Trump’s ignorance was revealed yet again this past week with his bizarre praise of General John J. Pershing whose supposed example he cited as a model in the war on terror. Here is what Trump said:
“General Pershing was a rough guy, He caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage…and he took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and dipped 50 bullets in pig’s blood. You heard about that? He took 50 bullets and dipped them in pig’s blood [which is considered haram]. And he has his men load up their rifles and he lined up the 50 people and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said, you go back to your people and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years there wasn’t a problem. We’ve got to start getting tough and we’ve got to start being vigilant and we’ve got to start using our heads or we’re not gonna have a country, folks.”
There’s only one problem with Trump’s inspirational tale: There is no evidence it ever happened. Snopes.com describes this as a common urban legend. It is actually far removed from the way that Captain Pershing dealt with the Moros, the Muslims in the Philippines, in the early years of the 20th century. As I wrote in my book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, “Captain Pershing preferred to win over the Moros with outstretched hand rather than mailed fist. So successful was his campaign that he was made a datto, or chieftain.”
In other words, Pershing’s approach was the very opposite of what Trump claimed. Although Pershing was not afraid to use force if necessary, he understood that the Moros could not simply be terrorized into acquiescence to American rule and that excessive brutality could backfire.
It is offensive that Trump is praising Pershing for war crimes he didn’t commit and simply gobsmacking that Trump thinks that Pershing could have ended the Moro insurrection for 25 years simply by executing 49 prisoners. In fact, while Pershing did help to quell the Moro uprising using a balanced counterinsurgency approach, it never truly ended; the Muslim insurrection in the Philippines continues to this day, a fact of which Trump is undoubtedly unaware.
“Truth Challenged” He spent so long as a liberal he just can’t get over this requirement. The next step a flippy flopper moderate Republican. He can call himself anything he wants. He was too busy running his businesses and TV career to really learn anything about the most important issues, so out of his mouth come the dumbest things. Then when pointed out he drops to calling names, and using liberal talking points about the other candidates, see first two words.
@kitt –
Besides being “Truth Challenged”, Trump is also “History and Fact Challenged”. He pretends he knows history and many facts (big and little). Instead, Trump as an “internet understanding” of history and fact. If it’s on Twitter, FB, and Instagram, it has to be true. If there is a Wikipedia entry, it’s factual.
The Moros Insurrection in the Philippines is not widely taught in US History classes at either the HS and collegiate level. I knew of the Moros Insurrection after reading a novel about it in high school (not part of the curricula). I read more about it while learning about COIN strategies and tactics when I was in the military. I laughed about what Trump said when I read it. If Trump has bright advisers around him, they’re stealing him blind.
@David: His followers stalk social media, he has many twitter follows that attack and are attempting to get some dissenting voices banned.
Doesn’t matter really most will vote even if he becomes the nom. Its the Dems that will sit home rather than vote for either of their candidates, there will always be the diehards.
One thing his advisors may have told him is to say “I have to look into that”, now the media is saying he would not disavow the former KKK guy.
@kitt –
That is so true about his followers stalking on social media. One of my internet acquaintances, she’s an excellent writer but made no effort to hide her liberal politics and candidate preferences. She found many of her friends on FB are not that; they have suddenly discovered her liberal politics and get into their Trump schtick. To me that’s disingenuous since she made no effort to hide her politics. Her and I get along well, but we just don’t discuss it.
What is it lately? An epidemic? Quoting Amy Sheridan, quoting Snopes, quoting The Daily Currant. All of these questionable sources in an attempt to prove a point. How can anyone prove their point by quoting false information. Is the “establishment’ so desperate to prove Trump is Trump that they resort to totally unreliable sources for their support? Geez………
After a little research, I find several sources that repeat many stories about Pershing, troops under him, Muslims, Pigs blood, Trumps story was just one version of many many stories from Pershing’s time in the Philipines. No one says that they can prove IT DID NOT HAPPEN, they just conclude that since Trump said it, it must be wrong. But, from a logical standpoint, there is very many sources of evidence that pigs blood was used regularly within those years and the conflicts and that it is much more likely that the incident is true rather than that it is false. There is no absolute proof that it is false, there is much evidence that many elements of it are true. A logical person would conclude from the many instances of evidence that the preponderance of the evidence is that it did happen.
@David: I have heard of people posting they are not for Trump and requesting to be un-friended if it bothered them. I dont face book.