Introduction:
Sudan has witnessed a series of conflicts over the past decades, but the current war, which erupted in April 2023, stands as one of the most violent and complex in the country’s modern history. This war emerged after ongoing tensions between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo «Hemedti». This conflict is not a sudden occurrence; rather, it has deep roots tied to the political and security transformations that the country has experienced since the ousting of President Omar al-Bashir in 2019.
In mid-April 2023, clashes erupted between the army and the RSF in the capital, Khartoum, and other cities. The battles began over strategic sites, such as the Presidential Palace, Khartoum International Airport, and the General Command, as both sides sought to seize control. The conflict quickly spread to other regions in the country. The situation rapidly escalated, with both parties exchanging accusations over who was responsible for starting the conflict. Despite multiple attempts at ceasefires and de-escalation, the security and humanitarian situation in the country continued to deteriorate.
Wars remain a complex arena where various methods and techniques are employed, with each side striving for victory by using a variety of strategies to manage battles. Military deception is used alongside war arsenals and the media apparatus.
This report aims to explore the techniques of military deception, and how its terminology has been interpreted and circulated by the public.
The report utilizes open sources to understand how civilians perceive, circulate, and interpret terms related to military deception in the context of the Sudan war.
Using the withdrawal of the Sudanese Army’s First Infantry Division from the city of Wad Madani in the state of Al Jazirah as a case study, this report seeks to analyze how civilians received and interpreted this event. Various widespread interpretations described what happened as a “tactical withdrawal” or a “deliberate military deception” by the army. While these terms are often used inaccurately, their spread among civilians illustrates the degree of influence that the media war has had on understanding the course of events.
This confusion between terminologies and conceptual interpretations deepens the state of chaos and distorts the facts in the conflict.
Military Deception: Definition, Objectives, and Functions:
«All warfare is based on deception.» – Sun Tzu, The Art of War.
In the theater of battle, which does not appear on maps, strategies are not devised based on the strength of weapons but on the mind’s ability to manipulate information and create a false appearance of reality. By distorting facts and planting doubts in the minds of adversaries before revealing the truth, conflict becomes a «subtle dance of deception and misdirection.»
According to the document «JP 3-13.4» issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Department of Defense, «military deception» (MILDEC) is defined as “a series of deliberate actions to mislead decision-making in military or paramilitary forces or violent extremist organizations, causing the enemy to take certain actions (or refrain from taking them) that contribute to achieving the mission assigned to friendly forces.”
The American document also specifies that the objective of military deception is to provide the commander with a clear vision of the specific purposes he seeks to achieve through deception operations and how they contribute to accomplishing the assigned mission. In this strategy, the commander must first accurately visualize the objective of the deception, focusing on how it will influence the primary mission goal.
Military deception functions manifest in several strategic aspects aimed at achieving specific effects on the enemy. Deception seeks to create ambiguity and confusion regarding the sensitive information the enemy holds about friendly forces, thereby undermining the enemy’s perceptions and disrupting its ability to make accurate decisions. Military deception also aims to steer the enemy toward ineffective employment of its human and financial resources through information manipulation. It seeks to reveal the enemy’s strengths and future movements. When the enemy is exposed, thanks to deception, it allows friendly forces to gather vital information that can be used to their advantage. Additionally, military deception can direct the enemy toward unexpected behaviors, leading to erroneous perceptions that friendly forces can exploit to achieve their strategic objectives. Finally, military deception works to weaken the enemy’s combat power by driving it to take inappropriate or delayed actions.
Military deception tactics:
Military deception tactics can be described as “operational-level structures that encompass a wide range of deceptive activities and information within the broader plan.” There are five primary tactics: diversion, feints, demonstrations, ruses or tricks, and displays.
Diversion
Diversion is the process of diverting the enemy’s attention away from the main objective of the military operation, as happened during Operation Hydra in August 1943.
Feints
Feints involve an attack that includes direct engagement with the enemy, aimed at misleading the enemy about the location and/or timing of the main attack, as occurred in France in May 1940.
Demonstrations
A «demonstration» involves a show of force designed to attract the enemy’s attention without direct engagement. It is executed in an area where no decision is intended, with the goal of deceiving the enemy, as seen in the Peninsula Campaign during the American Civil War.
Ruses
Ruses are deliberate actions intended to deceive the enemy, often involving the deliberate revelation of false information to the enemy’s intelligence system. An example is the Operation Mincemeat executed by the Allies in April 1943 during World War II.
Displays
Displays are static portrayals of activities, forces, or equipment intended to deceive the enemy’s visual observation, which was used by the Allies during World War II.
