The Battle of Algiers - a lesson for us all

 I wrote this short film review in 2007.  I keep going back to it especially in light of France and Macron's hostilities towards the Moslem population I am posting here.  

In the film “The Battle of Algiers” (1966), the director Gillo Pontecorvo depicts the push for independence and the rise of nationalism.  He further demonstrates the oppressive and inhuman manner in which occupying forces treat the natives; a past so much alive today.   Not only is the right of the people taken away from them, but also their dignity.  Pontecorvo strongly condemns colonization with his production of this movie.  

He further suggests that the officials of the French Government were the first ones to commit terrorism, for by definition terrorism is an act of violence against civilians, which the French started by placing a bomb in the Casbah killing innocent women and children. the Algiers were not targeting civilians, only the representatives of the government, that is, the policemen, no civilians had been targeted up to that point.  However, when the commissionaire, a representative of the French government started an act of terror, a political reaction was put into play and the National Liberation Front (FLN) started their bombing campaign.

Pontecorvo makes a point for the Arabs in that they resorted to terror and bombing because they did not have the military advantage of the French army/paratroopers.  He would like us to conclude that the bombing of villages and killing of innocent people by French planes was more deplorable than the suicide bombings[i].   Pontecorvo’s message is clear in that although a military battle was won, and the terrorists eliminated, the French were not able to win the ideological battle, nor were they able to crush the peoples’ hope for freedom and independence. Guns can crush a man’s body but not his spirit.   The people did prevail and 5 years later the ultimate war was won by the people of Algiers.

The irony of this movie is that although it reflects events in the 1950’s (and Algeria got it’s independence in (1962), the same mistakes are being made today.  Iraq is a case in point.  The parallels are alarming.  A client state of the United States, the insurgents are fighting the occupiers (coalition forces), and have succeeded in isolating them.  The U.N., Red Cross and every other humanitarian organization has left the country.  The U.S. army is on the defensive whereas not long ago it bragged of an easy victory.  It wants to leave, but must leave in a face-saving manner.   Just like Col. Mathieu’s analogy, the US thought that if they caught the “head of the tapeworm”, it would be the end of terrorism.  Mathieu eliminated every “terrorist”, yet, five years later, the French were driven out of Algeria; Saddam Hossein was caught, humiliated in public view, and the insurgencies, bombings, and deaths escalated.  

Although The Pentagon uses this movie as an excellent source for training in terrorism and counter-terrorism, in reality the real lesson to be learnt here is we must not be occupiers – we should not underestimate nationalism and national pride – that we cannot impose our political will with our military might.  Unless we learn from history, we are doomed to relive it.  This is precisely what is happening today.   In relating this film to the course, one realizes that we are repeating the same mistakes that the French made in trying to “conquer and master” the Algiers.  Our invasion of Iraq was a mistake in thinking that we can occupy their land.  The U.S. has the strongest military in the world but lacks all moral authority.  It will never win wars. 

What I also took away with me, which may not have been Pontecorvo’s message, is that the United Nations has always been, and continues to be, as to eloquently articulated by George W. Bush, irrelevant.  It failed to back the Algiers after their peaceful, 7-day strike, it divided the land in Palestine, it stood by when hundreds of thousands were butchered in Rwanda, it stood by when Iraq gassed Iranians, it stood by when the United States invaded Iraq, and the list goes on. It is always observing, claiming it does not have the power.  But when push comes to shove, and it needs to back a major power, it seems to find the necessary power – it finds relevance.

 

---

[i] This point is conveyed to the audience when  a terror suspect is being questioned by the Western media and he is condemned for suicide bombing.  His answer is “which is worse, the indiscriminate bombing of villages and killing of innocent civilians by French planes or the suicide bombing of police stations? Give us your planes and we will not attack the police stations.”