France claimed their bright, shiny new commander would turn things around in Algiers too

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/03/26/the_battle_of_algiers_and_iraq/8522/

'The Battle of Algiers' and Iraq

I have often heard that the 1966 movie, "The Battle of Algiers," has been viewed in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the U.S. government to see what lessons it holds for the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq. I decided, then, that I should view the film, too. I do not know what lessons, if any, the American government may have learned from the film. It struck me, though, that there are several sobering lessons in it.

"The Battle of Algiers" (or "La Bataille d'Alger," as it is actually named in French) is an account of the conflict between France seeking to retain control of Algeria as a French department and the Algerians led by the National Liberation Front (or FLN – its commonly known French initials) seeking independence. (The film was released on DVD in the United States by the Criterion Collection in 2004). snip

In addition, although there were differences on the Algerian side, the film does not portray them. The FLN was the clear winner after the French left Algeria in 1962 where it held power for decades. This is in stark contrast to Iraq which is sharply divided among various Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab, and Kurdish groups. If American forces leave, it is not at all clear who will rule Iraq or even whether Iraq will remain united.

There are, on the other hand, important similarities between the previous conflict portrayed in the film and the current one in Iraq. The film portrays how while denying that they used torture, the French did indeed use it to extract information from captured insurgents in order to identify and eliminate others in the FLN. The admission by the George W. Bush administration that it uses water boarding and other "enhanced techniques" against "terrorists" (who sometimes turn out not to be ones) but denial that these constitute torture is an eerie – and appalling – similarity.

Much of the film – until about the last 10 minutes – portrays how through bringing in a new, more capable military commander (Colonel Mathieu), the French were able to turn the tables against the FLN and credibly claim to be winning the war by 1957. After a period of seeming calm, however, the insurgency broke out anew in 1960 and the French withdrew in 1962.

In Iraq, the Bush administration is similarly claiming to be winning the war after General David Petraeus took over command of U.S. forces in Iraq in early 2007 at the commencement of the "surge" of additional U.S. troops there. The question that watching "The Battle of Algiers" raises is whether this claim is true, or if instead the Iraqi conflict is merely witnessing a temporary lull before insurgency bursts forth anew.

[DemoTex]

1. And, a few years earlier (1954), at Dien Bien Phu: new man, new plan .. Gen. Henri Navarre.

By March of 1954, French Col. Christian de Castries' force of 16,000 soldiers were garrisoned at Dien Bien Phu. The architect of the new strategy was Gen. Henri Navarre, who had taken over as the commander-in-chief of the French Expeditionary Corps in Indochina.

Navarre wanted to defend northern Vietnam and Laos, but he also hoped to draw Giap’s elusive Vietminh into a large-scale, set-piece confrontation. He believed that his paratroopers, foreign legionnaires, armored vehicles, and fighter-bombers would destroy the communist Vietminh once and for all. And he believed that the Dien Bien Phu garrison could always be supplied by air (promises of support from the USAF 7th AF at Clark AFB, Philippine Islands, helped foment that fatally flawed misconception .. promised air support that never came).

Navarre, however, had overestimated his force’s strength and underestimated the tenacity of the Vietminh. The rest, as the man said, is history. But neither France nor the US learned a damn thing from the tragic disaster at Dien Bien Phu.

BTW: I bought "The Battle of Algiers" a few months back. It is a must-see film.

[NNN0LHI]

2. The only film in Oscar history to be a nominee in two separate non-consecutive years

http://imdb.com/title/tt0058946/

This film was shot like a documentary. It was banned in France, and the torture scenes were cut in the US and UK.


In 2003, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon screened this film for officers and civilian experts who were discussing the challenges faced by the US military forces in Iraq. The flier inviting guests to the screening read: "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas".


The only film in Oscar history to be a nominee in two separate non-consecutive years. It was a foreign film nominee for 1966, and then a nominee for screenplay and direction for 1968.