THE SWORD OF TRUTH

The 5TH November 2009 marked a dark day in the annals of US military history. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an American Muslim serving as a psychiatrist in the U.S. Army at Ft. Hood, went on a random bloody shooting spree killing 13 innocent soldiers and wounding 31 others. The tragic incident raised alarms and brought to light a heated debate on compelling questions about the plight of Muslims across security institutions of the United States.

Pundits, analysts and scholars came out with several hypothesis, theories and questions about the triggering mechanisms behind such a deadly incident. However the question, was the tragic incident the impact of a depression, a jihad or a revolt against military deployment, took the forefront of international and national mediums.

In attempting to find an answer to the heated question raised, it is important to carefully ponder Major Nidal Malik Hassan’s history and background, his Islamic standing and knowledge, his take on the wars and his deployment.

Considering his background, Major Hassan is an American Citizen born to Palestinian parents in the State of Virginia. He is a graduate of Virginia Tech University. Trained as an army psychiatrist to provide treatment to soldiers traumatized by terror, it is still difficult to comprehend how the American born Major could come to terms with terror that he brought to Fort Hood. How did we get to this? It is indeed the million dollar question.

Intelligence reports have also indicated monitoring Major Hassan’s Internet postings about suicide Bombers. Reports further indicate that in an internet blog posting, the major made comparisons of a suicide bomber who kills himself in protecting Muslims to a soldier throwing himself on a grenade to protect other soldiers. US intelligence authorities have also indicated that Major Hasan had been in contact with a suspected cleric, according to the BBC.

Whether the Majors online, activities posed any national security threats remains to be the good question that falls in the premises of our intelligence networks that have described the Majors online activities as non – threatening. Was tragic incident therefore a Jihad?
With the recitation of “ALLAHU AKBAR,” (GOD IS GREAT) before the shooting rampage, many contend that the major may have acted under the umbrella of his faith. One should dismiss that notion as unfounded, because the fundamental tenets of all faiths is embedded around God given pillars of Peace, Love, Care, Respect and the Moral Ethics of upholding Human Dignity. No barbaric act of violence could be justified as an act of faith.

Islam does not sanctify violence against innocent person regardless of his or her religion. According to the Hadith, Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings of Allah Be upon Him) warned that life is sacrosanct. The Quran consolidated the Prophets warning by teaching that:

“Killing a person unjustly is the same as killing all of humanity, and saving a person is the same as saving all of humanity (Al-Ma’idah 5: 32)

Take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.) (Al-An`am 6: 151)

We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto Us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.” (Al-Baqarah: 136)

The Holy Bible another testament embedding faith into the history of mankind condemns violence in all its form and shape. Proverbs 6:17 in the Bible for example made specific emphasis to “A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.” The scripture taught that:

“Pride is always hateful in the eyes of God because it partakes of the nature of self-worship, which is idolatry, (16:5).

Haughty eyes (margin) simply evidences what is in the heart, and so are also hateful, (Ps. 18:27; 101:5; 131:1).

The lying tongue is a direct contradiction of the ninth commandment, (Ex. 20:16), as well as being an imitation of the devil, (John 8; 44).

Truth is always pure, and needs no misrepresentation to establish it: he, who will lie, shows that he is not of the truth, (1 John 2:21).

The third of these hateful things is blood-thirstiness, which is always characterized by supreme love of self, and disregard of others. Men of blood are guilty men, (Gen. 9:4-6), their prayers go unanswered, (Isa. 1; 15); and they shall be given blood to drink as a judgment.”

A similar teaching against violence falls along the teachings of Judaism. The Holy Torah in summary taught that “human beings have a built-in prohibition against murdering their neighbors. All these teachings are evolutionary features of mankind embedded across all civilizations. Indiscriminate acts of barbarism and violence are intolerable by any society. No society must tolerate murderers in its midst

Nonetheless, political and religious extremists have continuously abused Islam, Christianity and Judaism throughout the course of history. The tragic incident at Ford Hood, Texas was an example of such an abuse. It thus suffices to say that Major Hassan acted alone, and out of the parameters of Islamic teachings. US military and civilian authorities therefore acted responsibly in accordance with the perimeters of the law – that is bringing Major Hassan before a competent court of Jurisdiction to bear the brunt of his own responsibility.

