Foreign Internal Defense (Indigenous Forces)

[White Rabbit]

Posted by Bill Moore

To point out that is complicated is an understatement and a statement of the obvious. I'm not going to debate the morality or the strategy at the national level, because there are many sides to each that can be rationally argued to no real end. On the other hand the tactics the French employed did militarily defeat the armed wing of the insurgency.

The insurgents/rebels were just as cruel as the French, so there were no good guys. Neither side effectively rallied a majority of the populace to its side, so the decisive factor on the battle field was intelligence and fighting ability (mobility, fire power, tactics, etc.).

Strategically the French were defeated for a lot of reasons, most of them had to do with politics on the home front.

I have no issues with your definitions of CT, COIN and FID, and yes the lines between the three are often blurred, and while can involved more providing advise and assistance, FID is generally viewed as such, while COIN and CT are largely doing (of course that isn't accurate, but that is the general assumption). My point is if the HN is torturing people while conducting COIN and CT, that doesn't mean we advised them to do so while conducting FID.

A note on history...

Bill, your post made me remember that many of the French officers in Algeria--which I think includes Trinquier although I have to double-check that--often were resistant during the Second World War. Accordingly, some of them were tortured.

While not justifying the use of torture, it might explain their use of it. If they saw it as a technique which worked on them, it is likely that they came to the conclusion that it will work on others.

If I remember correctly in the Army of Shadows, Jean-Pierre Melville--who was himself a resistant--even depicts the use of torture by resistant on fellow resistant.