Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Jimmy Carter
C-Span sucks community > politics > Political Soapbox
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 1 2007, 07:43 PM) [snapback]292777[/snapback]

I thought he and Arafat solved that mideast mess. They got peace prizes for it.


Any wars between Israel and Egypt lately?

I mean, to go by the standard you use to 'prove' that our War on Terror is 'working' . . . .
fredzbig
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 4 2007, 07:22 PM) [snapback]293431[/snapback]

Any wars between Israel and Egypt lately?

I mean, to go by the standard you use to 'prove' that our War on Terror is 'working' . . . .


I'm pretty sure after the 6-Day War, they don't want ANY part of Israel dude. They've made very little noise since!
Nomarchy
QUOTE(fredzbig @ Apr 8 2007, 10:29 PM) [snapback]294620[/snapback]

I'm pretty sure after the 6-Day War, they don't want ANY part of Israel dude. They've made very little noise since!


Oh really?

WTH was the so-called Yom Kippur War, then?

Sans the Operation Nickel Grass things might've not turned out so 'rosy' for Israel.

And, in retrospect, things might have turned out better for US in Vietnam. But, who, apparently, gave a poopy about American lives in Vietnam, when Israel's control over illegally occupied territories was at stake.
Russ Logan
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 9 2007, 10:50 AM) [snapback]294684[/snapback]

And, in retrospect, things might have turned out better for US in Vietnam. But, who, apparently, gave a poopy about American lives in Vietnam, when Israel's control over illegally occupied territories was at stake.

Not sure how you made that judgement. By Oct 73 our involvement in combat in SVN was long ended, see this timeline:

"...August 23, 1972 - The last U.S. combat troops depart Vietnam.

September 16, 1972 - Quang Tri City is recaptured by South Vietnamese troops.

September 29, 1972 - Heavy U.S. air raids against airfields in North Vietnam destroy 10 percent of their air force.

October 8, 1972 - The long-standing diplomatic stalemate between Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho finally ends as both sides agree to major concessions. The U.S. will allow North Vietnamese troops already in South Vietnam to remain there, while North Vietnam drops its demand for the removal of South Vietnam's President Thieu and the dissolution of his government.

Although Kissinger's staff members privately express concerns over allowing NVA troops to remain in the South, Kissinger rebuffs them, saying, "I want to end this war before the election."

October 22, 1972 - In Saigon, Kissinger visits President Thieu to discuss the peace proposal.

Meetings between Kissinger and Thieu go badly as an emotional Thieu adamantly opposes allowing North Vietnamese troops to remain indefinitely in South Vietnam. An angry Kissinger reports Thieu's reaction to President Nixon, who then threatens Thieu with a total cut-off of all American aid. But Thieu does not back down. Kissinger then returns to Washington.

October 22, 1972 - Operation Linebacker I ends. U.S. warplanes flew 40,000 sorties and dropped over 125,000 tons of bombs during the bombing campaign which effectively disrupted North Vietnam's Eastertide Offensive.

During the failed offensive, the North suffered an estimated 100,000 military casualties and lost half its tanks and artillery. Leader of the offensive, legendary General Vo Nguyen Giap, the victor at Dien Bien Phu, was then quietly ousted in favor of his deputy Gen. Van Tien Dung. 40,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died stopping the offensive, in the heaviest fighting of the entire war.

October 24, 1972 - President Thieu publicly denounces Kissinger's peace proposal.

October 26, 1972 - Radio Hanoi reveals terms of the peace proposal and accuses the U.S. of attempting to sabotage the settlement. At the White House, now a week before the presidential election, Henry Kissinger holds a press briefing and declares "We believe that peace is at hand. We believe that an agreement is in sight."

November 7, 1972 - Richard M. Nixon wins the presidential election in the biggest landslide to date in U.S. history.

November 14, 1972 - President Nixon sends a letter to President Thieu secretly pledging "to take swift and severe retaliatory action" if North Vietnam violates the proposed peace treaty.

November 30, 1972 - American troop withdrawal from Vietnam is completed, although there are still 16,000 Army advisors and administrators remaining to assist South Vietnam's military forces.

December 13, 1972 - In Paris, peace negotiations between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho collapse after Kissinger presents a list of 69 changes demanded by President Thieu.

President Nixon now issues an ultimatum to North Vietnam that serious negotiations must resume within 72 hours. Hanoi does not respond. As a result, Nixon orders Operation Linebacker II, eleven days and nights of maximum force bombing against military targets in Hanoi by B-52 bombers.