Taking a backdrop to the question was the Ford Hood incident an act of depression, a jihad or a revolt against deployment on the part of the belligerent Major, one could not refer to the inhumane act as a Jihad (holy war) based on intelligence thus far gathered, but one of a depression caused by resentment of the wars to a revolt against deployment.

The tragic events at Ford Hood could not be justified under any Teachings of Islam. His action was un-Islamic and therefore inhumane. What else could one say?

The war in Afghanistan has become one of the most contentious topics in modern contemporary American political Affairs. Following the briefings and recommendations by Military Commanders fighting the war, emerging divergent views across the US political landscape propelled the Obama administration to grapple with a critical and strategic national security policy decision of our times.

Over the past months radical conservative war mongers left no stone unturned. Robust calls for the deployment of more US troops to Afghanistan was the epitome of their political windmill. Although pledges of sending more troops to Afghanistan was the hallmark of their historic campaign periods, the Obama administration was not hesitant to clarify that it is carefully assessing the situation, consulting with military commanders, and thus considering the rightful strategic national security options that are based on the realities of the Afghan political, economical and security landscape.

Carefully analyzing the war after 8years of combat operations in Afghanistan, assertions that the US and her allies have lost the war are unfounded. In comparison to Russian military operations in Afghanistan, the United States deployment of superior military technology in both the air and land operations has become the central tenet of using strategic counter- insurgency maneuvers in confronting the Taliban. The US and allies have also accrued less fatalities in comparison to the Russian’s who suffered an untold human and material destruction.

Considering the type of warfare in Afghanistan – counter Insurgency - a change in strategy is what the US and coalition forces need. It is important to understand the strategic operational differences between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war in Iraq was one fought in build –up areas, whilst that of Afghanistan is mostly in open rigorous and mountainous terrain. Tactically a surge with more troops works effectively in a combat build – up zone than an open rigorous and mountainous terrain. Deploying thousands of troops in the rigorous mountainous terrains of Afghanistan in a counter – insurgency war would constitute no strategic or tactical move against insurgence immersed in groups across the mountainous hinterlands of Afghanistan.

Among some major options currently under consideration by the Obama administration includes; providing training and support for Afghani Troops; employing counter-insurgency measures; and using economic development as a tool of engagement. An immediate deployment of the extra 40, 000 or more US troops is one delicate policy decision that remains to be under considerations; a brilliant policy move that the Obama administration has adopted.

Amidst a global economic meltdown that is shaping social, political and economic horizons across the world, the international community has a moral responsibility to end global conflicts that are retrogressively shifting the eradication of human poverty and capacity- development as a centrality of global governance. It is must also be understood that building strong economies constitutes an embodiment of strengthening both national and international security. In her journal article titled The Threat of Global Poverty published by The National Interest: Spring 2006: 83, Dr. Suzan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations opined that:

The Primary flaw in the conventional argument that poverty is unrelated to terrorism is its failure to capture the range of ways in which poverty can exacerbate the threat of transnational terrorism – not at the individual level but at the state and regional level. Poverty bears indirectly on terrorism by sparking conflict, and eroding state capacity, both of which create conditions that can facilitate terrorist activity.

Changing strategies in Afghanistan therefore requires both a “preventive development,” and “development continuum” approaches; a combination of both emergency and humanitarian development, and a recovery and reconstruction developmental efforts. Dr. Suzan Rice could therefore not have said it better.

In view of the compounding implications of global conflicts on economic development, national and international security, it is paramount that a strategic end to the conflict in Afghanistan take a forefront of policy decisions that will foster peace, strengthen global human development and eradicate poverty across conflict prone Afghanistan. President Obama must therefore consider the following policy prescriptive measures on the war in Afghanistan. They include but not limited to

1) No immediate deployment of large numbers of troops

2) Continue providing support and training for Afghan Troops

3) Support Afghan Troops to take a forefront of ground operations – It is imperative that Afghan security forces start taking responsibility

4) Strengthened security in Afghan towns and cities

5) Using modern technology it is paramount to adopt counter-insurgency measures and tactics in confronting insurgents across the rigorous mountainous hinterlands of Pakistan.

6) Employ more resources in poverty eradication, human development, conflict prevention and recovery efforts

This is just a food for thought.

