war-torn Europe, this is a century of peace until World War I. principalities and kingdoms into what will eventually become the nation state same things happening with a number of small little germanic principalities and the kingdom of prussia it's going to turn into what we now know is the state of germany right but it's it's fascinating to to see that even in this lull of total war the intellectual development i guess it's it's there it's on both sides of the atlantic and here we go toward this greater codification and the galvanizing thing here

is that on ray do not who's the one that writes this book this the swiss businessman writes it in such graphic detail i would commend it to your audience. It's a pretty brief description, but it is graphic. And I think it jarred a lot of Europeans from thinking that war is glorious, war is something that has noble purposes. It jars them from that thinking into, my gosh, this is really terrible and we need to do something about it. And really, the Red Cross movement starts mostly as kind of a relief society, right? Like they put together these groups to go to the battlefield after the fact and tend to the injured soldiers and bring them relief. Later on, the Geneva Conventions that come from that tradition

will focus more on constraints or restraints during warfare. But it has its origins and just this desire to bring relief to the suffering soldiers and those left behind on the battlefield. Fascinating. And the timing on all that for me, I'm again just thinking it's been a few decades since Napoleon. We're back to where, I mean, that's the pattern that I see as a historian. You have these massive, brutal, awful wars, and then you have a generation of people who, you know, whether they personally fought in it or not, they know someone who's been devastated. They have been devastated by loss. But you get a few decades away and people forget, people forget, and they start thinking, you know, we can solve all of our problems with things that go boom.

Right. Okay. So we see the codification happening. We see its value. I think it's time for us to maybe shift into the late 19th century here. Let's head towards the Philippines, shall we? Okay. So we get the significance of General Order 100.

It's clearly laudable. It's noteworthy in its step of building an actual law of war, not just guidelines. Yet when we get to the Philippines, the Philippine war at the end of the 19th century, General Order 100 comes up not in the context of regulating war, but of increased harshness and frankly, even death aimed at Filipino fighters. That feels a little quirky, a little odd.

Let's dig in here, shall we? Yeah. The thing that you have to understand about Order Number 100 is that much like the rest of the custom and norms and traditions that are out there, and this is where we started at the beginning, this protects certain people from certain groups, but it's not a blanket protection. So when the United States goes to war in the Philippines, it does not view them as an equal opponent. It views them as the same category

that the British viewed us in some sense, except that we don't have that familial connection. The Filipinos are a different people on the other side of the planet, and we are not giving them the status of equals in warfare. What we would call it is they're not given belligerent status or they're not given combatant status. They're treated as insurgents, as guerrillas, as non-state actors, and those people are not protected. So order number 100 is not really going to matter in that context. It's certainly not going to restrain American forces from using the kind of interrogation techniques or imprisonment techniques that they deemed necessary. So, General Order 100, it does state limitations as to things that are permitted to be done to civilians, to the opponent opponent to the foe the enemy um i found interesting uh as i was writing episode 107 and on the philippines and reading through general order 100 the comparison

to pirates of the uh you know of those who inconsistently i believe was if that wasn't the word it was close to that people People that basically engaged in combat, but then didn't. Right. And they kind of this back and forth, which is what we typically think of as a guerrilla. Were there any other groups beyond that, that would really be kind of targeted? Or is this kind of still falling under the guise of where we would think of like spies traditionally, which today's spies have more protection, but earlier on, no protection, right? I mean, Nathan Hale, to go back to the revolution, this famous American hero killed because he's a spy. But we don't even need to look that far back. We don't even need to look for analogies to other state actors.

We treated American Indians the exact same way in the wars conquering the Western part of the United States. We treated them as insurgents. We treated them as not equal combatants. Again, inconsistently, because there are a few court cases that were covered over the last hundred years that did treat them with state-like status. You have a famous case where one of the American Indian fighters that kills an American soldier is apprehended and brought to court, and the court finds that this is a war. This is a war between state actors. There was a treaty between those two, and we recognized them as a separate nation. But that was the exception to the broader rule, which was that American Indians were treated much like Filipinos were as unequals

on the battlefield. So what you're saying, it's consistent with Silby's book. I actually cited that one in the last episode on the Philippine-American War, where he basically said or suggested that the U.S. military cut its teeth, more or less, on how to fight in the Philippines through Manifest Destiny and fighting the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Absolutely. And not just in terms of military operations, in terms of legal status and legal theory, how we conceptualize. At the beginning of this episode, you noted that, what do we call this? Do we call this the Philippine insurrection? We do call it the US-Philippines war or something like that. Those terms matter because if it is a war between the US and the Philippines,

and that we think of the Philippines as a separate country, then they're deserving of a higher status, you know, of the status as equals on the battlefield as combatants. If we think of it as an insurrection, you have a whole different thing. Well, and the military leaders back to D.C., President McKinley, they all insisted insurgent. That was the word to be used. You did not, those writing their reports, they were not to describe.

And that was very purposeful. Yes, right. Yeah, and with legal purpose, specifically as you're pointing out here. It provides a lot more flexibility when it comes to detention, when it comes to interrogation, when it comes to trial, targeting. comes to interrogation, when it comes to trial, you know, targeting.

I mean, all the kinds of things that you would want flexibility on from the military perspective, especially in an age where there's not, you know, even into the late 1800s, early 1900s, there's still quite a bit of flexibility with the rules governing armed conflict. And especially when it comes to parties that are not of equal status. Well, as you were talking, that was the, I mean, I feel like I know the answer here, but I would love to hear you say it. I mean, General Order 100 being as groundbreaking as it was in the 1860s. I mean, at this point in the development of world history,

we really don't have anything beyond General Order 100 that would apply in this situation, right? There's not much by way of... No. We haven't created even the League of Nations to fail yet, right? These larger global organizations that we know of and think of today that might rein in what a nation's doing here, there. Here's the crazy thing though, and we're not going to get into more modern history, at least not yet, maybe in a future episode, but we still have not figured that out completely. I mean, the law still has major gaps when it comes to non-state actors.

So even today in 2022, we've got all these wars behind us fought with terrorist groups and insurgents and insurrectionists and other non-state actor type groups. We still don't have the same kind of legal tradition that matches what we have for wars with state actors. So far from having our act together today, we're still kind of floundering around trying to figure out what's appropriate and what analogies we should use and what's the right way of balancing necessity and humanitarianism and all these kinds of things, right? The real grappling, we're still in it. Well, in 200, 300 years from now, historians will look back and say, man, can you believe they still didn't know what they were doing?

You know, I'd like to, because I know people want to better understand this. I think we need to talk about the water cure. But let's go ahead and take a quick break. And right when we come back, we'll pick up there. Want to learn how you can make smarter decisions with your money? Well, I've got the podcast for you. I'm Sean Piles, and I host NerdWallet's Smart Money Podcast. On our show, we help listeners like you make the most of your finances.

I sit down with NerdWallet's team of nerds, personal finance experts in credit cards, banking, investing, and more. We answer your real-world money questions and break down the latest personal finance news. The Nerds will give you the clarity you need by cutting through the clutter and misinformation in today's world of personal finance. We don't promote get-rich-quick schemes or hype unrealistic side hustles. Instead, we offer practical knowledge that you can apply in your everyday life. You'll learn about strategies to help you build your wealth, invest wisely, shop for financial products, and plan for major life events. And you'll walk away with the confidence you need to ensure that your money is always

working as hard as you are. So turn to the nerds to answer your real world money questions and get insights that can help you make the smartest financial decisions for your life. Listen to NerdWallet's Smart Money Podcast wherever you get your podcasts. When Johan Rall received the letter on Christmas Day 1776, he put it away to read later. Maybe he thought it was a season's greeting and wanted to save it for the fireside. But what it actually was, was a warning delivered to the Hessian colonel, letting him know that General George Washington was crossing the Delaware and would soon attack his forces. The next day, when Rawl lost the Battle of Trenton and died from two colonial Boxing Day musket balls,

the letter was found, unopened in his vest pocket. As someone with 15,000 unread emails in his inbox, I feel like there's a lesson there. Oh well, this is The Constant, a history of getting things wrong. I'm Mark Chrysler. Every episode, we look at the bad ideas, mistakes, and accidents that misshaped our world. Find us at constantpodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. And we're back. Professor Vogel, you haven't left my little dungeon recording studio here. Thank you for still being here.

The water cure, or waterboarding to use the right the more up-to-date up-to-date term yeah um thoughts well that's the the most light-hearted way i can right lead into that into that one uh so well i'll go ahead and lay the ground here a little bit. The water cure, as it's described in a letter home from a U.S. serviceman, they would take detainees in the Philippines and one U.S. soldier would stand on each appendage, essentially. So a five-man team here. A stick would be placed in the detainee's mouth and then they would pour a bucket of water on them. Right. And do this until they were convinced they were getting the information that they wanted.

