There remains the vital question, with much relevance to today: what did torture achieve in the Battle of Algiers? Putting aside any consideration of morality, was it even effective? Massu, with a courage that demands respect, claims that the end justified the means; the battle was won and a halt was brought to the F.L.N.-imposed terror and the indiscriminate killing and maiming of both European and Muslim civilians. He also notes that, when critics compared them to the Nazis, his paras practised neither extermination nor the taking of hostages. And Edward Behr, who could by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as an apostle of torture, nevertheless reckons "that without torture the F.L.N.'s terrorist network would never have been overcome…. The 'Battle of Algiers' could not have been won by General Massu without the use of torture." Had the Battle of Algiers indeed been lost by the French in 1957, then the whole of Algeria would almost certainly have been swamped by the F.L.N.—leading in all probability to a peace settlement several years earlier than was otherwise the case. … This is certainly true of the short term, but in the longer term—as the Nazis in the Second World War, and as almost every other power that has ever adopted torture as an instrument of policy, have discovered—it is a double-edged weapon. In some of his last utterances even Massu's chief lieutenant, Yves Godard, expressed doubts as to the efficacy of torture; especially when weighed against the emotional weapon it presented the enemy.

QUESTION: The battlefield effectiveness of torture in counterinsurgency remains contested; whether short-term success outweighs long-term strategic costs is worth deeper investigation. XREF: Connects to debates about enhanced interrogation techniques post-9/11 and modern counterterrorism ethics. SEED: A possible essay: questioning whether torture's tactical effectiveness justifies its strategic costs in asymmetric warfare.

Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Alge…, loc. 608