History has that our transformation as a human species evolved around conflicts and violence. The wars fought from ancient civilization to those of World Wars I, II, to modern liberation wars fought at both national and international levels are living testaments to that validity. Those who fought in all such wars did so for the enduring modern Freedom enjoyed across all free and peace loving societies of our times.

From the trenches of Burma to the Streets of Buchenwald , Germany, from the desert storms of Kuwait to the Streets of Baghdad, Iraq, and from the World Trade Center to the mountainous caves of Afghanistan, the gallant men and women in uniform who sacrificed for freedom left a historic antidote in to the annals of global history.

Their sacrifice for the cause of human dignity will remain the richest legacy that will forever live on. Lest us remember their sacrifices, and significant unifying theme, that has strengthened freedom as a global “legal procedural ability” of mankind.

In many other countries, a nouvelle paradigm of conflicts that emerged following military involvement in to politics was also a driving force behind the vehicle of death for several pro-democracy military men and women. Lest us also not forget such gallant military men and women who lost their lives for standing up against dictatorship and brutality in Guinea – Bissau, Guinea-Conakry, The Gambia, Burma, Iran, Nigeria, Mauritania, Argentina, Chile, Burma, Liberia, Sierra - Leone and other nations around the world.

As we commemorate Veterans Day, lest us further understand that a replication of soldier and state experience will continue to be rooted in our modern history. The November 11th 1994, Military and State experience in The Gambia falls along such historical horizons. Lest us therefore remember with honor the following officers and men summarily executed by the military Junta that came to power on the 22nd day of July 1994 in The Gambia. In Memoriam they are:
1) Lieutenant Bassiru Barrow
2) Lieutenant Gibril Seye
3) Lieutenant Abdoulie Faal (Dot)
4) Lieutenant Buba Jammeh
5) Lieutenant Modou Lamin Darboe
6) Lieutenant Bakary Manneh (Nyancho)
7) Officer Cadet Sillah
Warrant Officer Fafa Nyang
9) Lance Corporal Bassirou Camara

The Sacrifices of those who confronted brutality and oppression in the name of freedom epitomizes the significance of the internationally hailed Veterans Day. Today we pay tribute in commemoration recognizing sacrifices made by those fine men and women around the world. What else could one say?

When one quickly analyzes the Tuesday November 4, 2009 mayoral and governor elections in the sister states of New York and New Jersey, it could rightfully be argued that a shift along the political spectrum of the two sister states gradually took shape. Even though Mayor Bloomberg’s victory was expected, the stunning performance of democratic contender; Mr. Thomson, that narrowed the Republican lead by only a 4% margin, indicates a comeback and a democratic unwavering quest of capturing the New York City Mayoral seat.

No one can deny that Mayor Bloomberg positively contributed towards the socio-politic and socio-economic development of New York City. The charismatic Mayor responsibly led the city in tough times, and made tough decisions at a time when the US economy was undergoing a downturn. Notable examples are the lay-offs from city jobs and the MTA fare hikes. How that has impacted the population remains to be unknown. What is certain is that the state of the economy may have contributed towards a slow shifting to a democratic control of the Mayoral seat. Many others have attributed the shift to the introduction of a legislation that has given him the incumbent Mayor a mandate to run for a third term in office.

As New Yorkers battled to reelect the incumbent Mayor with a slight 4% margin, a major political backlash at the sister state of New Jersey was the culmination of divergent political views. The heavily embryonic democratic state ousted its incumbent Governor Corzine in what could best be characterized as an electoral coup d’état. Even President Obama’s campaign support that was geared towards bolstering the Corzine campaign failed to avert the political pitfall.

Amidst corruption scandals that marred the New Jersey Political Landscape, rising unemployment of up to 10%, and a battered economic landscape as a result of the global economic crisis, citizens of New Jersey voted across party lines to get Governor Christi elected, according to pundits and analysts. Even though most of us advocated for a Jon Corzine ticket, the votes of November 4, 2009 vote indeed represents a “CHANGE” that New Jersey has long being paddling, and the Victory of Governor –Elect Chris Christi represents that change.

The elections across both sides of the Hudson River are two political variables and concrete political lessons. In both states, we have seen two prominent politicians battered by political forces beyond control. With the test of time, Mayor Bloomberg could have confessed to his Democratic Contender, just as Jon Corzine did following announcement of the results. The concrete lessons are twofold; Firstly New Jersey citizens wanted change and the electoral victory of Governor Elect Christi represents that change; Secondly New Yorkers have sent a signal that they may slowly, but certainly, be creeping towards a change by electing Mayor Bloomberg with only a 4% margin of victory. The political variables of the elections are indeed a historic tale. What else could one say?