December 18, 1972 - Operation Linebacker II begins. The so called 'Christmas bombings' are widely denounced by American politicians, the media, and various world leaders including the Pope. North Vietnamese filmed footage of civilian casualties further fuels the outrage. In addition, a few downed B-52 pilots make public statements in North Vietnam against the bombing.

December 26, 1972 - North Vietnam agrees to resume peace negotiations within five days of the end of bombing.

December 29, 1972 - Operation Linebacker II ends what had been the most intensive bombing campaign of the entire war with over 100,000 bombs dropped on Hanoi and Haiphong. Fifteen of the 121 B-52s participating were shot down by the North Vietnamese who fired 1200 SAMs. There were 1318 civilian deaths from the bombing, according to Hanoi.

1973

January 8, 1973 - Kissinger and Le Duc Tho resume negotiations in Paris.

January 9, 1973 - All remaining differences are resolved between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho.

President Thieu, once again threatened by Nixon with a total cut-off of American aid to South Vietnam, now unwillingly accepts the peace agreement, which still allows North Vietnamese troops to remain in South Vietnam. Thieu labels the terms "tantamount to surrender" for South Vietnam.

January 23, 1973 - President Nixon announces that an agreement has been reached which will "end the war and bring peace with honor."

January 27, 1973 - The Paris Peace Accords are signed by the U.S., North Vietnam, South Vietnam and the Viet Cong. Under the terms, the U.S. agrees to immediately halt all military activities and withdraw all remaining military personnel within 60 days. The North Vietnamese agree to an immediate cease-fire and the release of all American POWs within 60 days. An estimated 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers presently in South Vietnam are allowed to remain. Vietnam is still divided. South Vietnam is considered to be one country with two governments, one led by President Thieu, the other led by Viet Cong, pending future reconciliation.

January 27, 1973 - Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird announces the draft is ended in favor of voluntary enlistment.

January 27, 1973 - The last American soldier to die in combat in Vietnam, Lt. Col. William B. Nolde, is killed.

February 12, 1973 - Operation Homecoming begins the release of 591 American POWs from Hanoi.

March 29, 1973 - The last remaining American troops withdraw from Vietnam as President Nixon declares "the day we have all worked and prayed for has finally come."

America's longest war, and its first defeat, thus concludes. During 15 years of military involvement, over 2 million Americans served in Vietnam with 500,000 seeing actual combat. 47,244 were killed in action, including 8000 airmen. There were 10,446 non-combat deaths. 153,329 were seriously wounded, including 10,000 amputees. Over 2400 American POWs/MIAs were unaccounted for as of 1973.

April 1973 - President Nixon and President Thieu meet at San Clemente, California. Nixon renews his earlier secret pledge to respond militarily if North Vietnam violates the peace agreement.

April 1, 1973 - Captain Robert White, the last known American POW is released. ..."

Source: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/v...index-1969.html

As an aside, by Oct 73, I and my classmates at MacDill AFB in F-4 upgrade training were on a tight rein for possibly having to ferry our aircraft to Israel to backfill their combat losses. In my class at the time was one very special person - Brigadier General (selectee) Robinson R. "Robby" Risner - 7.5 years as a POW at the "Hilton". I remember watching his return on the tube while I was still in Nav School at Mather. Which is what triggered my attention to your statement.


Nomarchy
QUOTE
Another effect of the operation was the near resignation of then United States chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) General George Brown. It is reported Brown was livid that US weapons and munitions were being sent to a foreign country contemporaneously with the American command in Vietnam protesting a lack of supplies in their theater of operations.[1]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

QUOTE
But there was little grumbling in the Pentagon, though one former serving officer observed that the deployment of US munitions to Israel was reminiscent of a similar request made by Israel in 1973 - at the height of the Yom Kippur War. "This can only mean one thing," this officer said at the time. "They're on the ropes."

In spite of its deep misgivings about the Israeli response (and the misgivings, though unreported, were deep and significant - and extended even into the upper echelons of the US Air Force), senior US military officers kept their views out of public view. And for good reason: criticism of Israel for requesting a shipment of arms during the 1973 war led to the resignation of then Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) chairman General George Brown. Brown was enraged that US weapons and munitions were being sent to Israel at the same time that American commanders in Vietnam were protesting a lack of supplies in their war in Southeast Asia.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ13Ak01.html

Something appears to be seriously off with one or both of the accounts.

