There is currently a war going on between Sudan and Chad, two Afrikan countries. Except that maybe Sudan is not really involved at all. Here’s the gist:
Chad is a a country with a warlord ruler, not unlike other Afrikan countries. Rebels in the country have decided that the government needs to be overthrown. Different groups have joined together and formed one larger group. This, in and of itself, is nothing really shocking. Rebel groups trying to topple a government created by other rebel groups are pretty typical and it’s more or less best we stay out of them.
Well, the Chadian government says these rebels are being aided by Sudan. Sudan denies this. I am undecided on this. There seems to be no good reason for Sudan to get involved in this war, since they have enough of their own problems (in the Darfur region, which is another issue). But there does seem to be a case that a few bases for the rebels are on Sudanese land, and if Sudan doesn’t expel them they would be considered at least aiding them by default. So, who knows? And if the Chadian government collapsed, it wouldn’t necessarily hurt Sudan (though if it would help or not is something I’m unsure of).
The problem comes in when we deal with Sudan. Chad will collapse in on itself one way or another, so we shouldn’t worry about that (my article “What’s Wrong With Africa?” suggests letting Africa hit rock bottom, Chad is a prime example of this). Sudan, however, is a more outwardly volatile region (translation: they are more likely to affect other areas outside their borders). I would argue that prior to the Iraq War, the biggest breeding ground for terrorism was Sudan.
In 1998, President Bill Clinton launched two missile attacks in response to the bombing of the Kenyan embassy. One was into Afghanistan at bin Laden, which obviously failed to do what it was intended for. The other was at the al-Shifa plant in Sudan, where Sudan was getting 90% of its vaccines for malaria and other diseases. A chemical was allegedly being produced there that could make VX nerve gas, though this was never proven. So Clinton destroys a country’s vaccines – a country that isn’t Kenya (where the bombers might be) or Afghanistan (where bin Laden is). So these two strikes created more terrorists by giving bin Laden more credit and by creating a country of poor, sick and anti-American Muslims. The al-Shifa attack is quite probably the key reason the 9/11 attacks occurred.
Now, back to today: Sudan is full of Islamic extremists. So what can we do? A whole lot of nothing. We can’t have the UN help them, because they support genocide (see, again, the Darfur region). We can’t help them against Chad because they don’t want our help and we have no reason to assist. We can’t hel pChad defend against Sudan because this would only increase the Sudanese hatred for America. Conclusion: America can’t do anything, and neither can the neutral UN. The war must progress on its own.
Predicted outcome: Chad falls and a rebel group takes over, creating a new dictatorship. Sudan comes out of this largely unheard as a government, but the peopel get poorer and sicker. Gun runners – including Americans – get rich off the conflict, and the poor sick learn to hate and use automatic guns. Sudan falls into revolt and gets taken over by rebel groups. Assuming that the Islamic terrorists don’t first recruit more new members here to help in their jihad causes, because the Sudanese are more than happy to help.
Any chance for a happy outcome? Not much.
Sudanese Questions Answered
The Sudanese are getting more flak in the media. Yesterday I read they were aiding the rebels in Uganda. Today I read they have disguised themselves as peacekeepers to rape and murder people in Sudan’s Darfur region. I am not doubting this – Sudan is a genocidal country – but it seems to be getting more extreme as the days go on, and that’s shocking. I would also like to address points made by Josh Martines in response to the first part of this document (his words in bold):
Wouldn’t it at least make sense for us to provide vaccines and other essentials for the Sudanese people if we were the ones to destroy their stock in the first place?
In theory, yes. America has a history of cleaning up its messes, at least som of the time. We helped Germany (and Berlin specifically) rebuild after World War II. Germany was split into East and West and Berlin was split into 4 sections (Russian, French, English and American). Technically, Russia had the right to all of Germany in my opinion, but we held strong to this and I think it paid off in the long run. I may not like some of the methods, but the outcome was better (what I mean to say is that Germany today is better off than it would be if it was Russia-controlled). We also helped Japan, of course. Maybe we didn’t rebuild the cities we nuked, but we aided them with the economy and greatly advanced their technology – and that has led to Japan being one of the leading technological centers on Earth. Even in Iraq today we are rebuilding, even though I don’t really approve of the independent contractors we use. We also have a history of not rebuilding (Korea, Vietnam, every South American country, etc.)
But the problem here is how to get the vaccines to the people? We can’t send in contractors to rebuild the chemical plant – at least not realistically. And giving aid to them would be foolish, because we have seen time and again what happens when you give a corrupt government funds to spend on the people. It never reaches the people. So we SHOULD correct our error, but whether or not we can is uncertain.
Further, Sudan is a nation still full of war and genocide. It was wrong to attack them, but it’s probably not doing anybody any good to help them, either. I dislike using the Nazis as examples, but let’s say we bombed a school in the 1930s in Germany. Should we fix that error? Yes. But it would be very silly to go in to Germany in the 1940s and fix it. (Granted ,we’re not at war with Sudan but we act as though we are in a round-about way.)
I think that non-involvement is truly the best platform in this case… we get our hands dirty enough in other peoples’ garbage all the time, I think we can afford to sit this one out. But perhaps we can make amends for ruining their means of being healthy.
Agreed, 100%. Somehow America decided that everyone else’s business is their business. And I think that’s a poor idea. We don’t need to solve the world’s problems – especially when we seem to have our “solutions” backfire so often. Take Iraq – Saddam Hussein wouldn’t have been in power if we didn’t put him there. He wouldn’t have had any chemical weapons ever if we didn’t sell them to him in the 1980s. And the people wouldn’t be so eage to fight Americans if we hadn’t imposed sanctions on them for the past 15 years denying them basic huamn dignity. Cutting off money to a country only hurts the poor, never the rich. It’s no exaggeration to say our sanctions killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
So yes, why get involved? Does England or France or anyone else jump into every conflict? Heck no. And do we think less of them for it? Heck no. What should we do for Sudan? Wait things out, and someday provide aid and supplies for rebuilding. Maybe send in peacekeepers via the UN or the Peace Corps, but don’t get involved politcally or militarily.
Well, that’s out of my system, at least for now.