Kim Wagner gives us a sweeping scope of a historical atrocity that was quickly forgotten. We need to not forget nor repeat these types of events. So Kim dove in and researched this and put it in light compared to other events on the same type of scale. I agree with others that there is a heavy handed bias, regardless of how it's presented by the author, but once knowing that, I think that the history revealed paints a picture worth knowing, even if the author points out his views. These types of novels are always difficult to rate because on the one hand, it happened and we need to know the details, no matter how we, as a nation, look because of it. On the other hand, a picture is worth a thousand words, and up for interpretation of each individual, and authors usually try to explain their point of view or line of sight taken while writing. I appreciate the telling, as we need to know, not only our successes as a nation, but also our failures, so that we can improve and change our trajectory to a higher road. The truth will and should be revealed.
On another note, the events and details within are hard to read, and the people behind the decisions are hard to accept. I do recommend it though.
*I received a copy of this book from NetGalley. This review is my own opinion*

Kim Wagner's Massacre In the Clouds: An American Atrocity and the Erasure of History is built on the adage a picture is worth a thousand words, something Wagner notes early in the introduction. But what is the picture? The picture depicts U.S. Soldiers posed around a corpse filled trench at the top of Mount Dajo on Jolo Islands, Philippines in the aftermath of a counterinsurgency campaign against the Muslim Moro people. This campaign, widely described as a massacre, killed over 1200 people, including women and children, took place in early March 1906. Word of its occurrence quickly reached the wider world and it was both condemned as a stain or nadir of American empire but also misreported and quickly faded from public view. Massacre In the Clouds tells the full history of this event, from Spanish and US attempts to control the island of Jolo, the rising of tensions between the Moros and the US, the timeline of the three day battle, to the reportage and machinations to end the discussion.

After the introduction that provides a broad overview, Wagner moves chronologically first detailing the history of imperial control of the Philippines. Focus then shifts to the history of Jolo as a conquered territory and the perceived need of military backed control. The Moros resisted abolition of (debt based) slavery, forced taxes and colonialist control, and were attacked through regular punitive campaigns. On the jungle island, Bud Dajo was seen as a place of refuge for the Moros, as its cratered peak offered a shelter space with water and had protected them during Spanish assaults. It was rule by the sword with the former Rough Rider and medal of honor holding General Leonard Wood serving in command.

Wagner elucidates the growing tensions, missed opportunities for de-escalation, and key factors in the conflict of cultures. It is a highly researched and, at times, over detailed work. It shows the United States, despite our foundational and ideological myths, acting as any other colonial power. Using our more advanced weaponry as an agent of control and as in other colonial campaigns, their usage as a method of slaughter. Machine guns and artillery were heavily used in the 'battle.' Genocidal wars were not new to the US, as demonstrated by the centuries long campaign to eradicate Native Americans, the late 19th and early 20th century also saw the British and German empires waging colonial campaigns against African peoples that were described as massacres (Battle of Omdurman) and genocides (Herero and Nama genocide).

While it was never forgotten, Wagner's work reasserts the massacre as an act of empire that should be as notorious as My Lai or Wounded Knee. The outrage was there, the Anti-Imperialism League, W.EB. Du Bois and Mark Twain were appalled and stated their views, though Twain was not as public about them. The legacy still lingers, in US military lore and symbols as well as in political criticism of the US by President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines and the hate bating diatribes of Trump.

Recommended to readers or researchers of history; American Empire; Genocide studies or American politics.

At the end of the Spanish-American War, the US obtained the Philippine Islands. The Islands had been fighting a war against the Spanish for many years and was hoping the US would grant them independence. But the US decided that the Islands weren’t civilized enough to go their own way. So the US would have to take over governing the Islands until they had been “civilized”.
From 1898 to 1903 there was a “War of Independence” that the Philippine’s lost natives lost. But in truth many of the islands in the south, especially the majority Muslims of the Sulu Island chain, and the large island of Mindanao, had never been pacified. The local natives were known as Moros who were very proud of their heritage.

The island of Jolo (pronounced Holo) was the closest of the Sulu Islands to Mindanao. The island was run by a number of native Sultans who had an accommodation with the US troops. The Troops had a small contingent at the capital (called Jolo) and their main job was to collect the local head tax.

A group of disaffected natives who resented the Americans refused to pay the tax. They set-up a fortified position in the caldera of an extinct volcano not very far from Jolo. The US soldiers tried to get them to come down, but the natives were adamant.
At a certain point the head of the Troops decided that the only way to get the natives off the mountain would be to take the area by force. This is where things get very bad because the fighters have their wives and children with them. Using artillery and high powered repeating rifles the Troops fought their way up to the top of them mountain.At this point the Troops just swept the natives and their families with overwhelming firepower killing almost everyone on the mountain.

They slaughtered over 1000 natives including woman and children. The Troops claimed that the woman fought with the men and used the children as shields.Not very different from “Wounded Knee” or “My Lai” everything was washed up as best could be and no one ever paid a price for what was done on the mountain.

Have you ever read a book where you agree with the general premise, but you end up disliking the presentation? That is where I was with Kim Wagner's Massacre in the Clouds. The book is billed as the story of the Battle of Bud Dajo in the Philippines in 1906. It is about that but it is also a screed against American imperialism. In fact, Wagner seems to realize this as he even says his book is not "anti-American" but "anti-lie." This struck me as a reader because when you have to state this outright, then perhaps your narrative is a bit too heavy handed.

And I found this all very heavy handed. I personally get very distracted when the author is beating me over the head with their point of view. Criticizing America is not a problem for me if you tell me a fully realized story and prove your point. For example, please see my reviews for Patrick Winn's Narcotopia or Nick Tabor's Africatown. Both books are very critical of American policies but the authors prove that by focusing on the story they are telling. They flesh out their characters, both good and bad, and allow the reader to understand the author's point of view instead of telling them how to think.

This review was hard for me because, like I said, I agree with the general premise. Bud Dajo was a massacre along the likes of My Lai. Leonard Wood sucked and shouldn't have a military base named after him. However, Wagner seems to dismiss anything which might conflict with his point of view. Again, the problem is not that what Wagner thinks is necessarily wrong, it's that he dismisses anything which doesn't fit his narrative instead of clearly disproving it for the reader.

I found myself distracted by wondering what I wasn't being told or what avenue wasn't being analyzed. For example, Wagner points out a specific point where General Pershing takes over, finds himself in a similar situation to Bud Dajo, and chooses another plan of action than the one Wood chose. Pershing explicitly states he will not handle it like it was before. Immediately, Wagner moves onto lambasting Pershing for other things he did in the Philippines. I had to go back and reread because I found myself wondering, "Well, why? Why did Pershing act differently here? Was he a different person than Wood? Was he just being more politically astute? Were his enemies acting differently?" I found myself distracted by side questions often as this was only one example.

Another problem is that Wagner repeatedly tied Bud Dajo to greater American imperialism. It's Wagner's book and that's his prerogative. However, the synopsis for this book is pretty specific that it is about Bud Dajo. This is not a long book and a not insignificant part of it is about American and European imperialism and other massacres like Wounded Knee and My Lai. I felt Bud Dajo's story deserved more focus. It felt like a lot of detail was glossed over to discuss imperialism.

(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and PublicAffairs.)