CONGRATULATIONS TO BOTH GOVERNOR ELECT CHRISTI AND MAYOR BLOOMBERG FOR THE ELECTORAL VICTORIES

When one quickly analyze the political landscape of tiny minuscule Gambia since the July 22nd Military Coup of 1994, it could best be characterized as one comprising of Critical objective actors, patriotic- restricted narrowly confined actors, and Parasitic Non-State Political Serpents.

The critical objective political actors are those who are critical but maintain objectivity in their political engagements and activities. They are comprised of mostly students, academics, some former military officers and opposition politicians. A growing number of young Gambians could best be characterized under this group. Sometimes members of the group are seen as sympathizers to the ruling government based on their objectivity on related Gambian issues – that is giving credit as they paddle through the unknown political horizons. Others categorize them as those who compromised their integrity; an assertion that could reasonably be dispelled. This is so because it is important to understand that some of these people have deeply rooted political conflicts with the ruling government, but a track of their political activity would show a shift to one of objective political engagement: a strategic political move adopted for the purpose of containment.

This group is indeed a force to reckon with. Their exposure to the academic world brought to light several experiences, strategic lessons and conclusions. Members of this group are committed to the achievement of a progressive sustainable democratic process. They are moderate independent liberal think – tanks that are willing to go at length in engaging the dictatorship. It could be argued that great lessons must have been drawn from the experiences of Kenya and Zimbabwe, but how well they have mastered the art of doing so remain to be the very good question. Most of them are also determined to work with the actors restricted to the narrow confines of their political machinations.

The second group comprise of those restricted to the narrow confines of their political machinations. They are the hard liners who view the slightest objectivity in our political dispensation as somehow compromising. Members of the group also include former military men, civil-society activists, torture and persecuted victims, students and victims of crimes against humanity and some opposition politicians. For this group it is a deeply rooted contention that dealing with a callous government that is tainted with the blood of innocent citizens compromises universal values of human dignity.

Reflecting on the numerous rights abuses from 1994 – Summary executions of November 11th 1994, the shooting and burning to death of former Finance Minister, Ousman Koro Ceesay, the shooting deaths of April 10th and 11th 2001 student demonstrators, the shooting death of Journalist Deyda Hydara, the summary executions, tortures and disappearances of members of the security forces and ordinary citizens, and numerous other foul plays crafted by the brutality of the repressive regime – one could rightfully understand the reasoning of such a group. How far this group is ready to go at lengths is a good question that must never be under –estimated.

Members of this group are indeed true patriots committed to propel tiny miniscule Gambia to the fore of developments in the global political arena. They are patriotic Gambian Citizens committed to ending dictatorship, and paddling the nation on a path that has the rule of law and justice as the anchor of national development and transformations of modern times.

Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, and the late long time dictator of Zaire Mobuto Sese Seko, were sent packing by such committed patriots. How far this group is ready to go at lengths is the good question that must never be under –estimated. What is certain is that, the volatility of The Gambia’s political landscape is what has become troubling. Hopefully the Gambian authorities will end impunity and callousness, engage political opponents with honesty and mutual respect, and responsibly reconcile the nation with its past.

The third group is the Parasitic Non-State Political Serpents. They act neutral and have no stake whatsoever into Gambian politics. Group members pretend to be opposition sympathizers when in actuality; they are the deadly political serpents exploiting the ruling government for monetary and material gains whilst oppressing the opposition camp. Members of this group include Gambians and Non-Gambians alike, foreign criminal gangs, professionals of international organizations and students. Some members of this group hide under the banner of civil society organizations and their deadly political machinations are influenced by hunger for material, cash and their lack of respect for human dignity.

It must therefore be noted that with all the reported developments over the years, our political landscape remains to be in a serious state of volatility. Reports of death threats, disappearances, torture, and attacks on the media, weak institutions, nepotism and the Gambia’s relevance to the crisis in neighboring Casamance, Southern Senegal has raised national and international alarms.

