George Bush’S Great America [EN]: Chapter 326

The three-way split of Sudan seemed peaceful in theory, but unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. Ultimately, it was because humans made up the nation. It’s said that human greed is endless, but isn’t civilization sustained because we can restrain ourselves, even if forced?

The new spark ignited in Sudan was none other than a territorial dispute. Thanks to the great powers drawing borders to their liking in the last century, territorial disputes were as common as meals, but Sudan was different. The United States, the very entity that drew the lines between East and South Sudan, was still involved.

It was ‘Abyei,’ an oil-rich area and major city located between the borders. West Sudan was also involved, making it a territorial dispute area where all three countries claimed ownership. The territorial dispute led to military clashes, and the divided Sudan began to forward deploy troops, each claiming their share.

The problem was that this was just a small spark. The real danger of a spark lies not in itself, but in the larger fire it ignites. A spark is a seed that creates fire, and this spark was the spark of war. Therefore, the spark of war naturally led to war.

Sudan, West Sudan, and South Sudan each had different goals. According to the Sudanese government, forcibly divided by the great power of the United States, it was as follows:

“The path to serving the country is not peace! It is war! Sudan must be reunited! Now is the opportunity for reunification, as the United States is preoccupied with the Middle East and China and has no time to pay attention to Africa!”

This was also the prevailing public opinion, and there were hardly any pacifists. Rather, even those who were originally pacifists were advocating for this as a necessary war.

On the other hand, West Sudan and South Sudan were not only hiding their ambitions for territorial expansion but also desperately trying to involve the international community.

“We may have gained independence with the help of others, but we are by no means weak! Behind us are starving people and barren lands! But our military power is stronger than ever! We will never surrender!”

This was the common public opinion in West and South Sudan. In particular, in West Sudan, this claim was not just a government position or propaganda but resonated greatly with the people because their territory was truly barren.

South Sudan had abundant oil fields spread throughout the country. If South Sudan’s justification was a pretext created to wage war, then for West Sudan, this war was truly born out of the struggles of the poor trying to find a way to survive.

However, the reality was somewhat different from their claims, as the war developed from the conflict zone of Abyei in both West and South Sudan.

Nevertheless, the people accepted the government’s propaganda as it was and believed that their country was completely innocent.

In other words, for West and South Sudan, this war was a war of aggression due to Sudan’s ambition for reunification, and at the same time, it was an honorable war to defend their country. If they lost the war, Sudan would actually deprive West and South Sudan of their sovereignty and achieve their long-cherished reunification, so there was not much difference from West Sudan’s claim.

Now, all that remained was the declaration of war. West and South Sudan emphasized that the upcoming war was Sudan’s war of aggression, so they could not strike first. To be precise, they could have attacked first under the concept of preemptive defense or preventive war, but they still couldn’t. The reason was very simple: it was too late.

All troops were already forward deployed, and all firepower was aimed at each other’s fatal weaknesses. Even if West or South Sudan were to surprise attack Sudan, it was highly unlikely that they would achieve any significant effect.

So, if you were to ask, ‘Who is the strongest of these three countries?’ it would naturally be the Sudanese army. Even before the division, the Sudanese army was already one of the strongest in Africa.

However, in terms of armament levels, Sudan was significantly behind West and South Sudan. While the Sudanese army was armed with outdated rifles such as the G3, FAL, or illegally copied AKs, and most of their mechanized forces operated technicals [civilian trucks modified for military use] or small military trucks modified from civilian trucks, West and South Sudan had American-made M4s and proper armored vehicles and military trucks, albeit outdated.

The main battle tanks were even a generation apart. The Sudanese army was operating T-62s, while West and South Sudan were armed with export-version M1 Abrams.

However, in return, considerable resources were flowing to the United States at low prices, but the United States was also selling weapons at low prices, so it was closer to a mutually beneficial relationship rather than unilateral exploitation.

The air force situation was similar. So, did this difference in armament lead to an absolute difference? It merely narrowed the gap in capabilities and fostered equality.

In Africa, where outdated weapons from World War II were still in circulation, having this level of armament was enough to unilaterally beat down most countries to the point of returning them to the Stone Age. However, it had not been long since they had broken away from the warlord form, and only a few years had passed since they had become accustomed to weapons and proper training, moving away from the AKs they had been using.

