A Matter of Strategy

In a interview published in Al-Gomhouria newspaper marking the anniversary of the 23 July 1952 revolution, President Mubarak said that (1) Egypt will not fight for Lebanon or Hezbollah or anybody else for that matter and the days of foreign adventures are over. (2) That any money spent on military campaigns is better off spent on domestic development for hospitals, schools, roads, and all the things Egypt need. He also said that the (3) Egyptian Army is for the defense of Egyptian soil. Finally, (4) he said that Egypt would never be attacked by Israel.

This overview by the President of the Egyptian army's doctrine is unusually revealing in a country like Egypt (not fully democratic according to the Egyptian government itself) but nevertheless it is a bit bewildering to me. I certainly don't have the same military background as the President, which I truly respect him for. Nevertheless, I can measure the President's strategic objectives against the yardstick of Lidell Hart's famous book on strategy and can make few comments.

The Late Basil Lidell Hart: British Father of Modern Strategy. Some of Hart's Famous Quotes Are: "The chief incalculable in war is the human will." and "Without mobility an army is but a corpse - awaiting burial in a trench."

1- Fighting On Lebanon's Behalf

First, I fully understand that Egypt will not fight for Hezbollah or Lebanon for various reasons:

1- Hezbollah doesn’t need the help. In fact, the presence of a classical army (such as Egypt's) on the battle ground will complicate what is a hit-and-run guerilla campaign that Hezbollah is best at.

2- Egypt’s intervention will make Egypt subject to a strong Israeli retaliation, losing economic aid, and would constitute a major neck sticking that Egypt is likely not capable of.

3- Finally and most important, intervene to do what? I don’t think the Egyptian army has the capability nor the ability nor the will, nor the plans to do anything beyond its boarders.

6th October 1973: The Proudest Moment in the History of the Modern Egyptian Army Since Mohammad Ali Pasha's Army Victories. It is the Only Moment When A Classical Arab Army Neutralized The Israeli Army. In All Other Wars, Only Guerilla Warfare Achieved Any Success Largely Because of Israeli's Airforce Superiority. Note that the Arab Classical Army Victory in 1973 Was Only When that Airforce Was Neutralized.

This Israeli Strategy of Airforce Superiority Was Not Invented by the Israelis But Rather by Churchill After the First World War. Churchill Realized that the Easiest Way to Subjegate the Arab Population (Which is Isolated in Finite Number of Locations Separated by Vast Deserts) is to Use Airforce. Churchill Built 4 Airbases (Suez Canal in Egypt, Al-Adm in Libya, H-4 in Jordan, and Al-Habanyea in Iraq) and Were Enough to Control Arabs for a Long Time. Lebanon's Guerilla Warfare Neutralizes the Israeli's Aifroce Superiority While A Classical Army Lacking in Missles Doesn't.

Therefore, I got the rationale for the President’s first argument and it frankly makes sense.

2- Nobody Wants War (Especially Egyptians)

The second argument is straightforward. Egyptians in particular are among the most pacifist people in the world, which rooted in history (and will take a long separate article to discuss). Especially these days, Egypt on the international scene is as Egyptians say is walking next to the wall. In fact, how Egypt behaves on the international arena reminds me with Ali Al-Kassar who eternally wants to do good and stays out of troubles but always finds himself locked in one. Egypt on the international scene is really a "well-wisher" or in Arabic "Fail Khair" or literally "good-doer."

Comedian Ali Al-Kassar: All of His Movies are About Intending to Do Good In a World Full of Bad Guys, But Ali Clearly Lacks the Will or the Power to Deter the Bad Guys. So, He Always Falls in Hillarious Troubles.

So, I really got the 2nd argument.

3- Defending Own Soil

The third argument is quite straightforward. All armies in the world are primarily for the defense of the country’s boarders. This is the most basic role of an army. We can argue that Lidell Hart's book really says that each nation must define its strategic objectives and that the security of a nation is not necessarily within its boarder but can be in securing its sphere of influence. However, nobody will dispute that defending boarders is the most basic duty of a national army.

4- Israel will Never Attack Egypt

The fourth argument is the one that doesn’t really fit. Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting that Israel will attack Egypt but really this argument doesn’t fit when you put it together with all the previous arguments. How so?

The president announced that Israel will not attack Egypt, which I am fully onboard with because Israel really has no strategic interest in attacking Egypt. For sure there are extreme elements in the Israeli society and maybe even in government who want to pick up any fight with any Arab or Muslim. But Israel really as a state cannot just pick an unprovoked fight with a country it has a peace treaty with that is an important component in reducing the cost of defending Israel itself on the long run, a treaty really that was vital in freeing up Israeli resources for the Israel’s development, and frankly freeing up resources for Israel to go after all of its adventures in Lebanon.