Paradoxically, in view of the volatile political landscape, it could rightfully be argued that the Gambia may be slowly, but certainly creeping towards instability. And that is not what the sub-region needs. The African Union (AU), The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the United Nations (UN) must therefore aggressively and progressively call for reforms across the governance landscape of the Gambia. Reforms in the Constitution, Security and Armed Forces, the executive and legislative are what The Gambia badly needs.

A failure to call for reforms may lead to violent political instability that may spread to neighboring Senegal and Guinea-Bissau thus becoming West Africa’s Second major violent Regional Conflict.

*Only the sky may be the limit before the good books are called to account for national sojourns*

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He also produces The Sword of Truth at http://www.sofawarrior.blog.com/ . he could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu.

If anyone should argue that New Jersey Governor race has placed the candidates on critical points of the political spectrum at different times, that argument would fall right on the political realities of the Garden State. Throughout the campaign trail, all the candidates presented varying policy aspects on taxes, job creation, health care and education. The republican contender, Christ Christi aggressively pulled strings dismissing Governor Corzine past years economic, health and tax policies as one that has put New Jersey on a brinks of unemployment and economic collapse; a call that most scholars, analysts and pundits dismissed as political fabrications based on convincing realities that the Corzine administration indeed adopted appropriate policies required to effectively deal with challenges of the Garden State.

Even though Governor Corzine was placed in a delicate governance situation amidst a corruption scandal that marred the New Jersey Political Landscape, the incumbent governor handled the situation responsibly and tactfully. Governor Corzine must be commended for adopting policies that continues to effectively address healthcare, education and unemployment. With the genius of his economic vision as the first Governor to adopt an economic recovery plan, the incumbent Governor has outlined one of the best developmental blue prints, thus stabilizing the rising unemployment, healthcare, education and the private sector.

Unlike his republican contender whose economic policies will only be a perennial source of unemployment, increased uninsured Jersey Residents and Citizens, and the lack of prescriptive policy measures, Governor Corzine’s economic formulas are in line with both national and the international quest of containing the worst economic crisis since the great depression of 1930’s. Developments in public transportation, public works, infrastructure, healthcare and national security will be the characteristics of the incumbent Governors term in office.

Christ Christi’s rejection of the Federal Economic Stimulus Package in his economic policies, would result to the lost of over 30, 000 teaching jobs, over 18,000 public sector jobs and a state wide property taxes increase of $1.5 - 2 billion, according to modern economic analysts. It must be noted that the use of Stimulus Recovery Packages as a major tool of confronting the economic crisis has taken a forefront of global economic recovery efforts. This was echoed and adopted in both the last G8 summit in Italy, and G20 in Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. Governor Corzine’s economic policies therefore fall along the right policy trajectories.

For the State of New Jersey to progressively overcome the socio-economic and socio-political challenges of modern times, re-electing Jon Corzine for Governor is the rightful national duty that all citizens should aggressively pursue. A Corzine administration will shape history, mold our communities with sustainable economic growth, strengthen national security and positively influence every doorstep and hamlet of our communities that we could all proudly call home.

By Binneh s Minteh, Former Gambian Army First Lieutenant, Newark, New Jersey

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He also produces The Sword of Truth at http://www.sofawarrior.blog.com/ . He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu.

The war in Afghanistan has dragged on for almost eight years with no end in sight as to the best possible approaches to a successful containment of the crisis. Several theories and hypothesis have been formulated and put before the appropriate policy and decision makers, but nonetheless, the war continues to take an eventual twist of turns around varying trajectories. Many have finally contended that the situation seems to be a historical repetition just as seen happened in the Vietnamese war. Whether true or false, the war has indeed become a delicate policy theme needing proper pondering in reaching a prescriptive venture towards the adoption of an approach that will effectively contain the crisis.

How does one therefore approach the crisis, and what are the appropriate modus operandi required to put an end to such deadly turn of events that is thwarting modern civilization to an apex of economic cleavages and wanton human destruction? These are the good old questions policy makers and decision makers are left to ponder.

In light of these impending conundrums of modern times, it is first important to take a quick look at the background of the crisis from a historical context before taking a look at the operational approaches and the prescriptive policy measures required to tackle the onslaught.

