I wrote in this article a few days ago that whoever wages war in order to win his war, he must verify many conditions, on top of which are three: First, he should think in terms of the logic of the dynamic balance of forces, because the strong enemy is not easy to break or win over, just as the weak can Withstands. It is not logical for an international actor to enter into a war with another international actor who is stronger than him and with several equipment, unless it was a suicide operation, and here the assessment is important because Lebanon was weak in 1982 and it was easy for the Israeli army to invade the borders and besiege the capital Beirut, but the resistance appeared and put the army to work. Until the Israeli withdrawal happened later
Secondly, for the war decision-maker to think about the logic of potential alliances as well, because the issue is not only on the day of the war and in the balance of power at that time, but the enemy to whom the military tool is directed may enter into regional alliances that will eventually make it stronger than you, the day Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Kuwait had a fragile alliance with it with the Gulf states, but after a week there were more than 35 countries allied with it against Iraq.
Third, thinking about the logic of the economic return from the war and who will cover its costs. The war is a very costly decision, and no matter how large the state’s resources available to finance the war are, the other parties have learned how to prolong the war and make its cost prohibitive .. Nasserite Egypt sent its forces to Yemen without any consideration for all of the above. Then the defeat was terrible, and the question was: How does the war decision maker think about the war and its human and material costs?
0 Comments