Which I should note, the water cure as practiced in that day and age was a much more physical interrogation technique than waterboarding would be a century later. And the major difference there is waterboarding, which is similarly a form of torture. So let's not, you know, let's not. Yeah. I didn't think you were, you're definitely not going to apologize. Waterboarding is totally fine guys. That's yeah. I didn't see you going there. It's more of a mental form of torture because it's a simulated drowning. Typically with waterboarding, you're going to have a cloth over the mouth and you're going to pour buckets of water so that the person feels like they're drowning. Not that they're actually filling up with water the way that the water cure was practiced back 100 years before it.

So similar, there are similarities between them. And like I said, both would be forms of torture and highly illegal under any sort of prisoner of war interrogation technique, but different a little bit. Well, I think that alone is quite the interesting bit. So we definitely have torture on our hands here. That's what the primary sources themselves say, the soldiers riding home say when is this starting to sink in more with the U.S. population to think this or other forms of behavior? Because there are also instances of beatings and things of that nature to try and get detainees to talk. When does more of this start to really enter into the discussion about the conduct of war? Yeah. And again, the answer is a bit mixed here

because there had been recognition that combatants, that state actors, state military, especially officers, as opposed to enlisted folks, were due respect and honor, that they were instruments of their state. They had done nothing wrong themselves. So they were supposed to be protected and respected given all kind of recognition of their status. That did not exist though for the people that we're talking about here. The important question always goes back to how do we qualify or characterize the status of the conflict? How do we characterize the status of the groups that are fighting it? If you say you're fighting an insurrection against an insurgent group, you are blanket characterizing them in a way that's not going to protect them as prisoners of war, right? So that's one part. I mean, certainly, even those that were kept as prisoners of war, we've had lots of abuses over the years. You probably talked a bit about Andersonville during the Civil War and just the rampant abuses and the consequent deaths of

soldiers that were in prisoner of war camps. But by the 1800s and into the 1900s, there's certainly a movement toward protecting and having even mechanisms to ensure the protection of prisoners of war that are being held by the opposite side. It's just that those don't apply to groups that we don't characterize as equals on the battlefield. So what do we make then of Howling Wilderness Smith? If you recall, General Jacob H. Smith, he's the commander of the 6th Brigade, and he goes to an old haunt of yours, in fact. Right, right. The I.M.R. Yes. Yeah.

Which I didn't mention in your biography. I mean, fun side note, you just happen to speak Tagalog and have lived in the Philippines. That's right fun side note, you just happened to speak Tagalog and have lived in the Philippines. That's right. Yeah, no biggie. Been to a lot of the places that you talked about in your last episode. And you definitely helped my pronunciation on a number of those places. And I thank you again. So he does get pulled before a court marshal and he is found guilty of having you know, of having abused power, of having

gone beyond what's acceptable. Right. And where does, I realize, look, I'm the historian, it's fine. You know, you're the legal counsel here. What are your thoughts as we think through how General Order 100 really does not provide protection to the Filipinos in this context. And yet here we have a court marshal and he is found guilty of. The important distinction here is that it does not protect the combatants, but it does still protect civilians, right? So the general civilian population in the Philippines is going to be broadly protected by general order number 100. The fighters on the other hand will not be protected, at least not protected in the same way, right? They're not going to be given prisoner of war protections. They're not going to be given the honor and the status of equal combatants on the

battlefield. So that is not going to happen. But what you happen here in the incident that you're bringing up is the order to kill all the people above a certain age and those 10 years old, 10 years old. So they're still in minor status, right? There's, there's no question. It's not like 16, you know, where you might have people that are in their culture, you know, are part of the fighting force, right? You're, you're not, there's no blurriness there. 10 years old, you know, you're talking about children here. And under order number 100, civilians are protected. They cannot be made the object of attack. That tradition continues through this day in a more codified form.

