Is it plausible that America could invade Sudan as part of the War of Terror, instead of Afghanistan, if Al-qaida remained based there? What PODs would make them want to stay there?
If proto al-qaida remained based there and eventually committed a terror attack against a US target (which is the entire premise of the OP, did you actually read it) there would be ample motivation.Aside from the oil reserves in Sudan, what other conceivable strategic economic objectives would make this desirable? Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 would still be a strong memory in the minds of the U.S.. IMO, the American public has not been keen on long term military support or involvement in Sub-Sahara Africa.
Aside from the oil reserves in Sudan, what other conceivable strategic economic objectives would make this desirable? Operation Restore Hope in Somalia in 1992 would still be a strong memory in the minds of the U.S.. IMO, the American public has not been keen on long term military support or involvement in Sub-Sahara Africa.
There isn't even that much oil there (comparatively speaking).
Almost everything the US would want to do could be accomplished by conventional air and missile strikes, especially since Sudan is weak even compared to Iran or pre-invasion Iraq and has no conventional ability to resist those.
Thanks for the info, I thought they left of their own accord. Are there any PODs that could make him more intransigent?If the US was interested in seizing another nation's natural resources, then it wouldn't have invaded an completely resource deprived nation like Afghanistan.
The United States tried that (only air+ missile strikes) in 1998. Yet somehow, a mere three years later Al-Qaeda was still able to launch 9/11.
In regards to the OP, I think that Omar al-Bashir would hand Osama bin Laden over. He has repeatedly foulded to the West when consistent pressure has been brought to bear upon him. For example, when the US pressured him to expel Al-Qaeda in 1998 he did so. Thus Al-Qaeda set up base in Afghanistan.
Find some hardliner - perhaps Hassan al-Turabi - and manoeuvre him into al-Bashir's position.Are there any PODs that could make him more intransigent?
Thanks for the info, I thought they left of their own accord. Are there any PODs that could make him more intransigent?
Find some hardliner - perhaps Hassan al-Turabi - and manoeuvre him into al-Bashir's position.
Because the break between Turabi and Bashir was in the early 90s, I think, the best POD might be to have Bashir die in the 90s, and Turabi step into his place. Is that remotely plausible? If it happensthat might cause problems with the "military" faction, those who had actually participated in the coup. How that could be best dealt with, please contribute your ideas.Perhaps have the US be more supportive of the SPLA. Thus Omar al-Bashir sees no point in compromise with the US as they believe that the US is out to regieme change them regardless of what they do.
This could do.