The prolonged Philippine-American War was unpopular with the American people, as well as with President McKinley's opposition-the Democratic Party in Congress. Even while facing these challenges, the President remained clear on his political aims and the highest levels of military and civilian leadership worked in concert to develop a sound strategy that was properly resourced to fight both the conventional and counterinsurgency campaigns. The ground commanders were then able to execute the tactical actions necessary to achieve the political aims. This relationship between America's civilian and military leaders proved to be the key to victory in a contentious and dynamic war fraught with insurgency which is, historically, incredibly difficult to win. The Philippine-American War appears to be an enigma, fraught with political and domestic controversy. It challenged American ideals and values on imperialism, self-determination, torture, and liberty. The very nature of the war changed from conventional to unconventional. Despite these vast problems within the conflict, the United States was victorious over the Army of Liberation. The US was victorious for many reasons, but one often over looked is the civil military relationship. That relationship, based on a professional military and active civilian leadership, was the foundation from which the conventional and unconventional campaigns were successfully prosecuted to help America win its last counterinsurgency.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)