Drones blind to leaders, deadly to civilians

 By Lubna Ahmed Hussein

While dozens of Rapid Support Forces (RSF) leaders and their civilian allies in the Sudan Founding Alliance (TASIS) celebrated in Nyala on Monday, October 26, to mark a year since the “liberation of El Fasher,” Sudanese army drones remained blind to their gathering.

Instead, the drones struck the Tangoj night market in the city’s Dumaya area in an airstrike attributed to the Sudanese Air Force.

According to preliminary figures from the Sudan Doctors Network, 21 people were killed and more than 40 injured, with the toll expected to rise.

The news outlet Sout AlUmma reported that the strike killed and wounded RSF members alongside civilians who were inside the market.

A source cited by Sout AlUmma indicated that Dumaya had been used as an assembly point for mobilized recruits before they were deployed to the front lines alongside the RSF.

If accurate, responsibility for the civilian casualties lies with two parties: those who carried out the attack, and those who placed a crowd of recruits inside a civilian area.

The presence of fighters or mobilized recruits among civilians does not make those civilians a legitimate target. It also does not relieve the attacking force of its duty to protect them.

Using people as human shields is a war crime. This tragedy is only compounded by the forced recruitment of boys and teenagers for combat.

But who are they fighting? Where is the actual confrontation in a conflict that has largely devolved into a drone war?

It is difficult to recall the last battle where the two armies met face-to-face with their soldiers and technical vehicles. Now, drones strike from afar, frequently missing military targets and hitting civilians instead.

In October alone, attacks attributed to both sides hit markets, displacement camps, mining sites, health facilities, homes, and power stations across various regions.

These drone strikes have killed helpless people who are entirely unable to flee the areas where the war has trapped them.

The tragic irony is that both sides can fortify and protect their headquarters, leaders, and military targets.

Meanwhile, citizens, markets, hospitals, power stations, and shelters for the displaced remain completely exposed.

If anti-aircraft and anti-drone systems are available to protect military installations, why are similar defences not deployed to protect the population and vital public facilities?

The blood of the victims stains not only the hands of those who bombed them, but also those who failed to protect them. It equally stains those who used them as human shields or treated their lives as expendable.

Protecting civilians is not a luxury, nor is it a substitute for ending the war. It is the absolute bare minimum responsibility that no party can evade.

When fighters take cover and leaders are protected while markets, homes, hospitals, and power stations are left exposed, this ceases to be a military conflict. It becomes a war against the people, waged by both sides.

By Lubna Ahmed Hussein

While dozens of Rapid Support Forces (RSF) leaders and their civilian allies in the Sudan Founding Alliance (TASIS) celebrated in Nyala on Monday, October 26, to mark a year since the “liberation of El Fasher,” Sudanese army drones remained blind to their gathering.

Instead, the drones struck the Tangoj night market in the city’s Dumaya area in an airstrike attributed to the Sudanese Air Force.

According to preliminary figures from the Sudan Doctors Network, 21 people were killed, and more than 40 were injured, with the toll expected to rise.

The news outlet Sout AlUmma reported that the strike killed and wounded RSF members alongside civilians who were inside the market.

A source cited by Sout AlUmma indicated that Dumaya had been used as an assembly point for mobilized recruits before they were deployed to the front lines alongside the RSF.

If accurate, responsibility for the civilian casualties lies with two parties: those who carried out the attack, and those who placed a crowd of recruits inside a civilian area.

The presence of fighters or mobilized recruits among civilians does not make those civilians a legitimate target. It also does not relieve the attacking force of its duty to protect them.

Using people as human shields is a war crime. This tragedy is only compounded by the forced recruitment of boys and teenagers for combat.

But who are they fighting? Where is the actual confrontation in a conflict that has largely devolved into a drone war?

It is difficult to recall the last battle where the two armies met face-to-face with their soldiers and technical vehicles. Now, drones strike from afar, frequently missing military targets and hitting civilians instead.

In October alone, attacks attributed to both sides hit markets, displacement camps, mining sites, health facilities, homes, and power stations across various regions.

These drone strikes have killed helpless people who are entirely unable to flee the areas where the war has trapped them.

The tragic irony is that both sides can fortify and protect their headquarters, leaders, and military targets.

Meanwhile, citizens, markets, hospitals, power stations, and shelters for the displaced remain completely exposed.

If anti-aircraft and anti-drone systems are available to protect military installations, why are similar defences not deployed to protect the population and vital public facilities?

The blood of the victims stains not only the hands of those who bombed them, but also those who failed to protect them. It equally stains those who used them as human shields or treated their lives as expendable.

Protecting civilians is not a luxury, nor is it a substitute for ending the war. It is the absolute bare minimum responsibility that no party can evade.

When fighters take cover and leaders are protected while markets, homes, hospitals, and power stations are left exposed, this stops being a military conflict. It becomes a war against the people, waged by both sides.