

Michael T. Kaufman, "What Does the Pentagon See in 'Battle of Algiers'?"
(The New York Times, September 7, 2003)<<
Horne's book is a devastating indictment of colonialism. It has now been
reissued as a paperback and I strongly recommend it. Here's a review by
Thomas Ricks, the Washington Post author of "Fiasco", a celebrated attack
on the war in Iraq.
The Washington Post
November 19, 2006 Sunday
Aftershocks; A classic on France's losing fight against Arab rebels
contains troubling echoes of Iraq today.
Reviewed by Thomas E. Ricks
A SAVAGE WAR OF PEACE
Algeria 1954-1962
By Alistair Horne
New York Review Books. 608 pp. Paperback, $19.95
When Americans talk about the raging insurgency in Iraq, they often draw
parallels with the Vietnam War, but a better analogy is probably the French
war against nationalist rebels in Algeria from 1954 to 1962. That's one
reason why the landmark history of that conflict, Alistair Horne's A Savage
War of Peace, has been an underground bestseller among U.S. military
officers over the last three years, with used copies selling on Amazon.com
for $150. Indeed, "Algeria" has become almost a codeword among U.S.
counterinsurgency specialists -- a shorthand for the depth and complexity
of the mess we face in Iraq. Earlier this year, I referred to Horne's book
while conversing with one such expert in Taji, Iraq, and got a grim nod of
agreement.
Now a new paperback edition of Horne's 1977 classic has been issued,
cutting the price of wisdom to a more reasonable $19.95. In a new preface,
Horne makes the connection to Iraq explicit. First, he notes, the Algerian
insurgents fighting to end France's colonial control over the country
avoided taking on the French army directly; instead, they attacked the
police and other more vulnerable targets, thereby demoralizing local
supporters of the French presence. Second, Algeria's porous borders greatly
aided the insurgents, who could receive reinforcements, arms and sanctuary
from neighboring countries such as Tunisia and Morocco. Third, and most
emphatically, he writes that "torture should never, never, never be
resorted to by any Western society."
Those three parallels are provocative enough, as far as they go. But many
other, perhaps less obvious points in Horne's lucid, well-organized history
may do even more to deepen our understanding of the Iraq War.
Again and again, Horne wrote passages about the French in Algeria that
could describe the U.S. military in Iraq. As I wrote about the U.S. Army's
big "cordon-and-sweep" operations that detained tens of thousands of
civilian Iraqi males in the Sunni Triangle in the fall of 2003, I
remembered Horne: "This is the way an administration caught with its pants
down reacts under such circumstances. . . . First comes the mass
indiscriminate round-up of suspects, most of them innocent but converted
into ardent militants by the fact of their imprisonment."
Like the Americans in Iraq, the French in Algeria consistently
misunderstood the nature of the opposition, focusing too much on supposed
foreign support and too little on the local roots of the insurgency. Horne
also detected a distinctly familiar pattern of official optimism among
French officials, who were quick to declare their war "virtually over" four
years before it ended in their defeat.
Moreover, A Savage War of Peace draws an important distinction between
torture by the police and torture by the military. The former damages
mainly individuals and need not be hugely damaging to the war effort; the
latter, Horne quotes a former French officer as saying, involves the honor
of the nation -- as it did at Abu Ghraib and other facilities where Iraqis
were abused by American soldiers in 2003-04.
Along the way, Horne offers three other comments that are not particularly
encouraging. First, when considering the Bush administration's policy of
having U.S. forces stand down as newly trained Iraqi forces stand up, it is
worth noting that throughout the eight years of the Algerian war, more
Algerians were fighting on the French side than on the rebel side -- and
the French still lost.
Second, when trying to understand Iraq's current violence, it is good to
recall Horne's comment that "such a simultaneous internal 'civil war' "
often rages alongside a "revolutionary struggle against an external enemy."
Finally, when we hear U.S. military officers arguing that they achieved
their mission in Iraq but that the rest of the U.S. government failed or
the will of the American people faltered, remember Horne's quotation from a
French general, Jacques de Bollardière, who was critical of his army's
performance: "Instead of coldly analysing with courageous lucidity its
tactical and strategic errors, it gave itself up to a too human inclination
and tried -- not without reason, however -- to excuse its mistakes by the
faults of civil authority and public opinion."
To be sure, there are huge differences between the two wars. Most notably,
the United States isn't a colonial power in Iraq, seeking to maintain a
presence of troops and settlers as long as possible. Rather, in Iraq,
victory would consist of getting U.S. personnel out while leaving behind a
relatively friendly, open, stable and independent government. And while
elements of the French military tried to assassinate French President
Charles de Gaulle for pulling out from what he termed "a bottomless
quagmire," there is little fear that U.S. officers will go down that
rebellious road.
But there are numerous suggestive parallels -- mainly relating to
conventional Western militaries fighting primarily urban insurgencies in
Arab cultures while support for their wars dwindles back home and while the
insurgents hope to outlast their better-armed opponents. As such, anyone
interested in Iraq should read this book immediately. *
Thomas E. Ricks, a Washington Post military correspondent who has reported
frequently from Iraq, is the author of "Fiasco: The American Military
Adventure in Iraq."
Page Information
|
Wiki Information |
Recent PBwiki Blog Posts |