The Battle of Algiers: History Repeating Itself

Hi everyone!

I've been reading a lot lately about the Algerian war for independence from France. I'm nearly finished with Martin Evans' exhaustive (and exhausting) history of the war, "Algeria: France's Undeclared War" published this month by Oxford University Press, and watched Gillo Pontecarvo's classic 1966 film "The Battle of Algiers." What strikes me are the similarities between what took place in Algeria from 1954-1962 and what is going on in the Middle East today.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Algerian War, it was waged for the most part by the FLN (the National Liberation Front), based in Tunisia and comprised of Algerian nationalists, against France who had first colonized Algeria in 1830. What began as a series of loosely connected guerilla strikes in the Algerian countryside morphed into better coordinated terrorist attacks in Algiers and other metropolitan areas.

The colonization of Algiers had never been particularly easy for the French. In fact, it wasn't until 1870 when France more-or-less successfully put down initial Algerian resistance. After World War Two, as Britain was divesting itself of its colonial territories and France was facing certain defeat in Indochina, the French government decided it was necessary to reaffirm its presence in Algeria. In fact, they even went so far as to annex the North African country as a district of France, making it as integral a part of the country as, say, Normandy or Brittany.

In its formative days, the Algerian resistance was by no means unified. The dominance of the FLN only came after particularly bloody internecine warfare between the FLN and the ALN (the National Liberation Army) that left many thousands of Algerians and whole towns massacred.

The Battle of Algiers solidified the FLN's central role in the conflict, both from a political as well as military standpoint. It began in 1957 as an eight-day general strike after the French and anti-Muslim European activists bombed a neighborhood in the Casbah, the city's densely populated Arab area, that resulted in the deaths of many innocent men, women, and children. This gave rise to a series of coordinated attacks on French government employees and bomb attacks on public places--restaurants, cafes, and a casino--frequented by the Europeans.

This strategy of terrorism strongly resembles the tactics we have seen--and continue to see--from the likes of al Qaeda, for example. Prior to the Battle of Algiers and its aftermath, most of Algeria's nationalist groups restricted their efforts to combating the French occupying forces. Starting in 1957, however, these tactics changed with the intent of stoking terror in the lives of the European community at large. The attacks on public gathering places were carried out by women who were able to change their appearance enough so that they could pass through checkpoints set up throughout the city that separated the European areas from those inhabited by Algerians. We know from recent history in Iraq and Afghanistan that identical tactics are being used against not only U.S. and coalition forces but on native citizens from opposing religious groups.

Another element that strikes me is France's military response. The French, under the command of General Massu, put together a chart that attempted to breakdown the FLN hierarchy. (The Bush administration did a similar thing with playing cards.) The FLN, much like al Qaeda today, organized themselves into separate sects comprised of a leader and one or two seconds-in-command. These individual sects, while working under the FLN umbrella, were divided to such an extent that one sect simply didn't know 1) from whom their orders were being given and 2) who were actually involved in other parallel sects. This made it extremely difficult for anyone to be traced and captured by the French. Interrogations of captured FLN foot soldiers resulted in very little real information because these foot soldiers were kept in ignorance of the FLN hierarchy-at-large. And, finally, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the French occupying forces utilized torture as an integral means of disseminating information.

While the FLN ultimately lost the Battle of Algiers--it would take another 3-4 years of bloody conflict before they won Algerian independence in 1962--where they succeeded was in solidifying native Algerian support, something the French simply failed to do in their subsequent 'winning hearts and minds campaign.'

In the thirty years that ensued from 1962-1992, Algeria enjoyed independence but as time went on and a series of governments--led by resistance leaders Ben Bella, Boumediene, and Mohammed Boudiaf respectively--rose and fell from power, the Algerian people became increasingly disillusioned with the way their country was being run. In 1992, Mohammed Boudiaf cancelled general elections that were poised to be won by a hardline Islamist party, and was promptly assassinated. This led to a devastating civil war between Islamists and more moderate Muslims, the effects of which are still being felt today.

My point in all this is that history really does seem to repeat itself. There is very little difference between the tactics used in Algeria by the FLN in the 1950s and '60s--and the French military response--to those being employed by al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan and currently the opposition in Libya, Syria, and other countries in the throes of the so-called Arab Spring.

Pontecarvo's film "The Battle of Algiers" plays like a documentary in its look, tone, and overall feel. The experience of watching it today is eerie. Throughout, I found myself thinking that this could easily be a newsreel of Baghdad--albeit shot with a black-and-white camera--or any other country in today's Arab World. As a blueprint for today's Islamic insurgency, it is incredibly prescient and hauntingly relevant.

