First Question

"By the way Jerry, I'm reading Sweeney's book about Mangas. It seems to me that Sweeney is a bit sympathetic to Mangas when contrasted by what Mangas did. Do you have that impression from his book? I like it but it seems that Sweeney gives Mangas a pass or downplays what he was. A cold-blooded killer and thief who ran when faced with a strong opponent. I've read that the Comanches and Kiowa considered the Apaches as inferior fighters. Any thoughts on my thinking?"

I'm posting this, & will send to Edwin Sweeney, to see if he wants to respond.
On my first reading of "Mangas Coloradas: Chief Of The Chiricahua Apache," I felt there was an enormous amount of detail -- too much. That was five years ago. Even so, I knew immediately that Edwin Sweeney set very high standards for documentation, and appreciated the work he had done to include so many details of Mangas' early history with the Spanish and Mexicans (and his ancestors, too).
On second reading, the details were just right. Sweeney provided all kinds of "track marks" as I call them, for me to follow, as I dissected the enormous bibliography he has to back up his sentiments on Mangas. He follows in the line of Dan Thrapp. As such, both have found a view of their own, but I think have attempted to be neutral about the Apache.
It appears Mangas made several attempts to work with the Mexicans and Americans, during his time on earth. He had plenty of examples of how the Mexicans, perhaps the Spanish (before Mexico seceded from Spain), and Americans, had dealt with him with treachery. On the other hand, there are many examples of his cruelty, when dealing with those different conquering groups. He was horribly cruel to Spanish and Mexicans.
I would have to say that just about every Apache leader was cruel to prisoners. There's one fact that sticks out in my view about the Chiricahua: by being so intransigent, and determined to hold on to their lands, they suffered greatly as a result. Had they elected to cease raiding life around the end of the Civil War (after Mangas had been assassinated), they would have reaped the rewards of the Mescalero. The Mescalero were essentially given a reservation generally in their own "homeland.'
There were many down sides to reservation life. The Mescalero and Jicarilla did get reservations close to home. The Chiricahua, and Mangas was certainly a representative of this mind set, just wouldn't surrender. Their fate was Florida; Mount Vernon Barracks, Mobile, AL; Ft. Sill; then Ft. Sill & Mescalero, all related to their unwillingness to submit.
Nothing wrong with that, but the consequences kept the Chiricahua out of Arizona and certainly constrained them in New Mexico. I've met some Chiricahuas who were afraid to come to modern New Mexico until say, 2002, because they feared what White People would do to them.
Mangas was very cruel. Even so, it's hard to not identify with such a complex character. He did what a leader was expected to do when strangers kept lying, cheating, and stealing, to his people. Mangas gave Spanish, Mexicans and Americans what they deserved.
In the end, he let his guard down, or just didn't care anymore, about his own life, and was assassinated for it. From Gen. Carleton, Col. West, etc., there was no love lost because of the many atrocities Mangas perpetrated in AZ and NM territories. No mercy asked, no mercy given. I don't know what others besides Carelton and West would have done.
Gen. O.O. Howard, for instance, could have arranged for an assassination of Cochise, sometime or other, along the lines of Mangas' demise. However, it would have been more difficult, since Cochise was far more guarded than Mangas. Howard tried very hard to keep his word with Cochise. Carleton could have cared less about such niceties. He believed the Apache were like dinosaurs ... they'd become extinct.
I'd personally say, my views on Mangas are neutral, in so far as: he probably gave as much as he got. At that point, how would I feel if I'd grown up here? With these vast open spaces that would have all been in my knowledge as "ours" I doubt I'd wanted to give it all up to people of questionable morals.
It seems that one common thread emerges with people who tried to work with the Apaches rather than exterminate them is: within the context of their own culture, cruelty was expected. Truces were, at best, made only between one leader and their enemies. If Mangas' group worked a truce with Janos, then the Nednai wouldn't have felt any obligation to honor it. Mangas tried to control his warriors, but couldn't, or wouldn't. He had to know his enemies would retaliate for any raiding or stealing incidents. So, in that regard, he was disingenuous.
Once all these various Apache groups got comingled, Apaches were fair game and so were Mexicans and Americans. Mangas Coloradas knew he had to raid to live. Within that context, he probably saw no basis to believe Mexicans and Americans, in their cultural framework, would do anything to kill Apache raiders.
"Fight to the death" mentality defined Chiricahua Apaches, but made less sense to Mescaleros, Lipans, and Jicarilla, at some point.
The Chiricahuas never completely stopped raiding - forever. Other groups did, and submitted to the European paradigm of settling down and becoming different Native Americans.
If I characterize the dilemma they faced like that, does that mean I'm sympathetic to the Apaches?
I guess it does, but the consequences of the "never stop raiding" approach to life within the new culture (western European), also led to Chiricahua and Nednai Apache culture being crushed.
If I stop drinking ... and have good results in sobriety ... but then decide, after one year, or ten, or even fifteen, that I can drink again, and cause havoc as soon as I start drinking again, is it my problem if I wind up in jail, hospitals, mental institutions? Is my problem drinking, or is it "staying stopped drinking."
If I've always gotten into trouble drinking, does it make sense to drink again, after having stopped? No, it doesn't. But, there are millions of alcoholics who simply won't stay stopped, no matter how destructive the consequences. That's the nature of alcoholism. Most die as a consequence of not being able to "stay stopped."
Apaches made conscious decisions to raid and raiding meant killing.
The other Apache "got it" that that no longer worked, and "gave up."
Mangas Coloradas tried to give up, but there were too many cultural factors that made that impossible in his time. The Chiricahua reaped what they sowed, whenever they failed to "stay stopped." In very severe circumstances, other Apaches "stayed stopped." Their lives were hard, but they came through it, albeit, differently. I think every Apache leader knew this was their fate, if they failed to "stay stopped."
I don't know what Edwin Sweeney would say.
Also, the Viet Cong normally "fled" after initiating a fire fight with Americans. That was the only way they could survive. The Apache weren't cowardly. They simply raided when they had the advantage, and fled when they didn't. That's the nature of counter insurgency warfare.