Military deception in Sudan war:
It cannot be definitively stated that the Sudan war has witnessed a complete military operation that could be classified as military deception due to the lack of available official statements or confirmations from either side of the conflict. Moreover, the ongoing media war between the warring parties has contributed to obscuring the facts, as both sides rely on manipulating and directing information to serve their own interests, making it difficult to verify the extent to which such operations have actually been conducted. Amid this ambiguity, the use of military deception techniques remains a plausible strategy within military operations to alter the course of events on the ground.
Terminology related to military deception, such as “tactical withdrawal” has been repeatedly used by civilians during various stages of the war in Sudan. However, these terms have often been taken out of context or used inaccurately in many cases. The conflation of concepts and terminology deepens the state of confusion, distorting the facts, and making it harder for civilians to grasp the true flow of events.
A tactical withdrawal is defined as a planned retreat in which military forces disengage from combat while remaining connected to friendly units, moving away from the enemy. The commander may execute this withdrawal under enemy pressure, or sometimes without. The withdrawal of some units may occur without the complete retreat of the entire force.
The City of «Wad Madani» as a Model:
The first shots were fired on the morning of Thursday, December 14, 2023, in the small village of Abu Gouta in the northwest of Al-Jazeera State, with their echoes reaching Wad Madani and Rufaa on Friday. This marked the start of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) moving the battle into the neighboring state to Khartoum using four-wheel-drive vehicles, announcing the beginning of a new tragedy. The conflict shifted eastward to Wad Madani the following day.
On the night of Sunday, December 17, 2023, clashes broke out between the two sides, and both forces spread across various neighboring villages of Wad Madani. However, Wad Madani breathed a sigh of relief, enjoying a quiet night amid reports of the SAF’s victory in the second night of the RSF’s attack. The news from Sunday afternoon claimed that the RSF’s retreat from the city. However, at dawn on Monday, fighting resumed in the «Hantoub» area east of Wad Madani. The RSF then announced its control over the headquarters of the First Infantry Brigade, affiliated with the First Division, and the Central Reserve Camp west of the Hantoub bridge.
Hours later, reports confirmed the SAF’s complete withdrawal from Wad Madani and the Hantoub area, bringing Al-Jazeera State under RSF control and subjecting it to continuous violations.
On December 19, 2023, the official spokesperson for the Sudanese Armed Forces confirmed in a press statement the withdrawal of the First Division’s headquarters from «Wad Madani» and announced the opening of an investigation into “the reasons and circumstances leading to the forces’ withdrawal from their position”. The SAF promised, in its statement, to “provide the public with the facts” once the investigation results are submitted to the “competent authorities”. However, the SAF’s statement did not indicate whether the withdrawal executed by the First Division’s forces from Wad Madani was a “tactical withdrawal.”
Analysis of the circulation of the term «tactical withdrawal» on "Facebook» in the context of the army's withdrawal from «Wad Madani»:
The Beam Reports team conducted monitoring on Facebook from December 13 to December 31, 2023, utilizing the keywords “Madani withdrawal”, “Madani tactical withdrawal”, and “army withdrawal” to assess the prevalence of the term “tactical withdrawal” and its contextual usage by the public. The team identified several instances of this term’s application, the most prominent themes include:
Conviction in tactical withdrawal:
Numerous accounts disseminated content featuring the term tactical withdrawal in the context of explaining the withdrawal of the First Infantry Division from Wad Madani. The term was employed accurately according to its previous definition, raising questions regarding whether this dissemination was intended to mislead or to convey the truth.
“God is Great The Janjaweed are being defeated in Madani Warplanes, mobilized volunteers, special forces, the first infantry division, tactical withdrawal Now the army, the armed people's forces, and the air force eagles are taking them on”
“I see some people have been confused by the entry of the Rapid Support Forces into Wad Madani, and the appearance of alarmists and agents from within and outside who are casting doubts of the capabilities of the Sudanese army in the hearts of the weak and spreading terror in the hearts of the people, by spreading rumors and lies and describing their army as cowardly. No, your army is strong, and even if it has withdrawn, we think that it was a tactical withdrawal or a withdrawal for an interest that neither you nor I understand, and we say one army, one nation.”
“I trust the Sudanese army's ability to defeat the Janjaweed in the country. What happened in Madani was a tactical withdrawal by our army to confine the enemy to a specific area so they could deal with them. And they will not come out whole, God willing. Save this post today as one for history, December 19, 2023 - one army, one nation.”
Irony:
Some accounts utilized the term «tactical withdrawal» as a means to mock the army’s retreat from the division’s headquarters and Wad Madani linking it to prior withdrawals from various locations. This pattern suggests that such repeated withdrawals are indicative of defeat or evasion from combat. Those employing this terminology are almost all advocates of RSF. Concurrently, An audio clip from the Sudanese newspaper Al-Jarida circulated, featuring mockery from the commander of the Al-Baraa bin Malik battalion, who operates alongside SAF.
