The Battle of Dignity: Why Sudanese Have No Choice but to Rally Behind the State

Mostafa Bashir Issa
At moments of profound historical turning points, neutrality is neither a moral nor a political position; it often becomes a form of abdication. Sudan today is living through one of the most dangerous such moments, confronting a war imposed not only by force of arms, but one that targets its very existence—its people, its unity, and its future.
What is unfolding in Sudan is not a transient struggle for power, nor a political dispute that can be contained through a cosmetic settlement or a temporary ceasefire. It is a full-fledged aggression, involving internal circles and external actors alike, aimed at dismantling the Sudanese state, undermining its institutions, and reshaping its demographic reality—particularly in conflict-affected areas.
The course of the war has made it clear that the Sudanese Armed Forces are not fighting on behalf of any external party. They are leading a national battle of dignity in defence of the state, its sovereignty, and the right of its people to remain on their land. From this standpoint, rallying behind the army is not a political or partisan alignment, but a national duty dictated by the nature of the threat.
Nor can the grave risks produced by this war be ignored—from the direct targeting of infrastructure and state institutions to overt attempts at forced demographic change, as witnessed in parts of western Sudan. These actions constitute flagrant violations of national laws and international conventions, foremost among them international humanitarian law.
What is particularly regrettable is that some political forces have chosen to occupy a grey zone, or even to oppose the armed forces at a moment that demands unity of ranks. Such a stance serves only the project of chaos, prolongs the war, and opens the door wide to foreign intervention. The current phase requires moving beyond partisan, regional, and personal loyalties and agreeing on a minimum common denominator: protecting the Sudanese state.
At the regional and international levels, it has become evident that the war in Sudan is not detached from broader international calculations and interests, and that external actors have played a role in fuelling the conflict—an assessment supported by international intelligence and media reports. Despite this, the international community has increasingly rejected any entity parallel to the state and reaffirmed its commitment to Sudanese legitimacy.
In this context, calls for a ceasefire or a humanitarian truce are frequently raised. While such appeals may appear humanitarian on the surface, they lose their meaning unless they are founded on clear principles that ensure the cessation of aggression, the disarmament of militias, and the consolidation of their forces under international supervision. There is no value in a truce granted to a party that continues to kill and commit violations, and that respects neither legal nor moral obligations.
True peace cannot be built by ignoring the roots of the crisis, nor by rewarding violence. It must rest on restoring the authority of the state, enforcing the rule of law, and paving the way for a comprehensive political process once the sound of gunfire has been silenced.
In conclusion, Sudan today faces a clear historical choice: either a unified state with a national army and functioning institutions, or open-ended chaos with no winners. At such moments, supporting the armed forces becomes a national obligation—not because war is a preferred option, but because the survival of the state is the first prerequisite for any just and lasting peace.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=10553