The Hidden Factors that Turned the Tide: Strategic Decision-Making and Operational Intelligence in the 1973 War

This article analyzes the quality of the Egyptian and Israeli intelligence advice and decision-making process in the October 1973 War as key factors that determined its course. Following a background to the subject, we focus on the 9–13 October standstill stage, in which Sadat decided, despite his generals’ advice, to renew the Egyptian offensive. Effective Israeli intelligence collection about the coming attack, which was well used by the decision-makers, saved Israel from accepting an undesired ceasefire. The result was the 14 October failed Egyptian offensive that turned the tide of the war and led to Israeli military achievements at the war’s final stage     

Sadat as Supreme Commander

Extant literature explains Egyptian successes and failures in the October 1973 War by Sadat’s restoration or abolition of ‘objective control’: when restoring ‘objective control’, Sadat succeeded; when abolishing it, he failed. However, Samuel Huntington’s theory cannot account for Sadat’s command performance, not because Sadat zigzagged between this theory’s extremes, but because he never thought or acted according to its recipe. I employ Eliot Cohen’s Supreme Command concepts to argue that Sadat’s command constituted an eccentric combination of military romanticism and politicization of war, whose paradox was reflected in the initial military successes and the achievement of Egypt’s strategic objectives despite the military failures by the war’s final stage.     

SHOULD MILITARY UNIFORMS CARRY THE UNION LABEL?

It is widely believed that the unionization of military labor leads to reduced discipline and lower combat capability. Case studies of the performance of existing military unions, however, generally suggest that unionization has a benign impact on the performance of the armed forces. In this paper, we offer a theoretical economic analysis of the likely impact of military unionization on volunteer militaries. Our analysis suggests that military unionization will unambiguously lead to larger, but less disciplined, armed forces, leaving the overall impact of unionization on defense capability ambiguous. Military unionization, however, will clearly enhance social welfare.