| "The Battle of Algiers." Released in 1966 by Italian filmmaker Gillo
Pontecorvo. The film vividly depicts the Algerian struggle for independence against the French occupation in the 1950s and early 60s.
It recreates the brutal conflict between native Algerians and French
colonists in which the two sides exchange acts of intensifying
violence, leading to the introduction of French paratroopers to root
out the Algerian National Liberation Front - known as the FLN.
Paratroops are shown employing torture, intimidation, and murder to
defeat the resistance.
"The Battle of Algiers" was nominated for three Academy Awards. But the
film was banned in France for many years following its release.
In 2003, the film again made the news after the Pentagon offered a
screening just months after the United States declared the war against
Iraq officially over. A flyer for the screening stated the following:
"How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas.
Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in
cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound
familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails
strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film."
Now, parallels are being drawn between the French use of torture in
1950s Algeria and the US abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo Bay. If one changes the
words 'settlers' and 'colonists' to 'American occupiers' and 'Algeria'
to 'Iraq,' this is not a bad assessment of where the U.S. now finds
itself -- or may soon find itself. Watching current TV news footage
coming out of Iraq -- say, of American soldiers patting down Iraqi men
at check-points (and putting hoods and plastic handcuffs on some of
them) or ransacking private homes -- one cannot help but wince at the
racial and religious hatreds being sown right before our eyes.
Of course, Americans believe that freedom is precisely why the US goverment went into Iraq and why they should be loved instead of hated there -- because they are bringing it to the poor, benighted Iraqis. The French felt similarly put out because the Algerians were rejecting not merely them but also their culture, which they believed to be vastly superior to anything the Algerians might have to offer.
I am reminded of a conversation I had many years ago with a Dutch friend, who was convinced that the Dutch had governed Indonesia, their former colony, much better than it was subsequently being run.
"Perhaps," I answered, "but even if they misgovern it, it's still their country." And that is surely the ultimate message of Pontecorvo's film, whether it's the one that the Pentagon's viewers drew from it or not. And, by extension, it's the Iraqis (regardless of their political affiliations) who are entitled (and increasingly determined) to run Iraq. If one credits Donald Rumsfeld's latest pronouncements, that's also what he wants for Iraq . . . except, of course, that he wants the U.S. to choose who can join the Iraqi army, head their government, and operate their oil fields.
|
قم بتنزيله من 
