A U.S. Military Intervention in Darfur Under President Gore

CaliGuy

Banned
Would it have been likely for the U.S. to militarily intervene in Darfur to stop the ethnic cleansing there had Al Gore won the U.S. Presidency in 2000?

If so, what exactly would this U.S. military intervention look like and what would the ultimate military and political outcome of this military intervention be?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
For the record, as far as I remember, Darfur was a hot cause for liberals in the mid-2000s; thus, I am wondering if a more liberal U.S. President in the mid-2000s would have actually tried taking military action against Sudan in an attempt to stop the ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
 
No, not under Gore or anyone who served in the Clinton administration during Somalia. There is almost no political will in the united states to spend our troops intervening in Africa. Supporting a regional force might be possible but darfur and Sudan in general is the type of long running conflict which no one can see a solution and the regional powers are well aware and unwilling to put their own people at risk in trying to solve it.
 
You mean like an African Union force?
Au is a possibility, but I have nobidea what shape their forces were in during that time frame. My own thoughts were more along the lines of what Ethiopia did in Somalia then an AU force...
 

Towelie

Banned
For the record, as far as I remember, Darfur was a hot cause for liberals in the mid-2000s; thus, I am wondering if a more liberal U.S. President in the mid-2000s would have actually tried taking military action against Sudan in an attempt to stop the ethnic cleansing in Darfur.
Well, to start with, where do they work out of? Is there a base in the region that would allow the US Military to get a foothold in Sudan and take action? Logistics are a big issue, even with the best at power projection. And considering the attitudes of the Sudanese government, which was egging the Janjaweed Militias on, intervention would be an act of war. I suppose an amphibious landing could be made along the Red Sea, but a lot of ground would need to be covered to have any impact, or more likely, Chad would be the base for US and likely French forces.

This would be a large scale deployment as well.

I'm not sure if there is the political will for that.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well, to start with, where do they work out of? Is there a base in the region that would allow the US Military to get a foothold in Sudan and take action? Logistics are a big issue, even with the best at power projection. And considering the attitudes of the Sudanese government, which was egging the Janjaweed Militias on, intervention would be an act of war. I suppose an amphibious landing could be made along the Red Sea, but a lot of ground would need to be covered to have any impact, or more likely, Chad would be the base for US and likely French forces.

This would be a large scale deployment as well.

I'm not sure if there is the political will for that.
Would NATO airstrikes be insufficient to get Sudan to back off, though?

Also, if NATO is actually successful in its mission in Darfur in this TL (assuming that this mission actually occurs, that is), would it give Darfur independence afterwards just like for Kosovo? Or would Darfur remain a part of Sudan?
 
Would NATO airstrikes be insufficient to get Sudan to back off, though?

Also, if NATO is actually successful in its mission in Darfur in this TL (assuming that this mission actually occurs, that is), would it give Darfur independence afterwards just like for Kosovo? Or would Darfur remain a part of Sudan?

Let's say NATO is somehow successful,chances are there will not be an independent Darfur if the Sudanese Government doesn't agree to it. The African Union tends to want to keep all the borders the same for whatever reason I am not sure,but it's why they still support Mogadishu over Somaliland and often stress territorial integrity.

With that said,I'm not sure the goal of the mission would even be an independent Darfur. Darfur on it's own is landlocked and doesn't have very many resources,plus they are very poor. It would be better just to overthrow Al-Bashir's Government and install a new one that is (hopefully) nicer to the people of Darfur.
 

Towelie

Banned
Let's say NATO is somehow successful,chances are there will not be an independent Darfur if the Sudanese Government doesn't agree to it. The African Union tends to want to keep all the borders the same for whatever reason I am not sure,but it's why they still support Mogadishu over Somaliland and often stress territorial integrity.

With that said,I'm not sure the goal of the mission would even be an independent Darfur. Darfur on it's own is landlocked and doesn't have very many resources,plus they are very poor. It would be better just to overthrow Al-Bashir's Government and install a new one that is (hopefully) nicer to the people of Darfur.

The African Union in my view rightfully thinks that a precedent of changed borders will lead to ethnic conflicts becoming external and very messy (like with the Congo Crisis) rather than internal and less messy.

But when common sense changes are on the docket, I don't see why not.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The African Union in my view rightfully thinks that a precedent of changed borders will lead to ethnic conflicts becoming external and very messy (like with the Congo Crisis) rather than internal and less messy.

But when common sense changes are on the docket, I don't see why not.
Did anyone actually advocate territorial changes in the Congo Crisis, though?
 
SOF = Special Operations Forces ... Green Berets, SEALs, etc. Who infiltrate in small numbers to call in air strikes and ambush local thugs.

