The Limits of American Power in Sudan
We Can’t Be Everything Everywhere All at Once
Note: This piece was originally published on another platform on April 29, 2023. Conceptually, it’s still as relevant today as it was then.
In a flashback to Afghanistan, Americans are desperately attempting to flee a war-torn country. This time, it’s from Sudan. On April 23rd, the U.S. military evacuated all U.S. government personnel from Khartoum as two rival military factions transformed the capital into a battlefield.
Unfortunately, an estimated 16,000 American citizens have been left stranded. It is unclear how they will leave without a major American military operation in a country where they have no authority to carry one out.
The intense fighting in the city makes it nearly impossible to organize an orderly evacuation safely. The RSF and Sudanese army both have camps in densely populated urban areas, and there have been reports of bombed-out civilian buildings being used as military bases.
Additionally, Khartoum is over 500 miles from the coast. So, even if Americans could get out of the city, getting to a place from which they could be evacuated via American naval ships would be difficult. Any of Sudan’s seven neighboring countries could be an option, but again geography gets in the way. Khartoum is at the center of Africa’s second-largest country, and its neighbors also have issues with conflict and instability.
The U.S. government is doing what it can to support evacuations. They have positioned naval ships along the coast of Sudan and are positioning surveillance assets to support U.N. convoys leaving Khartoum. But they cannot guarantee anyone’s safety.
Of course, the result is recriminations and blame within the Biden administration, like what happened during the Afghan evacuation. Then, as now, it is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of national power and disillusionment based on a misplaced faith in the omnipotence of American power specifically.
“The warning signs were all there, even if the people at the top didn’t appreciate it until after shit hit the fan,” one official said.
The United States government has been warning U.S. citizens not to travel to Sudan for over a decade, according to U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. American aid workers were also aware of the risks and chose to go anyway. The U.S. government cannot unilaterally prevent travel to dangerous parts of the world, nor should it.
The flip side is that these dangerous places are foreign countries, and the United States has no jurisdiction unless granted by those countries. America is not at war in Sudan and has no cause for the large occupation force required to guarantee the safety of every American. It can only advise and provide the resources to evacuate those who can get to where the U.S. can operate legally.
The expectation that we can rescue everyone in every conflict zone around the world is just not reasonable. This does not mean we should not do everything within our power to keep our citizens safe without sparking a diplomatic crisis; America still has a greater ability to do this than any other nation on Earth.
We can position ships near the coast almost anywhere on Earth. We also have military bases globally from which rescue operations can be launched. This is evidenced by the successful evacuation of U.S. government personnel. However, many American citizens still freely travel to locations where evacuating is difficult, and they cannot be given carte-blanche to go anywhere without assuming some risk.
In response to criticism from understandably distraught Americans stuck in Sudan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said during a press conference on Thursday that the United States was “providing the best possible advice that we can to anyone asking for our assistance.” What needs to be done, according to him, is to create “a sustained process for enabling people to leave.”
That is difficult without a stable government to work with. It seems the best bet is to re-establish peace in Sudan, which is a long shot in the short term. The crux of the Sudan conflict is a power struggle between two rival generals. Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman al-Burhan leads the Sudanese Armed Forces and has acted as de-facto leader of the country since the overthrow of long-time dictator Omar Al-Bashir.
The other general is Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a militia that was a major component of the army that has controlled Sudan for three years. The two could not agree to a transition to democracy. The result was violence, just as American and British mediators were on the verge of closing a political deal.
U.S. officials have attempted on multiple occasions to broker ceasefires, all of which have been broken. The exodus of foreigners, far from deterring these two generals, will likely precipitate an escalation of violence. The risk of foreign intervention would no longer be present.
It is expected that this conflict will escalate into a regional proxy-war. Russia is already playing both sides, with the Russian Wagner Group having trained and armed RSF forces while the Russian government benefits from trade ties with Dagalo’s business operations in gold mining, banking, and agriculture.
The strongmen of Libya, Egypt, and Ethiopia have been covertly advancing their interests in the country. Enough so that Kenya’s government, which has growing ties with the United States, has denounced this activity and the involvement of the Gulf States and Russia. “We see from where we sit a lot of international interference, a lot of other players trying to use Sudan as a playing field” said the Kenyan foreign secretary in a joint press conference with the U.S. Secretary of State.
And now the Arab League, Russia, and China have all weighed in on the issue at a meeting of the African Union. There is no compelling interest for America in Sudan that requires stepping into this quagmire.
Just the embassy evacuation was perilous enough for the Americans. Now we are expected to intervene in a complex conflict involving multiple regional players using military assets. That is just not wise or plausible.
An unfortunate aspect of the world we live in is the persistence of tribal conflict, which Sudan is another instance of. No one wins in these fights between competing strongmen battling for their glory. America’s role as a global leader means that it and its citizens are often caught in the crossfire of these battles.
These unfortunate facts create choices for Americans that are often unpalatable. Every effort should be made to protect Americans around the world. But, if they voluntarily go to dangerous places without the means to escape if things go south, there is only so much we can do.
America is the most powerful nation on Earth, but it is still a nation with interests and limits. Recognizing those limits, allocating resources with those limits in mind, and understanding the opportunity costs are how we maximize American influence. Asserting our presence in conflicts we are not a party to, for whatever reason, potentially makes things worse as rival factions lobby for our patronage.
A policy of formal defense alliances in areas of vital interests, while maintaining no permanent friendships or enmities in less vital places, maintains American power and influence to the greatest extent possible for as long as possible.
As the great American actor and director Clint Eastwood once said in the role of “Dirty” Harry Callahan: “a man’s got to know his limitations.” A nation does as well.