Ciao.

Contradiction and Continued Suppression in the Middle East

Hi everyone!

While the United States prepares for its first Republican Party caucus in Iowa tomorrow – a reflection of the democratic processes upon which the country was founded but doesn’t always follow through on – turmoil in the Middle East continues.

In Syria, the Arab League delegation continues its lame duck observer mission while more and more criticism is launched at it from within the Arab world. On Sunday, the 88-member Arab Parliament, which has no real power over the Arab League beyond serving as a voice of reason, issued a statement calling for the end of the observer mission. Rather than preventing or ending the violent suppression of Syrian protesters, if anything, the observers have inadvertently increased the intensity of the government crackdown that has killed more than 5,000 people since the start of the uprising last March and 150 reported killed since the Arab League delegation arrived last Tuesday. The suspicion is that the only reason Assad agreed to the observer mission is so he can buy more time before more stringent outside sanctions are levied against his government.

Meanwhile, in Egypt, the process of democratic oppression continued yesterday as the military-led government further justified its raids on the offices of nonprofit organizations in Cairo.  Faiza Abu El-Naga, civilian cabinet official in charge of international relations, claimed that the raids were part of an ongoing investigation into the corruption of the Mubarak regime. The groups, Ms. Naga alleges, received funding without the knowledge of the Egyptian government, which directly—according to Ms. Naga—undermines it. Whether or not anyone really believes this is anyone’s guess, but the fear is that further raids on any organization that acts independently for the betterment of human rights in Egypt will soon be stifled altogether.

Over in Bahrain, violence overwhelmed the funeral of a 15-year-old protester who was killed on Saturday by a tear gas canister—fired by government troops—that reportedly struck him in the chest.  It’s no surprise that Bahrain’s Interior Ministry has denied these accusations. I continue to find it appalling that the U.S. continues to allow such injustice to go on in Bahrain for the sake of not offending or jeopardizing relations with Saudi Arabia. This is just another example of the U.S.’s contradictory approach to Middle Eastern politics. It is all very well for the Obama administration to support the democracy movement in Libya, for example, whose former leader was a decades-long thorn in the U.S.’s side. But because the U.S. relies on the Saudis to support and promote its Middle Eastern foreign policy, it will not publicly voice support for the Bahraini protesters out of fear of disturbing U.S.-Saudi relations. While the U.S. did criticize Saudi Arabia for sending in troops to put down the initial Bahraini protests last spring, the criticism felt half-hearted and done more from a sense of obligation than genuine concern.

At any rate, it is clear that what began a year ago and evolved into the Arab Spring is still ongoing. I think 2012 will continue to bring us tremendous change, not just in the Middle East but in Russia, Europe, and the United States as well. Whether that change is for the good or for the worse, is still anyone’s guess. Regardless, I’ll be watching closely.

Ciao.

From the Arab Spring to the Russian Winter: 2011 in Review

Hi everyone!

Hard to believe it's the end of another year...and what an eventful year 2011 has been. From an international perspective, 2011 brought about waves of tremendous change: from Tunis to Cairo, Tripoli to Damascus, Benghazi to Moscow and beyond, the world witnessed demonstration after demonstration that affirmed and reaffirmed the power of the individual and collective voice to move mountains and bring about positive change. From the Arab Spring to the Russian Winter, it seemed not a day went by when we weren't greeted with incredible scenes of personal courage spurred on by gross government abuse and corruption.

2011 wasn't a good year for dictators. We saw the demise of longtime Libyan strongman and resident crazy Muammar Qaddafi; the overthrow of Egyptian dictator and Western ally Hosni Mubarak; and the fall of Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In the midst of all this, we witnessed the deaths of terrorist icon Osama bin Laden and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il. 2011 ended with the largest anti-government demonstrations in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union and, for the first time in eight years, Prime Minister Putin's iron grip on the Kremlin may be loosening as another round of protests has been called for February.

But there remains a lot to be done. As we count down the final hours to 2012, Syrian President Bashir Assad seems determined to maintain control of his country by any and all means possible. While on the one hand he invites representatives from the Arab League to observe his "compliance" with an international mandate to cut back on the violence with which his government handles the protesters, on the other he sends troops to open fire on peaceful protesters in Hama and Homs a mere two-three blocks away from the Arab League delegation. Innocent Syrian men, women, and children are being mowed down in cold blood while the Arab League observers remark that nothing seems to be out of order. I suppose this isn't surprising when the delegation itself is led by Sudanese General Mustafa al-Dabi who has, no doubt, more than his share of blood on his hands from his work in support of Sudanese dictator Omar al-Bashir. (Darfur, anyone?)

