72 Years of Sudanization: When the Army’s Resilience Becomes the State’s Resilience

On the 72nd anniversary of the Sudanization of the Sudanese Armed Forces, we commemorate an event that was not merely military in nature, but one of the most important milestones in the building of the modern Sudanese state. In 1954, command of the army was transferred to Sudanese officers, marking the transformation of the Sudan Defence Force into a national institution entrusted with protecting Sudan and its sovereignty. Two years later, independence in 1956 placed upon it the responsibility of defending the newly independent state.

Since then, the Sudanese Armed Forces have been among the state’s most tested institutions. From the 1955 rebellion, through the First Civil War, the Second Civil War from 1983 to 2005, the conflicts in Darfur, Blue Nile and South Kordofan, and finally the war that erupted on 15 April 2023, the Armed Forces have fought successive wars in which the nature of the adversaries, theatres of operation and means of warfare have constantly changed, while their fundamental mission has remained the same: protecting the homeland, its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the Sudanese experience is that the army has not been the military of a stable state that occasionally faces an exceptional war. For decades, it has operated in an extraordinarily complex environment, carrying the burden of defending the state at times when the capacity of other state institutions to perform their functions had significantly diminished.

The Test of 15 April

The rebellion of 15 April placed the Armed Forces before one of the most difficult tests in their modern history.

The fighting erupted from within the capital, at the heart of the country’s sovereign and military centres, against a parallel armed force that possessed extensive deployment, high mobility and considerable firepower, and entered the war seeking a swift victory that would lead to the collapse of state institutions.

The most striking development, however, was the Armed Forces’ ability to absorb the initial shock, maintain command and control, reorganise their ranks and gradually shift from defence to initiative and offensive operations.

The resilience of the Sudanese Armed Forces becomes even more striking when viewed in its historical context and compared with the experience of other armies in Africa and beyond that collapsed under the weight of military shocks and prolonged conflicts within relatively short periods.

The contrast lies not simply in the size of military capabilities, but in the institution’s ability to preserve its cohesion, maintain its command structure, reorganize its ranks, and ultimately regain the initiative despite the prolonged nature of the war and the vastness of its theatres of operation.

From that point onward, the equation of the war began to change.

The army that initially found itself defending its positions inside the cities eventually became the force reclaiming cities and strategic positions and pursuing the rebel forces across increasingly wider theatres of operation. The reality on the ground today speaks for itself.

The Sudanese Armed Forces have demonstrated that wars are not necessarily won by superior weaponry alone. Victory can also be determined by leadership, discipline, sound planning, battlefield endurance, adaptability, and the ability to learn from experience and turn adversity into strategic advantage.

The war demonstrated that the strength of a military institution cannot be measured solely by the quantity of weapons at its disposal, but also by its ability to preserve cohesion when subjected to the most severe pressures.

An Army That Learns and Evolves

Perhaps one of the most important lessons of the 15 April rebellion is that it compelled the Armed Forces to rapidly develop their methods of warfare, particularly in urban combat, special operations, reconnaissance, the use of drones, securing supply lines, and managing operations across vast and complex theatres.

This accumulated experience represents a national asset that should be transformed into permanent institutional knowledge through the continued development of training, equipment, organisation, planning and readiness.

An army that emerges from such a war with greater experience must also emerge better prepared for the future.

A National Institution

More important than all of this is the fact that, since Sudanization and throughout its history, one of the most important characteristics of the Sudanese Armed Forces has been their nature as a national institution founded on military hierarchy, discipline and loyalty to the institution and the nation—not on partisan or ideological affiliation.

The military uniform, by the very nature of the institution, transcends narrow political affiliations and places everyone within a single system governed by rank, law, hierarchy and military orders.

The corollary is clear: Any narrative suggesting that Islamists control the Sudanese Armed Forces therefore holds no water and fails to reflect the institutional and professional nature of the army.

This does not, of course, mean that members of the Armed Forces are citizens without personal views or political backgrounds. It means that the institution itself is not built on partisan affiliation, and that military loyalty is ultimately expected to be directed toward the state, the nation and the law.

It is this national character that has enabled the Armed Forces, despite political upheavals, wars and divisions, to maintain a measure of institutional continuity.

The Army and the People

Another equally important aspect is that the rebellion of 15 April clearly demonstrated the broad support of the overwhelming majority of the Sudanese population for the institutions of the state in the face of the danger of its collapse.

Popular resistance and general mobilisation were not merely military phenomena. They reflected the conviction among significant sections of Sudanese society that the war had gone beyond a confrontation between two armed parties and had come to threaten the very existence of the state, the security of society and the unity of the country.

Here, the army and the people become two components of a single national equation, while each retains its distinct responsibility: the Armed Forces protect the state and its sovereignty; society supports the state and contributes to preserving its cohesion; and civilian institutions are responsible for managing citizens’ affairs and rebuilding normal life.

The Next Battle Is Building the State
The Armed Forces can reclaim territory and provide security, but restoring the state requires functioning civilian institutions, an economy capable of recovery, cities returning to life, schools, hospitals, markets and roads, and displaced persons and refugees returning safely to their homes.

The greatest tribute to the sacrifices of the army is therefore not merely to celebrate them, but to build the state for which its men and women sacrificed.

After 72 years of Sudanization, the Sudanese Armed Forces stand at a new stage in their history.

They are an institution that has accumulated nearly a century of experience since its earliest beginnings, fought successive wars and endured severe tests, and then confronted, on 15 April, one of the most complex wars Sudan has ever experienced—preserving its cohesion and ultimately regaining the initiative.

The most important lesson of this journey is that the strength of the army cannot be separated from the strength of the state, and that a strong state cannot be sustained without a professional national military institution.

True professionalism means an army that is national, disciplined and cohesive, removed from partisan and ideological polarisation, with no loyalty except to the nation, the Constitution and the law.

Sudanization 72 years ago was a major step in the building of the Sudanese state.

Today, after all these decades and all these wars, the challenge remains to transform the resilience and sacrifices of the Armed Forces into a stronger state, more firmly established institutions, a more sustainable peace, and a homeland in which its people can live in security and dignity.