Bush invades Sudan instead of Iraq

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.

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.

Not sure about Sudan becoming an utter wreck, the Sudanese are less radical than the Afghans and could probably accept a new government easier.
 
Last edited:
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."

I suspect Qusay Hussein (assuming Uday Hussein, who was a legitimate psychopath, didn't find a way to kill him before then) would be a bit like Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who also inherited power from his father. I think it's a wildcard whether Saddam and/or him survive Arab Spring (if something like that still happens) without being deposed or having a Syria-like civil war. Reportedly Qusay was involved in cracking down on internal dissent in Iraq, and was more efficient about it than his brother's more maniacal and indulgent ways of dealing with the opposition.

Not sure about Sudan becoming an utter wreck, the Sudanese are less radical than the Afghans and could probably accept a new government easier.

It wouldn't have to be, but given the OTL forces which governed Iraq and their tendency to make inept and ideology-based decisions, Sudan would be in for a rough next decade-plus. There's going to be a lot of people who hate the US-backed government and like Iraq, ample opportunities for al-Qaeda to gain a real foothold. Throw in unresolved ethnic tensions and spillover from South Sudan and Uganda and the region could be a real mess.
 
I suspect Qusay Hussein (assuming Uday Hussein, who was a legitimate psychopath, didn't find a way to kill him before then) would be a bit like Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, who also inherited power from his father. I think it's a wildcard whether Saddam and/or him survive Arab Spring (if something like that still happens) without being deposed or having a Syria-like civil war. Reportedly Qusay was involved in cracking down on internal dissent in Iraq, and was more efficient about it than his brother's more maniacal and indulgent ways of dealing with the opposition.



It wouldn't have to be, but given the OTL forces which governed Iraq and their tendency to make inept and ideology-based decisions, Sudan would be in for a rough next decade-plus. There's going to be a lot of people who hate the US-backed government and like Iraq, ample opportunities for al-Qaeda to gain a real foothold. Throw in unresolved ethnic tensions and spillover from South Sudan and Uganda and the region could be a real mess.

What if after capturing or killing al-Bashir, Bush withdrew the troops and asked the UN to put a peacekeeping mission there?
 
I think it's a wildcard whether Saddam and/or him survive Arab Spring (if something like that still happens) without being deposed or having a Syria-like civil war.

To my knowledge, Saddam was still in reasonably good shape down to the time of his demise in 2006, and probably would've lived to see the arab spring (had it still happened) especially if he didn't have to put up with the stress of defeat, hiding and captivity from 2003-6. If he was still extant and in power in 2011, I don't think resistance would've gotten very far in Iraq; it never seemed to do so with him in charge.
But what if Iraq remained relatively quiet while things went as in the OTL in Syria. It's possible that Saddam's sunni based regime would've aided sunni resistance forces--and prevented a lot of Iranian aid from reaching Bashir. In that case, Iraq could've become a great regional power at the end of the Saddam era, despite all his prior goofs.
 
I am not sure Ethiopia would be willing, although this was an earlier time, Ethiopia has generally viewed Sudan as a counterweight to Egypt.
 
To my knowledge, Saddam was still in reasonably good shape down to the time of his demise in 2006, and probably would've lived to see the arab spring (had it still happened) especially if he didn't have to put up with the stress of defeat, hiding and captivity from 2003-6. If he was still extant and in power in 2011, I don't think resistance would've gotten very far in Iraq; it never seemed to do so with him in charge.
But what if Iraq remained relatively quiet while things went as in the OTL in Syria. It's possible that Saddam's sunni based regime would've aided sunni resistance forces--and prevented a lot of Iranian aid from reaching Bashir. In that case, Iraq could've become a great regional power at the end of the Saddam era, despite all his prior goofs.
Saddam might very well have tried to seize Syrian land by using a bogus causes beli, like "BABYLON"
 
Could it be done? Yes, easily. The US had a ton of good will post 9/11 that was fully eliminated by invading Iraq. Going after a known host country of the terrorists who committed it would track and ending the genocideS there against the people in Darfur and S Sudan would be salable to the international community. The US had good relations at the time with Egypt, Chad, and Ethiopia (particularly Egypt). Eritrea, which has their own issues with brutality, would probably oppose it, but they have no close political allies to speak of then or now. Iraq had a large, somewhat modern, military. Sudan would be completely defeated in days.

