In spite of its leadership role within the nonaligned movement, Algeria historically has never figured prominently in U.S. thinking. Yet the current Algerian crisis touches on many sensitive questions that affect American interests and allies in North Africa and beyond. These questions include serious concerns about European security (floodtide of Algerian refugees, radicalization of Europe's Muslim communities, and disruption of economic trade); more contentious Franco-American relations; bolder Islamic movements in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Libya; and the potential for increased tensions between the worlds of Islam and the West.

Most importantly, however, the U.S. response to the bloody events in Algeria serves as a test case demonstrating the way American policy makers view political Islam and the affinity between Islam and democracy. Likewise, among many Muslims, Algeria is seen as an example of the ways in which the West could potentially reconcile itself with Islam and the United States could tolerate and coexist with a popularly elected Islamic government. Some Islamic leaders have warned that the West's support for the interruption of the democratic process in Algeria could alienate Muslims from Western values, driving them further away from democracy.

Does the Clinton administration's stand on the Algerian crisis differ substantively from that of the Bush administration? In contrast to Bush, has Clinton adopted an accommodationist strategy toward the Islamist opposition in Algeria as represented by the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS)? If so, is the Clinton administration's position on Algeria an extension of its more nuanced and liberal approach toward Islamists in general? Or does the administration's response to the Algerian Islamists represent the exception rather than the rule?