But that is one of the fundamental protections under the law of war is that you do not target civilians and children are especially protected civilians. Now, I know you've come across this scenario, not asking you to name names or talk about specific instances. But as Howling Wilderness Smith called that for having said, turn the island Samar into a howling wilderness. wilderness he was very quick to say during his court-martial that he was following orders that he was given the indication from general chafee that this is what uh what general chafee wanted that is the same claim that the defendants in the nuremberg trial claimed right they claimed we were only following orders and what we learned from nuremberg, which is what we knew before, is that claiming that you're following orders is not a defense to war crimes and targeting civilians's part of the Mylai massacre, who also claimed the same thing. I was following orders and, you know, it's not a defense, not a defense to war crimes. He

also was convicted. And you fast forward even to, you know, the most recent wars, the Abu Ghraib scandal, and it was the same kind of thing. The fact that there are those above the people that are actually prosecuted that were part of the plan or guilty in some way, even if it's a culture of, you know, lack of discipline or something like that, does not negate the accountability for the person in question, right? So we're certainly not saying that those people should not be held accountable in some way, but we're just saying that you cannot use following orders as a defense to committing war crimes. Or it all breaks down. The whole system breaks down.

That you do as an officer have an obligation to stand by morals and frankly, reject an order if that is. Right. And that's partly why you have things like order number 100 is it's there. You are beholden to that order. When you you are in the military today you are aware of what the geneva conventions require you're aware of the law of war you get training on that i mean typically you'll get training above and beyond that because the the rules of engagement will always be stricter than the our legal obligations so when when soldiers or other members of the military are engaging in military operations, they're very aware of the guidelines, the rules that govern it. So they are required to follow

those, even if an order comes in contrary to it. They're still required to follow the law and follow the regulations that they've been given. Okay. I want to be going to use my scalpel here with this next line of line of questioning, sir. I think it's important to note the historiography, which is the historian's term for the history of historians writing about a moment. It's a little meta. Yeah. about a moment. It's a little meta. But where the historiography is at for the Philippine-American War currently is that you have some excellent historians who are pointing out that, yes, the narrative of the compassionate imperialist power of the United States helping its quote-unquote little brown brother to use Taft's term for the

Filipino people. That's bunk, that's BS. And at the same time, what they've been noting of late is that the pendulum has kind of swung a little bit to where there's, and this is where I always want to be very careful on what we're saying here. It's not to dismiss these atrocities, but that sometimes it's lost that these atrocities are in fact more widespread in this era than, well, then I think we're all comfortable acknowledging. That's definitely true. So within that context, I'm by no means looking to paint a broad brush and say that the actions of Smith, of Howling Wilderness Smith reflects all the servicemen as my fellow historians are also noting of late. All that said, okay, I've laid my groundwork.

To what extent, and I realize we're getting a little bit speculative, but I think this is a space that you've probably had to engage in and think through in your career. To what extent might we consider or be concerned that his court-martial was, well, potentially more of a scapegoat situation of we're going to let him be the fall man and kind of sweep other big players under the rug or you

know would conversely would you say the u.s military is actually pretty good at really pinpointing bad actors and bringing them to bear yeah take take of that do what what you will with it i think that's a really interesting question. It's also a very difficult question. I know it is. I'm sorry. And, and only because, um, you're, you're always going to have, I think, instances where you select cases that you actually want to fight, right? When, when, uh, cases are brought to trial, it's typically because there's more evidence for a prosecution,

for a successful prosecution. And so it doesn't always mean that these are all the cases of abuse. These are the ones that we think we can prosecute successfully. You also have just a general kind of tradition of, and not just in this country, but just in general, of higher ranking officials, especially on the civilian side, that are not held accountable in the same way that military officers are. I think the US military is actually very good at holding their military members accountable in military courts. I think we have a very strong legal system in the U.S. military. I'm not expert on whether that same tradition existed back in the late 1800s or early 1900s,

but I can say that having seen it very up close, I think we're good at it. We are not perfect at it. That's for sure. And again, civilians tend to not be swept in the same way. There just aren't the same kind of mechanisms for accountability that exist in the military. Well, and it's not that you ever want to say that any of this is okay. But you will always be disappointed if you're looking for perfection. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. In, well, anything, but especially something as messy as- As warfare. Yeah. And it is very difficult. And I know it's unsatisfactory to a lot of people, and I totally understand that. Right. it's unsatisfactory to a lot of people and I totally understand that. But you have to, you have to understand how difficult it is just to collect evidence, you know,

just, just that one aspect, evidentiary collection on the battlefield. You know, if someone has done something that, you know, prompts questions, it's,

it's a difficult thing to establish that. And again, you know, we're, we're both saying the same thing. That's not to excuse or anything. It's just to help, I think, people understand that it's a much more difficult context than civilian life, where there's more normalcy, there's the ability to go after, usually, after the fact and collect evidence and interview witnesses and things like that. And, you know, that doesn't always exist in this context.

