Fawzi and Sadat
After the death of President Nasser in September 1970, Egypt's War Minister, General Mohammed Fawzi, opposed Nasser's successor, Anwar Sadat. Fearing Sadat would deviate from Nasser's policies, Fawzi and others, such as Aly Sabry, planned a coup. To ensure that Egypt stayed close to its Soviet backer, which alone could supply sufficient weapons to take on Israel, Sadat had to go. The plot was, however, uncovered in May 1971. Several men including Fawzi were forced to resign, and sentenced to prison. Did this outcome leave Egypt better or worse off?
Believing the US was the key to peace, Sadat sought its help to resolve the conflict with Israel. This effort failed, forcing Cairo to prepare for war. To improve Egypt's chances, Sadat sought more advanced weapons, such as the MIG-23. The Kremlin refused to supply them, no doubt in part because it didn't trust Sadat. Egyptian-Soviet relations would've been far better had Fawzi won. Cairo's forces would've been better armed. That wouldn't have been the only advantage--far from it.
As a military commander Sadat was abysmally bad. His blunders almost erased the hard won victories of Shazly.
On October 14, 1973, despite near-unanimous opposition from his generals, Sadat squandered much of Egypt's armored reserve. The offensive was doomed from the start, costing Egypt over 100 tanks. The next day, Sadat angrily refused Shazly's suggestion to return some units to the west bank, to counter a possible Israeli crossing of the canal. Even after the Israelis did just that, he rejected a withdrawal of units from the east bank to stop them. Instead Sadat sent the 25th armored brigade into an Israeli trap, and squandered the 1st armored brigade in another futile attack. At the same time he rejected Kosygin's plea that Egypt accept a cease fire. Essentially Sadat deprived Egyptian forces on the west bank of sufficient strength to contain the Israelis and granted the latter ample time to reach their objectives. The result was the catastrophic entrapment of Egypt's Third Army. What should've been a great Egyptian victory nearly became a worse rout than the Six Day war.
Had Fawzi and his allies succeeded in May 1971, Egypt would've been stronger and better led. In his writings (translated in Reconstructing a Shattered Egyptian Army) Fawzi demonstrated a good grasp of his nation's military problems. During his tenure as War Minister (1968-71) Egyptian forces arose, phoenix-like, from the disaster of 1967. Militarily, Fawzi and his associates were far better than Sadat. But was a continued relationship with the Soviet Union politically wise?
It is true that the USSR had no future. The US ultimately won the Cold war. In the 1970s, however, the Kremlin was still a good benefactor. With additional help, and without Sadat's incompetence, Egypt would've won the '73 war. That would've paved the way for an comprehensive settlement, possibly by 1975. Afterwards, Cairo could've managed without extensive Soviet aid and ideological influence (reflected in arab socialism) and opted for a more capitalist system, as other nations did when the communist world began to crumble in the late 1980s.
Believing the US was the key to peace, Sadat sought its help to resolve the conflict with Israel. This effort failed, forcing Cairo to prepare for war. To improve Egypt's chances, Sadat sought more advanced weapons, such as the MIG-23. The Kremlin refused to supply them, no doubt in part because it didn't trust Sadat. Egyptian-Soviet relations would've been far better had Fawzi won. Cairo's forces would've been better armed. That wouldn't have been the only advantage--far from it.
As a military commander Sadat was abysmally bad. His blunders almost erased the hard won victories of Shazly.
On October 14, 1973, despite near-unanimous opposition from his generals, Sadat squandered much of Egypt's armored reserve. The offensive was doomed from the start, costing Egypt over 100 tanks. The next day, Sadat angrily refused Shazly's suggestion to return some units to the west bank, to counter a possible Israeli crossing of the canal. Even after the Israelis did just that, he rejected a withdrawal of units from the east bank to stop them. Instead Sadat sent the 25th armored brigade into an Israeli trap, and squandered the 1st armored brigade in another futile attack. At the same time he rejected Kosygin's plea that Egypt accept a cease fire. Essentially Sadat deprived Egyptian forces on the west bank of sufficient strength to contain the Israelis and granted the latter ample time to reach their objectives. The result was the catastrophic entrapment of Egypt's Third Army. What should've been a great Egyptian victory nearly became a worse rout than the Six Day war.
Had Fawzi and his allies succeeded in May 1971, Egypt would've been stronger and better led. In his writings (translated in Reconstructing a Shattered Egyptian Army) Fawzi demonstrated a good grasp of his nation's military problems. During his tenure as War Minister (1968-71) Egyptian forces arose, phoenix-like, from the disaster of 1967. Militarily, Fawzi and his associates were far better than Sadat. But was a continued relationship with the Soviet Union politically wise?
It is true that the USSR had no future. The US ultimately won the Cold war. In the 1970s, however, the Kremlin was still a good benefactor. With additional help, and without Sadat's incompetence, Egypt would've won the '73 war. That would've paved the way for an comprehensive settlement, possibly by 1975. Afterwards, Cairo could've managed without extensive Soviet aid and ideological influence (reflected in arab socialism) and opted for a more capitalist system, as other nations did when the communist world began to crumble in the late 1980s.
posted by starman at 4:33 AM
49 Comments:
Sadat's policies definitely made him unpopular in Egypt. I was in the Air Force and stationed in Izmir, Turkey when Sadat was assassinated. I was a telecommunications specialist. My communications center in Izmir got a message that Sadat had been killed shortly after his assassination occurred. It did not surprise me. I knew that many Egyptians had become opposed to Sadat. He obviously did not have a good understanding of military strategy.
Sadat blundered terribly during the '73 war but his subsequent success in getting back Sinai made him fairly popular. Tired of war, most Egyptians wanted peace even if it was a separate one. Those who killed Sadat in 1981 were a small minority, with virtually no effect on subsequent Egyptian government and policy. Both the peace treaty with Israel and the close association with Washington have long outlived Sadat.
That said, Fawzi and his associates would've almost certainly done better in '73. In those circumstances, Egypt would've been in a better position to demand a comprehensive settlement. Lack of one has proven very costly for the other arabs and may even be Cairo's undoing someday. Although Egypt-Israel peace has lasted for decades, continuation of the broader Mideast conflict could ultimately affect Egypt.
ISIS could become a major problem for Egypt. That organization has been expanding into other countries, including Afghanistan.
I may write a post about Sadat and his effects on subsequent history. The May 1971 power struggle was 45 years ago but its outcome may have been felt to this day.
If government officials planning to make coup d tat in a country. It bring serious fight in disput which re progress such country development. So I will this two people Fawaz and Sadat who want to cause problem for the nation.
Recent Mideast history has seen many coups, most of which caused little harm except to previous rulers. If only Fawzi and his associates had had adequate power to depose Sadat, it would've been a boon to Egypt.
It now seems I overestimated the competence of Fawzi and his associates. ARAB MIGS Volume 5 indicates they demanded that Sadat go to war no later than the end of 1971 and Fawzi believed he had made the armed forces ready as of mid 1970--a notion rejected by historians, with good reason.
I also now recall, in the YOM KIPPUR WAR by the London Insight Team, that Ali Sabry believed diplomacy had no hope; the solution was war, as soon as possible. Yet it wasn't wise to go to war as early as 1971.
Perhaps experts could've dissauded Fawzi and the other plotters from going to war had they won in May. Egypt need more time to develop strong antitank and SAM forces.
Btw I haven't read RECONSTRUCTING A SHATTERED EGYPTIAN ARMY so I don't have Fawzi's original thoughts on the subject of Egyptian readiness in 1970-71.
this is very interesting but I am missing background,, can you fill me in because I do not know what the conflict was in 1973, I was not paying much attention in those days and just from what little I read, basically the newspaper headlines, it was presented as another Arab effort to crush Israel for no particular reason except just "typical Arab aggressiveness." What WERE Egypt's and the Arabs' goals? What were Shazly's hard-won victories? I never heard of anything about that before. What would the "comprehensive settlement" that might have been achieved by 1975 have looked like? I did like Kosygin, for a few years he shared power with Brezhnev but then faded away; Brezhnev was worse but still not too bad, we could have worked with him to improve things if we (I mean our gov't) had been interested but "we" weren't.
I agree with Neal, Egypt will soon be engulfed in the current Mideast war about ISIS, Israel seems to have been pushed into the background for the moment. But Sisi's government ALSO won't last long because he cannot do anything about the current deepening depression causing increasing unemployment and a new revolution.
Mark my words we are heading rapidly into the Second Great (Global) Depression due to egregious government mismanagement of the economy over many years, including the huge budget deficits, national debt and unfunded liabilities, "free trade", and severe underspending on infrastructure, education, and everything else.
Those newspapers you were reading in '73 must've been among the most biased in the country. I assume the heaviest pro-Israel "slant" is in papers in areas with big jewish populations--New York, Florida, California etc.
Egypt and Syria only sought to regain territory lost due to the Israeli offensives of 1967. Syria stood a chance of regaining the Golan heights solely through military action. Egypt, however, stood no chance of recapturing all of Sinai that way. The war was meant to get the major powers to solve the Mideast crisis, by getting Sinai back for Egypt.
Shazly's hard won victories were the successful crossing of the Suez canal by Egyptian forces on October 6, 1973 and the repelling of Israel's initial counterattack on the 8th.
Had Egypt avoided the blunders Sadat made afterwards, so it emerged in a much stronger position, a hypothetical comprehensive settlement in 1975 might've meant full Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, Golan and the West Bank, and the establishment of a Palestinian state--or semiautonomous area linked to Jordan-- in the latter area,
Egypt might be engaged in a major war against ISIS if the group takes over more of Libya.
Thanks, I think it's coming back to me now more. Not sure if it was the newspapers' fault (I was in San Francisco at the time, can't say how much Jewish influence there may have been, the main paper was the middle-to-upper-class Chronicle, the secondary paper was a Hearst publication, which I don't recall ever hearing of as being too pro-Israel or anything but maybe they do have some reputation on that) or my own ignorance and lack of interest in the war. My focus then as it is now was on economics, the world economy and solving world poverty, and the 1973 war had little to do with that.
It sounds like that hypothetical 1975 settlement might have laid a foundation for improvement in their situation. But the terrible thing is that there probably would still have not been adequate follow-through with aid for the Palestinians which they badly need to develop (obviously especially in Gaza). There HAVE been billions of dollars of aid, I think mostly from Europe while Israel gets most of its aid from the US; but it has still been woefully inadequate and probably not well used although it is difficult to get any information about that.
But now I have just read today's column by Robert Samuelson in the online Washington Post, and I had to share this with you because it is what is really wrong with the economic profession today. Samuelson points out pretty much what we all know, the global economy is struggling more and more (as I noted previously, it's headed for collapse, and Samuelson's column's title is "The Crash of 2016?" [HELL YES {--my comment}]. He says "... the US economy needs a shove from abroad." Jesus God, what we need is to tax the rich in our own country to create jobs and so on--and Samuelson like the whole profession can't see that!!!!!
There's also a reference to another article "Bernie's single-payer health plan. Ain't gonna happen", which I just wonder if they know that the reason it ain't gonna happen is that the wealthy now control our government--contrary to what Samuelson and even you don't quite seem to recognize?
I mean, why do YOU think it ain't gonna happen?
Even if the owners and editors of a paper don't have a pro-Israel bias, some readers almost invariably do. All too often newspapers are like politicians, afraid of alienating a small but passionate pro-Israel minority.
What did Samuelson mean by a "shove from abroad"? Increased sales of US products or more buying of US bonds?
If Sanders doesn't make it, it'll be the fault of the voters not a handful of fatcats. If the wealthy controlled our government, how could he have become prominent in the first place?
Yes, Samuelson was really looking around the world for some country whose economy was booming so that its people and companies would be ready willing and able to buy goods and services from us--because unless we tax our own rich [the alternative Samuelson utterly ignores--I wonder why], any stimulus will have to come from abroad--unless we resort to more damned borrowing which even the politicians are loath to do now that the national debt has climbed over $19 T. Shouldn't the basic immorality of the richest country on Earth "needing a 'shove'" (boost, or booster shot you might call it) from [poorer] countries be obvious? That's as outrageous as the common notion that we need immigrants because we have too few citizen workers paying into Social Security. Haven't you read of pro-immigration advocates making that argument? They need to stop and ask who will support the retirees in Mexico in their old age! I don't recall if we have discussed the immigration issue before, what is your opinion on it?
I agree that Bernie seems to be getting enough coverage even in the billionaire-owned media that the voters should be able to make at least a somewhat-informed decision. But I think three things, one is that it's getting clearer to more and more people that our existing system is failing--an inevitable result of the 1% having been in power too long, so at last after 35-70 years (dating from the end of WW II or from the Reagan presidency), their collapsing system will finally allow some of the 99% to break through. My second thought is that sure, Bernie can get elected President, the 1% have never worried too much about the occasional token progressive who gets elected, but the 1% will maintain its majority in Congress and block everything Bernie tries to do. Thirdly, this damned system is so rotten, I have to fault Bernie for not belaboring this point, which is that millions of voters (especially many blacks) who would really prefer Sanders, are going to vote for Hillary instead because she might have a better chance of defeating the Republican in the general election, and the GOP candidate will be truly scary, blacks especially know that a Republican can hurt you a whole lot more than even the best Democrat could help you. This is a big fat distortion in our political system that Bernie should be talking about because he is quite apt to get clobbered by it. It's caused by our damned winner-take-all, first-past-the-post elections which should be replaced by power-sharing.
Now I read in yesterdays' paper this thing again, Obama said "When either side makes blanket promises to their base that it can't possibly meet, that kind of politics means that the supporters will be perennially disappointed. It only adds to folks' sense that the system is rigged . . . ' !!!!! I mean it sounds as if he doesn't know that the system is rigged?! !! It is somewhere between incredible and terrifying that a man could be elected President without knowing anything about his own country??!!
So can I ask you again, how do YOU explain why single-payer is an impossibility?
In theory the US could make a lot of $, increase employment and reduce/eliminate the trade deficit, by selling a lot more arms to wealthy arab states, and maybe India and Brazil too. But the pro-Israel groups have always hindered a lot of US sales. Israeli interests not our own are THEIR principal concern.
Congress couldn't block everything Obama tried to do so maybe Bernie could get something accomplished. Maybe the Jews, many of whom are super-rich, will support Bernie, regardless of his policies, as he'd be the first jewish prez. It would seem like a further consolidation of their stranglehold on this country.
If Trump becomes the GOP nominee, which seems likely, Bernie would have an excellent chance. From what I've heard Trump doesn't have much support outside the GOP. I don't know about the single payer plan specifically, but did you see the vid in which Robert Reich refutes arguments against Bernie, such as electability and ability to deal with Congress?
It seems to me that a risk in arms sales is that I believe that most of the weapons we sell will eventually be used against us due to our wrongful wars abroad and our failure to solve world poverty--of course, that would not only be poetic justice but also the only way the world's poor can get equal, but aren't you wary of that? We would create more jobs and eliminate the trade deficit by taxing the rich and spending the money on rebuilding our lost industries, mfg more things to raise living standards and building affordable housing, etc.
How to escape the Jewish stranglehold is why I am always fighting for equality. I worry that your idea of meritocracy would strengthen their grip because Jews, you know, are the smartest, most talented, ambitious, etc. How would you propose, therefore, to diffuse their excessive power?
I didn't see that Reich vid, what did you think of it, was it persuasive? Reich is generally pretty good.
Also wanted to get back to something we mentioned earlier, which is the possibility of Egypt succumbing to war with IS. I think the most likely or at least one plausible scenario is a domestic revolution and civil war resulting from the collapse of their economy along with the whole world economy soon; the Salafists as an oppressed minority might support the uprising and they are ideologically in tune with the IS in the sense of being antiWestern Muslim fundamentalist extremists.
Those able to buy US arms tend to be rich nations such as Gulf Arab states not poor ones.
I don't think Jews are inherently smarter than other groups. If only kids from other backgrounds such as blacks and hispanics, were raised as well (good nutrition and stimulation) they'd do just as well. Unfortunately the jewish grip in this country won't be broken until the consequences of the policies they've foisted on us become unbearable. You've seen my writings on that.
I didn't see much of Reich's vid but thought you'd find it interesting.
Despite Islamic State and brotherhood trouble, Al-Sissi is doing OK. Recently a big natural gas deposit was discovered off the Egyptian coast, which may go a long way toward making Cairo financially independent. I've speculated that Egypt may also obtain the oil production of eastern Libya under the guise of fighting ISIS or restoring order, but that hasn't happened. Egypt's worst problem is overpopulation. It's tough to deal with it but al-Sissi has been trying.
Yes Saudi Arabia et al are rich allies but those kingdoms cannot cope with the oncoming depression and will get overthrown by poor people and extremists who rightfully hate the US, who will take all those weapons and turn them on Israel and us and the West in general.
I disagree about Jews, I think that there are real intelligence differences between races and ethnic groups just as there are between individuals. Or do you think individual differences also are just due to nutrition and stimulation? I certainly agree that every child of every race deserves a nutritious and stimulative upbringing, that's what our great fight for equality is all about, but I think that even when that is provided for all, there will remain many who are intellectually challenged is I guess the PC term. Well, it could be argued that those born with smaller brains or whatever it is, it's not just size I know, should be given additional special nourishment & stim., so that they can reach a level of equality as an adult with other adults, this is a kind of far-out extremist idea that may have merit but seems well ahead of its time which sounds like a strange thing for me to say because I've always been 100 years ahead of my time myself, what with my dreams of space and all. More important to me in the meantime is achieving equality of incomes, e.g., high-school flunkouts should get just as well-paying jobs as college grads do, etc. Farmworkers should make just as much money as hedge-fund managers and so forth. These sorts of goals could be achievable within 10-20 years if we have a Revolution!
I'll try to look up Reich's vid when I get access to a terminal with sound, all I have at LAPL is video no sound.
I don't think Sisi is doing well, he is trying to develop capitalism in one country and it will not work, already most Egyptians are impoverished and when the Depression hits, Sisi will no more be able to solve it than Herbert Hoover was ( a great humanitarian but ideologically helpless anticommunist president). Even if the price of oil and natural gas were to hold up--which they won't, because the Depression will make everything cheap--Sisi has no notion of how to use the revenues to broaden opportunities for the mass of Egyptians. In a way I can't blame him because he is honorably trying to do things within the framework of peace and (capitalist) freedom, which are nice values but do not and will not work sad to say. There's tons of war coming and an Egyptian attempt to seize Libya's oil whether forthright or under any pretext is still plausible but would be just one small part of it.
Yesterday there was an online report about the coming collapse of the Saudi monarchy. I hope it does fall, because I despise archaic monarchies. I concur that when a new government arises, it'll turn its weapons against Israel, and oppose US support of Israel, albeit economically--by means of an oil embargo, as in '73, and withdrawal of funds from western banks. That'll ensure a severe depression and radical political transformation worldwide. We agree on that, even if we have different views on the outcome. :)
Sure some individuals are inherently brighter or more capable than others in various ways. But I don't think any races are better. Jews just take better care of their kids--better nutrition and encouragement, and this produces phenotypically brighter people. I don't think they're brighter genotypes. In any event, intelligence should not be rewarded if it is used for detrimental things, like forcing the US to back Israel, regardless of the harm done to our own interests.
The fact of inherent inequality of individuals, to my mind, makes equalizing incomes and rewards unrealistic. There was never a completely equal society. Progress requires that highly capable people have an incentive to work hard and produce. If someone's contribution is much greater than average, he should get a bigger reward. Otherwise why bother? That doesn't mean those born with less intelligence must be serfs. You may remember the old saying: "Few boys are born with talents that excel but all are capable of living well."
Now it may be true that automation cold change things drastically. If extremely capable machines appear, with intelligence the equivalent of IQ 600 (and Cray computers have long been mathematically light years beyond human ability) it won't make much difference if individuals have IQs of 150 or 50. We'll all be "dummies," at least in the workplace.
Sissi would be doing OK if only he could find a way to cut Egypt's population drastically.
I still think there are major racial genotype differences and the fact that our ruling classes refuse to acknowledge this is causing them lots of stupid problems like they are trying to solve poverty through education, so they think that by spending more to educate black and Latino kids they'll end black and Latino poverty; and in some districts they are spending a lot more on such underprivileged ethnic groups' kids; and it's all a stupid waste because they will never be able to eliminate those racial genetic differences and education is absolutely the wrong stupid way to go about trying to solve the problem of poverty and racial inequalities--just as it is the wrongway to solve the problems of individual differences--which is one reason we're going to need a revolution.
Of course, I am ALL FOR improving the educational opportunities of all minority, poor, underprivileged kids as well as all other kids while bearing in mind that school should be fun for all, I mean the education has to be appropriate to each kid's own level of intellectual development. The damned ruling-class idiots keep imposing absolutely insane standards like every child must complete a college-prep curriculum in order to graduate! Of course, after trying that for a few years they realize it will not work, but in the meantime who knows how much damage they've done by refusing to graduate any number of low-IQ kids?
To achieve more equality, fairness, justice and incentives in our economy, we need most to eliminate such extremes as the low pay of productive hard work like cleaning latrines and picking the crops, and the overpay of such worthless functions as corporate lawyers, college admissions officers, and fund managers (an outstanding recent example was James LeBron's $30-million-a-year endorsement contract with Nike--that is in addition to his already-outrageous ball-playing salary). These differentials serve no beneficial incentive purpose so they should be replaced by a universal standard wage like $40,000 a year, and then each employer could adjust that pay rate up or down by say $10,000 a year to incentivize hard work and good performance. I don't recall that old saying but it's right on, I will write it down!
Yeah, the Revolution will need peasants with pitchforks and workers with sledgehammers to take on the machines! :) But if the machines are THAT smart, they'll probably take us humans into the Space Age and give us lots of exciting adventures to keep us busy and happy out there!
OR if Sisi could find a way to cut Egypt's NEIGHBORS' populations drastically to open up more lebensraum for his own people. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out! What a tragedy we're heading into .....
Are there any studies which conclude some races are inherently more capable intellectually? I recall Shockly, best known for work in electronics(?) proposed c 1972 that blacks are inferior to whites. David Sims AKA Jerry Abbott, also champions this view. But I doubt it has support in academia. Of course that may be mainly because it's a taboo subject, even decades after the nazis tainted the idea.
I agree an academic curriculum is a waste of time for many kids of all races. Only a few are capable of intelligent critical thinking; the rest should just follow orders. :)
If LeBron gets an outrageous ball playing salary, it's because the masses rate his "talent" so highly--far above anything really productive or intellectual--they're willing to spend huge amounts to see it. IMO the solution is to disempower the masses (except those who value an intelligent higher cause). Empowering them either politically or economically only exacerbates problems.
Machines may facilitate a space age but only by replacing the average joe with his insistence that far more be spent on booze, bubble gum and tobacco than on space.
Btw about al-Sissi: There's no need to cut the population of Egypt's neighbors to make lebensraum. Libya doesn't have very many people. Egypt itself has plenty of space but unfortunately it's mostly desert.
last thing first, you know, Libya also is mostly desert and could not support many more people than it already has; if Egypt has 20 million too many people for its own land, they aren't going to be able to support themselves in Libya either except by pushing millions of Libyans off the land.
Although as usual I want to qualify that because it does depend so much on good government and foreign aid which they will need to make the desert bloom. I would like to know more about Kadaffi's great man-made river, remember that? Unfortunately Sisi doesn't know of good gov't, and won't be getting enough aid, so he'll have to turn to war.
Now back to prev., yeah, I remember Shockley and there were others, too, Jencks I think and then there was Charles Murray, remember him? He wrote a book called The Bell Curve and all those guys were accused of racism but that really misses the point of how can we achieve interracial and interpersonal equality and fairness? I really would not assume anything about racial inferiority, it is possible that all the testing is methodologically flawed, and yet I admit that that's inconsistent because I DO believe that Jews (and Asians) are genetically intellectually superior, but more important is to ask, How, then, can we build a more equal world order? Of course "Asians" is an awfully heterogeneous category but just look at the last names of state high-school academic decathlon winners (probably more noticeable here in Calif. than most places). For example, when and how will Africa join the Space Age? How would Russia and the US have started it in the late 1950s if it hadn't been for the Germans? This all depends on good government and if Africa gets good government they will make the most of their very great latent human capital potential even if only 1 in 1,000 is a genius (that would still mean hundreds of thousands of them).
I think that maybe those same masses whose stupidity contributes to LeBron's excessive income, can be made to understand the need to tax him back down to Earth (equality or like a 99.9% tax); at least I'm going to try (or try again as I have several times in the past by distributing/putting up flyers for Revolution...wish me luck even though I know it is hard to retain any hope about this . . .
Sissi's best solution would be cutting Egypt's population, although he'd have to be subtle and ruthless. The masses would object strongly to limits on family size. It would be barbaric to implement a scheme like, luring 40 million poor Egyptians to remote desert "construction sites" where "good jobs await" and then just leaving them stranded there to die of thirst and dehydration. But IMO hardly more barbaric and a lot less detrimental, to let the whole country become an overcrowded cesspool, drowning in sewage and filth.
Sure I remember The Bell Curve. Some time ago I heard it had been utterly refuted. I very much doubt Jews themselves claim to be inherently superior in light of recent history. I think jews and Asians just do a better job than others in nurturing and encouraging their kids. Early childhood nutrition and stimulation are very important. Lots of blacks and poor whites are not only neglected but abused.
IMO the best approach, for now, is to equalize early childhood care and opportunity. To an extent head start addresses this. But those who are inherently brighter or more responsible, should have more perogatives and somewhat more wealth. Meritocracy not equality.
In general, the US or allies surpassed the Germans technologically e.g.in radar development, codebreaking/computers etc. At least one American, Goddard, pioneered rocket research in the '20s, so I think the Space Age would've gotten underway about 50 years ago without Germans.
I doubt the masses will understand the need to prioritize other things besides sports and individual luxuries. At least not under present circumstances. Only a dire emergency, giving rise to dictatorship, will bring about essential changes.
Could sabry and Fawzi really be persuaded to postpone war for two years after their original deadline of late 1971
Good question. I think Fawzi had enough sense to postpone the attack until Egypt was ready. According to NEWSWEEK, Sadat himself originally planned to start hostilities in December 1971. Fifty fighter bombers were to fly a "deep penetration" raid in Sinai. The operation was called off because of the Indo-Pakistan war, which then overshadowed the Mideast conflict.
Also, after expelling the Soviets in July 1972, Sadat ordered War Minister Sadek to drop a parachute brigade in Sinai and hold a bridgehead for a week to ten days, Sadek refused to carry out the order, in part due to insufficient ammunition--only enough for three days of peak intensity fighting.
Basically Sadat concurred with Sabry and Fawzi that war was essential. He too would've launched it well before October 1973, had only conditions been right. If even a dope like Sadat realized war in 1971-72 was premature, a professional soldier like Fawzi would've too. He would've made Sabry see the light.
In addition to the likelihood Sabry and Fawsi would've initiated hostilities at the right time, Egypt would've received a lot more weapons before 10/73, and avoided the ruinous blunders of Sadat from October 14-19, 1973.
What make Fawzi and Sabry planning of coup makes uncovered during 1971?
You mean why did the planned ouster of Sadat fail? From what I remember, he had the support of the army or more of it than Sabry and Fawzi.
If Sabry and Fawzi had taken over in May 1971, wouldn't the rise of such hawks, determined to go to war as soon as possible, have caused Israel to lunch a preemptive attack?
No doubt, the rise of such leadership would've made more Israelis favor such an assault. But US secretary of State Kissinger strongly opposed any preemptive attack by Israel. "Don't preempt!" he was quoted as saying, just before the '73 war. The US notified Israel that if it refrained from attacking first, the "US would then feel morally obliged to help." It was a diplomatic way of warning Israel that help was not certain if it started a war. Since Israel was heavily dependent on the US, it had little choice but to comply. It's unlikely, therefore, that Israel would've been able to preempt even if Egypt had a more hawkish regime.
What might've happened militarily had Fawzi and Sabry been in power? Sadat blundered but how might they have done better in 1973?
I suppose it could be argued by a more hawkish leadership was, if anything, even more likely to launch the foolish attack of October 14, and even more reluctant than Sadat to pull forces back to the west bank of the canal, after the Israeli crossing. But Fawzi was a professional soldier, and almost certainly would've heeded the advice of nearly all of Egypt's generals, including Shazly.
Had Fawzi and Sabry been in power, the USSR would've more enthusiastic about arming Egypt, and the Soviet advisors wouldn't have departed in 1972. Assuming there was nothing like the October 14 attack (which incidentally wasn't quite as severe a setback as previously described) it's likely there would've been a battle in the Chinese Farm similar to what happened historically. Shazly might not have gotten a chance to use the 4rth armored Division and 25th Armored brigade to counterattack an IDF penetration at Deversoir. The IDF probably would've stayed east of the canal had Egypt's reserves stayed west, so there would've been just the "meat grinder" in the Chinese Farm and Missouri ridge. The key difference is, without an IDF crossing, Israel would've simply tried to destroy Egyptian forces in those areas. Egypt would've sent more reinforcements there, so the slaughter would've been great--great enough, and fruitless enough, to weaken its resolution to hold onto the occupied territories.
Darn--I erred myself and can't edit comments(!!!). I meant it could be argued THAT (not "by") a more hawkish leadership was more likely to order the Oct. 14 attack...
Hadpro-soviet people like sabry come to power in'71, would the USSR have given Egypt weapons like the MIG-23 or perhaps the T-64 tank, in time for the 1973 war?
I think the USSR would've given Egypt at least some of those weapons. On the one hand, the Soviets wanted detente with the US hence weren't enthusiastic about arming Egypt for war. But on the other hand, they had an interest in propping up a pro-Soviet regime in a critical part of he world.
The Soviets plotted to get Sabry released, probably for the purpose of overthrowing Sadat. They must've known he favored war as soon as possible, yet they still wanted him in power. It seems likely, therefore, that Moscow would've armed Egypt as best it could. Under Fawzi and Sabry, Cairo probably would've gotten the MIG-23, even the TU-22 and SCUD missiles etc.
Btw the latest comments, above, were today, March 10, 2016. It's good to see new comments to a post older than the current one.
What might Egypt have accomplished in 1973 had it received the TU-22 and MIG-23?
The TU-22 was roughly the equivalent of the F-4 Phantom. The MIG-23 had a ground attack version--the MIG-23BN. Had Egypt been equipped with 100 or more of these jets--say 50-75 of each--and used them properly, they could've had a devastating impact on the Israelis.
Adan noted on the second day of the war (October 7, 1973) there was a great deal of congestion on the northern coast road of Sinai as great numbers of Israeli vehicles headed for the front. Had the Egyptian air force struck these vehicles, with its SU-7S and MIG-17s, it could've caused considerable damage. But had the EAF been armed with jets capable of inflicting real damage like the TU-22, destruction might've been massive. The TU-22 could carry far more bombs--including napalm- than the jets the EAF had historically. Hundreds of Israeli vehicles could've been roasted, with their personnel.Given Israeli sensitivity to casualties, it might've been a decisive victory.
Btw Iraqi had begun to receive TU-22s by then, but they weren't yet operational. The point is that Moscow was prepared to supply such warplanes to states it favored, but not Egypt--under Sadat. Had Fawzi and Sabry won in May 1971, things would've been different i.e. better in this respect.
(posted March 11,2016)
What about armor? Would Egypt have gotten the T-64 or more T-62s? What might these tanks have achieved?
I'm not sure about the T-64, though Cairo probably would've gotten more T-62s. At the time, October 1973, Egypt had just 200 or so--enough for two brigades. In contrast, Syria, then on better terms with Moscow, had enough T-62s IIRC for two divisions and at least one independent brigade.
Properly used, T-62s would've improved Egypt's performance in armor engagements. Their 115mm guns were longer ranged and more accurate than the 100mm guns of its T-55 tanks. T-62s would've been a better match for Israel's Centurion and M-48/60 tanks with their 105mm guns.
The T-64 had an even heavier gun--125mm--but from what I've read, it was not renowned for accuracy. The T-62 had problems but may still have been better suited to the desert where accuracy at long range was more important than in Europe.
Of course historically Egypt's T-62s, notably those of the 25th brigade, fared poorly. They were ambushed and mauled on October 17. But that was due to Sadat's incompetence--sending them right into a trap--not inherent flaws of the tanks themselves.
The T-64s at that time was the zenith of Soviet technology. They wouldnt have handed it to any arab nation no matter how much they paid. Perhaps they could have supplied the Egyptians with better ATGMs than the Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) such as the Fagot it could have lead to even worse losses in IDF's armored columns.
The whole Sadat thing brings up a hot debated topic. Did he do it on purpose? A lot out there accuse Sadat of treason. They claim he wanted to the IDF to get on the other side of the canal in effort to create a negotiable atmosphere so they say. I actually find it silly and blame his inflated ego. Nevertheless, away from military field he was a shrewd politician, a rare feat among the military heads in the middle east.
June 24, 2016
Good to see you back on the blog! :)
I'm no fan of Sadat but very much doubt he screwed up deliberately. It is true he considered the war a prelude to a political solution, not a solution in itself. But to get what he wanted, he needed a strong bargaining position. Israel's seizure of territory west of the canal weakened his bargaining position--especially when it reached the point where the Third Army was surrounded....
I wasn't aware of the Fagot; I'll have to research that.
Militarily Sadat was just an incompetent. He was too optimistic and too stubborn. His awful mistakes included the October 14 offensive, the October 17 attack with the 25th brigade, the refusal to heed Shazly's request to pull armored units back west, rejection of the first cease fire offer on the 13th, and Kosygin's cease fire proposal of the 16-17th.
True, Sadat was politically skillful. He won the May '71 power struggle, and was great at winning American backing after the war. I read some of the interviews he gave back then. In one, he told a US journalist he was always fond of American cowboy movies (lol!). What a great way to get more Americans to relate better to him...He even kissed Secretary of State Kissinger and referred to him as "my friend Henry." Kissinger knew it was just a show to win US support and he actually liked Assad better.
So you don't think the USSR would've supplied any Arab state with the T-64 in time for October 1973? Around 1979 they began supplying Syria with the T-72, presumably even more advanced. But from what I've heard the arabs got only downgraded monkey models.
Actually the T-64 is more advanced than the T-72 according to my knowledge. The T-72 is actually a downgrade when it comes to electronics and equipment compared to the T-64. I dont know much about the T-80 but I think it is the true successor of the T-64 until out of nowhere the T-72BU came out and now you have T-90s running everywhere.
I agree that militarily Sadat was incompetent and downright obnoxious. His involvement worsened the situation for the Egyptians especially after the catastrophic advance. Which reminds me, who was behind that advance anyways? Oh yup, Sadat, right?
June 30, 2016
suppose it would've been difficult to train some arab crews on the T-64. Vaguely I recall that Syria was requesting it around 1975 or so(?).
Sure, Sadat was behind the attack of the 14th. When the generals heard the order, they came to Center Ten, where Ismail told them it was a political order they had to obey. The best they could do was get it postponed from October 13 to 14.
I haven't read THE EGYPTIAN STRATEGY FOR THE YOM KIPPUR WAR yet (It's here but I haven't yet finished something else). But in ARAB MIGs Vol. 6, in a chapter entitled "The myths of October 14" Cooper et al say it indicates the October 14 attack was just "for show" and its true extent and losses have been exaggerated. (Two other books provide a bit of indirect confirmation of this.) Even so the losses were substantial, and the movement of so much armor east left the west bank of the canal vulnerable.
A key question is--who decided to make the attack a "show"? I think it's virtually certain the generals did. They didn't want the offensive so they tried to minimize the losses incurred. Maybe I'l find out for sure when I read the book.
By the way, Adham, do you remember back in the old Egypt subforum, we (me, gomig, qweasd etc) discussed the October 14 attack? At one point I suggested the generals should've sent only a handful of the crummiest tanks far out in front of the others and after they were hit, ordered a withdrawal, and claimed the attack had been repulsed? Ha ha. I don't know if they could've done that and gotten away with it. But I did think of the "show offensive" idea before reading it actually occurred albeit in a manner that was too costly.
According to Arabs at war , the attack costed 256 tanks and a large number of APCS while only 40 IDF tanks got damaged with six being reparable or unreparable (my memory sucks lol). The IDF (according to Pollack) Launched a commando force to take out higly sophisticated signal equipment stationed at some mountains which caused fiasco and intel conflict in the Egyptian command. The charge was basically a slaughterhouse with wave after wave of tanks and apcs just moving forward and getting blown up without any attempt to maneuver.
Yeah I remember that....Didnt the Egyptians have More T-34s/85 than T-55s?
July 3, 2016
I have ARABS AT WAR, but stowed it in some closet. :) Without taking the trouble to consult it, I recall Pollack wrote the Egyptians lost 264-267 tanks. I also have Adan's "banks of the Suez" book, and he mentions high losses for each Egyptian thrust, even the one against Israel's "Tirans" or captured T-54/55s.
There was one attempt to maneuver--the 3rd brigade tried to reach the Mitla via the Wadi Mab'ok, bypassing the el shatt Mitla.
Some accounts say the 3rd was virtually wiped out.
Interestingly, though, ARAB MIGs, Volume 6 says October 14 tank losses were considerably lower than the long accepted figure of about 250. The source was Asher's book THE EGYPTIAN STRATEGY FOR THE YOM KIPPUR WAR. Asher is an Israeli, so it's not an Egyptian attempt to downplay losses. Actually at least two pro-Israel books--Adan's ON THE BANKS OF THE SUEZ and Rabinovich's THE YOM KIPPUR WAR --hint that Asher is right (Egyptian losses were exaggerated). Both books indicate the Israeli leadership was unsure if this was the major Egyptian attack or not. In other words the extent of the fighting and casualties must have been less than officially reported, as some doubted it was the expected, "major" attack. Soon I'll read THE EGYPTIAN STRATEGY FOR THE YOM KIPPUR WAR and see Asher's evidence. His idea of a "show offensive" is supposedly based on captured Egyptian documents, so I guess his evidence is good. By the way, ARAB MIGs cited other evidence for fewer losses as well.
July 3, 2016
Oh I forgot: The T-54/55 was standard in the '73 war. There were still some T-34/85s though, which could've been sacrificed for this purpose. I would've preferred though, to somehow move already wrecked tanks well forward. :) If I remember right, Shazly's book THE CROSSING OF THE SUEZ had figures on each type of tank available. But I returned that book to Gomig some time ago. :)
From a moral / ethical perspective its a dilemma. I will get back to your replies soon enough, its eid over here afterall ;)
BTW any articles/books/materials related to arab military analysis IN 21st century? Other than the Why Arabs Lose Wars by Deatkine.
July 6, 2016
OK I'll look forward to your comments. :)
Pollack makes the same points as Deatkine, and his book was published around 2003. I think THE EGYPTIAN STRATEGY FOR THE YOM KIPPUR WAR, which I've just began reading, was published at the same time.
July 7, 2016
I checked yesterday. ARABS AT WAR has a copyright date of 2002. THE EGYPTIAN STRATEGY FOR THE YOM KIPPUR WAR was first published in 2003.
Post a Comment
<< Home