* Political arguments and quarrels in the media between political parties are common, expected and acceptable. It is always desirable and required because it gives vitality to the political scene.
* It is useful when its content addresses the mind of the reader, listener or viewer, introducing him to the new, regardless of the size of this new and the amount of its value. It is the search for compatibility and unity with regard to the issues of the homeland and society, and when all of this is expressed in a language that embodies the meaning of difference in the light of mutual respect, no matter how intense the harshness and hostility may be.
*As for the political arguments and quarrels that descend into the quagmire of wrangling and falling out of words, they are definitely abhorrent because their content does not address the mind but instincts, and is of little value and useless to it and is not concerned with reaching unity or agreement, and because it often appears contrary to what it covers to conceal something or to camouflage. And distraction, and it always comes as a result of the inability and failure to address the crises of the homeland and society, so it expresses them focusing on the ego and personalization, raising a thick dust of the vocabulary and its meanings in slandering the other, thus killing respect, so it grows and flourishes at the critical junctures in which politics is vulgarized. .
* As for the Sudanese armed forces being a party to these hated political debates and quarrels, and through statements that do not come from this individual or that of its soldiers, but rather come from the occupants of leadership positions in which it officially authorizes them to express it, the editor-in-chief of its newspaper and the official spokesperson for its component in the Sovereignty Council This is a serious matter, in my estimation, reaching the limit of a misdemeanor that requires legal accountability within the institution and according to its laws, or at least requires the intervention of the institution’s leadership to control the language and content according to the well-known military discipline and linkage traditions, unless these statements were made with the knowledge and orders of this leadership, and if this is true, This is a disaster.
* It is true that members of the regular forces have the right to have a political opinion and position, just like all citizens of the country. But if the nature of the military institution, its systems and laws, as a national institution and with a special sensitivity, prohibits these individuals from publicly expressing their political positions so as not to confuse them with politics and politicians, then those who express it in the media dare to engage in political quarrels to the point of strife, even as a reaction What some political actors, individuals and institutions, throw at them, places the military in the position of a political/party body, a position that is rejected by us, and before that it is neither accepted nor satisfied by the sons of the armed forces, regardless of the political position adopted by any of them.
* It is true that all the constitutions that have passed through Sudan since the dawn of its independence, as well as charters and documents of various political agreements, all stipulate a single nationalist Sudanese army.
*But this text did not prevent the Sudanese armed forces from getting involved, under the impetus of political forces, in military coups of a partisan nature, whether traditional, leftist or Islamic. It also did not prevent it, by order of politicians, from suppressing demonstrations, protests, unrest, and internal sit-ins, nor did it prevent it from getting involved in civil wars, another aspect of political conflict, which has nothing to do with a foreign foreign enemy, but rather puts soldiers from the burning regions in a state of internal rupture. It is intolerable, when they are asked to fight their fellow rebels and rebellious ones for political, economic and social reasons.
*However, all this involvement did not deprive the Sudanese army of its patriotism and the permanence of a clear conscience. Its emotions were crowned with pride when it resolved the matter by siding with the rising masses in October 1964 and in April 1985 and April 2019. The relationship of the Sudanese army with politics, as I see it, It is complex in nature, we have discussed it before and we will discuss it again in our next article.
No two will differ in that the defunct rescue regime launched a thunderbolt attack on the Sudanese army and other regular institutions, so I worked in them to dismember, dismember and displace, striving for its ideology to be its military creed, and for these institutions to be a mount in its hand to implement its programs and the illusions that nest in its head.
* That fierce attack continued for three decades, so it is natural that its secretions remain until today, and perhaps tomorrow, hence the call for reform. And if we go back to the early days of the great December revolution, we will remember that the speech of the army leadership at that time was biased towards the regime, which is expected and understandable. But what was not understood and illogical and provoked the indignation of the various segments of the Sudanese people, was what was stated in the statement of that army command in February 2019 when it said, “Those who are at the forefront of the scene in the demonstrations are the same faces that have continued to hostile Sudan and distort its image in front of the world and incite the organizations…, and that The armed forces will not hand the country over to odd prospects..! Note that the majority of the demonstrators, or the oddities of these horizons as described by the army leadership at the time, were calling for the army to take sides in the street as an extension of its bright national history, and even occupied the general command square with sit-ins, but what happened…!
* On that day, on February 2, 2019, I addressed that army command in an article in which I said, “I do not know what the army leadership said about the martyrs who fell in the streets, the last of whom were the martyrs Fayez Abdullah, Hassan Talqa and Professor Ahmed Al-Khair, all three of whom died due to brutal physical torture, Is the army leadership not concerned with these martyrs because they are from the perverted horizons?”
* It is a grave mistake for the army leadership not to prevent its employees from engaging in political arguments and quarrels in the media, and a grave mistake for the political leaders not to restrain provocative rhetoric toward the army, for in the end the outcome will be a disaster for everyone, the people, the army and the country.
Quoted from Al-Quds Al-Arabi