I will readily concede mea culpa, and stick to the Arab-Israeli issue.
Russ Logan
Your point was American lives being lost. Not our failure to adequately support President Thieu's government as we had committed to do with supplies, etc. Our combat involvement and lives lost was long done as shown in the timeline I posted, and realistically so was our formal committed support of SVN - neither Nixon, Kissinger, nor Congress had the stomach for it any more. General Brown's actions were those of a man who still felt that the USA's word actually meant something. To his credit. But for our country those inactions remain a huge discredit. Of course that last is only my opinion. I am sure others on these fora do not share my sentiments.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE
General Brown's actions were those of a man who still felt that the USA's word actually meant something.


I always felt there were people you could count on, and people you couldn't. Once known as the latter it's tough to get your reputation and respect back.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Apr 9 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]294716[/snapback]

Your point was American lives being lost. Not our failure to adequately support President Thieu's government as we had committed to do with supplies, etc. Our combat involvement and lives lost was long done as shown in the timeline I posted, and realistically so was our formal committed support of SVN - neither Nixon, Kissinger, nor Congress had the stomach for it any more. General Brown's actions were those of a man who still felt that the USA's word actually meant something. To his credit. But for our country those inactions remain a huge discredit. Of course that last is only my opinion. I am sure others on these fora do not share my sentiments.


QUOTE
Something appears to be seriously off with one or both of the accounts.

I will readily concede mea culpa, and stick to the Arab-Israeli issue.


So, mea culpa on Operation Nickel Grass having cost American lives in Vietnam.
fredzbig
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 9 2007, 09:50 AM) [snapback]294684[/snapback]

Oh really?

WTH was the so-called Yom Kippur War, then?

Sans the Operation Nickel Grass things might've not turned out so 'rosy' for Israel.

And, in retrospect, things might have turned out better for US in Vietnam. But, who, apparently, gave a poopy about American lives in Vietnam, when Israel's control over illegally occupied territories was at stake.


I stand corrected...the 6-Day War was an Israeli offensive in which they totally devastated the Egyptian and Syrian air defenses, and ran total roughshod over Lebanon, Syria and Eqypt.

The October War was a DEFENSIVE stand on Israels part when Syria, Eqypt and a small amount of Iraqui forces invaded Israeli held territory. I am sure without Operation Nickel Grass, Israel would have had a hard time fending off its attackers in any short period of time (usually when fending off an offensive from virtually all sides, the defending country is at the short end of the stick unless they COMPLETELY have overwhelming numbers and technology, which Israel had supposedly neither of). It (October War) was a test of Israels strength and resolve to be sure. Without Nickel Grass no one today can say whether or not Israel would have withstood the attack for sure...I tend to believe they would have due to superior intellect and over-all will...and once Israel had the upper hand (took how many days to do so...TOTAL?) who stepped in to keep them from mauling Syria and Egypt...AGAIN!

Yeah they took 22,000+ tons of artillery, ammo and tanks...22,000+ tons of tanks would be 400 or so M60 Pattons. How much hardware had those who went on the offense against Israel been given by the USSR?



"Nickel Grass
By Walter J. Boyne


One of the most critical but least celebrated airlifts in history unfolded over a desperate 32 days in the fall of 1973. An armada of Military Airlift Command aircraft carried thousands of tons of materiel over vast distances into the midst of the most ferocious fighting the Middle East had ever witnessed-the 1973 Arab­Israeli War. MAC airlifters-T-tailed C-141s and C-5As-went in harm's way, vulnerable to attack from fighters, as they carved a demanding track across the Mediterranean, and to missiles and sabotage, as they were off-loading in Israel.

Though not as famous as the 1948­49 Berlin Airlift or as massive as the 1990­91 Desert Storm airlift, this 1973 operation was a watershed event. Code-named "Nickel Grass," it restored a balance of power and helped Israel survive a coordinated, life-threatening Soviet-backed assault from Egypt and Syria. It proved the Air Force concept of global mobility based on jet-powered transport aircraft. The airlift also transformed the image of the C-5 from that of expensive lemon to symbol of US might.