“Now we’ll start to hear the same things over again Tactical withdrawal from Madani bla bla bla A military operation to be studied in universities bla bla bla The Meij guy has nothing left but to come down and hit the janjaweed with a whip bla bla bla Keep it moving bla bla bla
No to war”
“Tactical withdrawal from El-Gaili, tactical withdrawal from Jebel Awliya, tactical withdrawal from El-Geteina, tactical withdrawal from Madani, tactical withdrawal from Sinnar.. Withdraw from Port Sudan once and for all and let the people protect themselves.”
Criticism and Reproach:
The term tactical withdrawal appeared in posts that criticized the armed forces’ leaders, rejecting its use as a justification for the withdrawal from Wad Madani and admonishing the army for the decision. The public perceived this term as an excuse from SAF and their supporters to rationalize frequent withdrawals.
“Dear Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Peace be upon you What is happening in Wad Madani and how did the rebels enter Madani while they were defeated? Issue us a clear statement so that we know what happened, we as a people who have suffered by the war. A tactical withdrawal from a site for a specific purpose? We are with you. A response to an attack without defense? We are with you, but what happened today in Madani made us completely frustrated. What is happening in Sudan? Has the treason of some of your members reached the point of selling a city that was liberated 11 hours ago and after the people have returned to their homes? What is going on? Arm us, the citizens, and let us guard our homes, cities, and villages. Is it possible that you are increasing the morale of the rebels in their worst state and causing us frustration? Why do the officers and soldiers obey the direct commander? Where is the role of intelligence in the signals coming from the operations room? I am writingو and near a school a shot went out in the air. All the children are now crying, saying the Rapid Support Forces have come for us. Give us the facts. We are still with you, in front of you, and behind you. God is our supporter and your supporter.”
Treason and Demands for Accountability:
Furthermore, “tactical withdrawal” was employed in posts suggesting treason against the army and specific figures within its leadership. Individuals circulating this term interpreted it as a concealment of treasonous actions.
“People are waiting for the commander of the First Infantry Division in Madani instructions to move to attack and support the front lines towards Al-Aylafun in the east, Al-Baqir in the west and the villages of Abu Gouta in the south. The RSFs anticipated these steps and attacked Madani. Yes, the attack failed, but imagine these people bypassed Wad Rawah, Rufaa, or Al-Hasahisa,to Hantoub. If they entered Madani again, would the army accept this and with what logic? Especially since we, as Sudanese people, are tired of things that are since the time of the reserve strategy, the mountain, etc. 1- Tactical withdrawal 2- Air force 3- A well-planned ambush May God make things better, but we as citizens now know that the reason for the weakness of the army and the empowerment of these Janjaweed, which is Al-Burhan the cursed, will never be the solution. Currently, the one who is bearing the responsibility and consequences for the weakness of the security of Al-Jazira State is the commander of the First Infantry Division Madani. Ask any volunteer from Al-Jazira about what happened in the camps. No food, nothing to drink, no weapons, no coordination. Something is not right. There are many traitors. It could be a brigade, a lieutenant, let alone a colonel. May God support the armed forces.”
“You were entrusted with a people and a military HQ leadership. There is no such thing as withdrawal. Fight until you are killed or taken captive. Withdrawal is the work of cowardice and failure. There is no such thing as tactical and or mechanical withdrawal. The armored vehicles HQ was exposed, and the RSF entered it, but its leadership said we will either die or die, but we will not be a loophole. What Major General Yasser in the Nyala Division went through nobody else has, may he rest in peace. He did not think of withdrawing until he was martyred. Major General Ahmed El-Tayeb is a traitor, even if he is not that, and there are many with him. If the Janjaweed were not certain of that, they would not have dared to enter Madani. Even their forces were ready to surrender rather than fight.”
“These are very clear words, Burhan You launch an attack on Madani, blocking all the roads to the RSF, even if you demolish the Hantoub and Rufaa bridges. We just want you to lock them inside and destroy them. The war itself was a treason from the beginning, the treason of the Rapid Support Forces to the army, and Ahmed El-Tayeb is a traitor and will be destroyed. There is no other way. Because Madani has all Sudan’s supplies, as an army and a nation everything is going to be more expensive. May God help us. This is not a tactical withdrawal, these are the instructions of a traitor of his own country.”
It is important to note that the utilization of «tactical withdrawal» has transcended its military connotation, being exploited to rationalize ill-considered withdrawals or to belittle opponents. In critical contexts such as warfare, the public may resort to such terminology to alleviate the psychological effects of adverse events, ultimately contributing to the dissemination of misleading narratives. Misuse of this terminology can distort the actual military situation, fostering a false sense of control, thereby manipulating public perception regarding wartime events. This strategic use of language serves to reshape the overarching narrative and mitigate the psychological impact of defeat.
Inappropriate utilization of terminology contributes to oversimplification and distortion and undermines the public’s comprehension of facts, potentially leading to misguided usage, whether intentional or inadvertent.