OK. I got this one too and I agree that Israel doesn't have a strategic interest in attacking Egypt. So, each piece of the president’s arguments makes sense on its own. It is really when you put them all together they don’t. Why?

Who is the Enemy Then?

If Israel will never attack Egypt and we will not defend anybody else and will not intervene in any regional conflict, then I am puzzled then as to why we still have universal suffrage and spend that much money on the Egyptian army? I don’t think that keeping an army of more than 250,000 men is needed to fight Sudan or Libya even if they are more foolish than the Israelis to the extent of attempting to attack Egypt? Who exactly will attack Egypt? Is it Cyprus, Italy, France, or Saudi Arabia, or South Africa, or the United States whose military supplies Egypt’s arsenal and essentially provides protection to the Suez Canal approaches?

Is it Iran who would attack Egypt? How would the Iranians attack a fellow Muslim country that is 3000 miles away, a country that has Al-Azhar, and a country they have been trying to re-establish relations with for the past 20 years? What are the strategic objectives for Iran to attack Egypt proper? What do they gain from that? They have a lot more to gain by attacking Qatar or UAE, and even that they won't do? The answer is no gain whatsoever.

One could argue they might think of attacking the Suez Canal in case of an open conflict between them and the United States. Even this one is a far-fetched scenario because it is easier for the Iranian to block the straits of Hormuz, which is within a stone-throw from them. An alternative for them is to attack the Suez Canal to block movement of US troops. This argument makes more sense, however it begs the question: who is really defending the Suez Canal? Is it the Egyptian army who doesn’t have the power to intervene in Lebanon or is it the US military who has the sixth fleet essentially protecting the northern and southern approaches to the Canal? So, if none of these potential attackers make sense, then what are the strategic objectives behind spending money on such a vast institution?

One can argue that you build an army to protect your standing both regionally and internationally. Essentially this is about being respected. However, I don't understand how avoiding to having anything to do with a regional conflict like the one in Lebanon now would do anything to protect Egypt's regional stature. Do we really understand that this conflict is between Israel and Iran and the winner will for all practical purposes dominate the region? Do we understand the stakes here and how high they are?

Is Egypt's Stance Really Improving Its Stature in the Region? US Secretary Rice Didn't Even Make the Customary Stop in Cairo. In Rome, Kofi Annan Called for Iran and Syria to Participate in the Talks. Egypt Mediation Behind the Scenes Is Apparently Not Intriguing Enough for Secretary Rice to Stop Over in Cairo on the Way from Tel Aviv to Rome.

An army could also be a detterant for anyone thinking of making foolish moves. But do you really need that vast institution in to deter Cyprus from making a foolish mistake (given that the President ruled out Israel from making such a move)? In the absence of strategic objectives, I think it is a waste of money. It is money that according to the president is better spent on a road or a school or whatever.

Now, I understand that even neutral Switzerland has an army. But at the same time, each country (at least the ones I am familiar with) has strategic objectives behind keeping an army and a specific culture that is derived from those strategic objectives.

Not Only Strategy But Culture Too

Strategies aside now, let us look at the culture inside the army. Maybe the President's intreview is for public consumption. Maybe that there is a strong secret enemy that we have to build a strong army for. But even this argument doesn't fit if we look at the culture inside the Egyptian army. For example, the whole universal suffrage system now in Egypt is a sham and is need of a major reform. It is a system that puts the poor and the unconnected at a major disadvantage to the wealthy and the connected. This is pure and simple unfair. Besides, I'd rather have those poor farmers who are taken from their lands to serve and mayebe get killed on the boarder with Israel to be just let go back to their land. I think this will be much better for their families and for the economy.

Even worse, at the officer level, the current system requires an officer in his mid-forties (which is when an officer has youth, energy, and experience) to retire because his loyalty is questionable. This makes the officer corps at the mercy of the top leadership whims. Not only that, loyalty is reviewed every 2 years to keep all officers on a short leash.

The Egyptian Army Is One of the Most Vital And Most Honorable Institutions in Egyptian Life. However, Like All Institutions in Egypt, It Needs Reform. I Take The President's Word That Egypt As A Whole Needs Reform and Prominently Among Those Who Are In Need of That Reform is the Egyptian Army. Reform Has to Start With Clear Directions, Objectives, and A Cultural Change.

This is a system that will never breed competence. Either this system is a mistake and must be corrected or really the strategic objective of the army is to maintain loyalty...both are equally troubling and my worry is the current system will not even breed loyalty but will beget false acquiescence.

Bottom line, the Egyptian army needs a major reform and it needs a strategic direction for where it is heading and how to get there. Egypt's role in the world cannot always be Ali Al-Kassar. A little bit even of Yusuf Wahbi screaming "Oh My God" or "Ya Lal-Haul" would be a refreshing reminder that when you see something wrong you have to speak up especially when you cannot afford to act like the unique Farid Shawki and pick up a fight (as Egyptians say Korsi Fil Kolob).