It has since been ascertained that the expediency of adopting guerrilla warfare from the inception of hostilities was seriously discussed by the native leaders, and advocated with much emphasis as the system best adapted to the peculiar conditions of the struggle. It was finally determined, however, that a concentrated field army, conducting regular operations, would, in the event of success, attract the favorable attention of the world, and be accepted as a practical demonstration of capacity for organization and self-government. The disbandment of the field army, therefore, having been a subject of contemplation from the start, the actual event, in pursuance of the deliberate action of the council of war in Bayambang about November 12, 1899 (already hereinbefore noticed), was not regarded by Filipinos in the light of a calamity, but simply as a transition from one form of action to another; a change which by many was regarded as a positive advantage, and was relied upon to accomplish more effectively the end in view. The Filipino idea behind the dissolution of their field army was not at the time of the occurrence well understood in the American camp. As a consequence, misleading conclusions were reached to the effect that the insurrection itself had been destroyed, and that it only remained to sweep up the fag ends of the rebel army by a system of police administration not likely to be either onerous or dangerous. [331] In his report covering the period from May 5th, to October 1, 1900, General MacArthur says of the policy of resistance above outlined: The country affords great advantages for the practical development of such a policy. The practice of discarding the uniform enables the insurgents to appear and disappear almost at their convenience. At one time they are in the ranks as soldiers, and immediately thereafter are within the American lines in the attitude of peaceful natives, absorbed in a dense mass of sympathetic people. [332]