Historically it is important to understand that Afghanistan was trapped in an ideological warfare well before the modern war of the region. The battle between communism and liberal democracy propelled the positioning of an Islamic regime that was appealing to liberal democracy at a time when communism was determined to be deeply rooted across the region. This led to a war that dragged communist Soviet Union to the brink of demise, dogging Russian military myth to an unconditional state of defeat after their shameful withdrawal from the mountainous and cave trodden territories of Afghanistan – a dogma that still hunts Russian global military influence.

Until today, a scholarly debate on the defeat of the Soviets is mostly attributed to the support of the Islamic government (The Taliban) by the forces of Western Liberal Democratic actors namely: USA; Britain; France; Germany, and other actors within the horizons of the Liberal Democratic forces. This is no political gimmicks or machinations but a historical reality in the contours of global transformations; the naked hypothesis behind the Taliban’s ascension to power in Afghanistan.

Nonetheless Liberal Democratic Forces continued to provide daunting support for the Taliban without considerations of precautionary measures in the case of any triggering of backlashes as a result of what Samuel Huntington once duped as the clash of civilizations. It could be noted that when the distinguished Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington widely published his book titled The Clash of Civilizations, many scholars quickly denounced his scholarly analysis as lacking a basis , thus out of touch with the realities of the changing world.

Many others came up with several hypothesis and theories countering the distinguished scholar’s findings, thus contributing to a shift in policy formulations that could have thwarted our modern day predicament. The late Professor Huntington was not only track, but his findings that was carefully and brilliantly crafted in his Clash of civilization has indeed become a historical prophesy that will continue to shape generations. It was indeed a clash of civilization that brought us modern day ideological tensions. Thanks to the moderate forces of all civilizations for shedding light on the real contradictions.

A meaningful deciphering of Dr Huntington’s hypothesis and analysis could have triggered a rightful policy adoption in containing Taliban resentment against Liberal Democratic ideology. It was indeed a miss opportunity for an ideological compromise through positive and constructive engagements along socio-economic and socio-political developmental fronts. Lapses in Intelligence further polarized such meaningful policy actions that could have ushered in a paradigm of engagement and containment. This has indeed laid the ground for a deep and firmly rooted fundamentalist ideology across the parables of Taliban Administration.

A de-legitimization and denouncement of the Taliban administration after the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the US was therefore no historical accident. The US led multinational military operations that ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan was an evidence base multilateral action that stemmed from policy failures as a result of a flouted intelligence axiom.

In view of lessons from the Soviet experience, and policy failures that continues to threaten the stability of the region, it is imperative to brilliantly evaluate strategy towards the war in Afghanistan using uncompromising parallels of strengthening national and international security. Dragging on four almost 8-9 years with no end in sight, pursuing the war using a combination of engagement and containment- winning hearts and minds through socio-economic development programs; continuing to provide support and training for Afghani troops and the use of counter – insurgency tactics are the rightful policy moves that should largely be supported than a deployment of additional troops that has the potential of further escalations.

President Obama’s decision to review a decision on sending an additional 40,000 US troops to Afghanistan therefore comes very timely, especially in the midst of controversy looming over Afghanistan in the aftermath of the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections. Supporting the troops already on the ground and providing Afghani forces with the necessary intelligence and back up support in all their respective operations are the rightful operational policy measures required at such crucial times. Just as the Pakistani forces are taking a lead in their operations in the Province of Waziristan, so must the Afghani Army supported by Coalition Forces. This is just a food for thought.

In his contemporary Analysis of The Military as a Distinct Ethnic or Quasi –Ethnic Identity in Developing Countries, Daniel Zirker and Constantine P. Danapoulos argued that the military has over the years become a source of divisions and instability within the developing world as it seeks to protect the privileged position of a particular group or groups to the disadvantage of others. By recognizing and understanding the dynamics of military involvement in the politics of West Africa alone, not to mention Latin America, one could satisfactorily conclude that the sub-regions violent political instability in the last decade was largely a result of military involvement in to the political affairs of the nation.

Taking a closer look at the violent political ruptures of Liberia, Sierra-Leone, Ivory –Coast, Guinea-Bissau and most recently Guinea-Conakry, military involvement in to politics has largely been the driving force behind the intermittent violence that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Sadly all West African violent ridden nations followed similar paradigm shifts and trajectories.

