Military Review English Edition January-February 2017 | Page 49

EXPEDITIONARY LAND POWER

General Scott’s Entrance into Mexico City (1850), hand-painted lithograph, by Carl Nebel. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

regulars and volunteers contributed to the combined
force. The commanding general employed a disciplined
professional infantry to occupy the urban centers and
to train allied Hispanic soldiers. He unleashed federalized Texas Rangers—irregular cavalry who had fought
Mexicans and Indians for decades along embattled
frontiers—to suppress the implacable guerrillas that
preyed on convoys and outposts. Despite their tactical
effectiveness, the Rangers’ brutality toward Hispanic civilians threatened to undermine the expedition’s broader
pacification efforts.21
The final phase of expeditionary warfare enables a
civil authority to “regain its ability to govern and administer to the services and other needs of the population.”22
As seen in recent operations in the Middle East, ideal
transition conditions can be difficult to achieve. They
sometimes require reengagement of forces. Identifying
and empowering legitimate indigenous governing institutions can also be complicated by social and ethnic
fracturing common in war-torn countries. In the end,
expeditionary forces usually attain a manageable
political outcome—as opposed to a perfect one—in
MILITARY REVIEW  January-February 2017

order to allow redeployment of combat power from
the occupied territory.
Despite its precarious position at the close of the
Mexican-American War, the Army’s threat to occupy
northern Mexico indefinitely, with enduring naval support, enabled diplomatic counterparts to negotiate strategic concessions in exchange for a peaceful withdrawal.
The United States paid $15 million for 529,000
square miles across parts of what is now New Mexico,
Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, and California, while
solidifying control of Texas.23 Mexico, under foreign rule
and suffering massive peasant revolts in the Yucatan
region, bitterly conceded the territory to regain sovereignty. The American garrisons then redeployed to
once again secure newly expanded frontiers. Though the
settlement reflected aggrandizement that the international community now would consider unacceptable, the
phased campaign set precedence for similar force projection cycles—some successful and some not—throughout
succeeding centuries.
Given the strategic success of the American expeditions that fought through adversity and uncertainty
47