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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------