Bush invades Sudan instead of Iraq

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Ricardolindo, Oct 16, 2018.

  1. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    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: Oct 16, 2018
  2. Catspoke Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    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?
     
  3. David T Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    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...
     
    ert44444, Soup, Eyrtxd and 6 others like this.
  4. twistedirregular Negus Negast

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Location:
    The Kingdom of Abyssinia
    Ethiopia might prove a willing host.
     
    Histor32, Lord Arthur, NVB and 7 others like this.
  5. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    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.
     
  6. Falk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Location:
    Missouri, USA
    Does Sudan have oil?
     
  7. Wolttaire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2018
    yes unexpolted
     
  8. Catspoke Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    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.
     
    297* and gap80 like this.
  9. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    I think Ethiopian bases are good enough for it. Egyptian ones certainly are but it's trickier to say if they would host it.
     
    Alpha-King98760 likes this.
  10. dbakes994 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2017
    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.
     
  11. metalinvader665 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    Tennessee, North American Union
    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.
     
  12. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    Many liberals and left-wingers wanted an intervention in Darfur. Do you think Bush would be more popular in this timeline?
     
  13. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    Bump.
     
  14. Arcvalons L'Internationale sera le genre humain.

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Location:
    Sozialistische Weltrepublik
    No ISIS, probably no Arab Spring though.
     
    Lord Arthur, 297* and Bomster like this.
  15. riggerrob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    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.
     
    Alpha-King98760, Samedi and gap80 like this.
  16. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    We forgot Uganda, it was an enemy of Sudan, at the time. I think it would be a willing host for US and other Western forces.
     
    Alpha-King98760 and gap80 like this.
  17. Ricardolindo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2018
    Location:
    Portugal
    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?
     
  18. connorCD I make bad threads that get little to no attention

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2018
    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.
     
  19. metalinvader665 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Location:
    Tennessee, North American Union
    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.
     
  20. connorCD I make bad threads that get little to no attention

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2018
    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.
     
    Alpha-King98760 and Lord Arthur like this.