The Failure of the Dagalo Project in Sudan: From Rise to Collapse

Dr. Abdel Nasser Salim Hamid

Since the outbreak of war between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese army in April 2023, the RSF, led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), has sought to assert control over Sudan through military tactics based on rapid deployment, urban warfare, and tribal alliances. Initially, the RSF achieved military gains in the capital, Khartoum, and other cities, benefiting from the element of surprise and the army’s lack of preparedness in the early days of the conflict. However, the situation soon changed. The RSF struggled to hold its positions and found itself engaged in a prolonged war of attrition for which it was unprepared. The Sudanese army’s superiority in logistics, strategic planning, and air control gradually eroded the RSF’s hold, leaving it increasingly isolated militarily, politically, and economically.

The RSF relied on guerrilla warfare and rapid maneuvering—tactics effective in limited battles but unsuitable for a prolonged war against a conventional army with superior weaponry, logistics, and air dominance. The RSF failed to hold strategic positions for extended periods, rendering its initial military gains ineffective. Sudanese army air and artillery strikes restricted the RSF’s movements and supply lines, while the army’s gradual encroachment strategy systematically reclaimed territory, diminishing the RSF’s influence over time.

The Sudanese Army’s Superiority: Three Critical Phases in Managing the Battle

The Sudanese army’s success in this war was not merely due to its firepower but reflected a well-executed strategy implemented in three key phases, enabling it to maintain its positions before launching a decisive offensive.

Phase One: Firm Defense and Retention of Strategic Bases

At the war’s onset, the army prioritized holding onto its strategic bases, ensuring strong footholds from which to launch counterattacks.

It successfully fortified key locations, such as airbases and military headquarters, preventing chaos despite the RSF’s surprise assaults.

The army avoided unnecessary urban battles that could drain its forces, instead adopting a defensive stance that allowed it to regroup and prepare for the next phase.

Phase Two: Weakening the RSF Through Aerial and Intelligence Strikes

Once its defensive positions stabilized, the army began systematically wearing down the RSF with intensified airstrikes from fighter jets and drones.

It targeted RSF command centers, ammunition depots, and military vehicles, diminishing their ability to maneuver and forcing them into disorganized movements.

Intelligence operations tracked RSF leaders, facilitating precise strikes that weakened their morale and disrupted their internal communications.

Phase Three: Aerial, Ground, and Naval Dominance with Strategic Advancements

As RSF capabilities declined, the army transitioned to a full-scale offensive, employing an integrated strategy of aerial, ground, and naval dominance.

Intensified air and artillery bombardment crippled RSF movements before ground advances, minimizing army casualties and forcing enemy withdrawals before direct confrontation.

Ground operations were carefully planned, ensuring step-by-step progress to reclaim cities and key locations with minimal losses while reducing collateral damage.

RSF fighters were even given opportunities to surrender, as the army favored a strategy of gradual encirclement over indiscriminate destruction, thereby limiting bloodshed and facilitating the RSF’s collapse at minimal human cost.

The Importance of Supporting the Armed Forces in This Battle

The Sudanese army’s success in this war is not just a military victory but a strategic necessity for Sudan’s stability and to prevent the country’s disintegration. The RSF’s collapse puts Sudan back on track toward rebuilding state institutions and avoiding the chaos seen in other countries after their armies collapsed against armed militias. Supporting the Sudanese armed forces means safeguarding national unity and preventing Sudan from turning into a battleground for warring factions. The army is not just another player in this war; it is the only institution capable of preserving Sudan as a unified and stable state. Strengthening the army ensures that Sudan avoids the fate of countries like Libya and Yemen, where weak national armies led to the rise of rival militias, plunging them into prolonged instability and foreign interference.

Historical Comparisons: How the RSF’s Collapse Resembles Other Experiences

Libya: After Gaddafi’s fall, armed militias attempted to seize power but failed due to a lack of unified leadership, mirroring the RSF’s inability to transition into a legitimate political force.

Yemen: The Houthis managed to assert partial control due to the state’s weakness, whereas the RSF failed to establish any form of governance, leading to its rapid downfall.

ISIS in Iraq and Syria: Like the RSF, ISIS relied on swift attacks and temporary territorial control but collapsed when faced with conventional armies employing gradual encroachment and air superiority.

Conclusion: Sudan at a Turning Point

With the collapse of the Dagalo project, Sudan faces a critical phase requiring state reconstruction on a more stable foundation. The success of the next stage depends on the Sudanese army’s ability to restore security, manage a transition toward an elected civilian government, and prevent the emergence of new militias that could plunge the country back into violence and chaos. Supporting the Sudanese armed forces at this juncture is not just about defeating the RSF; it is an investment in Sudan’s future as a unified and strong nation capable of facing both internal and external challenges.

What the Sudanese army has achieved in this war is not just a battlefield victory but a model of effective military strategy in handling a complex, multi-dimensional conflict. Its approach—holding strategic bases, gradually exhausting the enemy, and delivering a final, decisive strike—allowed it to win with minimal losses. This war serves as a lesson in strategic military planning and calculated force application.