Unfortunately, things aren't looking so great in Egypt either. The interim military-led government recently launched a series of raids on foreign and domestic NGOs in Cairo, stealing computers and documents and preventing humanitarian aid workers from doing their work. Iran appears to be flexing its muscles again in the wake of threatened sanctions against its banking industry by threatening to cut off access to the Strait of Hormuz, thus disrupting the flow and transport of oil to the rest of the world. North Korea continues to assure the smooth transition of power to Kim Jong-il's youngest son Kim Jong-un, who vowed to continue his government's policy of zero cooperation with South Korea. The future is still up-in-the-air in Russia as well. Will Alexei Navalny and the tens of thousands who support him successfully alter the outcome of March's presidential elections? ... or will they and the rest of the democratic world be sorely disappointed?

And, of course, here in the US we face another election year. Will Obama's sadly underwhelming and arguably rather inept four years in office be awarded another term, or will we see the election of Republican Mitt Romney, who would be the nation's first Mormon president? Next week's upcoming Iowa caucus will officially launch the 2012 presidential race.

Hold on, folks...if you thought 2011 was a wild ride, wait till you see 2012!

Ciao.

Conflict for the Good of Change

Privet vsem!

Reading the Sunday papers this morning I was once again struck by the volatility shaking much of the world today. Of course, one could argue that there's never been a time when the world hasn't been riven by conflict--both petty and catastrophic. As humans, we seem to thrive on it. If we don't have enough drama in our lives we seek it out on television, in our relationships with friends, family, co-workers, in the daily news... But some conflict is good. Some conflict is necessary. Conflict is what forces and drives change...for better and for worse, though ideally it is for the better.

Take, for example, the top story in today's New York Times. The main headline reads: "Libya's Civilian Toll, Denied by NATO: Scores of Unintended Casualties, and a Reluctance to Investigate." It seems that while NATO was helping to bomb the hell out of Qaddafi's loyalist forces on behalf of the rebels, NATO pilots made egregious errors that resulted in anywhere from 40 to 70 civilian deaths, in some instances, wiping out whole families. Granted, there was at least one case where Qadaffi's top brass deliberately met in civilian areas and this is an area of the world where civilians have been used more often that anyone would care to admit as human shields: just look at the staggering number of civilian deaths in the Iran-Iraq War. A margin of error is to be expected. And while no one likes to read about innocent people being slaughtered in the name of a good cause (as I believe the overthrow of Qadaffi and his family to have been), collateral damage is almost unavoidable. It remains to be seen what the outcome in Libya will be, what with reports of rival rebel groups shooting it out in the streets of Tripoli while U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with Libya's interim government (which also happened to be the first time a U.S. Defense Secretary has ever visited Libya), but hopefully Libya will right itself after surviving for years as a pariah state under Qadaffi. So...out of conflict--fingers crossed--comes good.

In nearby Egypt, Cairo was rocked by yet another day of violence as the military continued to crack down on protestors occupying Tahrir Square and nearby government buildings. While the moral advantage is definitely with the protestors, an article I read today said that many average Cairenes are getting fed up with the upheaval as it increasingly interferes with their daily lives. People can't get to work because of the protests and subsequent government crackdown, and there were reported cases of non-protestors being rounded up and beaten by the military police in a case of merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. One Egyptian blogger posted a particularly ominous Tweet this morning that said something along the lines of Tahrir Square being eerily quiet and dark tonight, with an impending sense of blood about to be shed soon. But again, we have conflict out of which--judging by the relatively peaceful elections--good is coming.

And then finally in Russia yesterday in an address to the United Russia party, for the first time President Dmitri Medvedev spoke out almost in support of the 50,000 protestors who came out en masse last weekend against the recent fraudulent elections there. Mr. Medvedev said it was time to start listening to the voices of the people on the street, as those voices represented the true desires of the Russian people. Putin, of course, was nowhere to be seen. Could this be a sign of a rift between the top Russian powers-that-be? Medvedev has always come across as a reasonable sort. The question is, if he continues to endorse the protestors, is his job as prime minister once Putin takes over the presidency in jeopardy? But then, maybe that wouldn't be such a change as it's clear Putin has always been top brass despite the job title.

So, we have three scenarios here where conflict has the potential to resolve itself in favor of good. A lot remains to be seen. But I'd like to think the world as a whole is taking a step in the right direction.

Ciao.

QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Is collateral damage to be expected in the pursuit of positive change? Why or why not?"