A quarter of a century ago, in summer and fall 1973, the Mideast seethed with tensions. Six years earlier, in June 1967, Israeli forces conquered vast swaths of land controlled by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Cairo and Damascus failed over the years to persuade or force Israel to relinquish its grip on the land and, by 1973, the stalemate had become intolerable. Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Syria's Hafez al-Assad meticulously planned their 1973 offensive, one they hoped would reverse Israeli gains of the earlier war and put an end to Arab humiliation. The war was set to begin on the holiest of Jewish religious days, Yom Kippur.

Trapped by Complacency

The Arab states had trained well and Moscow had supplied equipment on a colossal scale, including 600 advanced surface-to-air missiles, 300 MiG-21 fighters, 1,200 tanks, and hundreds of thousands of tons of consumable war materiel. On paper, the Arabs held a huge advantage in troops, tanks, artillery, and aircraft. This was offset, in Israeli minds, by the Jewish state's superior technology, advanced mobilization capability, and interior lines of communication. Despite unmistakable signs of increasing Arab military capability, Israeli leaders remained unworried, even complacent, confident in Israel's ability to repel any attack.

The Israeli government became unequivocally convinced of impending war just hours before the Arab nations attacked at 2:05 p.m. local time, Oct. 6. Prime Minister Golda Meir, despite her immense popularity, refused to use those precious hours to carry out a pre-emptive attack; she was concerned that the US might withhold critical aid shipments if Washington perceived Israel to be the aggressor.
On the southern front, the onslaught began with a 2,000-cannon barrage across the Suez Canal, the 1967 cease-fire line. Egyptian assault forces swept across the waterway and plunged deep into Israeli-held territory. At the same time, crack Syrian units launched a potent offensive in the Golan Heights. The Arab forces fought with efficiency and cohesion, rolling over or past shocked Israeli defenders. Arab air forces attacked Israeli airfields, radar installations, and missile sites.

Day 4 of the war found Israel's once-confident military suffering from the effects of the bloodiest mauling of its short, remarkably successful existence. Egypt had taken the famous Bar Lev line, a series of about 30 sand, steel, and concrete bunkers strung across the Sinai to slow an attack until Israeli armor could be brought into play. Egyptian commandos ranged behind Israeli lines, causing havoc. In the north, things looked equally bad. The Syrian attack had not been halted until Oct. 10.

Grievously heavy on both sides were the losses in armored vehicles and combat aircraft. Israeli airpower was hard hit by a combination of mobile SA-6 and the man-portable SA-7 air-defense missiles expertly wielded by the Arabs. The attacking forces were also plentifully supplied with radar-controlled ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft guns. Israeli estimates of consumption of ammunition and fuel were seen to be totally inadequate. However, it was the high casualty rate that stunned Israel, shocking not only Meir but also the legendary Gen. Moshe Dayan, minister of defense.

The shock was accompanied by sheer disbelief at America's failure to comprehend that the situation was critical. Voracious consumption of ammunition and huge losses in tanks and aircraft brought Israel to the brink of defeat, forcing the Israelis to think the formerly unthinkable as they pondered their options.

Half a world away, the United States was in a funk, unable or unwilling to act decisively. Washington was in the throes of not only post-Vietnam moralizing on Capitol Hill but also the agony of Watergate, both of which impaired the leadership of President Richard M. Nixon. Four days into the war, Washington was blindsided again by another political disaster-the forced resignation of Vice President Spiro T. Agnew.

Not surprisingly, the initial US reaction to the invasion was one of confusion and contradiction. Leaders tried to strike a balance of the traditional US support of Israel with the need to maintain a still-tenuous superpower détente with the Soviet Union and a desire to avoid a threatened Arab embargo of oil shipments to the West.

Shifting Scenarios

The many shifts in US military planning to aid Israel are well-documented, notably in Flight to Israel, Kenneth L. Patchin's official MAC history of Operation Nickel Grass. Nixon, in response to a personal plea from Meir, had made the crucial decision Oct. 9 to re-supply Israel. However, four days would pass before the executive office could make a final decision on how the re-supply would be executed.

Initially, planners proposed that Israel be given the responsibility for carrying out the entire airlift. (Israel did use eight of its El Al commercial airliners to carry 5,500 tons of materiel from the US to Israel.) Israel attempted to elicit interest from US commercial carriers, but they refused to enlist in the effort, concerned as they were about the adverse effects Arab reaction would have upon their businesses. MAC's inquiries with commercial carriers received the same negative response. Then, it was suggested that MAC assist the Israeli flag carrier by flying the material to Lajes, the base on the Portuguese Azores islands in the Atlantic, where it could be picked up by Israeli transports.

