Bush invades Sudan instead of Iraq

Ricardolindo

Banned
I read an old thread here https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-bush-orders-the-us-to-invade-sudan.110619/ discussing such a scenario and also opened a discussion myself in https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryWhatIf/comments/9ehu5x/what_if_bush_invaded_sudan_instead_of_iraq/. In short, there are reports, that, in 2003 or 2004 when the Darfur conflict and genocide started, Bush wanted to invade Sudan but Condoleezza Rice talked him out of it. What if he gave up on invading Iraq and insisted on invading Sudan? He would have had a very strong case for invasion due to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda having been hosted in Sudan in the 90s and having had ties with the Sudanese government, the Sudanese government's relations with rebels and terrorists in general, a genocide going on in Darfur and the oppression of Christians in the South. How much support would there have been for such a war? Would this war have been more sucessful than the Iraqi?
 
Last edited:

Catspoke

It would be easier to invade. Might get some diplomatic bonus points for helping out South Sudan. Might have less Russian and French opposition.

However there is no threat coming from there that can be made up that anybody would believe (i.e WMD or some such).

Occupying and securing the place would probably be harder than Iraq.

Is there a friendly country adjacent that the USA could set up and base in though?
 

David T

You know, George H. W. Bush did not go to war with Sudan and leave a regime in place that his son was eager to finish the job by removing once and for all...
 

Ricardolindo

Banned
Catspoke said:
It would be easier to invade. Might get some diplomatic bonus points for helping out South Sudan. Might have less Russian and French opposition.

However there is no threat coming from there that can be made up that anybody would believe (i.e WMD or some such).

Occupying and securing the place would probably be harder than Iraq.

Is there a friendly country adjacent that the USA could set up and base in though?
Click to expand...

Ethiopia and Chad should do as hosts. Potentially also Eritrea and Egypt. They might even contribute with their own troops. Bush could simply say, that, they are trying to save people from a genocide and, that, al-Bashir's regime is likely to host terrorists.
 

Catspoke

http://www.afrol.com/articles/21889

good article on Sudan oil production.

Those neighbor countries infrastructure are going to need some improvement to support a few US divisions.

The risk/reward seems out of place here. At least Iraq in the NeoCon dream was a world changer if you were sucessful.
 
dbakes994

dbakes994

All Bush or Powell would have to do is go to the UN, say the words ”terrorism” and ”genocide”, and would have walked out with most of the world on their side.
 

Arkenfolm

Maybe get "evidence" that al-Qaeda is back in Sudan. I'm sure Pakistan would love to advance the idea that Osama went back to Sudan after being kicked out of Afghanistan.

Otherwise yes, there will be a lot of support, a lot more than Iraq. The Darfur genocide, oppression of Christians in the South, potential terrorist links, etc.
 

riggerrob

OTL
I vaguely remember the USAF bombed the bejezuz out of Sudan pharmaceutical plant they suspected of manufacturing nerve gas.
Upon closer inspection, the rubble contained plenty of legal drugs but no evidence of nerve gas or chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Convention.
 

Ricardolindo

Banned
Imagine the following scenario: A coalition composed of American, British, French, German, Australian, Polish and Canadian forces invades Sudan from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Chad and Uganda along with these countries' troops and through a landing operation in Port Sudan. There are also airstrikes against Sudanese military and political infrastructure. The coalition forces collaborate with anti-al-Bashir militias and groups. How long would al-Bashir's regime last in such a scenario? What would happen after the invasion?
 

connorCD

I'm guessing that once Al-Bashir is overthrown, Darfur would've become an independent country while South Sudan either gains independence earlier than OTL or gets annexed by some other country (maybe Ethiopia or Uganda. Kinda doubt it though). I'm also assuming that Hussein would've kept his position in Iraq for atleast a little longer and he wouldn't have been killed. With this, perhaps Iraq would've been a much more stable, albeit pretty authoritarian country to this day. Remember, during Hussein's reign, Iraq was a much more advanced nation similar to Pre-2011 Libya.
 

Arkenfolm

connorCD said:
I'm guessing that once Al-Bashir is overthrown, Darfur would've become an independent country while South Sudan either gains independence earlier than OTL or gets annexed by some other country (maybe Ethiopia or Uganda. Kinda doubt it though). I'm also assuming that Hussein would've kept his position in Iraq for atleast a little longer and he wouldn't have been killed. With this, perhaps Iraq would've been a much more stable, albeit pretty authoritarian country to this day. Remember, during Hussein's reign, Iraq was a much more advanced nation similar to Pre-2011 Libya.
Click to expand...

South Sudan would be independent period. It's culturally somewhat related to the peoples in the north of Uganda who hate the central government (remember Kony?).

Iraq would be in for some trouble when Saddam dies (he was born 1937) and there might be the potential of a Syria-like situation there).

Sudan itself will be an utter wreck, since Darfur and South Sudan aren't the only regions who have taken up arms. Sudan's internal conflict almost reminds me of an African version of Burma.
 

connorCD

metalinvader665 said:
South Sudan would be independent period. It's culturally somewhat related to the peoples in the north of Uganda who hate the central government (remember Kony?).

Iraq would be in for some trouble when Saddam dies (he was born 1937) and there might be the potential of a Syria-like situation there).

Sudan itself will be an utter wreck, since Darfur and South Sudan aren't the only regions who have taken up arms. Sudan's internal conflict almost reminds me of an African version of Burma.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is likely that Saddam would die of old age at some point, so he could just have one of his children succeed him as the ruler of Iraq (if he could) and if said new ruler doesn't screw up, Iraq would probably still hold it's position as "one of the few modern islamic countries."

And yes, Sudan would definitely become a shitshow after the war. Possibly even falling into a state of anarchy similar to Somalia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top