French Counterinsurgency Failures in the Algerian War of 1954-62

France had a general distrust of Germany. There was a great fear that if more serious measures to stop Germany were not made then the next generation would be seeking a war of revenge. The French public opinion earnestly desired a just peace, and would not take up arms again until compelled by a clear threat.3 This pacifism played an extremely important role in French policy. "Whether from ignorance or misunderstanding, many of the French people were apathetic, or just did not care enough to want action."4 The people were divided into two forces, the Left and Right, the Right favoring

← Doyle, William. The French Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. 2001

The external thread of foreign armies on French soil and the internal threat to the french revolutionary government , which

Applebaum's second argument for eliminating the torture policy is that it constantly enables the enemy to build tolerance for the torture. Applebaum uses the example of “radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.” This example clearly illustrates the fault within the misconception that torture is ultimately effective. There can also be unnoticed and lasting consequences to torture, that in turn, affect more than the individual country. The global stigma that is labeled upon any country that participates in or allows the torture of wartime prisoners is remarkably important. The public and self image that the respective country acquires, affects

People try to help people when sometimes, no help is needed. During the 1800's, the more developed countries wished to expand and help to develop other nations. They did this by the process called imperialism. One of these developed countries was France, who imperialized Algeria. They did this for many reasons such as nationalism and the White Man's Burden. French Imperialism on Algeria was harmful during and after Algerian independence politically, socially and economically. It was harmful during because politically, the French took over Algeria by force and forced them to do their work. Socially harmful because the Algerians morals and way of life depleted. And economically because they were given jobs equal to lower class citizens, and did not help their economy. After independence, Algeria did not keep the changes that France had previously made politically, socially and economically. Making the whole process harmful to Algeria

After watching Frontlines documentary Secrets, Politics and Torture one is automatically faced with mixed views on the major issue, torture, discussed throughout the documentary. At first it shows the different ways our government tries to protect our country and national security, but as one continues to watch the documentary you see how our government attempts to manipulate rules and scenarios in order to help protect the CIA’s inappropriate behavior. On the one hand it is easy to understand why it was unnecessary to torture the prisoners we held captive, but in another light we must also understand the real reasons for acting with such cruel behavior.

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

The abuse of power transcended national boarders as the U.S. government turned a blind eye to American troops engaged in the unleashed and unchecked torture of prisoners of war. The use of torture is not in the national interest, as it has been found that the intelligence gained through torture is unreliable. Like the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, America consistently presses or even oversteps its Constitutional boundaries in times of national security.

Freedom, be it in the sphere of civil, economic, political or social, should be an undisputed right of all peoples, regardless of that person’s country, be it of origin or current, their race, be it white or black, their class, be it poor or wealthy, and whatsoever their religious beliefs may be. Historically, peoples that have had these rights withheld from them are often inclined to fight for that deemed unalienable, either by word, protest, or, if strained enough, through revolution. Such is the case with the bloody French Revolution (1789-1799) and the long time coming Haitian Revolution (1791-1804). Both countries, intimate with the obstruction of their presumed natural law, were quite ready to offer opposition to their oppressors, for this was the time of questioning one’s life, rules and experience through the ideals placed forward by the Enlightenment. Each nation, although much more so the French, were altered by these ethics to the extent of the formation of a new brand of society.

question: To what degree is torture valuable? How do foreign affairs in Vietnam justify public or private tactical behavior.

When you think about France, what do you usually envision? Do you think of the center of fashion and design, the rolling vineyards of Bordeaux, or maybe the smooth language of love? Better yet do you think about a government formed with the Constitution that was in many ways is a framework for that of the United States of America, or a formidable military and an affluent economy. You would be correct if you had said any of the above. However, did you know that 1940’s France was a powder keg teetering on the verge of chaos in a tumultuous world: led by a vastly weakened military, a marionette government, and a virtually nonexistent economy?

The torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib has been characterized as an isolated incident and blamed on a few “bad apples.” However, as similar reports of war crimes throughout Iraq continue to surface, it seems increasingly apparent that in the anxious post-9/11 context, the low-level agents who carried out such violence were designed to function in this way. This paper suggests that the U.S. military transformed ordinary soldiers into the cruel and ruthless guards at Abu Ghraib through the use of basic recruitment and training strategies, general authorizations for increased aggression and violence after 9/11, specific authorizations for more aggressive interrogations, a range of pressures and protections, and the dehumanization of prisoners.

Research and case studies have concluded that once torture is approved, it is very difficult to monitor and contain. Torture has proven to not produce reliable information but it may persist in society as it provides a psychological need in times of great stress such as war. Specifically, it may reinforce the idea that the interrogator is in “control” of the situation and may be a possible way to “get back” at the enemy force. Although supporters argue that specific torture techniques extract vital information; it has been proven to actually increase the difficulty of extracting information. It is unknown to the full extent of how damaging mentally being tortured and the full toll it can take on a person’s

The practice of torture by United States officials has become one of the most controversial elements of military history. The debate of its use in gathering intelligence has been particularly prevalent since the Bush administration. Most recently, a detailed and graphic scene of torture was presented in the movie Zero Dark Thirty. Proponents for the use of torture state that it is necessary for intelligence gathering and that ethics should be waved aside. Opponents argue that it is not becoming of American practices and it is not a reliable source for intelligence gathering. The public debates on this issue have forced policy makers and military officials to look at whether or not torture, particularly waterboarding, should be legal. The

The notion of “authorization” as permitting the existence of torture is apparent in the fact that though an individual may “theoretically, . . . [have] a choice” to refrain from such activity, “given the situational context . . . the concept of choice is not even present”; disobedience to the dictates of authority means “punishment, disgrace, humiliation, expulsion, or even death” (196). Therefore, one is freed from moral unease by the fact that he may feel trapped and unable to act against his superiors, as retaliation would be imminent. In some instances, as was demonstrated by