The Texas
Revolution
As I am a veteran of twenty years in the military, I am
often drawn to historical accounts of military engagements. As a result, the Texas Revolution became an
obvious choice for my second response essay.
There are several factors that come to mind when examining
Texas Revolution combatants and warfare with the eyes of a modern armed forces
veteran. It is hard not to contrast
military actions of two centuries ago with those with which I am familiar.
During the fight with Mexico in 1835-36, the majority of
the Texas fighting force were not professional soldiers. It was largely composed of a militia of volunteers,
colonists, and farmers. The actual
numbers of the small force varied drastically since members were not
conscripted and virtually came and went as they pleased. Soldiers went on furlough, deserted, changed
units, or simply went home, at their own discretion. In addition, the leaders of the
Revolutionary Army were elected by the units and the democratic nature of these
components did not lend itself to
organization or discipline. Failure to
obey orders to the point of actual
mutiny ran rampant among its ranks. A
revolving door of commanders did not improve the effectiveness. Any efforts to organize a professional
military organization met with funding inadequacies.
The only way this small, ragtag group was able to defeat
the much more powerful Mexican Army is that the latter was in similar
disarray. Though better equipped and
trained, fundamental political differences in Mexico between the Centralists
and Federalists continued to take focus away from quelling the Texas
revolt. Allegiances were divided between
the population, military and civilian
leadership, and the troops, reducing their capabilities in the north against an
inferior force. Mexico had its own
instability of leadership. The Texas
Revolution was the beneficiary of a perfect storm.
Another element that piqued my interest was the brutality
with reference to prisoners of war. It
seemed the Texas policy towards them was at the discretion of the local
commander. Some were released, others
held captive, and still others executed.
The Mexicans appeared to have had orders from the highest authority to
execute detainees. These directives were
not always carried out, but more often than not they were. I believe this might have been due to the
Mexican government treating the Texans more as terrorists than with the deference
afforded a respected military force. The
Texans sometimes put to death surrendered Mexican soldiers in retaliation from
the murder of their own.
We have a similar modern argument as to whether captured
terrorists are to be treated as prisoners of war in accordance with the Geneva
Convention. Though we do not execute
them, we have tortured and humiliated them, using the distinction between a
criminal and a soldier as justification.
As with most nineteenth century warfare, much of the
fighting in the Texas Revolution was boots on the ground, face to face and hand
to hand combat. Today's warfare can be
conducted by piloting drones from the safety of a command center thousands of
miles from the battlefield. This brings
up some major discussions with respect
to Just War Theory. It is much easier to
kill an enemy when you don't have to look into his eyes and are not putting
your own personnel in harm's way. In
those days, senior officers actually led troops into battle and often died
alongside them. In today's military,
generals seldom venture to the front lines unless they have been deemed safe
enough for a USO show.
No comments:
Post a Comment