Fallout:

Iraq would be more developed, and if his not-crazy son was the one to take over there would probably be some small amount of a thaw in diplomatic relations. Iraqis in general would be no worse off than the Kuwaitis or Qatari. Probably still have the US protecting Kurdish interests in the north, though.

No Iraq invasion probably leaves Syria in a stronger position without having to worry about elements across the border causing issues for them. ISIL doesn't come to power and there's no wholesale destruction of world history in the area or looting of museums in the area.

Darfur is a huge area. An independence referendum in the area would create a very large new state being on the edge of the Sahara.
980x.jpg


As you can see, Chad would be the most instrumental in getting to this area quickly.

S. Sudan may be slightly larger in order to encompass all of the oilfields in that area. American oil exploration would probably amp up with the country starting as an occupied zone. Pipelines going through Kenya may be a good track to take as it's a more stable country with good relations with lots of western states. The chances of the current interethnic conflict in S. Sudan are probably lessened as they become independent in stages as a monitored process (like that used in Iraq).

Most of the remaining population of Sudan is centered on the Nile and is more homogeneous than one would think (compared to the extremely heterogeneous S. Sudan). It would now almost certainly become a hotbed for fundamentalism with the Sauds spreading their evil unchecked from just across the Red Sea to a young, humiliated, and poor population. There may be no ISIS-Like group in Iraq, but there would be a very good chance of one developing in Sudan, imo. Particularly so if there was any kind of postwar power vacuum at all.
 
Could it be done? Yes, easily. The US had a ton of good will post 9/11 that was fully eliminated by invading Iraq. Going after a known host country of the terrorists who committed it would track and ending the genocideS there against the people in Darfur and S Sudan would be salable to the international community. The US had good relations at the time with Egypt, Chad, and Ethiopia (particularly Egypt). Eritrea, which has their own issues with brutality, would probably oppose it, but they have no close political allies to speak of then or now. Iraq had a large, somewhat modern, military. Sudan would be completely defeated in days.

Fallout:

Iraq would be more developed, and if his not-crazy son was the one to take over there would probably be some small amount of a thaw in diplomatic relations. Iraqis in general would be no worse off than the Kuwaitis or Qatari. Probably still have the US protecting Kurdish interests in the north, though.

No Iraq invasion probably leaves Syria in a stronger position without having to worry about elements across the border causing issues for them. ISIL doesn't come to power and there's no wholesale destruction of world history in the area or looting of museums in the area.

Darfur is a huge area. An independence referendum in the area would create a very large new state being on the edge of the Sahara.
980x.jpg


As you can see, Chad would be the most instrumental in getting to this area quickly.

S. Sudan may be slightly larger in order to encompass all of the oilfields in that area. American oil exploration would probably amp up with the country starting as an occupied zone. Pipelines going through Kenya may be a good track to take as it's a more stable country with good relations with lots of western states. The chances of the current interethnic conflict in S. Sudan are probably lessened as they become independent in stages as a monitored process (like that used in Iraq).

Most of the remaining population of Sudan is centered on the Nile and is more homogeneous than one would think (compared to the extremely heterogeneous S. Sudan). It would now almost certainly become a hotbed for fundamentalism with the Sauds spreading their evil unchecked from just across the Red Sea to a young, humiliated, and poor population. There may be no ISIS-Like group in Iraq, but there would be a very good chance of one developing in Sudan, imo. Particularly so if there was any kind of postwar power vacuum at all.

Eritrea was an enemy of Sudan at the time because Sudan supported an Islamist group against the Eritrean government. Also, do you think Darfur could have joined Chad? Darfur's people are similar to the people of Chad.
 
It would be difficult to justify taking land from a country to give to another politically. Cyprus is a good example of how that process can go.

I don't think Eritrea wants people to pay attention to it so whatever they feel will draw the least attention is what they'll do. They might join, but I doubt they'd allow staging to take place in the country. There's a good reason why so many of the people fleeing to asylum in Europe are Eritreans. That regime is brutal.
 
Could it be done? Yes, easily. The US had a ton of good will post 9/11 that was fully eliminated by invading Iraq. Going after a known host country of the terrorists who committed it would track and ending the genocideS there against the people in Darfur and S Sudan would be salable to the international community. The US had good relations at the time with Egypt, Chad, and Ethiopia (particularly Egypt). Eritrea, which has their own issues with brutality, would probably oppose it, but they have no close political allies to speak of then or now. Iraq had a large, somewhat modern, military. Sudan would be completely defeated in days.

