The great beauty about the war of attrition is that the military strategy of belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down the enemy may not necessarily achieve the intended strategic success. Worse still, it may remain inconclusive and it becomes difficult to distinguish between the winner and the vanquished. The best example in modern times has been the War of Attrition that Egypt launched in March 1969 to wear down Israel by means of a long engagement and so provide Egypt with the opportunity to dislodge Israeli forces from the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had seized from Egypt in the Six-Day War of 1967. That War of Attrition turned out to be inconclusive. No territory was exchanged, and there was no obvious victor. Opinions vary as to whether either side had achieved a strategic success. Arguably, Egypt’s failure to make any territorial gains was tantamount to an Israeli victory; but then, the shift in psychological balance resulted in Egyptian favour, which ultimately led to the 1979 peace treaty that followed the Camp David Accords. But for such peaceful negotiated endings, leadership is needed. Henry Kissinger in his new book Leadership: Six Studies in World Strategy …read more
Source:: Ron Paul Institute