Sure. And it's only that much more difficult when you think about the lack of technology compared to what we have today. Right. Right. There are no cameras capturing anything. Right. In the Philippines. No, what you have is, and you've referenced this a few times, you have people that will self-incriminate. Right. And the Philippines. the abuses or, you know, other illegalities that they've committed. Is that ever, and just tell me if this is beyond your experience, it's fine, but is that, well, not ever, but should I say often lost on the self-incriminating?

I mean, when they send these things, is it more, do you see people who don't realize, like they're so deep into what they're doing that they're not thinking about how awful it is? Or is it that they just genuinely think that they're writing to somebody and it's gonna stay close hold? I think it's a little of both. You still see it in the same, you know,

you still see it today. Sure. People will post videos. Photographs. Yeah, they'll photograph, you know, all of those pictures. In fact, the way that we really found out what was happening in Abu Ghraib in Iraq was that people were taking pictures and they were swapping them and, you know, and sharing them around. A lot of the abuse that happened there, we documented because they documented themselves

doing it. I mean, you know, we could talk all day about the Nazis documenting their own abuses during World War II. But, you know, a lot of times it's because of this perception that they will be or they won't be held accountable for the kinds of things that are happening. And sometimes that's a cultural, you know, disciplinary problem within a unit or, you know, the larger organization. And sometimes that's a cultural, you know, disciplinary problem within a unit or, you know, the larger organization. And sometimes it's bad apples and, you know,

sometimes it's a mix of both. Jeez. Okay. I want to get into a few of the lessons that should really be taken from the Philippine-American War, but let's go ahead and take one more break and then we'll come back. Was the Sphinx 10,000 years old? Were there serial killers in ancient Greece and Rome? What were the lives of transgender, intersex, and non-binary people like in the ancient world? We're Jen. And Jenny.

From Ancient History Fangirl. We tell you true stories and tall tales of the ancient world. Sometimes we do it tipsy. Sometimes we have amazing guests on our show. Historians like Barry Strauss, podcasters like Liv Albert, Mike Duncan, and authors like Joanne Harris and Ben Aronovich. We take you to the top of Hadrian's Wall to watch the Roman Empire fall at the end of the world. We walk the catacombs beneath the Temple of the Feathered Serpent under Teotihuacan. We walk the sacred spirals of the Nazca Lines in search of ancient secrets. And we explore mythology from ancient cultures around the world. Come find us at ancienthistoryfangirl.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

And welcome back. Still here with my dear friend, Professor Vogel. Thank you again. Of course. So, all right, Ryan. We've kind of touched here and there, on all sorts of centuries yeah we've pressed well beyond the philippine war but that said let's on a more formal note and and not to get too far ahead of things as htds has the whole 20th century yet to come but does the philippine war inspire any further evolution of the law of war be be that immediately or down the road? Does the U.S. learn important lessons here or does it fail to learn the lessons it should have? What are your thoughts on these things? It's a mixed bag. In some ways, I think we see the law of war continue to develop

in a way that protects more people. And the US is definitely in a leadership position on that development. I'm not sure that it was this war that inspired it. I think it was later wars, especially the world wars, that really starts to push that forward. Interestingly, it really is the more modern wars against terrorist groups that forces us to look backward legally on this conflict in particular. And that's because we're starting to think through how do we treat terrorists? How do we conceptualize what they are? Are they states? Do we treat them like states? In Vietnam, we treated the Viet Cong as an equal on the battlefield. We treated them with combatant status, gave them prisoner of war protections, but we don't do that for terrorists. In a lot of ways, we go back to

the language and the concepts and theories that we used during the Philippines. So really, it's one of those things where we look backward to see how have we done this in the past? We went to a foreign country, we fought an insurrection. At least that's, you know, what we called it. That was the narrative. Yep. And we have all these, you know, cases and legal doctrines

that we'd used in the military to navigate that kind of, you know, new environment. And so even the terms that we used, unprivileged belligerence or unlawful combatants, they largely come from that tradition. So I'm not sure that's a positive development in some ways. I think in other ways, it does help us to understand what we're dealing with, but- It helps us to understand where we're at, even if it's not necessarily positive right okay and this is what i said a few minutes ago which is we're still grappling with this kind of stuff you know we're still trying to figure out

