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