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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
