Al Burhan’s Decisions to Dismiss Islamist Officers… An effort to reform or a political maneuver?

Mere days ago, the Commander-in-Chief of the Sudanese Armed Forces’ plane landed at Geneva Airport, sheltered from the media spotlight. The secret visit brought Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan together with US President Donald Trump’s African Affairs Advisor, Massad Boulos, and little was revealed about the nature of the meeting.

Nevertheless, these rather mysterious developments quickly reverberated within Sudan, where the Sudanese Army Commander-in-Chief issued a series of surprising decisions that included referring a number of officers to retirement, said officers are -however- known for their affiliation with the Islamic Movement. This -naturally- prompted widespread reactions amongst the forces opposing the war and political observers in general.

Amongst the most prominent names that were referred to retiremen is Maj. Gen. Nasr el-Din Abdel Fattah, Commander of the Armored Corps. He is viewed as one of the most prominent military figures associated with the Islamic Movement and may also have been considered a potential successor to the Sudanese Army Commander-in-Chief, Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan.

The Reactions

Reactions and positions were rather divided between those who viewed the aforementioned development as an indication of the beginning of a political shift driven by external pressures, especially after the meetings held in Switzerland, and those who viewed it as a mere attempt to reposition and then reproduce the crisis in a new form.

A number of voices believed that the decisions are directly linked to the recent negotiation process in Geneva, Switzerland. They considered the latest development to be a response to pressure from the international community, as the latter is keen to see reforms within the military establishment as a path to stop the war.

In this regard, social media reflected divergent viewpoints on the issue. Al-Taghyeernewspaper shared a sample of these opinions on Facebook. As Mukhtar Mohammed indicated that Al-Burhan’s visit to Switzerland is beginning to bear fruit, and that the dismissal of a number of Islamist officers signals the beginning of a gradual process of removing the rug from under the feet of the extremist elements within the Sudanese Army.

Jedo Janni adopted a similar view, believing that the recent changes aren’t limited to being administrative measures, but rather extend to convey clear political messages in preparation for an international settlement. He shared that the United States had carefully chosen this path and sought to pave the way for it through these decisions.

Nonetheless, Mohamed El-Sisi wrote that the events taking place, referring to Al-Burhan’s recent decisions, may indeed be an implementation of the recommendations of the Swiss meeting, however, he cautiously questioned whether it represents a real change or merely a new form of repositioning..!?

On the other hand, the positions adopted called for a broader scope of reform and not just partial steps. Badir El-Bedairy wrote, emphasizing that the referrals should have included prominent figures in the military leadership, such as Al-Burhan himself and his partners in the Sovereignty Council, arguing that they deserved to be referred to retirement, given that they have been clinging -rather desperately- to their positions for years.

Other voices believed that such changes could open the door to reviving the spirit of the December revolution. Abu Madar El-Ja’aliwrote, believing that the people are ready to rekindle the spark of revolution against the tyrannical regime, linking the decisions to a broader demand for radical change that goes beyond the military establishment.

In contrast, a broad cross-section of the forces opposing the war expressed deep skepticism in regards to Al-Burhan’s intentions, viewing the decisions as a mere attempt to embellish the Sudanese Army’s image without truly addressing the roots of the crisis.

Mohammed Al-Shaigi believed that what took place was a severing of a specific alliance with Islamist extremists, however, it doesn’t represent a strategic shift. In addition, he referred to Al-Burhan’s lasting ties to figures from the same Movement through other channels.

Islamic Power Centers

Azzam Abdullah believed that Al-Burhan had already begun to eliminate officers close to Yasser Al-Atta as well as other Islamist powers within the Sudanese Army, but he linked the move to an attempt to impose complete control over the Army’s decision-making process rather than a comprehensive peace process.

Osama Jalal was more vocal in his criticism, reiterating that the Sudanese Army remains under the control of the Islamic Movement, in terms of quantity and quality as well, and that any acts of dismissal are nothing more than the replacement of one officer with a more loyal one. He added that Al-Burhan himself came to the leadership through the Islamic Movement’s arrangements and -hence- cannot break away from it at the moment 

Furthermore, active social media pages, such as “Sudanation” and “New Sudan,” went further, describing the events as a ridiculous farce and a desperate attempt to “change the skin of the snake,” as they put it, with the aim of misleading and reproducing the regime with new faces.

These pages emphasized that any attempt to embellish the image of Al-Burhan or the Islamic Movement will not mislead the public, and that real reform cannot be achieved through the current military establishment.

Activist Qaddafi al-Neel summarized this trend by saying, “Even if he burns his entire army, we will not believe him, because the truth of the matter is: Al-Burhan is merely a puppet in the hands of the Islamists.”

These reactions revealed a clear division within the forces opposing the war. As one group views the decisions as a positive, albeit limited, development on the path to reform and ending the war, whilst another views them as a mere act of repositioning and political charade aimed at absorbing international pressure and buying time for the Islamists’ return to power.

 Al-Taghyeer