As users of AK-47 replicas, the American-made M4 was a small-caliber assault rifle prone to malfunctions. Compared to the AK series, the most durable service rifle in the world, it was like a delicate flower grown in a greenhouse, so the soldiers’ complaints were endless.

Of course, they didn’t intend to go back to the AK series. They might have to go back to that side if they ran out of money, but at least not now. Besides, wasn’t this the trend?

Back to the war story, everyone from ninety-year-old elders to three-year-old children knew that war would break out in this land, but the declaration of war had not yet arrived. However, localized battles were steadily taking place in the conflict zone.

It was the United States that intervened in this situation, the very country that had torn them apart. They had hastily armed them, intending to prevent them from being reabsorbed into Sudan after gaining independence, but they never dreamed that such a war would actually break out.

From the perspective of the United States as a nation, it would be most beneficial for either West or South Sudan to win this Sudanese war, but regardless of the will of Congress, Bush’s goal was to prevent another war in Sudan.

Others who didn’t know the future might not understand, but after going through the trouble of avoiding massacres and wars to grant them independence, they were now about to go to war due to territorial disputes. What kind of crazy talk was this? In the original history, there were territorial disputes, but most of them ended in localized battles, not all-out wars risking the fate of the nation.

‘How great would it be if I could just intervene directly and destroy everything.’

If they could destroy all the vested interests and political foundations and have the U.S. military directly occupy the area, they could prevent war from breaking out under the name of Sudan for at least half a century, even if it wasn’t perfect.

Since the U.S. military had a small presence in all three Sudanese countries, they would have a justification to intervene in the event of war. So, Bush’s fantasy was not entirely impossible.

However, if that actually happened, they would lose the pro-American regime they had established, and the Sudanese war would escalate into a war between the United States and the three Sudanese countries, turning into a monster that would consume endless amounts of the budget.

In any case, this situation was entirely Bush’s responsibility. Bush could argue that he had done his best, that he only had one body, and that the world was vast, but the Sudanese war that was about to break out today was clearly due to Bush forcing the division by forcing the vote.

He wondered if he could suppress the war itself with the authority and force of the United States, but they would never listen. In particular, Sudan itself seemed to have a public sentiment that they would rather go to war with the United States than compromise.

However, even Bush himself was denying it, but active intervention by the U.S. military was impossible.

First of all, George W. Bush himself was not the kind of person who could move completely hegemonically, except partially when necessary. Of course, Li Keqiang and others would think this was nonsense, but Bush himself didn’t think he was a hegemonic figure.

Bush thought that the United States itself was inherently hegemonic. What is hegemony? Isn’t it a political tendency to indiscriminately secure influence in various countries around the world based on power?

At least Bush thought he was projecting influence only where it was needed and only as much as was needed. And this intervention itself was quite ‘dangerous.’ In the short term, it was a budget issue as mentioned above, and in the long term, they might have to withdraw from Africa, where they had just begun to take root.

So, after reviewing the available options, the CIA Africa Division, which controlled information in North Africa, caught his eye. Although all sorts of classified information had been lost in the fire, many things had been recovered, perhaps because the people were quite capable.

‘If the best is not possible, we must choose the next best thing.’

What is the next best thing? That is to work with Congress. In other words, it meant supporting the pro-American regime.

‘West Sudan and South Sudan. If I had to choose one, West Sudan would be better.’

The reason for choosing West Sudan was very simple. They were the most thirsty. If they supported South Sudan, they would gladly accept it, but after winning the war, they would try to break free from American control.

Above all, with abundant oil fields, they would have no problem rising as a regional power in North Africa without relying on the United States.

That’s why it was West Sudan, which had nothing. West Sudan was more likely to rely on the United States even after winning the war. Even if they were to occupy the disputed oil fields, they wouldn’t be able to feed and develop the entire country with oil alone.

‘Besides, given their position, they wouldn’t try to divide and conquer the defeated Sudan with South Sudan later on. There is a decisive difference in population size, so they would only be eaten in reverse. At most, they would only demand an inch or two of territory. If that happens, we can just move the military to stop it.’

Bush decided to move the CIA instead of the U.S. military, which he had been using as a kind of master key in Africa.