American Researcher: A War We Can Still Stop

Sudanhorizon – Mohamed Othman Adam

Mr. Cameron Hudson wrote an article published yesterday in The New York Times, in which he warned of the grave consequences of the ongoing war in Sudan—its devastating impact not only on the Sudanese people but also its glaring effects on neighboring countries, on international navigation and trade, and the security and socio-political stability of Western Europe, America, and the Middle East. Above all, he highlighted the possibility that this war could lay the groundwork for spawning terrorist hotbeds that could spill across the region and beyond. Yet, he argued, the United States still can put an end to this conflict, as past regional experiences suggest.

Hudson, a senior fellow with the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, pointed to the intensification of conflicts, famines, and the growing competition among global powers in the Horn of Africa—creating massive instability and legitimate concern. He warned of the increasing likelihood that civil wars and inter-state conflicts in the region—home to over 200 million people and representing billions in global trade—may soon overlap and compound one another.

According to Hudson, these conflicts could unleash waves of terrorism and increased migration that may encircle European and Gulf states, thereby threatening long-term American interests. He noted that, not long ago, U.S. commitment to stabilizing the Horn of Africa was a given—but that is no longer the case.

He posed the lingering question: does the Trump administration have any real interest in addressing the sources of this instability? And if not, what happens next?

In explaining the current American inaction and the Trump administration’s failure to take concrete steps, Hudson pointed out that last month, the new U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, introduced a plan to “streamline” the State Department’s operations.

This plan included the elimination of the Office of Conflict and Stabilization Operations—the very office tasked with preventing emerging conflicts and providing technical expertise in mediation and peacebuilding.

Trump’s recently unveiled State Department budget proposes cutting all U.S. funding for international peacekeeping operations. Reportedly, the Department will also stop including issues like “the detention of political prisoners” and “the absence of free and fair elections” in its congressionally mandated annual human rights reports—both of which are key indicators of wider conflict and instability. These changes are compounded by moves to shrink the role of USAID and the U.S. Institute of Peace, both of which have historically supported conflict prevention approaches that align with U.S. national security interests and America’s “moral standing.”

Hudson affirmed that there is no doubt that wars in the Horn of Africa will threaten even the narrowest U.S. interests, such as counterterrorism and mineral extraction throughout the region. He added that they could also shut down shipping lanes through the Red Sea and likely lead to the proliferation of terrorist groups.

He warned that this could mean that “nearly every country in this critical region faces the risk of collapse.”

Why Does What’s Happening in Sudan and its Neighbors Matter?

Hudson states that Sudan—a country of nearly 50 million people with an 800-kilometer coastline along the Red Sea—is now entering its third year of civil war, which has displaced nearly 13 million people and left twice that number in need of life-saving assistance.

In his view, it is the world’s largest humanitarian crisis—and one of the most underfunded—with just over 10% of the required funding allocated this year.

He adds that while the Trump administration may be making some effort to maintain the emergency humanitarian aid it claims to support, it shows little inclination to appoint a special envoy—something every U.S. president since Bill Clinton has done, including Mr. Trump during his first term. Washington’s cuts to humanitarian aid are costing lives and worsening an already dire situation.

Meanwhile, South Sudan—which borders Sudan—is on the brink of yet another civil war, the second in just over a decade. Tribal militias are already mobilizing, clashes have begun, and a March attack on a UN helicopter killed one crew member and dozens of government soldiers—putting everyone on high alert and prompting the evacuation of diplomatic staff from the capital, Juba. The last conflict there claimed nearly 400,000 lives and only ended after a global diplomatic effort led by the United States. A similar response now seems unlikely.

In Ethiopia, with a population of over 130 million, U.S. diplomats helped broker a 2022 peace agreement that ended a brutal war in the northern Tigray region—one that claimed up to 600,000 lives by some estimates. But tensions in Tigray are flaring again, stoked by neighboring Eritrea, which is actively seeking to curtail Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s ambitions to secure a sea outlet for his landlocked nation.

Eritrea has begun a general military mobilization, putting the country on a war footing. Ethiopia and Eritrea previously fought a border war 25 years ago—one that ended through U.S.-brokered negotiations and was overseen by UN peacekeepers.

Hudson notes that since last year, Washington has shown no interest in the peace deal it helped forge between the Ethiopians and Eritreans. The special envoy post for the Horn of Africa—which helped the Biden administration navigate this volatile terrain—has also been left vacant.

He adds that the only place where the U.S. still plays an active role is Somalia, home to the main African branch of ISIS. But that role is limited to drone strikes on terrorist targets.

Since taking office, Mr. Trump has escalated activity there: in his first 100 days, U.S. forces conducted over 20 strikes—double the number during Biden’s last year in office. While these attacks may have sent a message to terrorists, they’ve done little to stem the territorial gains made by the Al-Shabaab militant group.

Washington has grown frustrated that the billions it has spent over two decades to build state capacity in Mogadishu have yielded minimal returns. It now seems unlikely that the Trump administration will double down on the political and security support still desperately needed.

In yet another sign of cost-cutting, Washington plans to significantly reduce—or even shutter—a number of diplomatic missions in the region, including in Somalia, according to an internal State Department memo. This would cripple hopes of managing a regional crisis effectively.
Trump’s national security team is aware of the indispensable role the U.S. military plays in the region. In Signal messages, then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz argued that “European naval forces lack the capability to defend against the types of anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, and advanced drones now being used by the Houthis.”

He added, “The U.S. will have to reopen these shipping lanes,” referring to the Red Sea routes. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth agreed, stating: “We’re the only ones on this planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do that. No one else is even close.”

Much has recently been made of the administration’s singular focus on reviving the warrior spirit and emphasizing America’s hard power—clearly reflected in Mr. Trump’s request for a $1 trillion defense budget. But the challenges in the Horn of Africa cannot be solved by armed drones alone.

General James Mattis put it plainly a decade ago when he warned: “If you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.” He added: “Our ability to invest in peacemaking through full funding is gone—it’s being crushed just when we need it most.”
Hudson closes his article with a stark warning: “Nations may fail. Millions of refugees may suffer and be forced to flee. Malicious powers like Russia and Iran may seek to exploit the resulting chaos,” he said.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=5553