Considering experiences of the sub-region, the most recent shake up across the architecture of the Gambian armed forces brought to light compelling dangers, implications and threats, thus raising several concerns. Whilst some members of the armed forces may benefit from the thunderbolt that has shaken the military command structure, the overall situation may be far from the reality as argued by pundits and analysts. The reasoning by several security analysts for example, is based on similar regional thunderbolts that followed the collapse of the political science axiom marking the end of the cold war period. Notable examples in the region include the Civil Wars of Liberia and Sierra-Leone.

Whether the Gambian Military would add similar political parallels to its legacy remains to be seen. What is however certain is that, the Gambian Armed Forces have earned an extra-ordinary reputation for taking a forefront of major peace-keeping missions of the sub-region and the continent in general. Hopefully concrete lessons are drawn from those peace-keeping missions.

The axed Army Chief, General Lang Tombong Tamba and other dismissed top ranking officers, and all other members of the Armed Forces are all honorable men and women. I am sure that both President Jammeh, and the dismissed Army Chiefs, and the fine men and women of the Armed Forces are cognizant of the dangers, implications and challenges of military involvement in to politics.

In view of the aforementioned analysis, President Jammeh must exercise Caution, Mercy, and Restraint as the commander- in-chief. His actions and policy towards the Armed Forces must be more of a unifying, than a divisive mechanism. The opportunities to do so are available. Hopefully the President will use his knowledge of the background of the dismissed army chiefs to ease the impending fear griping the nation, drop all impending charges, and put the disgraced senior officers back to work – if not the military, they could work at other public institutions. That is to the best interest of miniscule Gambia, and more importantly, because the “Army is a nation within a nation.” A disengagement of the military from politics is what The Gambia and the sub-region badly needs. What else could one say?

The author is an Independent Researcher Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu

When President Obama was announced the 2009 Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Award Recipient, varying echoes were heard across all global political and social mediums, spurring on whether the Young hegemonic American leader thus deserve the Award. In an October 9, 2009 press release, in Oslo, the award committee pointed that its decision to Award President Obama as the 2009 Nobel Peace Winner was based on “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, his call for dialogue and negotiations as instruments for resolving international conflicts, and his vision of a world free from nuclear arms, thus stimulating disarmament and arms control negotiations.” The announcement was however received with a mix-reaction.

Just as many argued that winning the award nine months in to his Presidency was too soon, many others opined that the Award was indeed a novelty that he very well deserves.

In the midst of two wars, the left of the global political spectrum concluded the Award as a controversy. The right on the other hand argued Obama’s Nobel Peace Award as a compromise of American leadership and influence. Others also contend the Award was a backlash on the Policies of his predecessor, former President Georg Bush. Many others – including previous award winners- hailed the decision to name President Obama as the 2009 Nobel Peace Award recipient as a historic reasoning of modern times.

Who is right or wrong? How do we therefore collectively come to a genuine reasoning on the choice of the 2009 Norwegian Nobel Peace Award winner? These are the questions that will continue to be a global hot theme.

Even though a mix response to the aforementioned questions already took shape, it is important to understand that objectivity across the global political discourse must never be under-estimated. Obama came to office at a time when American influence and leadership was questioned and challenged, international diplomacy threatened by a rising global tension among nations, the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and a dangerous clash of ideologies among civilizations.

Nonetheless his call for partnerships in all international efforts has steered global politics on to a path that has curb the dangers and threats to International Peace and Diplomacy. His policies ushered in a paradigm shift promoting peace, security and development of a world in the midst of real challenges. His message of change and his call for a shared responsibility and a global response to global challenges is shaping doorsteps, hamlets, cubicles and remote places across the world.

Carefully taking an in-depth analysis of global politics in the last decade, it is important to acknowledge the serious divisions that best characterized the 21st century international politics. President Obama’s renouncement of torture and bold move to close Guantanamo, his call for diplomacy and a multi-lateral approach to confront modern global challenges could not have come at a better time. By using diplomacy in his quest for a better and safer world, he has not the least compromised America’s image around the world, but only bolstered American leadership, values and influence, thus strengthened global solidarity.

Laying such great foundations within nine months of his Presidency is a step in the right direction. The Nobel Peace Prize will only strengthen his noble quest of global citizenship: that is making the world a better place for all. It is therefore only fair to say that he deserves the Award.