on the one hand how do we treat combatants that fight as non-state actors no affiliation with a state military how do we how do we treat them in treat them in a protected way without incentivizing their participation in the hostilities? Because ultimately that's what we want to do with the law of wars. We want to keep people from fighting on the battlefield. So in some ways, states wrote the law, states gave themselves protections, and they said to all the non-state actors, past, present, future, don't do this, right? Don't engage in warfare because you won't be protected. We're not going to give you the same level of protections as we're going to give our

fellow states, you know, that are writing this law with us. Which also makes sense in terms of, well, wanting to, states wanting to ensure their power as states, right? Right. The, if you don't put up barriers to entry, essentially, if I can go ahead and borrow from our friends in econ for a second, you're not protecting the status

of already established states. Right, right. So then the difficult questions come with, well, what about places like the Philippines? Is that a state? In the late 1800s, is this a state? I mean, I think you would argue, yes, that it is, but we don't conceive of it as a state back then. And we don't afford them the

kind of protections fast forward, uh, you know, a hundred years later. And, and we also make that same determination with the Taliban. You know, we, we decide that the Taliban is not a state, even though they are acting as the government of Afghanistan, there are some weird things about that. Only three countries in the world recognize the Taliban that we learned there. In other ways, we don't. It's a mixed bag. But we do definitely continue the tradition of development, development of the law of war. And it becomes much more humanitarian. It becomes much more focused on the regulations that would make warfare more humane uh maybe not what franz lieber wanted right and and franz is rolling over in his grave right he he may not have you guys liked what resulted yeah but but the tradition definitely goes that direction and and you know today i think uh people back then would not

recognize the law of war today it's it's been codified, so developed, and in many ways, so progressive beyond what those early norms and traditions began. Oh, I will say as a historian, it's my sense as I think about the students that we teach, the reality of how brief we have really cared about, even on any level and even to the level that we now do in the present, human rights, civil rights. It's frankly quite new in the history of humanity. Yeah. It's a blip.

It's a blip on the radar. Frankly, it's terrifyingly short's a blip. It's a blip on the radar. It's frankly, it's terrifyingly. Right. Very short of a blip. We're talking about things that are still interpreted or applied in widely varied ways. I mean, look at the, you know, conflicts that we look at today. There's targeting of civilians. And of course, the parties that do that are claiming that they're not. And, you know, so there's so much variance in both interpretation and then the actual application of the law that we've made a lot of progress. And we are in that, you know, that blip

right there, but still a lot of room to go. I hope I'm not asking you the same question over. That's not my intention and just say pass if you feel that way. But as I think about, and, you know, I also don't want to get into, I want to keep our focus just on what you do, law of war here, in your years in D.C. As a civilian, I don't really recall the Philippine-American War coming up much within these 21st century contexts that we've discussed a bit as a touchstone, as a point of reference. Did that happen a little bit more behind, you know, the. Oh, certainly not. Oh, okay. Yeah. All right. I mean, I think there's, there's a small group of people. Well, and, and I think there are people that might care about it for different reasons. So

if you are a military historian, you're going to know more about it. If you are a tactician and someone that studies military strategy, you might look back at that as an example of military operations that you can glean some lesson from. For law of war people, I think most law of war experts never really looked backward until these most recent wars. So the past 20 years, I think, has brought the Philippine-American war back into perspective. But no, one of the things that's always shocking to me is how little I think people both in government, out of government, people that are familiar with American history, how little they know about this period of our history. In fact, there's kind of like a gap there, I think, at the end of the 19th century where a lot of Americans, they go from the Civil War and they fast forward to World War I, you know?

If that. Right. Sometimes it's World War II. The Philippine-American War is really, in some ways, America's major dalliance with imperialism and colonialism. Just a tradition that's totally in conflict with our fundamental values and principles. Something that in the 1770s, I think we could probably never have imagined. I mean, you'd say that with a little bit of reservation because, you know, we did fight the Manifest Destiny Wars throughout our history. But a foreign war, like going abroad in order to subjugate a separate people was just so out of character for the United States. We just didn't even conceive of ourselves that way. We weren't, we weren't those people. We were the people that, that happened to. And those are the very arguments that are being had as the Philippine American war

is raging. And even before, well, I mean, a hot second before that Spanish American war, right. You know, it's only the year prior the day prior. Right. Um, but I mean, precisely to your point, you have Americans going this, how on earth is this happening? Yeah. When did this happen? This is not who we are. Yeah. In fact, it's the opposite of who we are.

