WI GWB Intervened in Darfur

A student asked me why Bush didn't intervene there as pres. I answered the logistics of it just weren't practical and the US was far too tied up in two other wars, but couldn't give much more specifics.

But hypothetically, if he had decided to (since practical considerations weren't a hallmark of his time in office) how could he have gone about it? I did a search and didn't find a thread devoted just to this.

I'm assuming intervention on the ground isn't practical and that he'd use aircraft from carriers to carry out bombing runs and try to stop Sudanese troops and militias. I'd like to hear from our naval history buffs for more specifics.
 
I'm assuming intervention on the ground isn't practical and that he'd use aircraft from carriers to carry out bombing runs and try to stop Sudanese troops and militias. I'd like to hear from our naval history buffs for more specifics.


AIHA,

Seeing as no one else has bothered, let me point you towards some information:

  • - Go to Wiki and look up the aircraft that comprise the wing aboard a US Navy CVN. Follow the links for each fighter and bomber to write down their operational ranges.
  • - Find a map of Africa and measure the distance between Darfur and the Med, Darfur and the Indian Ocean, and Darfur and the Bight of Benin/Gulf of Guinea. Compare that distance to the aircraft ranges you found in the earlier step.
  • - Using the same map, look at the countries whose air space the US would have to violate to reach Darfur. Compare those countries with the list of countries who regularly blocked UN intervention in Darfur due to fears of Western "aggression" and "imperialism". Compare those countries to the list of countries on the US' and EU's lists of known terrorist sponsors.
  • - Show your students what your research uncovered.

It could be a nice learning exercise for them.


Bill
 

Susano

Banned
AIHA,

Seeing as no one else has bothered, let me point you towards some information:

Eh. Its not like the Iraq War was all launched from Aircraft Carriers. And besides, whenever DID the USA care about such legal niceties like souvereign airspace?:rolleyes: Oh, and also you conviniently forgot the Red Sea.

And if the USA had really been willing to, it could have bribed neighbouring countries into letting them build up bases to launch an intevrention from. Hell, Chad and the CAR admittedly both landlocked) would have loved, too, even without bribes!

So what it comes down to is that Darfur had no importance at all. Iraq and Afghanistan both had political importance - Iraq because that had long been on Americans' minds and Afghanistan because, well, 9/11. No such thing with Sudan or Darfur.
 
Oh, and also you conviniently forgot the Red Sea.


Susano,

Don't ever presume what I may or may not have "conveniently" forgotten.

What I remembered is that the Red Sea is not international waters, that it is very confined, and that no US carriers operated in the Red Sea during both Gulf Wars and the other air strikes against Iraq despite it's geographical proximity to that nation.

Your comments about the political landscape surrounding any OTL intervention in Darfur is entirely correct. With Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing and with an increasingly hostile Congress, UN, and world correctly and automatically second-guessing any proposals he might make, Bush, even if he had wanted to do so, had no chance of intervening in Darfur as he had squandered nearly all of his political capital.

In a time line where the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan are not taking place or where another president is sitting in the Oval Office, an intervention in Darfur could have very well taken place. There are certain physical limitations regarding carrier operations and carrier-launched air strikes that people all too often are sadly unaware of. Sadly, carrier air strikes, and air strikes in general, are among the least useful methods of intervention against the types of forces in that region.


Bill
 
Invasion by proxy?

Darfur borders Libya and Egypt, Egypt has close relations with the US while Libya had reconciliated with the US after the invasion of Iraq.
Couldn't the US bribe/coerce Egypt and Libya to send troops into the Sudan?
 
Darfur borders Libya and Egypt, Egypt has close relations with the US while Libya had reconciliated with the US after the invasion of Iraq. Couldn't the US bribe/coerce Egypt and Libya to send troops into the Sudan?


Zajir,

Oddly enough, that's very much like what the US did with Ethiopia and Somalia. Ethiopia invaded Somalia in 2006 with US acquiescence and it's nice to think that something similar could have occurred with Libya/Egypt and the Sudan.

Sadly, it's when you begin look at the details that the analogy breaks down.

Ethiopia and Somalia have long and nasty history and both have repeatedly attacked each other as far back as the 1400s IIRC. Throw in all the usual ethnic and religious nonsense which always arise in these situations and you've two countries which have loathed each other for centuries.

Ethiopia was also able to do what it did in 2006 and what it's still doing in 2010 because Somalia's neighbors, and the world at large, believe an Ehthiopian invasion is preferable to what's going on in Somalia. Everyone sighed and considered themselves lucky they didn't have to do anything. Even the PRC, that cynical defender of national sovereignty, chose to say nothing.

Now look at the details in Darfur.

First, Libya. The US isn't going to be able to approach Libya about squat. Qadhafi won't bother listening and the US won't bother asking him. Considering the snit Qadhafi has been working himself into over the Swiss arrest of one his sons for assaulting a servant in a hotel, the EU can't ask him either. Furthermore, the EU in the person of France actually fought Libya in Chad during the 1970s when Libya moved in to "assist" that nation put down it's own internal independence movement.

After having to kick Libya out of Chad, no one is going to invite Libya into the Sudan.

Second, Egypt. While that nation would be vehemently opposed to a Libyan intervention, it would also be opposed to intervening itself, especially on the behest of the US or EU. Domestically, the Muslim Brotherhood gets a lot of traction over Egypt's links with the US and EU. They, somewhat correctly, see US aid to Egypt as bribes. Furthermore, any intervention would mean that Egypt is fighting the Arabic, Muslim north of Sudan in order to help the African, Christian southwest of Sudan, Darfur, to secede. Fighting fellow Muslims to help Christians isn't really going to go down to well in the streets of Cairo.

When you look at the details, using Libya/Egypt in the Sudan like Ethiopia has been used on Somalia just doesn't work.

Darfur is a long way from anywhere and an equally long way from anyone even remotely resembling a friend. Helping Darfur is much more involved than just flying a warplane into the region and dropping a bomb.


Bill
 
If it wasn't finished within like a week, the same people who called for intervention in Darfur would probably suddenly turn around and start calling it a "lost cause" and/or a Quagmire, and question why we even went in there, and act like they had no part in it. That or they'd keep having to say good things about George W Bush for a change, and knowing some of those celebrities and activists who were championing this cause, that'd be a pretty big demand on their part. It'd be excrutiating for them I'm sure. :p

Depending on various factors, we'd either score a win over SUCH A HUGE OPPONENT :rolleyes:, or get bogged down in yet another foreign country, (because those nagging international problems, specially when heavy violence is involved, are never solved overnight) which would cue more complaining and calls for withdrawl.
 
If it wasn't finished within like a week, the same people who called for intervention in Darfur would probably suddenly turn around and start calling it a "lost cause" and/or a Quagmire, and question why we even went in there, and act like they had no part in it. That or they'd keep having to say good things about George W Bush for a change, and knowing some of those celebrities and activists who were championing this cause, that'd be a pretty big demand on their part. It'd be excrutiating for them I'm sure. :p

Depending on various factors, we'd either score a win over SUCH A HUGE OPPONENT :rolleyes:, or get bogged down in yet another foreign country, (because those nagging international problems, specially when heavy violence is involved, are never solved overnight) which would cue more complaining and calls for withdrawl.


And someone would find something of supposed value and suddendly all the talk would be like, "No blood for Augite"!:D:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top