Binneh s Minteh, Newark, New Jersey

Former Gambian Army First Lieutenant

The author is an Independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu

Following an in-depth study of the Casamance Crisis, I concluded that colonial legacies such as arbitrary boundaries, ethnicity, poverty and the regions linkage to the single capitalist global economic system have largely been the driving forces towards the intermittent fueling of the conflict. I also concluded that a political economy approach as theorized by several contemporary scholars of modern African Affairs must be adopted to effectively address poverty, underdevelopment, the threat of drugs and deadly weapons.

From the study it is important to understand that, with the volatility of the region to several actors, brokering and maintaining a peace deal in the quest of ending the crisis has become rather difficult, if not challenging. The crisis has since then become a massive humanitarian disaster for the sub-region, with thousands of people killed and thousands others displaced. Until today, intermittent violence and the deadly effects of land mines continue to ravage the volatile region.

The Friday, October 3rd 2009 deadly ambush that killed Six Senegalese soldiers at the Niagha district along Senegal’s border with Guinea Bissau, about 120 kilometers east of the regional capital Ziguinchor, and the fleeing of over 1,000 civilians along the Guinea-Bissau border must be a call to action for the leaders of Senegal, Guinea – Bissau and the Gambia.
Current reports also indicate that the Movement of Democratic Forces in the Casamance (MFDC) is now operating in three respective splinter groups – one operating along the border of Guinea –Bissau, one in mid-land Casamance, and a third along the Gambia and Senegal Border in Casamance.

Following findings in the study of the Conflict, what courses of action does the actors of the conflict have to adopt to effectively contain the crisis? That is the very old question that needs to be carefully pondered.

With regional integration that is slowly shaping the sub-region and consequently the African continent, it is important that the major actors of the crisis take a forefront in crafting a peaceful resolution that will pave the way for a lasting solution of the crisis. Major actors such as Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia, The three MFDC factions, must all be part of such an effort.

In view of the aforementioned analysis it is important that an African Union Emissary be deployed to meet the Secessionist leaders before a peace and solidarity meeting that will bring the Heads of States of the three neighboring countries and the Secessionist leaders together; such an emissary could be either a former Head of State or a former distinguish African of high International credentials.

Knowing the historical ties and the colonial legacies that divided the region, it is imperative that a Comprehensive Peace and Reconciliation meeting be attended by the President’s of Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, The Gambia and all the three MFDC faction leaders. With an understanding that the people of Casamance aligned themselves more to Guinea-Bissau and The Gambia, and that The Gambia and Senegal are one people in two separate states, significant progress could be made towards the achievement of a lasting peace.

The Comprehensive Peace Plan must include Disarmament, Integration, and Amnesty, with a properly spelt out economic incentives for Secessionist combatants. The Integration must take shape across political, economical and social parallels of all the three neighboring countries.

Such a Comprehensive Peace Plan must be supported by micro-finance projects in education, agriculture and Professional studies for rebel combatants and youths – an international effort in funding from the World Bank, the IMF, the European Union, the African Union, the League of Arab Nations, China, Japan and the United States could provide considerable support for the cause.

The governments of Senegal, The Gambia and Guinea- Bissau must work together to adopt Integration packages that are in touch with socio-economic and socio –political realities of the respective countries.

A team of experts from the three countries could be appointed to work out details of the integration using peace-making and conflict resolution tools. Such experts must include Professionals with credentials from accredited Peace and Conflict Resolution Institutes. Using conflict resolution tools, the experts would outline an integration and implementation plan for the Secessionist Combatants.

Research further showed that ending violent political conflicts in a region duped as “the Periphery of all Peripheries,” requires a political-economy approach to development with a vibrant capitalist- class free from state predation and poverty reduction (McGowan 2005). Using the States Security apparatus in containing the situation will only fuel the crisis.

Building a strong region will require promoting policies that will eradicate poverty, promote integration and disarmament, end repression and oppression, mobilize resources for indigenous businesses to be competitive in both national and global markets, and uphold the rule of law as stipulated in national constitutions.

There is no doubt that once the Presidents of Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and the three MFDC faction leaders meet in the name of African Unity, global peace and security, the Casamance province may likely be on the path of becoming a conflict-free zone in West Africa.

This is just a food for thought.

Binneh s Minteh, Former Gambian Army Lieutenant, Newark, New Jersey

The author is an Independent, Researcher, Analyst and Consultant. He could be reached by email at bsm235@nyu.edu