Fallout:

Iraq would be more developed, and if his not-crazy son was the one to take over there would probably be some small amount of a thaw in diplomatic relations. Iraqis in general would be no worse off than the Kuwaitis or Qatari. Probably still have the US protecting Kurdish interests in the north, though.

It seems hard to say. Iraq won't be utterly decimated like OTL, but Saddam and later Qusay ruling the place will have problems. It says a lot when the "ideal" situation is they just kill a bunch of protestors and make some superficial changes and not have a civil war like in Syria.

No Iraq invasion probably leaves Syria in a stronger position without having to worry about elements across the border causing issues for them. ISIL doesn't come to power and there's no wholesale destruction of world history in the area or looting of museums in the area.

Darfur is a huge area. An independence referendum in the area would create a very large new state being on the edge of the Sahara.
980x.jpg


As you can see, Chad would be the most instrumental in getting to this area quickly.

S. Sudan may be slightly larger in order to encompass all of the oilfields in that area. American oil exploration would probably amp up with the country starting as an occupied zone. Pipelines going through Kenya may be a good track to take as it's a more stable country with good relations with lots of western states. The chances of the current interethnic conflict in S. Sudan are probably lessened as they become independent in stages as a monitored process (like that used in Iraq).

True, but the regimes of Hafez al-Assad and Saddam Hussein and potential heirs like Bashar and Qusay combined with regional movements like Arab Spring could allow for even worse groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc. to slip in.

More realistically the US-backed South Sudanese regime is given the ability to betray their former allies and no doubt end up committing human rights abuses. South Sudan is still an utter mess, but the central government has slightly more control.

Most of the remaining population of Sudan is centered on the Nile and is more homogeneous than one would think (compared to the extremely heterogeneous S. Sudan). It would now almost certainly become a hotbed for fundamentalism with the Sauds spreading their evil unchecked from just across the Red Sea to a young, humiliated, and poor population. There may be no ISIS-Like group in Iraq, but there would be a very good chance of one developing in Sudan, imo. Particularly so if there was any kind of postwar power vacuum at all.

Sure, and there probably will be a postwar power vacuum. That isn't good, neither for regional stability nor for the regime the US appointed, especially if it's like the incompetence in Iraq.

Eritrea was an enemy of Sudan at the time because Sudan supported an Islamist group against the Eritrean government. Also, do you think Darfur could have joined Chad? Darfur's people are similar to the people of Chad.

No, since Chad is full of a bunch of separate groups. It's best to give Darfur independence than put the Darfuri groups under Chadian rule. Chad is pretty unstable and chaotic, and while Darfur is bound to be a mess, might as well make it a separate problem from Chad.

It would be difficult to justify taking land from a country to give to another politically. Cyprus is a good example of how that process can go.

I don't think Eritrea wants people to pay attention to it so whatever they feel will draw the least attention is what they'll do. They might join, but I doubt they'd allow staging to take place in the country. There's a good reason why so many of the people fleeing to asylum in Europe are Eritreans. That regime is brutal.

Eritrea has been compared to an African version of North Korea, and that seems to be more or less accurate. Eritrea's main problem in the early 2000s is that Ethiopia, their arch-rivals, utterly hates them. Hence why Eritrea and Isaias Afwerki will certainly want to avoid the whole thing.
 
Pointing out that with Chad nearby, you'll have way more French interaction Pretty sure the French army has several bases in the region
 
Pointing out that with Chad nearby, you'll have way more French interaction Pretty sure the French army has several bases in the region

Which averts a lot of 00s French tropes, since France will take an interest in this conflict, the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" thing won't be nearly as big, "freedom fries" will never exist, etc. Françafrique will no doubt play a role in the "War in Sudan", and not to the dissatifaction like OTL France.
 
I think Ethiopian bases are good enough for it. Egyptian ones certainly are but it's trickier to say if they would host it.

I backtrack on this one, I believe, that, Egypt would have hosted it. Egypt has a border dispute with Sudan and it also colloborated with Algeria and Tunisia against a supposed Sudanese-Iranian alliance during the Algerian Civil War.
 
The US isn't going to break up Sudan as it going make it's job a hell of lot harder in the North and looks bad international. Darfur and South Sudan are going to become autonomous states.
 
The US isn't going to break up Sudan as it going make it's job a hell of lot harder in the North and looks bad international. Darfur and South Sudan are going to become autonomous states.
I think that Darfur would be made a very autonomous state, but South Sudan would be independent. If the USA don't do it it would get independence anyway once they withdraw.
 
Top