OTL the whole Darfur crisis was a clash between two different climates, two different economies, two different races, two different religions and two different empires, both of which aim to dominate the planet.
Northern Sudan is largely dry desert that can barely support grazing - in the good years -. As climactic shifts brought moist and dry cycles, nomadic herders expanded or contracted their land claims, depending upon how many animals they could feed in a given year. Meanwhile, South Sudan (aka Darfur) gets more precipitation making it margin agricultural land.
ergo Northern Sudanese were largely nomadic herders while Darfur was dominated by small farmers. Over the centuries, farmers had granted herders seasonal access to grazing land, which North Sudanese wanted to claim as their territory permanently.
Racial tension was added to the mix because North Sudanese were arabs, while South Sudan citizens were mostly black-skinned Africans.
Religion further complicates the issue because North Sudanese are muslims who can call on wealthy Muslims to fund their defensive jihad, while South Sudanese were a mix of Christians and animists lacking militant traditions.
The two different Empires were China versus the western capitalists who dominate much of the rest of Africa. Chinese have been expanding into Africa for decades in search of farmland, minerals and oil. The Darfur Crisis was largely funded by Chinese interests trying to gain access to Sudanese oil.
Since Western oil companies had easy access to the vast petroleum reserves in the arabian peninsula, they had little interest in the smaller Sudanese oil reserves.

So the challenge is to convince a western oil company to contest Chinese claims to Sudanese oil and drag their respective governments into war. Religion, race, climate change, etc. Are just excuses to motivate the troops.
 
SOF = Special Operations Forces ... Green Berets, SEALs, etc. Who infiltrate in small numbers to call in air strikes and ambush local thugs.

OTL the whole Darfur crisis was a clash between two different climates, two different economies, two different races, two different religions and two different empires, both of which aim to dominate the planet.
Northern Sudan is largely dry desert that can barely support grazing - in the good years -. As climactic shifts brought moist and dry cycles, nomadic herders expanded or contracted their land claims, depending upon how many animals they could feed in a given year. Meanwhile, South Sudan (aka Darfur) gets more precipitation making it margin agricultural land.
ergo Northern Sudanese were largely nomadic herders while Darfur was dominated by small farmers. Over the centuries, farmers had granted herders seasonal access to grazing land, which North Sudanese wanted to claim as their territory permanently.
Racial tension was added to the mix because North Sudanese were arabs, while South Sudan citizens were mostly black-skinned Africans.
Religion further complicates the issue because North Sudanese are muslims who can call on wealthy Muslims to fund their defensive jihad, while South Sudanese were a mix of Christians and animists lacking militant traditions.
The two different Empires were China versus the western capitalists who dominate much of the rest of Africa. Chinese have been expanding into Africa for decades in search of farmland, minerals and oil. The Darfur Crisis was largely funded by Chinese interests trying to gain access to Sudanese oil.
Since Western oil companies had easy access to the vast petroleum reserves in the arabian peninsula, they had little interest in the smaller Sudanese oil reserves.

So the challenge is to convince a western oil company to contest Chinese claims to Sudanese oil and drag their respective governments into war. Religion, race, climate change, etc. Are just excuses to motivate the troops.

The problem with these assertions is that the civil war which lead to Darfur was a continuation war that started in 1955 (Before the country was granted independence) as the first Sudanese civil war, technically ending in 1972 only to flair up again in 1983 as the second Sudanese civil war which technically "ended" in 2005 with fighting continuing up until south Sudan was granted its independence. Since the British ran Sudan as two separate territories, north and south, the civil war was in many ways a colonial war which refused to die. It really wasn't a war brought on by the modern factors you named, although it certainly was perpetuated and enlarged by them.
 

Towelie

Banned
Did anyone actually advocate territorial changes in the Congo Crisis, though?
I think there was a breakaway state, but I made a mistake. I was actually referring to the First and Second Congo Wars in the late 90s. When you have a regional conflict that involves a bunch of actors, things get really bad. Rwanda basically tried to puppetize Congo in an effort to get at the remnants of the Genocidaires and dismantle the threat from the refugee camps in East Congo, while other countries also sent troops in addition to the Tutsi alliance formed between Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda. There were rumors that Rwanda wanted to annex parts along their border in East Congo, but it wasn't every a super high priority.

Honestly though, territorial changes weren't the biggest issue in this case. The biggest issue was the fact that a bunch of foreign actors saw Congo as worth fighting over to get someone they wanted in charge, and it killed millions in the process. Rwanda wanted once and for all to destroy the Hutu Genocidaires and repatriate Tutsi refugees, and never have to worry about the Hutus forming an army and coming back to kill them again. Uganda wanted stability and to help Rwanda. Angola wanted to get at UNITA, who supported Mobutu. Burundi feared the same enemies that Rwanda did and had issues on their border was well.

I think the African Union cares more about preventing regional conflagarations like that, and prefers civil wars to stay internal rather to invite in foreign actors who may have designs on territory, influence, resources, etc., which only makes such wars bloodier.
 
And an Al Gore presidency could be criticized both ways. Both for getting us bogged down, and for not doing something sooner.
 
Genocide often sneaks up on us slowly, which is one of the things which makes it so damn difficult. And plus, the means are often "passive," such as trickily manipulating a famine already in progress.

And in some tragic cases during the cold war, we the United States were actually supporting the government committing the genocide.

===

All the same, if the international commitment following the revelation of the Nazi Holocaust of "Never again" had really been followed, we would be living in a very different world.
 
Last edited:
Top