Dr. Zafer M. Alajmi
The old definitions of strategy were all come in military operations perspective , then we are capable to say that a country could constitute a strategic depth to another country in the balance of international relations according to its worth established mainly by the geostrategic location and its historical depth . We are filled with regret remembering that part of our Arabic body like the Republic of Sudan could assume the role of the strategic depth of the Gulf countries because of its location and military strength instead of a foreign vessel on the horizon or security agreements over laden with severe consequences. The highest point of tension in the Sudanese-Gulf relations was when Khartoum jumped - during a period occupies the most dark corner in the Gulf memory - into what we called "enemy countries", then came the Decisive Storm as a critical juncture putting the Sudanese-Gulf ties on different track , crowned recently by the deployment of a Sudanese land troops with full equipment in Yemen.
The participation of Sudanese troop with their Gulf brothers comes as Sudanese emphasis to the depth of Arab role in safeguarding the national security of the region, and constitute an image reduces Arab dream to form Arab unified military force – as said by its commander - the Sudanese engagement was right decision proves that Khartoum adopted the policy of military openness, and focusing on presence at its regional neighborhood with a gun on shoulder. The Sudanese army has experience generated by the armed conflicts environment, and the undeniable fact is that the Sudanese soldier is the most fighting Arab soldiers, most qualified in the land war. However, it didn’t intercede to the Sudanese force when landed in "Zait harbor" in Aden, there was insinuation that Khartoum has economic and political gains, there was also gossip that the mission of the Sudanese troop is of security type to humiliate the Yemeni brotherly people. Although both matters were denied by the Sudanese, but we have to admit that time will clarify the events, and that we will anticipate that with two questions, the first is: wasn’t Egypt participation in Desert Storm 1991 led to full drop of its military debts, and the transformation of Egypt from a state indebted by $ 50 billion to reserve owner by $ 20 billion as a major achievement offered by the then President Mubarak to his people and country?.
The second question is: How Khartoum sends forces trained on mountain wars endowed with high training cost, whereas able to to send police or national guard to achieve the same result. As the escalation of insecurity and explosions as well as assassinations aimed at destabilizing security in the liberated areas are best justification for the existence of capable force to restore peace, which is serves in restoring legitimacy in Yemen. Since Khartoum was initiator, I wish that the decision maker in Gulf does not act in reaction manner. The Sudanese gesture must be saluted by Gulf. We can judge the size of the Sudanese military engagement by the worries it caused to Teheran which led the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister to criticize the accession of Sudan to Arab coalition resistant to his country in Yemen.