Habib,
Maybe Nobel laureate Mr. Kujabi can explain to us what he
means by a "dry intellectual".
basil
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:23:49 -0700 "Habib Ghanim, Sr"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Halifa,
>
> It was a pleasure meeting you during the ALD celebrations here in DC
> .
> Mr. Kujabi's attacks on your personality are unfounded based on personalities
> not issues. Mr. Kujabi, I hope you do not get offended for my disagreement with
> you. If I had not met and talked to Halifa Sallah personally maybe I would have
> accommodated some of your views but claiming him to be a dry intellectual was
> not necessary.
> He deserves a lot of commendation. It is easy for some of us to be overseas and
> say what we want because we are free to do so but for Halifa to mention and
> challenge both regimes (past and present) in the calculated way he has requires
> courage and intelligence, Therefore my personal analysis gives Mr. Sallah a good
> grade and why not , he is playing it safe. He cannot jump into conclusions
> without getting the facts first.
> halifa keep up your professional approach and thanks for looking out for
> gambians abroad that want to vote in the next scheduled elections .good luck
> ps All the Senegalese here in the US voted in the past elections.
>
> Best regards
> habib Diab Ghanim
>
> foroyaa wrote:
>
> > Ebou,
> >
> > Thank you for your respond. The subject you have taken on for further
> > elaboration is of fundamental significance. Your experience is relevant and
> > I wish to engage you in a very fruitful exercise. The issues I will raise
> > may even lead you to do further research and analysis to beef up your
> > position. Who knows may be a small pamphlet or book may emerge from the
> > whole exercise. Do not hesitate to try to refute some of my positions. There
> > is no need to be apologetic if you find yourself having the urge to
> > challenge certain opinions. The discourse is on course. Your approach is
> > respectful and I promise you that I will also guard my comments so that the
> > whole exercise will be a very fruitful one regardless of whether we end up
> > agreeing or disagreeing.
> >
> > I did not want to comment until I received your position on all the issues
> > raised, but we are scheduled to leave tomorrow for a week's tour of Wuli and
> > some villages in Kantora which we promised to visit during our last tour. I
> > will convey a comprehensive analysis for further observation by you on my
> > return.
> >
> > What is important for you to look at more closely are the three elements you
> > are highlighting which determine the nature of any war. You wrote: "In any
> > war, there exist three elements which comprise of a balance between the
> > people, the military and the government, thus forming a "remarkable trinity"
> > to quote Carl Von Clausewitz, that determines the nature of any war." Where
> > do you put material resources and the terrain?
> >
> > You would agree with me that the U.S. soldiers did have the moral will to
> > fight in Vietnam. They did carry out aggressive anti-Communist propaganda.
> > However, the Vietnamese forces knew the terrain and were ready to fight a
> > drawn out battle for national liberation. While the U.S. was talking about
> > Communism, most of the peasants who were fighting were moved by their
> > patriotism and hardly knew what Communism was. The long drawn out war by a
> > people who were determined to fight to the last person to free a nation put
> > the U.S. economy on a war footing. This compelled the U.S. to divert money
> > from social services in order to finance the war. The war, therefore,
> > drained the U.S. economy beyond what could be sustained.
> >
> > Whether in Vietnam or in Algeria, what was to be lost by continuing war was
> > much greater and unrecoverable than what was to be lost by ending the war.
> > The object of war, according to the same author you have quoted, is to
> > impose the will of one adversary on the other. I would add that war has a
> > price to be paid. War ceases to have legitimacy when the price to be paid is
> > more than the price. This can also lead to the contracting of what Nixon
> > used to call "peace with honour"
> >
> > I agree with the components you highlighted, but I do not agree with the
> > conclusions you have reached as to why the U.S. lost in Vietnam. I will beef
> > up by analysis once I come back.
> >
> > The second point you need to look at and beef up before I come back is the
> > following observation: "Yet the most critical flaw of the Senegalese
> > Government, and you Halifa even mentioned it in your letter, is the wrong
> > military strategy adopted by the Senegalese military. The Senegalese were
> > fighting a CONVENTIONAL WARFARE against a GUERRILLA force..., the same
> > tragic mistake the US made in Vietnam, and the French in Algeria. You do
> > not need a sword to kill a mosquito. Guerrilla war is a "People's War", it
> > uses anything under the sun from terror to aggressive propaganda, buying
> > TIME through peace talks in the name of "dialogue", "progressive
> > rapprochement" to finally achieve "peaceful coexistence"- guerrilla
> > euphemisms that have different connotations in the Marxist-Leninist
> > political lexicon. I am not accusing any one of being a Marxist-Socialist
> > but these terms, especially "Peaceful Coexistence" has Hegelian origins of
> > the thesis versus antithesis conflict all the way to its Marxist derivative
> > of dialectical materialism, class struggles where we the "progressives"
> > (MFDC) shall finally overcome the "Oppressor" (the Senegalese Government)
> > to bring peace!"
> >
> > It appears that what you are saying is that the policy of peaceful
> > co-existence or progressive rapprochement is designed mainly as a tactical
> > instrument for prosecuting war more vigorously. You seem to be looking at
> > the terms from just one side. You are not looking at the other side of the
> > coin. What you have said is true to a certain degree. Ceasefire agreements
> > have been utilised by fighting forces to beat for time to prepare the ground
> > to prosecute a more vigorous war. This is why armies do sometimes retreat in
> > good order, engage in diplomacy, to prepare for a more vigorous advance.
> > That is a tactic of war.
> >
> > The other side of the coin is that foes or adversaries in war do reach a
> > level where continuation in fighting would lead to mutual annihilation. In
> > that case, both could agree to co-exist in peace and respect each other's
> > territorial integrity. This is what happened during the Cold War in Europe.
> > This also signifies a policy of peaceful co-existence. Suffice it to say,
> > the relation between the two Koreas, the two Chinas are all governed by this
> > doctrine.
> >
> > You would also agree with me that the type of wars that we have been having
> > in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Congo or Casamance has nothing to do with
> > Marxist-Leninist political ideology. MFDC is led by a Reverend. RUF and NPFL
> > had never claimed any form of ideology.
> >
> > The policy of progressive rapprochement is something I have coined after
> > carefully studying the nature of the conflicts in Africa. Mozambique is one
> > example, and South Africa, another. Prior to the take-over by the ANC, one
> > knows the relation between INKATHA and the ANC. The same goes for FRELIMO
> > and RENAMO. Through various measures taken, one obviously sees a
> > rapprochement which had given rise to some mitigation of the armed conflict
> > between the adversaries.
> >
> > What is also clear in examining the evolution of the democratisation process
> > in Africa is the co-existence of political parties in countries with diverse
> > ideological persuasions co-existing with the view to winning support from
> > the masses through the exercise of freedom of expression and association.
> >
> > The policy of peaceful co-existence and progressive rapprochement do have
> > other connotations if examined from perspectives different from the way you
> > have conceived them. I understand the perspective you have introduced, and
> > once I get your final observation I will certainly examine the merit of the
> > position you have taken on the Casamance crisis and other issues you have
> > raised.
> >
> > Keep up the sound dialogue.
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Halifa Sallah.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ebou Jallow <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 10:58 PM
> > Subject: A rejoinder to Mr. Halifa Sallah, FOROYA.- PART I
> >
> > > Your First Question
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> > Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
> Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
B.M.Jones
[log in to unmask]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