You know, it's almost like acting in complete conflict with your very identity, you know? And I think so for a lot of Americans, it's maybe a moment of history that we like to forget and just gloss over. Because it's a little inconvenient. It's one of those things where I think Americans just prefer to look at more of the highlights. But I think it's important. I think it's important for, you know, Americans of all stripes to understand the detours in American history, you know, and the, the imperfections in order to improve. Well, you know, it's been, it's been interesting and fulfilling last, um, well over a year now getting past, uh, the, the civil war. I remember, uh, you know,

starting to get some emails from, from listeners who were really excited to get into the progressive era and then right into world War I as we finish Civil War. And, you know, I'd write back, oh, actually, we're going to be a little while before we get to that. Some things that happened in those years. Yeah. And, you know, I also think, I think you're absolutely right on the desire

to kind of forget a few things here and there. But I'd also say, I mean, it's, you know, my own experience in the classroom. Man, when you're told you've got to somehow cover all of U.S. history. Yep. In like a few months. Yeah. Yeah, you hit the highlights. You hit the highlights.

Yeah. And you don't do America's gawky teenage years. No, no, you don't. I mean, and how do you, how do you skip the civil war in favor of, you know, some of these other things when so much death and anyhow. So there's a curriculum. Yeah.

Issue there as well. And yet in some ways they'll learn about the civil war, you know, in some ways this period of our history, 1880s into the 1910s is so formative and so important because of the choices that we're making, you know, and then unmaking. I mean, we're doing both of those things. I think it's

really critical that Americans understand that. Well, Ryan, thank you again. You know, it's interesting sitting with you doing this interview, as you will recall, in case any of the listeners haven't put this together, we are colleagues. Our offices are next to each other. Right next door. Right next door. Though this wasn't the case a few years ago. But I remember sitting in your office. We were just chatting.

We were hanging out and saying, hey, I'm thinking about this podcast I might want to start. And I thought it was a great idea. You did. And now look at it. Look at it. It's been so rewarding for me to watch this become what it has become from this idea that we had talked about into this incredibly successful and really influential thing that it's become. And I mean, it's an honor for me to be on it and to discuss this with you. We would talk about it in the office anyway, but might as well do it for an audience. Well, sure. We'll just continue this conversation over probably some ramen tomorrow. It'll be great. That's right. Exactly.

But you've built something great here and, and it really is an honor to, to be a part of it. Well, thank you, sir. I'm of course, just digging for compliments.

No, anytime though. Thank you. All right, man, we'll go ahead and call that a wrap. Thanks so much. Thank you everyone for listening.

Hope you enjoyed getting a little deeper on the law of war and join me in two weeks when I'd like to tell you a story. HTDS is supported by premium membership fans. You can join by clicking the link in the episode description. My gratitude to Kind Souls providing additional funding to help us keep going. And a special thanks to our members

whose monthly gift puts them at producer status. Andy Thompson, Anthony Pizzulo, Art Lane, Beth Christiansen, Bob Drazovic, Brian Goodson, to help us keep going. And a special thanks to our members whose monthly gift puts them at producer status. Chefcoat, Ellen Stewart, Bernie Lowe, George Sherwood, Gurwith Griffin, Henry Brunges, Jake Gilbreth, James G. Bledsoe, Janie McCreary, Jeff Marks, Jennifer Moods, Jennifer Magnolia, Jeremy Wells, Jessica Poppock, Joe Dobis, John Frugal-Dougal, John Boovey, John Keller, John Oliveros, John Radlavich, John Schaefer, John Sheff, Jordan Corbett, Joshua Steiner, Justin M. Spriggs, Justin May, Kristen Pratt, Karen Bartholomew, Cassie Conecco, Kim R., Kyle Decker, Lawrence Neubauer, Linda Cunningham, Mark Ellis, Matthew Mitchell, Matthew Simmons, Melanie Jantholomew, Cassie Koneko, Kim R, Kyle Decker, Lawrence Neubauer, Linda Cunningham, Mark Ellis, Matthew Mitchell, Matthew Simmons, Melanie Jan, Nate Seconder, Nick Caffrell, Noah Hoff, Owen Sedlak, Paul Goringer, Randy Guffrey, Reese Humphreys-Wadsworth, Rick Brown, Sarah Trawick, Samuel Lagasa, Sharon Thiesen, Sean Baines, Steve Williams, Creepy Girl, Tisha Black,

and Zach Jackson.