During France’s Algerian War (1954– 62), the French journalist Henri Alleg sided with the insurgents. Arrested by French authorities in June 1957, Alleg was detained and tortured. During his confinement he managed to write and smuggle out an account of his experi- ences. Originally published in 1958, The Question was quickly banned by the French government, the first such action France had taken since the eigh- teenth century. The book nonetheless became a sensation

Creswell, Michael H.

English

U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons

Naval War College ReviewVolume 61Number 1 Winter Article 172008The QuestionMichael H. CreswellFollow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-reviewThis Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contactrepository.inquiries@usnwc.edu.Recommended CitationCreswell, Michael H. (2008) "The Question," Naval War College Review: Vol. 61 : No. 1 , Article 17.Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol61/iss1/17and their legitimacy in the eyes of theaffected constituencies, on the other.”Overall, the two books do an estimablejob of delineating programmaticallywhat states seeking to counter terrorismcan and need to do. In so doing, theyalso invite more specific and granularanalyses of precisely how to do it.JONATHAN STEVENSONNaval War CollegeAlleg, Henri. The Question. Lincoln: Univ. ofNebraska Press, 2006. 74pp. $16.95During France’s Algerian War (1954–62), the French journalist Henri Allegsided with the insurgents. Arrested byFrench authorities in June 1957, Allegwas detained and tortured. During hisconfinement he managed to write andsmuggle out an account of his experi-ences. Originally published in 1958,The Question was quickly banned bythe French government, the first suchaction France had taken since the eigh-teenth century. The book nonethelessbecame a sensation.Reissued after half a century, this newedition retains its preface by Frenchnovelist and philosopher Jean-PaulSartre, now supplemented with a fore-word by author Ellen Ray, an introduc-tion by author James D. Le Sueur, and anew afterword by Alleg himself.The book’s title euphemistically refersto torture. In calm and lucid prose,Alleg describes his fate at the hands ofhis captors. Held for a month in Alge-ria’s El Biar prison, Alleg was torturedby French paras (paratroopers) beforebeing transferred to another prison,where he composed The Question. His“interrogations” ranged from beatingsto electric shock and water boarding.He was even administered Pentothal, or“truth serum.” Despite these outrages,Alleg refused to break, earning himboth wrath and grudging respect fromhis tormentors. He escaped from prisonin October 1961, just months before thewar ended.Fifty years later, Alleg’s voice remains asreasoned and penetrating as ever. He la-ments that France’s political elite haveattempted to purge the Algerian Warand its attendant horrors from thecountry’s official memory; many mili-tary men responsible for these crimes,he notes, have received not only am-nesty but promotion and praise. Onlyin 2000 did the French government ad-mit that it had perpetrated widespreadtorture and other abuses during this pe-riod. Ironically, one former torturerproudly admitted to his actions in a2001 book, causing such a backlash thathe was punished, albeit lightly. How-ever, Alleg insists that even this slap onthe wrist signals a shift in officialFrench thinking.The accompanying essays deserve men-tion. Ray minces no words, accusingthe United States of pursuing a “strat-egy that incorporates racism, torture,and murder” in its current conflicts.Seeing America as headed down a moralslippery slope, she wonders if it might gothe way of the French Fourth Republicor whether “Americans might be the de-fendants in future war crimes trials.”Le Sueur provides background onAlleg’s experiences and the debate thatThe Question aroused in France. He ar-gues that present-day France has yet tocome to grips with its sordid conduct.In fact, the French parliament passed alaw in February 2005 enjoining educa-tors to teach the “positive role” ofB O O K R E V I E W S 1 3 71Creswell: The QuestionPublished by U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, 2008French imperialism and to recognizethe “sacrifices” made by France’s armedforces in the Algerian War.Sartre is biting in his psychological dis-section of both torturer and victim. Hemaintains that torture stems from racialhatred and that only by believing an in-dividual to be less than human can onejustify torture.We should be grateful for this timelyrepublication of The Question, as it re-minds France of a chapter in its historyit has tried hard to forget. It is also evi-dence that fighting terrorists by sacrific-ing one’s humanity ensures not just along war but an endless one.MICHAEL H. CRESWELLFlorida State UniversityEvans, Michael. The Tyranny of Dissonance: Aus-tralia’s Strategic Culture and Way of War, 1901–2005. Duntroon, ACT, Australia: Land WarfareStudies Centre, 2005. Available online at www.defence.gov.au/army/LWSC/Publications/SP/SP_306.pdf.In this excellent monograph, MichaelEvans argues that Australia has a dis-tinctive way of war that focuses on con-tinental defensive strategies. Thesestrategies, for most of its history, havebeen abandoned by statesmen uphold-ing Australia’s extended vital interestsin a favorable regional and world order.In other words, Australian militarystrategists instinctively think abouthomeland defense, especially of the airand sea-lanes connecting Australia tothe world, but their political leaders in-evitably require them to adapt theirstrategies to intervening around theworld as a member of coalitions oflike-minded liberal democracies. In theUnited States, we call this a “policy-strategy mismatch,” but Evans calls itthe “tyranny of dissonance,” with theinterventionist tradition of Australianforeign policy pulling one way and themore isolationist official Australianmilitary strategy pulling another. Inthat respect, Australia resembles Britainand the United States, which have alsobeen torn between “splendid isolation”and foreign intervention in differentperiods of their histories.Evans is as relentless as a fly at a picnicin the Australian outback in demon-strating his thesis, which makes his stylesometimes just as annoying. He mighthave limited his analysis to a few arche-typal case studies and so made his pointwith greater power in fewer words. Hedoes prove, however, that both the geo-graphical position and unique politicalculture of Australia have inclined itsmilitary leaders to treat their continentas an Anglo-Saxon island in the middleof Asia, one that needed to be isolatedfrom the rough-and-tumble of regionaland global conflicts. Time and again,however, Australia’s dependence ongreat powers (first Britain, then theUnited States), as well as the broader vi-sion of Australian political leaders,compelled it to adopt a coalition strat-egy of “limited liability.” Both to avoidoverextension and to demonstrate theirbona fides to Australia’s allies, states-men “down under” have consistentlymade limited commitments to imperial,later international, security in WorldWar I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam,the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq.Like more unilateral interventions inEast Timor and the Solomon Islands,these expeditions demonstrate that offi-cial Australian defense strategy is oftenout of sync with Australian foreign1 3 8 N A V A L W A R C O L L E G E R E V I E W2Naval War College Review, Vol. 61 [2008], No. 1, Art. 17https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol61/iss1/17

The Question

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1765&context=nwc-review

The Question

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons