McNair Paper Number 45 Chapter 1, October 1995

The War of Attrition is used by critics of deterrence to illustrate the fragility of deterrence because Egypt began to shell Israeli positions on the Suez Canal only a few months after Israel's stunning victory in the June 1967 Six Day War. In contrast to the 11 years of deterrence success brought about by the 1956 war, deterrence held after the 1967 war for only two and one-half months. Despite the fact that Israel unambiguously established its military superiority by destroying the armies of three Arab states in the Six Day War and by occupying large parts of their territories, Egyptian forces began shelling Israeli positions on the East bank of the Suez Canal in September 1967. On October 21, the Egyptian navy sank the Israeli destroyer INS Eilat. After an Israeli retaliation in which oil installations and refineries were attacked, the Egyptian-Israeli front was quiet for a year. Then, in September 1968 Egypt began massive artillery shelling of Israeli positions accompanied by troop crossings of the Canal. This stage lasted until the end of October, and, as in the previous round, Israeli retaliation brought about four months of stability. In March 1969 Egypt began a costly war of attrition, commonly referred to as the War of Attrition, which lasted until August 1970.9

This case appears to lend support to the contention of critics of deterrence that leaders who act out of "need" challenge deterrence despite the credibility of the defender's threats. Stein, a major critic of deterrence theory, argues that deterrence theory fails to explain the War of Attrition because Egypt, the militarily weaker party, challenged deterrence and resorted to the use of force by launching the War of Attrition in March 1969. This occurred despite the fact that the intelligence services of the United States, the Soviet Union, Egypt, and Israel, all agreed that Egypt's military capability was inferior to that of Israel.10 According to Stein, Israel's deterrent strategy failed badly.11

While Egyptian leaders were aware of Israel's overall military superiority, which they took into account when they designed their strategy, the challenge they embarked upon was, according to Stein, ill-conceived. It was based on many miscalculations which defeated deterrence. According to Stein, Egyptian leaders "underestimated Israel's interests and consequently miscalculated the scope of its response."12 Because Israel's interests were bargaining chips to be traded at the negotiating table while Egypt was fighting for her own homeland, Egyptian leaders expected Israel to acquiesce in response to a prolonged and costly military stalemate.

In addition, Egyptian leaders overestimated their capability and underestimated that of Israel to react. They planned a local war to "design around"13 Israel's superiority in mobile warfare but the later stages of their plan called for crossing the canal and capturing parts of the Sinai. If their plan had succeeded, the war would have degenerated into a larger one where Israel's superiority was unambiguous. Egyptian leaders also expected to inflict massive Israeli casualties, but anticipated only limited Israeli response. Finally, according to Stein, Egyptian leaders underestimated Israel's capacity for endurance and overestimated Egyptian capability to inflict casualties.14

These contradictions, according to Stein, can be explained "only by some dynamic of wishful thinking." Stein argues that, the biased estimates stemmed rather from processes of inconsistent management in response to an extraordinarily difficult and painful value conflict: Egypt could neither accept the status quo nor sustain a general military challenge. In seeking to escape this dilemma, Egyptian leaders embarked on a poorly conceived and miscalculated course of military action rather than acknowledge the value conflict and make the difficult trade-offs. In 1969 Israel's deterrent strategy failed not because it was badly designed but because Egyptian calculations were so flawed that they defeated deterrence.15

Stein's central argument is that leaders who are under political pressures to act deny unpleasant value trade-offs. Being under pressure to act, leads leaders to miscalculate the balance of capability and resolve. They underestimate the capability of the defender and exaggerate their own power. They also pay attention to their own interests, interests that are psychologically salient, rather than to those of the opponent. The status quo is so intolerable that it promotes motivated errors like wishful thinking and denial in an effort to escape an intolerable dilemma. This form of bias defeats deterrence.

The problem with this line of argument is that it fails to identify the true causal chain in explaining deterrence failure. By focusing only on deterrence failures and analyzing deterrence outcomes in isolation from the larger processes that exist in an enduring rivalry, Stein reaches flawed conclusions about the causes for the deterrence failure in March 1969. Stein begins her analysis of deterrence failure in March 1969 while completely ignoring the larger context in which the Egyptian-Israeli interaction takes place. The period up to the 1967 war, the two deterrence failures which occurred in 1967 and 1968, as well as the periods of stability that existed between the different deterrence failures, are not mentioned or discussed in her analysis. If the Egyptian miscalculations were a result of wishful thinking due to political pressures to act, as Stein suggests, then it is difficult to explain why Egypt did not challenge deterrence in the other periods in which the front was quiet. In all of these periods Nasser was under the same political pressures to act. If need led to miscalculation and war in one case why did it not lead to the same outcome in the other cases?

I argue that Egypt's choice of a strategy of attrition was sensible under conditions of uncertainty and not motivated by wishful thinking, that the decisions to challenge were based on changes in opportunities rather than in response to need, and that the choice of attrition strategy, given the limited goals Egypt pursued after the 1967 war, are indicative of success and not failure. Thus, the deterrence model does provide a useful framework that predicts the conditions under which deterrence success and failure occur.

What the Egyptian strategy in the War of Attrition was and how the postulates of deterrence theory fare in this case are the questions to which we now turn. The analysis will proceed along the framework used in the previous chapters where the competing empirical predictions made by the deterrence model and by the critics of deterrence will be examined on the balance of interests, the balance of capability, reputations, and crisis bargaining behavior.

Competing Hypotheses

The deterrence model predicts that if the balance of interests favors the defender deterrence should hold. The valuation of interests determines the will of the defender to respond to a challenge and bear the costs entailed in preserving its interests. Deterrence theorists and critics of deterrence alike agree that certain intrinsic interests are so important to some defenders that the credibility of their will to protect those interests is unquestioned. Challengers are not expected to challenge deterrence when they estimate the defender's resolve--and commitment to retaliate if challenged--to be high. Some critics of deterrence, who are strong proponents of the balance of interests school, argue that rational deterrence theory places too much emphasis on strategic interests such as reputation and credibility, and should pay more attention to intrinsic interests which are more likely to deter.18

Critics of deterrence argue that leaders are likely to pay attention to their own interests, interests that are psychologically salient, rather than to those of the opponent. If they do engage in a comparison of interests, leaders under political pressure to act are likely to underestimate the worth of the adversary's interests and overestimate the value they attach to their own interests.19

The consequence, argue critics of deterrence, is that leaders in challenging states are likely to miscalculate the defender's response. First, challengers are likely to anticipate that the defender, when challenged, will back down rather than fight. Second, if the challenger decides on a direct attack, he might be certain of the defender's response but uncertain about the defender's endurance and will to escalate. The challenger is uncertain about the defender's will to undertake the risks and costs associated with escalation and brinkmanship.

Egypt's and Israel's Interests During the War of Attrition

What was the balance of interests in the War of Attrition? Did Egypt evaluate the balance correctly? If not, did that affect its estimation of Israel's response? Did learning take place? The 1967 war changed the balance of interests. In that war Egypt (as well as Syria and Jordan) lost territories it considered an integral part of its homeland. Freeing the Sinai from Israeli occupation became the primary goal of Egyptian decision makers. Egypt wanted to deny Israel the political and strategic gains that resulted from the 1967 war. Egypt feared the establishment of a new status-quo based on these gains, as well as the erosion of its leadership position in the Arab world.20

Israel's interest was to keep the Sinai until the Egyptian government recognized Israel's right to exist and agreed to sign a peace treaty achieved through direct negotiations. In contrast to Judea and Samaria which some segments of the Israeli polity desired for ideological reasons, Israel's claim to the Sinai was only strategic. The Sinai was a bargaining chip that Israel hoped to be able to trade at the bargaining table in return for a peace treaty with Egypt.21

Both Egypt and Israel were aware that the balance of interests favored Egypt. Egypt was fighting for the "soil of the homeland," while Israel was fighting for strategic interests.22 Both sides also agreed about the consequences of such a balance. Egypt was highly committed to recapture the Sinai and would be willing to pay a high price in human and material resources while Israel would wonder why it should lose people over territories from which it was willing to retreat. Both parties realized that Israel would find itself in the difficult position of having to mobilize the scarce resources of a small nation and convince its population to spill blood for bargaining chips.23

Egypt's and Israel's Strategies and Secondary Interests

What courses of action were available to Egypt to regain the Sinai? This is important to consider briefly because any strategy Egypt would have adopted had an impact on, and created, secondary interests. First, Egypt could have accepted the Israeli offer to trade land for peace through direct negotiations. A week after the war Israel offered to return Egypt the Sinai and withdraw to the international boundary in return for a peace treaty. The only condition the Israelis attached to their offer was that the Sinai be demilitarized. This offer was on the table until October, 1968.24

Egypt could not accept a peace treaty with Israel because it perceived such an outcome as surrender to the dictates of Israel in light of a humiliating defeat. This perception existed not only in Egypt, but in the rest of the Arab world as well. The fear in Egypt was that the acceptance of a peace treaty would be used politically to further undermine Egypt's position in the Arab World, especially because Israel did not offer to withdraw from the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Egypt also had a psychological interest in denying the 1967 defeat. Accepting the status-quo or a peace treaty with Israel immediately after the defeat would be synonymous with admitting that the last 15 years of the socialist revolution had failed. Accepting peace would mean that "Arab Nationalism" and "Egyptian Socialism" lost to the forces of "Imperialism" and "International Zionism." For a leader who became a symbol of, and dedicated a lifetime to, the resistance of "Imperialism" and "International Zionism" accepting peace with Israel and cooperatingwith the United States meant surrender. Thus, the option of regaining the Sinai through a peace treaty was rejected.25

The second option, recapturing the Sinai by force, was not a viable option. As a result of the 1967 war, the Egyptian leadership realized that Israel could not be easily defeated in an all out war and that to counter certain Israeli capabilities would take years.26

The third option, a replay of the 1956 events when the United States pressured Israel to return the Sinai, was a course of action that Egypt hoped would work again. If that failed, Egypt hoped that Western European countries would pressure the United States to pressure Israel to return the Sinai because they had an interest in keeping the Suez Canal open to insure the flow of oil. This strategy also failed to occur. The United States decided not to pressure Israel in the absence of a peaceful arrangement. And, the Western European states learned to cope with the closure of the canal and did not put pressure on Israel to withdraw.27 The international situation, as well as Israel's ability to withstand international pressures, were much different in 1967 than they were in 1957.

Thus, given Nasser's life-long political commitments, the balance of capabilities that prevailed after the 1967 war, and the particular international situation at the time, the only course of action still available to regain the Sinai was a war of attrition. The war's main objective was to attrit Israel militarily and psychologically. Given Israel's limited resources and its sensitivity to casualties a war of attrition would put to a test Israel's ability to accept high costs in men and material for less than vital interests. Israel would be made to pay dearly for maintaining the status quo.

The War of Attrition had other secondary benefits. First, Israel's main line weapon systems and reserves would be destroyed and attrited, so, when the time for a general war arrived, Israel would find itself in a weakened position.28 Second, it would increase Israel's dependence on the United States which in turn would increase the United States' leverage over Israel.29 In order to force the United States to pressure Israel, Egypt had to create, and try to manipulate, the direct interests of the United States that were threatened by Israel's actions. Egypt found such interests in the risk of global confrontation and the weakening political positions of Arab regimes allied with the United States.

The War of Attrition also signaled Egypt's refusal to admit defeat. 30 Nasser still refused to accept the 1967 defeat as a real test of the balance of capabilities between Israel and the Arab states. Ultimately, he hoped, the potential of the Arab states in the number of people, in economic resources, and in other political and strategic resources would manifest itself in the balance of capabilities, and Israel would be defeated. If the particular circumstances which led to the 1967 defeat--the military surprise, the unfriendliness of the United States government and the mistakes made by the Soviets and the Egyptians--did not exist, Nasser believed that through attrition, as a first stage in a prolonged conflict, Egypt would eventually be able to achieve a military victory.

A war of attrition also had the advantage of providing the Egyptian army with the opportunity to confront the Israeli army on a daily basis and learn to fight it. This could be accomplished even through minor actions that would symbolize a refusal to remain defeated. Not only would the Egyptian army be forced to improve itself, but, in the process, the Egyptian leaders hoped, Israel's prowess would be demystified.31 For a regime that relied on the army for its existence, this was tantamount to survival.

Another goal Egypt would achieve through a war of attrition was the maintenance of a respectable position in the Arab world. As long as Egyptian forces challenged Israel, other actors, particularly the Palestinians who were also challenging Israel through terrorist attacks in Israel and abroad, could not accuse Egypt of inaction.32 On the positive side, challenging Israel in a war of attrition put pressure on other Arab regimes, countries on the eastern front were prepared to contribute to the war effort by fighting and alleviating some of the military pressures Nasser was under. Wealthy Arab states were prepared to contribute money.33

Finally, and most importantly, escalating the conflict with Israel introduced the risk of super-power intervention and global confrontation. Nasser hoped that American fears of such a confrontation would convince it to put pressure on Israel to acquiesce and withdraw. Being unable to bring about a replay of 1956 through diplomacy, Nasser believed that a war of attrition and escalation which introduced the risk of a global confrontation between the superpowers, might create the conditions that would lead to Israeli withdrawal.34

Given this list of Egyptian interests it is apparent that Egypt believed that once the war of attrition began, Israel's interest was to bring about a cease fire as soon as possible. By pacifying the border Israel hoped to reduce the United States' incentives to pressure it to withdraw in order to minimize the risks of a superpower confrontation. The problem the Israelis faced was that, given Egypt's interest in attrition, the only way they could hope to bring about a cessation of hostilities was by escalation. Only through escalation, "by attriting the attritors," could Israel prove to Egypt that its strategy would backfire. Through escalation Israel would minimize the costs it would suffer, it would not be attrited, and Israel would demonstrate its capability and resolve to fight for less than vital interests. By demonstrating to the Egyptians that they would ultimately pay a greater price and end up being the attrited party, the Israelis hoped to convince them of the futility of their strategy. It is important to remember, however, that the escalation of the conflict entailed the risk of superpower intervention, which was not in Israel's interest; therefore, as we shall later see, Israel undertook escalatory steps with great caution and reluctance.35

We see, then, that in the War of Attrition the balance of interests changed. If in the previous three challenges Israel's intrinsic interests were at stake, in the War of Attrition it was the Arab states whose intrinsic interests were at stake. All the Arab states directly involved in the conflict lost territories they considered part of their homeland. Their motivation to challenge was indeed great. Their challenge is consistent with the balance of interests hypothesis put forward by the deterrence model.

From Israel's perspective the analysis was more complicated. The territories, with the exception of part of the West Bank and Jerusalem, were perceived as bargaining chips to be traded at the peace conference. Israel had an incentive to keep the territories until the Arab leaders agreed to negotiate a peace settlement. Would Israel fight to keep these territories until such a time? Would Israel escalate the conflict if Egypt embarked on a prolonged and costly attrition war? And at what costs? These were questions to which there were no certain answers at the beginning of the challenge.

Egypt's Perception of Israel's Strategic

and Reputational Interests

In this case Egypt did engage in a comparison of interests and concluded that it was clearly favored. The Egyptians were fighting for their homeland while the Israelis were fighting for bargaining chips. The Egyptians were certain that Israel would retaliate. What was uncertain were the costs Israel was willing to accept for territories it was willing to concede at the bargaining table. Heykal wrote in 1969 that Egypt had an advantage in a war of attrition because Israel would be unable to handle a protracted and costly engagement. Israel's preoccupation with losses and sacrifices in a war that did not seem to be vital was noticed in Egypt. Nasser told a group of Western journalists that a nation which publishes the photographs of the previous day's casualties in the newspapers cannot win a war of attrition.36

Stein does not dispute the argument that, in the War of Attrition, Egypt engaged in a comparison of interests. She says, "as Egypt was about to launch the War of Attrition, Heykal noted that the importance attached by Egypt to the return of the conquered territories was greater than Israel's readiness to defend the status quo."37 Stein's criticism in this case is that Egypt underestimated Israel's strategic and reputational interests, and as a result miscalculated Israel's interest in escalation in order to stop an intolerable, prolonged, and costly war of attrition that was damaging to its deterrent reputation. Stein argues that Heykal's underestimation was motivated because it was an undesirable outcome.

There are several problems with this argument. First, it is historically inaccurate. Stein reaches her inaccurate conclusion because she begins her analysis of the War of Attrition in March 1969. While the period between March 1969 and August 1970 is usually referred to as the War of Attrition, two other periods of attrition warfare, from September 1967 to October 1967, and from September 1968 to October 1968, cannot be overlooked because they provide important evidence which leads to radically different conclusions. Stein's argument that in the War of Attrition the Egyptian leadership miscalculated the Israeli response and that this miscalculation was the result of motivated biases is not supported by the evidence when the longer term perspective is used.

The historical evidence suggests that during the two previous attrition periods prior to the last phase of the War of Attrition, Israel signaled clearly and forcefully its intention not to accept the rules of the game imposed on it by Egypt. She would not engage in a war of attrition that was advantageous to Egypt, but would retaliate and escalate deep inside Egyptian territory. In the first period, Israel responded by bombing oil refineries and installations, and cities along the canal. Israel signaled that it would hold the whole area west of the canal "hostage" to deter Egypt from further challenges. Egypt understood the signal that the continuation of the War of Attrition would be costly to civilian life in the canal cities and it signaled back that it was willing to pay that price by evacuating the area. By October, 1967 350,000 civilians, about 70 percent of the population, were evacuated. By November, 90 percent of the population were evacuated.38

The second stage of the War of Attrition, which began in September 1968, was a dress rehearsal for the phase that would begin in March 1969. During this phase, which lasted until the end of October 1968, the actors made preparations to absorb the type of punishments they planned to inflict on each other in the last stage. In response to massive Egyptian artillery attacks along the whole canal front and numerous crossings, Israel retaliated deep inside Egyptian territory by attacking bridges and power stations. Israel signaled that it would not tolerate attrition along the Canal where Egypt had the advantage and would expose Egypt to deep penetration raids that would serve to demonstrate Egypt's inability to protect its homeland.

This signal was perceived and interpreted correctly by Egypt's Chief of Staff Fawzi who said that the Israeli retaliation in Naj Hamadi served as an alarm bell for him.39 Fawzi placed early warning systems along the Gulf of Suez and created popular defense organizations to protect Egypt's interior. During the winter months of 1968 and until March 1969 Egypt made preparations to protect its interior from Israeli retaliation and escalation.

Further evidence that Egypt was expecting major Israeli escalation in response to Egyptian attrition along the canal can be seen in Sadat's admission that after Israel hit inside Egyptian territory, Egypt had to delay its response until March 1969 when the preparations for the defense of vital civilian infrastructure was complete.40 Given these kinds of preparations for in-depth defense against Israeli retaliations it in difficult to accept the argument that Egypt miscalculated the scope of Israeli response.

There is also evidence that Heykal anticipated a strong Israeli response to the Egyptian offensive in 1969. In an article published in early April, Heykal argued that while the balance of forces still favored Israel, Israel was afraid that the balance would tilt in Egypt's favor and Israel was likely to strike forcefully at Egypt in order to intimidate it. In mid-April, Heykal also warned the Egyptians to be prepared for strong Israeli actions intended to demoralize and immobilize the Egyptian population.41

In addition, the argument that Egypt should have anticipated the scope of Israel's response disregards the constraints on escalation placed on Israel by virtue of the new circumstances that resulted from the 1967 war and the new balance of interests. While in retrospect Israel's escalation and successful use of its air force seem an obvious course of action that Egypt should have considered or anticipated, we ought to remember that Egypt believed Israel's interest was to pacify the canal without disproportionate escalation. Any such escalation, the Egyptians felt, had its limits in terms of its effectiveness and, would create the risk of superpower intervention and global war.

To stop the fighting Egypt believed Israel had two options. She could escalate, either by using ground forces on the west bank of the canal, or by using its air force. Escalation on the ground west of the canal had its limitations given the disparity in territory and populations between the two actors.42 Heykal argued that because Israel did not have direct interests in the west bank of the canal its forces would not cross in retaliation against Egyptian artillery fire. Heykal thought Israel would have been drowned in a "sea of Arabs" had it done so.

Israel was reluctant to use its air force because it did not want to attrit its most decisive weapon systems on less than vital wars.43 In addition, Israel was unaware of exactly how successful the air force would be against ground forces. Israel was as surprised by the success of its air force as were the Egyptians. The first use of the air force was made after much hesitation, and its use was not part of any larger conception of an offensive strategy. It is doubtful that Israel would have resorted to the use of its air force if it were not for its initial impressive success.44

Even if such an operation was successful, the outcome would have been unattractive from Israel's point of view. Any successful campaign which threatened the Egyptian regime would have triggered Soviet intervention and an American response. The American response would be in the form of pressures on Israel to make concessions that would bring about a cease-fire, concessions that would most probably not be in Israel's best interests. There is evidence that this outcome was indeed a major goal in Egypt's grand strategy.

Stein assumes that Egypt's strategy was to begin a war of attrition that would expand to a more general war which would have eventually led to the liberation of the Sinai. Under such a scenario, miscalculating the possibility that Israel would retaliate and escalate the conflict in order to prevent such a development could have been problematic. However, there is now evidence to suggest that the main goal of the Egyptian attrition strategy was not to lead in stages to a war of liberation, but to put pressure on the United States to force Israel to make concessions. According to Heykal,

thus we shall see that the USA and the USSR cannot ignore what happens in the Middle East. If they do not succeed in moves to bring about real peace in the region, they will not be able to stand aside from the fighting that will inevitably ensue, fighting that will settle the fate of the region.45

An integral element in this strategy was Israeli escalation and Soviet intervention, without which the risk of a global confrontation was not credible.

We can see evidence for this line of thinking in Nasser's instructions to Fawzi, the Egyptian Chief of Staff, to tighten friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union in order to make it feel responsible for the 1967 defeat. In addition, Egypt's strategy was not only to put pressure on the Soviet Union to resupply the Egyptian army with newer weapons, but also to engage the prestige of the Soviet Union as a reliable superpower that stands by its allies and provides them with reliable weapons. This line of thinking can be detected in the very early stages of Egypt's conceptualization of the best strategy to deal with the result of the Six Day War.46

Finally, Stein's argument that Egypt underestimated Israel's response given the challenge to its reputational considerations is inconsistent with its own line of attack on deterrence theory. Stein belongs to a group of scholars that criticize deterrence theory for placing too much emphasis on the importance of strategic and reputational considerations and too little attention on the analysis of intrinsic interests that are inherently deterring. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic or strategic interests made by critics of deterrence suggests the different levels of resolve states are likely to display in a confrontation. In this argument, there is the implication that states which defend their intrinsic interests are more likely to display higher levels of resolve than states that defend extrinsic interests. Thus, it should not surprise us if the Egyptians believed that they had greater stakes in the conflict and therefore would display a greater degree of resolve. With Egypt's intrinsic interests at stake and Israel's deterrent reputation threatened, the critics of deterrence's anticipation of a forceful Israeli response is not consistent with the distinction Stein and other critics of deterrence make about the relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic interests.

Stein's argument that Egypt underestimated Israel's interest and consequently miscalculated the scope of its response is, therefore, inaccurate. Stein's analysis of the War of Attrition from March 1969 and her exclusion of the period preceding it, causes her to miss important historical information and reach misleading conclusions. Egypt anticipated a strong Israeli response during the War of Attrition and prepared for it. Egypt perceived and interpreted Israel's signals correctly and delayed the start of the War of Attrition until Egypt completed its preparations for defense. Egypt may have been surprised by the use and effectiveness of Israel's air force, but so was Israel. There were strong motivations for Israel not to escalate the conflict and not to use the air force. Since a conception of how to use the air force effectively did not exist in the minds of Israeli decision-makers, it is less surprising that it did not exist in the minds of the Egyptian decision makers.

Evidence that Egypt analyzed Israel's interests throughout the crisis and not just during the initial decision to challenge deterrence is plentiful. Once Israel began using its air force, Fawzi assessed Israel's motivation correctly. He argued that Israel was worried that Egypt's confidence in its capability was rising as a result of its successes on the ground and that Israel's intentions were to demoralize Egypt and to destroy its forces west of the canal.47 In another instance, during meetings with the heads of state from Jordan, Iraq, and Syria in September 1968, Nasser said that Israel's interest was to freeze the situation along the canal by using a cease-fire and, should that fail, to engage in violent retaliation.48 In September 1969, Heykal analyzed the goals of the two nations and argued that the goals of the Israeli offensive were to force Egypt to spread its forces, to sidetrack Egypt's command from its main goal which was to plan for the next war, to demonstrate that Israel enjoyed freedom of action everywhere in Egypt, and to discourage the Egyptians from continuing the struggle. Heykal also interpreted Israel's flights over Cairo as an attempt to topple the Egyptian government and predicted an Israeli attack before the Rabat Summit meeting in order to embarrass Egypt.49

In short, Stein's argument that Egypt underestimated Israel's strategic and reputational interests, and as a result miscalculated Israel's interest in escalation, is not supported by the evidence that emerges when a longer term perspective of the conflict is taken into account. Egypt's decision to challenge in the War of Attrition is consistent with the predictions of the balance of interests. Egypt challenged because it felt strongly about the Sinai and it anticipated and planned for the Israeli reaction. The miscalculations that did take place were the result of uncertainty. Some outcomes took the Israelis as well as the Egyptians by surprise.

Competing Hypotheses

The two theoretical frameworks make contradictory arguments about the role of capabilities in deterrence stability. Rational deterrence theory suggests that the short-term balance favoring the defender will insure stability. The strategy school within this theoretical framework suggests that the absence of a blitzkrieg option promising a rapid military victory will insure deterrence stability.50 Costly wars of attrition, and limited-aim strategies that lead to stalemates, deter leaders from going to war.51

The critics of deterrence framework claims that challengers misperceive the balance and tend to exaggerate their own capabilities. Challengers are not likely to be influenced by the balance because they decide on challenging deterrence under political pressures to act.52

Stein's Critique of Egypt's Strategy

Stein believes that deterrence theory fails to explain the War of Attrition because Egypt, the militarily weaker party, challenged deterrence and resorted to the use of force. The War of Attrition is another example, according to Stein, that demonstrates that challengers miscalculated their capabilities.53 Specifically, Egypt, according to Stein, made three miscalculations. First, Egypt correctly diagnosed its superiority in firepower along the canal but underestimated Israel's use of airpower. Egypt should have expected that Israel would escalate the war with airpower, but dismissed it, despite the fact that its strategy led logically to exactly such a development.

Second, the Egyptians chose a strategy of attrition in which they had an advantage in firepower, and the ability to absorb costs, but then designed a four-stage plan, which included crossing the canal, which would lead to a general war to liberate the Sinai. In a general war, as the Egyptians were fully aware, Israel had the advantage.

Finally the Egyptians overestimated their capacity to inflict casualties and underestimated Israel's capacity for endurance. Egyptian decision-makers planned to inflict casualties of 10,000 within a period of 6- to 8-weeks. Israel decided to use its air force after casualties reached an average of 150 casualties a month.

According to Stein, Egypt's biased assessment of the balance was caused by a sense of weakness. They could neither accept the status quo nor could do anything about it. To escape the dilemma they embarked on an ill-conceived course of action. According to Stein,

in planning a strategy of local and limited war that would nevertheless culminate in a canal crossing, they denied unpleasant inconsistencies central to the analysis. In anticipating massive casualties among Israel's forces, casualties that would nevertheless provide only a limited military response, Egyptian analysts tolerated a logical contradiction in their expectations that can be explained only by some dynamic of wishful thinking...54

What was the balance of capabilities and how was it perceived by the actors? What was the Egyptian strategy? Most of Stein's criticism is contradicted by the evidence. First, as we saw partially in our discussion of the balance of interests, it was not illogical for Israel to refrain from using the air force. The Israeli decision-makers did not contemplate an extensive use of their air force. Second, Egyptian leaders were aware of their capabilities, and their four stage plan was a wish list rather than a blue print with operational significance. Finally, while Egypt may have overestimated its capability to inflict punishment, it did not underestimate Israel's capability for endurance. Egypt's strategy was sensible under conditions of uncertainty and did not reflect wishful thinking due to political pressures to act.

The Balance of Capability in the War of Attrition

Let us turn to the balance of capabilities. In spite of the fact that during the 1967 war Israel destroyed more than half of Egypt's tanks and 356 out of 431 of its combat aircraft, within a year Egypt's forces pre-war levels. In terms of overall strength, Egypt was in 1968-69 in a much better situation than in 1967 because most of the weapons it received were newer. The Soviet Union was an important resource which enabled Egypt to rebuild its military strength in a very short time.55

Israel's overall strength was not seriously effected by the Six Day War and it did not need a massive rearmament program. Several changes, however, made Israel relatively weaker. First, while the territories Israel captured in the June war provided it with strategic depth that added a margin of security, the longer lines of communications made it difficult for Israel to transfer forces from one front to another and it had to design a force structure that, in case of a new war, could deal independently with each front. Thus, similar challenges required an expanded Israeli army. Second, the French embargo added an additional burden on Israel's resources, because Israel had to switch to American armaments, and to develop its own infant defense industry.56

According to Shimshoni, when one turns his attention to the local balance at the Suez Canal, and when one keeps in mind the limits on Israeli escalation, Egypt's decision to wage a war of attrition seems very reasonable. Just before the March 1969 cycle of the War of Attrition began, Egypt had 2 army groups. They had more than 500 artillery pieces and hundreds of mortars. Israel had two brigades and a small number of artillery pieces and mortars. The contemplation of limited crossings was also a sensible decision because even one Israeli division would not have been able to stop Egypt along the whole canal front.57

Furthermore, many of the elements which enabled Israel to overcome a situation of quantitative inferiority did not exist in the new circumstances that were created along the Canal. Israel found itself deprived of many of the conditions which enabled it to demonstrate its superiority. First, Israel could not mobilize quickly and stay mobilized for long. Egypt could outspend Israel and keep a 200,000 man army mobilized. To match that, because of the population differences, Israel would have had to mobilize 7 percent of its population, a rate that it could not sustain for long. Second, Israel could not fight an offensive mobile war because the canal was a major barrier. Israel's advantage in command, control, communications and organization could not effect the numerical balance in a static war. Israel's superior intelligence warning systems and its superior technology also could not play an important role in static warfare.

The option of escalating the war and crossing the Canal to destroy the Egyptian army was not very promising, not because Israel lacked the capability to execute such a campaign but because the benefits seemed dubious. Israel's successes would be costly and its forces could "drown in a sea of Arabs." In addition, if Israel were very successful, such action might have invited direct Soviet intervention to save the Egyptian regime.

Nasser was aware of Israel's capability to embark on such a campaign but also noted its lack of interest in crossing to the west bank of the Canal. In a conversation held by the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq on September 1, 1969, the Vice Premier of Iraq, el-Amash, talked about the Arab campaign in terms of a long, continuous, and dangerous struggle which could even result in the loss of the Jordanian and Syrian capitals: Aman and Damascus. Nasser responded that this was not a possible scenario because it would not be in Israel's interests to do so and not because it did not possess the capability.58

Israel's Use of Its Air Force

The only option left for Israel to neutralize the quantitative advantage of the Egyptians along the Canal was to use its air force. But contrary to Stein's argument, the Egyptian expectation that Israel would not be able to use its airpower decisively was reasonable. First, Israel was reluctant to attrit its air force in less than vital wars.59 Heykal noted the effect a war of attrition would have on the Israeli air force when he said "the aircraft will be in constant need of maintenance due to extensive use...the aircraft will be continuously exposed to being shot down."60 Second, as I mentioned earlier, neither the Egyptians nor the Israelis believed that air-power would be effective against protected ground targets, nor did they anticipate the ease with which the Israeli air force could penetrate into Egypt.61 This too was perceived by Heykal who argued that,

aircraft may be effective in strategic operations but in tactical operations, without the conditions of comprehensive war, the effect will be limited, particularly on fighters who are helped by the nature of the ground on which they are fighting and by their training to protect themselves against air attacks.62

Furthermore, by early 1969, Egypt had a radar and surface-to-air missile (SAM) system in place, Soviet advisers, and 300 newly trained pilots, who completed their training by March 1969.63 All that Egypt needed to accomplish, in order to succeed with its attrition strategy, was to have the ability to deny the Israeli air force free action over the Canal. The Egyptian leadership believed they had this capability.

We need to recall that the 1967 war did not involve extensive use of radar and SAMs; and the Israeli capability to neutralize their effectiveness was not known.64 In addition, in 1967 Israel destroyed most of the Egyptian air force on the ground. How successful Israeli pilots would be in aerial combat against Egyptian pilots was not as well established. Finally, Israel did not receive supersonic jets until the fall of 1969.65 We see, then, that a war of attrition was a sensible strategy from Egypt's point of view given the balance of capability along the Canal.

The Relationship Between Strategy and

Objectives in Egypt's Strategy

What about Stein's other criticism that Egyptian leaders miscalculated the relationship between military objectives and strategy in that their four-stage plan led to a general war in the Sinai where all of Israel's advantages would come into play when the Egyptian strategy was to design around Israel's advantages? To answer this question we need to ascertain whether Egypt's four-stage plan led to a general war, which it did not; and whether the more limited goal Egypt set for itself, limited crossings that would lead to Superpower intervention to freeze the situation in place and strengthen Egypt's bargaining position, were perceived as attainable in the short run or as distant goals.

In March and April 1969, Heykal published a series of articles which offered the political strategic rationale for the struggle that Egypt embarked upon in the War of Attrition. Egypt's main goal was to undermine Israel's confidence in its ability to sustain a prolonged struggle by attriting its army and introducing the danger of a global confrontation that would trigger superpower pressure on Israel to withdraw. Egypt's strategy, Heykal argued, should be to win a decisive victory over Israel, in which Israel would lose 2 to 3 divisions and suffer more than 10,000 casualties. This would be the last phase of a four-part plan in which Egypt first used massive artillery barrages to be followed by small scale crossings and later larger scale crossings.66

Two elements in the plan are crucial in terms of the clues that they give us about Egyptian thinking on the feasibility of the plan. One is the description of the final goal not only in terms of what was hoped for, but also in terms of what was omitted, and the other is the time table for the execution of the plan. Heykal's suggestion that Egypt should win a decisive victory over Israel, in which 2 to 3 divisions were destroyed and more than 10,000 casualties were caused, referred to a major military engagement but failed to mention that this outcome would be the result of a general war. The campaign Heykal discussed was limited in its goals and scope. It would aim at removing Israeli forces from the Canal even if the end result was a withdrawal of a few kilometers. The goal of the operation according to Heykal was to "force the Israeli army to retreat from the positions it occupies to other positions, even if only a few kilometers back."67 Heykal talked more in terms of a psychological victory that would destroy the Israeli myth of invincibility which in turn would lead to serious rifts in Israeli society, as well as desirable changes in Western attitudes.

Heykal did not claim in his article that the fighting which took place in March 1969 was the beginning of the campaign he advocated and was careful to warn his readers that even the more limited goals of winning one major campaign against Israel could realistically be attained only in a very distant future. Heykal said, "what is now taking place on the Arab fronts is closer to being the beginning of the beginning. The next part of the road will be rough beyond imagination."68 Thus, a major war was not planned and even a major engagement was not perceived as something the Egyptians could realistically win in the short term.

There is much evidence to suggest that the goals the Egyptian leaders set for themselves were discussed in terms of years rather than months. In 1967 Nasser told his war minister, Fawzi, to prepare the Egyptian army to liberate the Sinai through war in three years. But, according to Heykal, Nasser was not sure that this was a realistic goal. In a speech to his commanding officers, Nasser said that he originally thought that preparations for a military campaign against Israel would take months, then three years, and in the end he realized that five years was a more realistic target. As early as February 1968 Nasser was fully aware of two Israeli advantages that Egypt would not be able to overcome easily. One was Israel's air force and the other was U.S. support for Israel. Nasser admitted on many occasions throughout 1968 that Egypt had achieved a situation in which it was able to defend herself but was not able to challenge Israel.69

When the March 1969 phase of the campaign began, Nasser was still very careful in his characterizations of the war. When asked when the major campaign would begin he said that in all honesty he could not answer that question. He did not portray the the initial phase of the War of Attrition as the beginning of the campaign and argued that Egypt ought to be careful not to be dragged into a war prematurely.70 In May 1969 Nasser was still cautious and called for restraints.71 In a government meeting on April 15, 1969, Nasser talked about Egypt's preparations for confronting Israel and called for only limited crossings. In Fawzi's summery of the elements of Egypt's new strategy there is no mention of major crossings into Sinai.72 Thus, even before Israel demonstrated its capability to counter the Egyptian strategy the Egyptian decision makers had very limited objectives in mind which they anticipated to be able to achieve realistically only in the long run.

Another piece of evidence that suggests that Nasser did not plan for a general war can be seen in the nature of the decisions that were reached in the meeting of Arab leaders on September 1, 1969. While at the general level it was agreed by the participants to destroy the Israeli forces and return to the 1967 borders, the operational plans called for securing the present defense lines and stopping and destroying the attacking enemy forces. According to Heykal, under the most favorable conditions, and if there was good coordination with the other Arab states (the eastern front states) then the Arabs would be ready for war by March 1971.73 In Heykal's articles from the summer and autumn of 1969 he talked about Egypt's will to sustain the sacrifices needed for its goal but did not mention that Egypt had reached any turning point in which it could assume a full-scale war. After the Israeli air strikes, the only turning points Heykal mentioned were the need for Egypt to win the psychological war.

Finally, Stein's argument about Egypt's miscalculation of the relationship between its military objectives and strategy is inconsistent with the evidence about Egypt's ultimate goals. There are two versions of Egypt's interests. One assumes that Egypt wanted to use the military option to pressure Israel to return eventually to the June 1967 borders. The other argues that Egypt's strategy was to attrit Israel, but more importantly, to create the conditions in which the United States would pressure Israel to return the Sinai. In the first case there is a contradiction between Egypt's strategy and goals, given that Israel would win a general war once the War of Attrition reached that stage. In the second scenario there is an implicit recognition that Egypt was unable to force Israel to relinquish the territories, and, that the only viable strategy to achieve this goal was via the United States. In the latter scenario the talk of a general war served only as a stick with which to threaten the Superpowers that things could get out of hand and a rallying cry to satisfy domestic and regional audiences.74 It was not taken seriously by the Egyptian leadership.

Thus the evidence does not support the argument that Egypt's plan was an operational blue-print that the Egyptian leadership took seriously. The final stages of the plan, the stage in which Egyptian forces liberated the Sinai, was a goal that, it was hoped, would one day be reached but was not attainable in the immediate future. Rather, the evidence suggests that despite the strong pressures to challenge, the Egyptian leadership made very accurate assessments of the balance of capability and designed its challenges to reflect changes in the balance.

The Role of Opportunity in Egypt's Decisions to Challenge

Another way to evaluate Stein's argument that the Egyptian leaders miscalculated because of political pressure to act is to check when the decisions to challenge were taken. A "need" model leads us to expect challenges even when the defender's threats are credible and the balance of capabilities favors the defender. An "opportunity" model leads us to expect that even under strong pressures to act challengers will take into consideration the balance of capability and act accordingly. A simple test demonstrates which proposition holds. Because "need" did not vary throughout the period under consideration, if the "need" hypothesis is true, we should expect challenges to have occurred throughout the period, and in a manner unrelated to capability considerations. If the "opportunity" argument is correct we should have expected capability considerations to play an important role in the decision to challenge. The evidence suggests that Egypt's behavior is more in line with an "opportunity," rather than a "need," model.

The first Egyptian challenge coincided with the completion of the "standing firm" or "active defense" stage of the Egyptian army, and the evacuation of the cities along the Canal. In the first six months following the end of the Six Day War, the Soviet Union replaced between 60 and 80 percent of the Egyptian armament lost in the war. By September 1967 Egypt could prevent an Israeli "walkover."75 When Israeli retaliations placed Egypt's population along the canal at risk, Nasser decided on September 30--even before the massive Israeli shelling of the Suez refineries and oil installations on October 24, 1967--that Egypt would begin the evacuation of the canal cities. But, despite the fact that Egypt no longer felt vulnerable militarily, it realized that it could not escalate the conflict or retaliate for the Israeli shelling of the oil installations.76 And, indeed the front was relatively calm for a year.

Egypt completed the rehabilitation of its army to 1967 strength levels by September 1968. In July 1968 Nasser admitted publicly that Egypt had not yet reached military superiority over Israel. But the Egyptian commanders felt confident enough to deal with the Israeli retaliations. According to Sadat, Egypt completed its line of defense by September 1968 when the decision to start shelling Israeli positions was made.77 This stage, too, was short-lived because Israel, deprived of its ability to hit the cities along the canal, escalated by attacking deep inside Egyptian territory. Fawzi and Sadat claimed that Egypt had to wait until March 1969 to begin the last phase of the War of Attrition because they needed the time to complete the civil defense organization. As a result of the Naj Hamadi raid, Egypt announced the establishment of the Popular Defense Organizations to defend installations and other objectives throughout Egypt.78 Most importantly, though, the implementation of the Egyptian plan for the War of Attrition was timed to start in March 1969 because by then the Egyptian air force had completed its training and rebuilt its strength. By March, 300 newly trained pilots returned from the Soviet Union and were available for combat.79

Egypt's decision to initiate a war of attrition was not so misguided as Stein suggests. Rather than making that decision in response to a painful value conflict, Egypt's strategy was based on a sound analysis of the new military realities. Egypt had two major resources which could not be easily neutralized: its population base, and arms transfers from the Soviet Union. By 1968, Egypt's army was restored to its pre-war level with newer tanks and aircraft. Egypt's miscalculation of the effectiveness of Israel's air force was reasonable given the improvement of Egypt's air force by the addition of the newly trained pilots, and given Egypt's correct understanding of Israel's reluctance to attrit its air force, or to escalate the conflict. If the Israelis were surprised by the effectiveness of their air force against ground forces, it is difficult to argue that Egypt's miscalculation was the result of political pressures to act. Finally, Egypt did not plan a war that was supposed to degenerate into a general war, and was careful to tailor its strategy to changing capabilities. Again, it takes a longer term perspective that does not overlook the 1967 and 1968 deterrence failures to reach a more accurate conclusion about the calculations of the Egyptian leadership.

Why did Egypt Challenge Despite

Israel's Reputation for Brinkmanship?

By the end of the 1967 war, Israel had established strong reputations for capability and will. The 1967 victory was impressive and left little doubt in the minds of the Arab leaders about the capability of the Israeli army. The 1956 and 1967 wars also demonstrated Israel's willingness to escalate and go over the brink if necessary even for less than existential challenges. Why, then, did Egypt challenge in the War of Attrition? This challenge demonstrates the limits of a general reputation for toughness, or for valuing a reputation in enhancing deterrence stability80. It demonstrates that, as critics of deterrence argue, reputations are context dependent and that specific reputations for capability and will are important for deterrence stability.81 The 1967 war changed the structure of the interests at stake, as well as the conditions in which the Israeli army demonstrated its superiority. The new frontiers created new uncertainties about Israel's will and capability which made the general reputations developed by 1967 irrelevant to the new circumstance.

In 1956 and 1967 Israel demonstrated the will and the ability to escalate and go to war in order to protect its vital interests and its deterrent reputation. The two challenges occurred in the first place because Israel lacked these reputations. In the period before the 1967 war, Israel's interests, to stop low-level harassment in 1957 and to restore its deterrent reputation in 1967, did not compete with the method by which they were supposed to be attained: escalation. In the new circumstances that were created as a result of the 1967 war, the reputations that Israel developed when its intrinsic interests were at stake were no longer relevant because escalation was no longer in Israel's interest. The reputation that would have been relevant, the ability to endure casualties and persist in a long war of attrition when the balance of interests does not favor Israel, did not exist and had to be created.

After the 1967 war, Israel's threats of escalation were credible but irrelevant because escalation served Egyptian rather than Israeli interests. As mentioned earlier, a major element in Egypt's strategy was to create the risk of superpower intervention, in order to pressure the United States to force Israeli withdrawal. Egypt could create this risk by a war of attrition and escalation. A successful Israeli escalation that endangered Egyptian territory proper, as well as the Egyptian regime, would most likely lead to Soviet intervention, which in turn would create great dangers for world peace. An American intervention to counter Soviet intervention entailed the risk of things getting out of control in a global confrontation. Therefore, it was no longer in Israel's interest to escalate the conflict in spite of the fact that it had the capability and a reputational interest to do so.

Did Egypt Miscalculate Israel's Capacity for Endurance?

The relevant reputation that would have had an effect was a reputation for enduring the costs associated with a long and costly war of attrition, especially when the balance of interests favored Egypt, and Israel was fighting for extrinsic interests. Israel lacked such a reputation. In 1948 Israel did pay a heavy price in casualties, but in that war it fought for its survival as a state. The other wars were short, and Israel was able to achieve its goals with few casualties. In this war, Israel had to demonstrate its will to hold on to the territories in spite of the relatively heavy price it had to pay. At the same time, it became crucial for Israel to demonstrate that the costs would not be as high as Egypt had hoped, and that Egypt would end up paying an even higher price.

Stein argues that one of Egypt's miscalculations was to underestimate grossly Israel's capacity for endurance.82 The evidence for this assertion according to Stein is Heykal's prediction that Israel's will to fight for the Sinai would weaken after Israel suffered 10,000 casualties.83 Heykal argued that two factors gave Egypt an advantage in the contest with Israel. First, Egypt was favored by the balance of interests and nations which are favored by the balance of interests have a greater capacity to absorb casualties. In addition to being favored by the balance of interests, Egypt also had the advantage that it had more manpower than Israel and could sustain 50,000 casualties while it was doubtful if Israel could sustain 10,000 casualties. Heykal said, "But if we succeed in killing 10,000 of the enemy, he will be forced to ask for a cease-fire, because he is not capable of replacing lost manpower."84 This is less a statement about Egypt's capability to inflict punishment and more a statement about Israel's capability to absorb punishment. While the Egyptians estimated that 10,000 casualties would change Israel's will to hold on to the canal, Israel's will was under major strain with only 700 casualties. Israel suffered 738 deaths during the whole period but only 375 of these were on the Egyptian front.85

Evidence that Israeli society was under strain during the War of Attrition because of the mounting casualties is abundant and did not go unnoticed in Egypt. If this war was more of a test about the relative capability of each side to endure a long and costly war of attrition then Israel signaled relatively early in the struggle that it had a difficulty fighting such wars when they do not involve vital interests or survival. As early as May 1969, two months after the beginning of the last phase of the War of Attrition, the Israeli press, reflecting the mood on the street, asked "When will it end?!" The Israeli public's dissatisfaction with the continued war and casualties began to show signs of doubt about the conduct of the war and about the leadership's interest in peace. Protest groups became active and high school graduates about to be conscripted into the army called upon the government to explore every avenue for peace. A play attacked the Israeli defense establishment only three years after its prestige in the Israeli society reached mythological proportions. These criticisms and doubts were noticed in Egypt. During a meeting with Western journalists Nasser said that a country which publishes the photographs of the previous day's casualties in the newspapers cannot win a long and costly war of attrition.86

Recreating Reputation-for-Capability in the War of Attrition

While Israel was at a disadvantage in convincing Egypt that Israel had the will to endure such a costly struggle, it was better prepared to demonstrate that Egypt's capability to inflict casualties was overestimated. Israel could win the war if it could demonstrate its capability to minimize the costs that it would have to absorb and maximize the costs to the Egyptian regime. Israel would attrit the attritors. To succeed in this task Israel had to demonstrate that the capabilities demonstrated in the Six Day War are not limited to situations of general mobile war. Even in a situation of local superiority, with limits on escalation, Israel would find a method to neutralize the Egyptian advantages and prevail by making the war costlier to Egypt.

In the air, the Israeli air force achieved a mythological reputation in the 1967 war. After the war Egypt developed a strategy that it hoped would neutralize the Israeli advantages. First, Egypt built underground shelters to protect its aircraft from surprise attack. Egypt also dispersed its aircraft to many airfields. Second, Egypt placed radar and SAM batteries throughout the country. Finally, Egypt sent 300 pilots to train in the Soviet Union. None of these measures, however, proved useful. Within six months of the start of the War of Attrition, Israel demonstrated that the superiority of its air force had prevailed against the new measures. By November 1969 all the SAM batteries were destroyed and by December their replacement suffered a similar fate. By December, the Egyptian air force stopped flying altogether in acknowledgment of Israel's superior aptitude for aerial combat.87 Finally, the strategic bombing phase which began in January 1970 forced Nasser to go to Moscow and threaten to resign and allow a pro American leader to redirect Egyptian policy if the Soviet Union did not intervene directly with military force to save his regime.88

Israel's specific reputation for capability, its air force's capability to deal with the new and specific circumstances that existed along the canal, enabled it to prevail in the War of Attrition. The major test of this war was who would be able to sustain the war. Using its air force, Israel was able to make the war more painful to Egypt, despite Egypt's greater capacity to absorb punishment. By the beginning of 1970 the war became intolerable to Egypt. Egyptian cities along the canal were deserted, Egypt suffered thousands of casualties and the Egyptian capital was at the mercy of Israeli pilots. This outcome combined with the relative inability of Egypt to inflict heavy costs on Israel forced Egypt ultimately to accept a cease-fire.89

While Israel's air force was decisive to the outcome of the war, Israel continued to demonstrate its superiority on the ground. Despite the fact that the new situation imposed limits on many of Israel's advantages in mobile warfare, Israel used in-depth raids to continue to demonstrate its superior capability as well as Egyptian vulnerabilities. By not confining herself to fighting along the canal, Israel forced Egypt to spread its military over a large area and alleviate the pressures along the canal. Thus, Israel took the initiative away from Egypt, forced it to abandon its plan, and, put Egypt on the defensive. Israel's in-depth raids demonstrated that Israel could act deep inside Egypt with imagination, daring, and superb executio;, and could still inflict substantial pain dismissing any doubts Egypt might have had that given the new circumstance Israeli advantages could be neutralized.90

The Competition of General Reputations with Other Interests

Finally, the War of Attrition provides two more examples in which general reputation consideration loses out to other more important interests. During the war, Chief of Operations Weizman recommended that Israel take the offensive and escalate by engaging the Egyptians on the western side of the canal. His reasoning was similar to Dayan's during the period before the 1956 war. A propensity to escalate might convince the Egypt-ians more conclusively that Israel valued its reputation and would do whatever it takes to bring the war to an end. Yet, escalation risked superpower intervention and Israel's interest at the time was to deescalate the conflict and pacify the situation so as to avoid pressure from the United States to make concessions. The latter consideration prevailed.

The second instance was when the Egyptians violated the cease-fire accords and moved their missile system to the canal. Israel acquiesced to the challenge and did not try to destroy the missile system. Israel did not want to undermine the fragile cease-fire that was arranged by the United States, which was one of its primary interests. It was also concerned with Soviet reaction.91

In conclusion, critics of deterrence's argument that reputations are context dependent is supported in this case. New situations give rise to new uncertainties. Specific reputations developed in other situations are irrelevant to the new circumstances. Israel had to demonstrate that it had the will to endure a relatively costly war of attrition until Egypt would agree to negotiate a peace treaty. And Israel had to demonstrate that the capability it displayed in a general war would be applicable to the new circumstance that existed along the canal and would not be neutralized by technological innovations such as radar and SAMs.

The findings that reputations are context dependent show that the Jervis paradox and Nalebuff's rebuttal do not address the essence of the reputation problem92. Jervis argues that the behavior of the United States in the Mayaguez incident would not have restored its general reputation for toughness after Vietnam, because this kind of behavior was expected even from a weak state concerned with its reputation for toughness and, therefore, was of little inferential value. The reason the tough response in the Mayaguez incident was uninformative about the United States' will to bear costs in a Vietnam like situation is that the two cases are not similar. The Mayaguez incident created the impression that the United States would be willing to take similar risks in situations in which its vessels are captured but would not support the impression that the United States' leadership was resolved to fight as long as necessary to win in situations similar to Vietnam. North Korea would not expect a resolute American response if the North made a move against South Korea because of the American behavior in the Mayaguez incident. Nalebuff's rebuttal that a country that failed to act would suffer a massive loss in reputation also misses the main issue.93 Vietnams and Mayaguezes do not add up to create one continuous variable. They create different specific reputations which apply only to situations that are similarly structured.

Competing Hypotheses

The analysis of deterrence focuses on the crisis-bargaining-behavior of the defender and attempts to discern whether the sending of credible signals leads to deterrence stability. A common assertion is that the crisis-bargaining-behavior of the defender influences deterrence outcomes. Credible threats deter, and they cause a challenger to revise upward his belief about the defender's willingness to use force. Issuing repeated threats, adopting an uncompromising bargaining position, and undertaking extensive military preparations within a general policy of tit-for-tat are suggested by Huth.94 The strategy must be firm, but flexible, so openings for compromise and accommodation would not be missed. Fearon suggests that defenders' signals are credible only if they are costly. Acts which involve the risk of loss of face, as well as the risk of a spiral and an unwanted war, demonstrate resolve.95

Critics of deterrence argue that the proper management of crises requires not only acts of toughness to demonstrate resolve but also acts of reassurance.96 Actions taken to demonstrate resolve may not leave the challenger room to find face-saving solutions or to back down and diffuse the crisis. At the same time, critics of deterrence argue that signals are misperceived. Leaders in challenging states are preoccupied by their internal or external problems and tend not to pay attention to the signals sent by the defender.

Why Were Costly Signals Uninformative?

Our discussion of the crisis-bargaining-behavior of the parties can be brief because most of the relevant aspects of behavior were discussed in the analysis of each party's interests and strategy. The War of Attrition did not begin with a crisis stage in which signals were exchanged; rather, hostilities were the first act undertaken by the challenger. An examination of the actors' interaction prior to the breaking of hostilities to ascertain whether the signals exchanged were credible is thus unnecessary.

What we need to examine is whether, once the hostilities began, the defender sent credible signals that would have reestablished deterrence stability. The question is whether costly signals, signals that convey the risk of a spiral and unwanted war, were sent and were they effective.

Israel did use retaliation and escalation. She responded to artillery barrages by attacking military and later civilian targets first along the canal and later deep in Egypt. When that failed Israel retaliated with ground forces west of the canal. Ultimately, Israel introduced its air power which escalated its punishing raids from areas along the canal all the way to strategic bombing all over Egypt.

Despite the escalatory steps taken by Israel, the risk of a spiral and unwanted larger war, during the War of Attrition, was not created. Both Egypt and Israel knew that it was not in Israel's interests to create a situation of uncontrolled escalation. As we mentioned in our discussion of the balance of interests, that would bring about Soviet intervention and the possibility of American pressure on Israel. For the same reason, mobilization and greater troop movements would not have been effective or credible. Any large scale warfare on the west bank of the canal would have brought Soviet intervention to save the Egyptian regime. Even if a Soviet intervention was not immediate, Israel could achieve little by crossing over the canal because it risked being drowned by a "sea of Arabs." Therefore, Israel, for reasons of superpower dynamics, geography and relative power could not introduce, credibly, the risk of a spiral and the possibility of a general war. The only way to reestablish deterrence was by making the war intolerable to Egypt within the limits of controlled escalation. This was achieved with strategic bombing.

It is important to note that the limits on Israeli escalation existed as long as Soviet intervention did not occur. Had Israel escalated the war and brought about Soviet intervention then the United States would be in a position of having to support an escalatory move by Israel and risk Soviet reaction in the defense of Egypt. To prevent this eventuality the United States pressured Israel not to escalate the fighting.

The situation changed after the Soviet Union began its massive intervention to stop the Israeli strategic bombing. Once Soviet intervention did occur, it limited Israel's ability to retaliate and protect its own forces. In the case that fighting continued under a Soviet umbrella, or in case Egypt renewed the fighting after the cease-fire agreement in August 1970, Israel would have had to provoke a larger war and destroy the Soviet air defenses. Such a move would have forced the United States to support Israel from a Soviet threat to retaliate in order to preserve its own reputation. Under these circumstances Israel's threat to cause an unwanted war was credible and did deter the Egyptians from renewing the fighting as we shall soon see.

As Khalidi points out, the War of Attrition was a psychological war of nerve and endurance.97 The only credible signal in such wars is the ability to endure the costs associated with such a war while demonstrating that the costs would be higher on the other side. "Attriting the attritors" while minimizing one's casualties was the only viable strategy and it was adopted by Israel.

The Failure of Reassurance to Produce Deterrence Stability

The argument made by critics of deterrence that an important element in creating deterrence stability is the offer of reassurance and concessions does not fare well in this case. Immediately after the Six Day War Israel offered Egypt the Sinai in return for a peace treaty arrived at through direct negotiations. Syria was also offered a similar deal. The only caveat was the demilitarization of these territories. This Israeli offer, made through the good offices of the United States, was good through October 1968. According to Eban, Israel's Foreign Minister at the time,

between 1967 and 1973 the Arabs could have recovered all of Sinai, and the Golan, and most of the West Bank and Gaza without war by negotiating boundaries and security arrangements with Israel. The policy of the Israeli government at the time contained no ideological barriers to a territorial agreement, and a parliamentary majority could have been obtained.98

This is supported by Arab sources. Heykal said that Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State in the Johnson administration suggested to the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mahmud Riad, that Israel was ready to withdraw from the Sinai in return for an agreement with Egypt. Nasser also told Soviet leaders in July 1970 that he could have received the Sinai if he were ready to abandon Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank.99 Nasser, for reasons discussed above in the section on the balance of interests, perceived a peace treaty as surrender and could not accept Israel's peace offers.

Israel's conciliatory offers stand in sharp contrast to Egypt's unwillingness to make any concessions which would have improved its bargaining position. Egypt could have made some meaningful concessions to Israel and brought about a change in the U.S. attitude towards the conflict. But Egypt refused to accept anything less than a conditional cease-fire that would bring a complete Israel withdrawal without a peace treaty. More interestingly, Egypt could have made some meaningful concessions to the United States by changing its global orientation and creating incentives for the United States to realign herself and take a more even-handed position in the Middle East. Instead Nasser wanted to force the hand of the United States by creating the risks of a global confrontations without offering any incentives. The United States, in turn, saw no reason to save a Soviet client from the difficult position into which he had cornered himself, at a time when his actions led to further Soviet advances in the Middle East and Nasser showed no inclination to switch sides. In the absence of any meaningful concessions to Israel or the United States, Nasser could not extricate himself from a weak bargaining position. He could only threaten American interests credibly if the Soviets were deeply involved. With his dependency on the Soviets he could not offer any concessions to the United States. Therefore, the United States had no incentives to find a solution that would be beneficial to Egypt.

The American administration understood that Egypt was hurting and needed a cease-fire and also knew that the Soviet Union was as eager as the United States to avoid the risks of a global confrontation. Thus, the United States' offer, a cease-fire without the linkage to an Israeli withdrawal had to be accepted by Egypt. A more conciliatory Egyptian position would have created the incentives for the United States to assume the costs associated with the exertion of greater pressure on Israel to withdraw.100

In conclusion, Israel could not influence Egypt to accept a cease-fire by sending credible signals that introduced the risks of a spiral and unwanted war because this strategy played into Egyptian hands. Israel's success was dependent on the promise of credible denial. This points to the importance of analyzing how the different variables interact and affect each other. In the 1954-56 and 1967 cases we saw that credible signals were disregarded because the challenger believed that he was favored by the balance of capability. In this case we see that costly signals are influenced by the balance of interests. This explains why the proper management of crises is not sufficient to ensure deterrence success. If all that was necessary to prevent wars was the proper mix of resolve and reassurance, this would have been learned by now by most leaders and, fewer wars would have occurred.

Leng argues that challengers learn from past defeats that their crisis-bargaining-behavior did not display enough resolve. They conclude that they should adopt a tougher stand in the next crisis.101 This is why the likelihood of war increases in the second and third "round". Egypt's crisis bargaining behavior, however, was not motivated by this consideration. Egypt displayed resolve in the 1954-56 period because it believed that Israel lacked the capability and resolve to go over the brink, and it challenged in 1967 because it thought that the balance of capability favored Egypt. In the War of Attrition Egypt's resolve was a function of its valuation of the balance of interest and capability as well as its proper understanding Israel's interest in de-escalation. Therefore, Egypt's resolute behavior in the later crises was not caused by its belief that its crisis bargaining behavior in the previous crises was too timid, but was caused by uncertainties about Israel's capability or resolve. As a result, Israel's crisis bargaining behavior which contained the proper mix of resolve and reassurance failed.

Finally, the absence of reassurance and conciliation was not a cause for the failure of deterrence as critics of deterrence suggest. The finding that emerges from this study is that the proper time to use reassurance effectively in an enduring rivalry is not during each crisis as critics of deterrence suggest but after deterrence stability is created and the challenger is willing to consider conflict resolution through bargaining and negotiations.

The War of Attrition is used by Stein to illustrate the fragility of deterrence because, in a sense only a few months after Israel's stunning victory in 1967, Egypt began to shell Israeli positions on the Suez Canal. Then, in 1969 Egypt began a costly war of attrition which lasted until August 1970. Egypt challenged deterrence in spite of the fact that the intelligence services of the United States, the Soviet Union, Egypt, and Israel all agreed that Israel was militarily superior. Deterrence failed even though the "stage was set for the success of conventional deterrence."102 Leaders, according to Stein, "design around" deterrence as George and Smoke suggest.

This ignores a more appropriate view that, first, "designing around" is an indication of deterrence success rather than deterrence failure. Second, throughout the three years between 1967 and 1970 Egypt's challenges were related to opportunities and that need was not sufficient to cause deterrence failure. Finally, despite the fact that the nature and intensity of the need to challenge Israel did not change, Egypt agreed to a cease-fire and was deterred from challenging Israel until 1973.

As a result of the 1967 defeat we detect a major change in Egypt's goal, and the strategy it used to attain this goal. Regaining the Sinai, rather than challenging Israel's intrinsic interests for the purpose of building a leadership position in the Arab world, became the main goal. Attaining it in a general war was no longer perceived as a viable strategy.103

After 1967 the contemplation of the use of force to attain limited goals became a part of a larger strategy that placed greater emphasis on politics. The new conception that guided Arab policy makers was the employment of limited war both as an attrition strategy and as an instrument to put pressure on Israel and the superpowers. The War of Attrition was fought to regain the Sinai and was limited in nature. Thus, the success of deterrence can be detected in the fact that the challenger realized that the range of options available to him had narrowed.

Even this more limited kind of challenge did not occur throughout the whole period. As we showed above, capability related changes determined the timing of the challenge. After the initial fire exchanges in September 1967 when Israel signaled to the Egyptians that their cities were vulnerable, Egypt ceased fire and began to evacuate the cities. When in response to the sinking of the Israeli ship Eilat, Israel hit Egypt's oil installations and refineries, Egypt ceased fire for a year during which it continued to evacuate the cities and completed its defensive positions. When in response to the renewed fire in September 1968 Israel began its in-depth raids, Egypt stopped fighting for four months to complete its defenses. Only then, and after 300 newly trained pilots returned from the Soviet Union, did Egypt begin the last phase of the War of Attrition. When Israel escalated in the air and demonstrated that the Israeli air force could deal with the radar, the SAMs, and the newly trained pilots, Egypt accepted a cease-fire.

It is important to note that the conditions under which Egypt accepted the cease-fire were not the conditions it demanded during the War of Attrition. Nasser insisted throughout the War of Attrition that the war was necessary in order to force Israel to accede to withdrawal, and that a precondition for a cease-fire was an agreement in which Israel would begin to withdraw its troops. Nasser would not accept any cease-fire without the explicit connection between a cease-fire and an Israeli withdrawal. At the end of the war he accepted a cease-fire without such an explicit connection. To convince Israel to accept the cease-fire, Nixon committed the United States to a position in which no Israeli soldier would be forced to withdraw from the occupied territories unless a peace agreement accepted by Israel was reached.

This strategy of attrition, used to compel Israel to return the Sinai without significant Egyptian concessions, ended in failure. Israel demonstrated its will to hold on to the Sinai and absorb costs in the absence of a peace treaty with Egypt. Israel also demonstrated that instead of being attrited by Egypt, Egypt would end up the attrited party. Only direct Soviet military intervention saved Egypt from another humiliating defeat. After the War of Attrition, the strategy of attrition was no longer viewed by Egyptian decision makers as a viable strategy because Israel had demonstrated its willingness to pay a high price in men and material during the 1969-1970 War of Attrition and Egypt feared that Israel would escalate the conflict.104 "Designing around" led to a narrowing of the options available to challenge Israel. Egypt realized that the War of Attrition had run its course.

In addition, as a result of the War of Attrition, deterrence held for three years. Sadat seriously contemplated attacking Israel in 1971, 1972, and early in 1973. In 1972 he had to dismiss his senior commanders for opposing his directive to prepare Egypt's forces for attack.105

Because of the changes caused by Nasser's death on September 28, 1970 and Sadat's assumption of power, it is important to investigate whether the fact that Egypt was deterred was related to the change of leadership or to Israel's credible threat. As evidence that the latter is the case, it is unlikely that Nasser, had he been alive, would have renewed the fighting when the term of the cease-fire agreement expired; and, second, that it was not Sadat who was mainly deterred by Israel but the Egyptian military command.

While it is difficult to speculate whether Nasser would have renewed the fighting on November 7, 1970, there are suggestions that he would not have done so. First, Nasser simply was not involved in operational planning to begin another war. Two months before the cease-fire's expiration date, Nasser was to have met with his minister of war, Fawzi, to approve the military plans for the liberation of the Sinai. Fawzi reports he took maps and plans (including Syrian plans approved and signed by the Syrian defense minister) to Nasser's vacation place. The meeting never took place because the Libyan leader, Kadafi, arrived on a surprise visit and Nasser did not find the time, during four days of meetings, to evaluate Fawzi's plans. Immediately after the planned meeting with Fawzi, Nasser became involved in the "Black September" events in Jordan which lasted until his death. Had Nasser planned to renew the fighting it is reasonable to assume he would have found the time to go over the war plans with his war minister.

It is also important to examine what military options were available to Nasser. A repeat of the War of Attrition would not have attained any further political or military gains and it is doubtful that Israel would have acquiesced to such a war under the constraints imposed by the Soviet intervention. The more likely scenario would have been an Israeli strike at the Soviet air defenses in Egypt with all the risks that it entailed. The Egyptians believed that Israel would retaliate with a general war should the fighting be renewed.

The other options available to Egypt would have been a more general Egyptian attack in the Sinai or a joint Egyptian-Soviet attack. Neither was a viable option. We ought to recall the critical military situation in which Egypt found itself in January 1970 when Nasser went to Moscow and threatened to resign in favor of a pro-American leader in the event that the Soviet Union did not help Egypt. The military situation in Egypt improved only because of massive Soviet involvement. Thus, the Egyptian army was not in a position to renew the fighting in November 1970. An Egyptian-Soviet military attack was not a realistic option given the reluctance of the Soviet Union to intervene on behalf of Egypt even when it was for defensive purposes only. It was unlikely that the Soviets would agree to an offensive campaign that would most likely risked an American intervention in response. The Soviet Union refused to even consider placing TU-16-C bombers, that Nasser requested, on Egyptian soil for fear of "international complications." Thus, it seems that unless important changes took place in the balance of capabilities or on the international scene the renewal of the fighting by Nasser was not likely.

The change of leadership in Egypt did not bring to power a leader that was less determined to renew the fighting. As I mentioned above Sadat seriously considered renewing the fighting in 1971, 1972 and 1973 but was dissuaded by his military commanders from a challenge. The Egyptian commanders argued that Egypt lacked offensive capability in the air and sufficient equipment necessary for canal crossing. In 1972, the commander of the Third Army, the commander-in-chief, and the vice minister of war all opposed even a limited military action. They were all dismissed. Even when the Egyptian general staff was planning only a limited canal crossing that would not exceed the range of the anti-aircraft system, the Egyptian high command was still deterred from challenging the Israeli defense positions. We see then that the decision not to challenge was not caused by the change in leadership but was due to the credibility of Israel's threat.

This leads us to the final piece of evidence that, despite the strong pressures to act, the final decision to challenge deterrence in 1973 was made only after Egypt felt confident that it had the capability to mount a successful limited attack. This occurred after the January 1973 Soviet decision to deliver the offensive arms that were necessary to launch the October war. By August, Egypt received SCUD missiles and anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles which convinced the Egyptian high command that they had the capability to execute their limited strategy successfully.106 Why Egypt attacked in 1973 and how deterrence theory explains this case will be discussed in the next section.

---

| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Chapter

Return to NDU Homepage
INSS Homepage
What's New