The Algerian army is highlighting its adaptation to threats, particularly in the protection of
infrastructure, without providing any public data on the risks or resources deployed.
The Chief of Staff of the People’s National Army (ANP), General Saïd Chanegriha, chaired a seminar in Algiers dedicated to the protection of vital installations, according to a statement from the Ministry of National Defense.
This meeting, held at the National Army Circle, brought together institutional leaders, high-ranking officers, and experts to discuss the challenges of securing strategic infrastructure in an environment described as marked by new threats.
During his address, the Chief of Staff broadened the definition of these installations, stating that they now constitute “true lifelines” for the State, beyond their economic dimension.
He emphasised their role in national stability and the overall functioning of essential services, which justifies their integration into the heart of the defense apparatus. This approach reflects a broad interpretation of national security, encompassing both civilian and economic infrastructure. In this context, the Algerian People’s National Army (ANP) is promoting a strategy based on anticipation and prevention, including updating intervention plans and strengthening coordination among stakeholders.
Authorities cite a spectrum of threats ranging from terrorism and cyberattacks to sabotage and hybrid forms of attacks.
However, no specific figures have been released regarding recorded incidents, risk levels, or the resources mobilized to secure these facilities. This approach comes in a regional context marked by security tensions, particularly in the Sahel, without any explicit links being established between these dynamics and the measures presented.
The seminar also addressed coordination mechanisms, the role of technology, and the training of intervention teams, but without publishing any indicators to assess the effectiveness of existing
systems.
The emphasis placed on the army’s central role in protecting infrastructure underscores a broadening of its scope of intervention.
In the absence of transparency on the means deployed or the results obtained, this orientation raises questions about the balance between security imperative and sectoral governance of civil infrastructure.
MK/AK/Sf/fss/as/APA