Gallula and Trinquet (Algeria)
A very different approach by both to resolve what seems to be the same problem, however, a recurring SAASS theme is to examine evidence/situations in the proper context: which reveals different contexts and thus might explain their different views
Trinquet: experience shaped by Vietnam, was involved in urban IW, and the time was different from Gallula. Also in urban areas the kind of fighting is very different with higher expectations and sensitivities to acts of violence against the state..
He believes that control is the key and it provides legitimacy. Control may be obtained by using selective violence in cases to destroy the IWs. Also does not rule out torture to obtain information.
'Gallula:' Was a Capt in a rural area where the population had traditional links with France, was there before trinquet and his AOR had three to four villages. He left Algeria after his tenure and shortly after that the insurgency flared up. (method like HMcMaster, as mentioned in Adapt by Harford)
Believes that legitimacy comes from popular support which in turn would enable control. Believed, allowed and practised WHAM by empowering the villagers. He got mixed results from the villages. Time was on his side and it appeared easier for him as he was dealing with IW in a smaller scale. Later in his narrative he also faces problems and once he leaves , his successors are not that successful. While he doesn’t advocate torture and does believe in the carrot and stick method, he does admit that he sent a IW to higher authorities for questioning, it might be reasonable to infer that he would be aware of what and how information might be extracted from the individual.
Both cases also highlight that Algeria was getting external, support and political will in France (esp after their experience in Vietnam was divided) was divided. Ultimately French forces were withdrawn from Algeria, without resolving the problem.