Africa's Great War

Chilperic

Banned
I think in the late 1970's, there was a great risk of a great african war spreading from the uganda-tanzania war... thoughts?
 
No way. They were all too broke...still are actually. No Subsaharan state with the possible exception of South Africa, has the capacity to engage in wars outside it's borders.
 

Chilperic

Banned
No way. They were all too broke...still are actually. No Subsaharan state with the possible exception of South Africa, has the capacity to engage in wars outside it's borders.

Well Eritrea and Ethiopa managed to fight a 2 year war in 1998 which is supposed to have been ruinously expensive....
 
Well, the Subsaharan wars were more relapses into anarchy than wars as we in the West understand such things. Of the millions who tragically died, most were poor tribal peoples caught up in anarchic situations. The Congo war was a perfect example. I quote from Marius' link:

"The largest war in modern African history, it directly involved eight African nations, as well as about 25 armed groups. By 2008 the war and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and starvation,[4] making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II.[5] Millions more were displaced from their homes or sought asylum in neighboring countries.[6]
Despite a formal end to the war in July 2003 and an agreement by the former belligerents to create a government of national unity, 1,000 people died daily in 2004 from easily preventable cases of malnutrition and disease.[7]"

It was anyway mostly a civil war, certainly not as I specified a war waged outside the Congo borders.

The Eritrean/Etheopian war was of course not subsaharan. No one doubts the abilities of North and horn of Africa nations to engage in wars.
 
Today is a better starting point than the 1970s, actually. Back in the 70s, most African countries had greater control over their territory and most militant groups had political paymasters who could yank the leash. If a major conflict started (or restarted) today, there is a good chance that all parties would soon devolve into warlordism, fighting over sources of revenue to continue fighting over sources of revenue to continue... The Condgo War was already a good deal like that. Now imagine it lasting for twenty years.
 
According to the current Threat Assessment no African State has the means to conduct sustained cross border operations. Now in the 70's this was also the case with the exception of South Africa, Political paymasters not withstanding. The best chance for a Great War in Africa is probably the early 80's. The chances that the RSA/Cubans get involved in war are basically good , Any war between the Cubans and RSA would bring in the Border States relatively quickly. Of course it wouldn't last very long, as the RSA was a major source of Strategic Materials and intervention would happen fairly quickly with the source of critical minerals threatened.
 
Well, the Subsaharan wars were more relapses into anarchy than wars as we in the West understand such things. Of the millions who tragically died, most were poor tribal peoples caught up in anarchic situations. The Congo war was a perfect example. I quote from Marius' link:

"The largest war in modern African history, it directly involved eight African nations, as well as about 25 armed groups. By 2008 the war and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and starvation,[4] making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II.[5] Millions more were displaced from their homes or sought asylum in neighboring countries.[6]
Despite a formal end to the war in July 2003 and an agreement by the former belligerents to create a government of national unity, 1,000 people died daily in 2004 from easily preventable cases of malnutrition and disease.[7]"

It was anyway mostly a civil war, certainly not as I specified a war waged outside the Congo borders.

The Eritrean/Etheopian war was of course not subsaharan. No one doubts the abilities of North and horn of Africa nations to engage in wars.

But it was a war waged outside the boundaries of a number of other African countries: Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Rwanda and possibly Burudi (and I think Sudan and Chad were involved at some point and then disentangled themselves). It was a also a bit more than a civil war, as erstwhile allies such as Uganda and Rwanda began fighting each other in Congo (mainly over control of the town of Kisangani). The fighting between Uganda and Rwanda certainly isn't a civil war in any sense, nor would fighting between outside African troops and any other troops (even Congolese rebels or government troops) - since those outside African troops would not be fighting their fellow nationals no matter who was on the other side of the firing zone.

Just because it was fought primarly in the Congo, doesn't mean the only participant that mattered was Congo. The Western Front of World War I was fought primarly in Belgium and France, but that doesn't make British or German participation meaningless.
 
Well yes, but it was hardly a war as we think of a war. You're talking abouut small groups of soldiers basically raping and pillaging across a defenceless tribal set up. For years.

No real logistics or even strategy. At least that was my take on it.

Compare the Iraq/Iran War or the Ogaden War, not to mention the various Arab/Israeli wars. Birds of a different feather.
 
Top