Restrepo and The Battle of Algiers

[MikeF]

All,

Saw Restrepo last week. IMO, hands-down the best post-9/11 film to date, but they lost a wonderful opportunity to do it better given some space, time, and reflection. In the coming month, I am looking at doing a Point-Counterpoint style review with a journalist friend of mine, and I wanted to test out one analogy with the group before I proceed.

This attempts to drive towards the greater issue of how we perceive external interventions in small wars. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and time.

When I first watched The Battle for Algiers in late 2005, I had just returned from my third deployment from leading a tank platoon to serving on a Special Forces staff. At the time, I thought that I knew a lot about combat. I had done the high intensity fights of the Thunder Runs, I was immersed into the indirect methods of Foreign Internal Defense (FID), but I still had no idea about how to comprehend the chaos of failure in Iraq much less any understanding on how to preceed.

Watching Battle for Algiers, I thought the lessons were simple. If, on the tactical level, one is too aggressive with violence, population control measures, and, in the most aggregious failings, resorting to torture, then one is apt to win the battle but lose the war. This film was regarded as the best comprehensive, neutral film of its genre. That's what I walked away with.

Going back to Iraq in 2006 changed everything for me. As the situation deteriorated into a civil war, we forced very violent measures to attempt to regain control and force arbitration. With exception to torture, my actions were reminiscent to LTC Mathieu. In some ways, I was much more violent than his paratroopers. I returned to the United States to continue studying these type of conflicts at the post-graduate level. I wondered about the disconnect between my thoughts of the theory versus my actions in practice.

Finally, I realized the gap. The neutrality of the movie became it's biggest failure. There is no such thing as a neutral narrative. What is missing is the French counter-guerrilla effort was doomed to fail because ultimately, colonialism is doomed to fail. The military effort is extraneous to this discussion. The actions of the French paratroopers could only prolonge or shorten the length of the conflict. They could not influence the outcome. The native Algerians simply wanted their own independence.

Restrepo falls into a similar trap. The lack of context fails to inform the viewer of the overarching struggles in the nearly nine-year old conflict. Through ommision, the producers show a tragic failure to understand insurgency theory. While the film depicts the war for the soldier, it fails to capture the essence of the fight. In doing so, it fails on a very deep fundamental level.

[MikeF]

200 views and no discontent? I guess that I assumed my thoughts would be contreversal. Again, what say you?

[jmm99]

Maybe, no one else watched Restrepo.

Cheers

Mike

PS: I could make some comments on the Battle of Algiers and on Charlie Gallstone pulling the plug on Algeria because France's greater political interests lay in disengament; but it's too darn late. Sorry.

[MikeF]

Maybe, no one else watched Restrepo.

Cheers

Mike

PS: I could make some comments on the Battle of Algiers and on Charlie Gallstone pulling the plug on Algeria because France's greater political interests lay in disengament; but it's too darn late. Sorry.

sadly seeking affirmation or discord. I'm about to just go about the business of pushing onward. And yes, Michael, I owe you a PM uupdate.

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Well, I haven't seen the movie, but one thing you said really stood out for me

There is no such thing as a neutral narrative.

Yup. Not only that, I am increasingly persuaded that a "neutral narrative" is impossible because of the way our (HSS) brains work. I do, however, see some potential from another quirk of our brains - the ability to hold mutually opposing and contradictory narratives so, even if we can't create a "neutral narrative", we may be able to create multiple narratives that can act as triangulation points towards a larger vision (as opposed to neutrality).

[Bob's World]

"Neutrality" is inherently dishonest, and makes everyone equally nervous of what ones true intentions might be.

If you don't believe me, next time your wife asks you what you want for dinner just say "I don't care." You think you just made things simple for her, in fact you created complexity and hard feelings.