The US dithered in this fashion for four days. Then, on Oct. 12, Nixon personally decided that MAC would handle the entire airlift. Tel Aviv's Lod/Ben-Gurion air complex would be the off-load point.

"Send everything that can fly," he ordered.

USAF had been preparing right along to take on the challenge. Gen. George S. Brown, USAF Chief of Staff, telephoned Gen. Paul K. Carlton, MAC commander, to begin loading MAC aircraft with materiel but to hold them within the US pending release of a formal order sending them onward. Carlton put his commanders on alert and contacted the heads of other involved commands, including Gen. Jack J. Catton of Air Force Logistics Command. AFLC accorded the same high priority to Nickel Grass, and the results showed immediately. More than 20 sites in the United States were designated to be cargo pick-up points where the US military would assemble materiel for shipment to Israel. Equipment, some directly from war-reserve stocks, began pouring into these sites.

Less than nine hours after Nixon's decision, MAC had C-141s and C-5s ready to depart. There would be some initial delays, and they would encounter some difficulties en route, but they would be the first of a flood of aircraft into Israel.

The complex nature of Nickel Grass required a flexible chain of command. Within MAC, 21st Air Force, commanded by Maj. Gen. Lester T. Kearney Jr., was designated as the controlling Air Force. The vice commander of 21st, Brig. Gen. Kelton M. Farris, was named MAC mission commander. The prime airlift director was Col. Edward J. Nash.

We'll Hold Your Coat

The threat of an oil embargo frightened US allies. With a single exception, they all denied landing and overflight rights to the emergency MAC flights. The exception was Portugal, which, after hard bargaining, essentially agreed to look the other way as traffic mushroomed at Lajes Field. Daily departure flights grew from one to 40 over a few days. This was a crucial agreement for MAC, which could not have conducted the airlift the way it did without staging through Lajes.

When Nixon flashed the decision Oct. 12, top American officials instantly applied pressure for immediate results. MAC's complex machinery sprang into action, but it took some hours to establish a steady, regulated flow of aircraft and crews. Initial flights were delayed because of high winds at Lajes, generating White House fury that supplies had not magically reached Israel.

Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Carlton about this, saying, "We'll have to get them moving, or we'll lose our jobs."

Carlton knew the airlift business. He knew that he had an adequate number of aircraft, crews, and required equipment. The fleet consisted of 268 C-141s and 77 C-5As, and Carlton knew that he could sustain a steady flow of three C-141s every two hours and four C-5s every four hours-indefinitely. He also knew that MAC could orchestrate the operation, establishing a rational flow of aircraft matching the cargo to be carried with off-loading equipment at the destination. In his plan, MAC would essentially become a conduit through which materiel would flow in a well-adjusted stream.

At first, however, he could not convey either his concept or his confidence to the White House, State Department, or Pentagon.

Carlton had already begun to expedite things, taking extraordinary actions in the interest of saving time. These steps included waiving crew rest requirements, weight limitations, daily utilization restrictions, and routine maintenance demands. He had to fight a continuing change of orders streaming out of the White House and State and Defense departments. There was continuing pressure to enlist the help of commercial airlines, despite their universal reluctance. At one point, late in the game, officials threatened to remove MAC entirely from the operation.

Even so, Carlton was confident he could establish a flow that not only would let MAC handle the initial requirement of 4,000 tons of materiel but also continue to handle all of MAC's other assignments. He asked for patience, stating that "once this flow starts, it [the materiel] is going to come like a bushel basket of oranges just being dumped."

The average distance from US departure points to Lajes was 3,297 miles. It was another 3,163 miles from Lajes to Lod/Ben-Gurion. The route varied from eastern departure points (McGuire AFB, N.J.; Dover AFB, Del.; and Charleston AFB, S.C.) to Lajes, but from Lajes onward it was precise. Aircraft flew to Gibraltar at the southern tip of Spain and then followed a narrow path over the Mediterranean to Tel Aviv.

The route was deliberately placed along the center of the Mediterranean Sea on the Flight Information Region boundary line dividing the airspace of the hostile African states to the south and that of the "friendly" European states to the north.

Fighters All the Way

The threat of Arab interception was real, and the US Navy's Sixth Fleet acted as protector until the transports came within about 200 miles of Israel. There Israeli air force fighters took over. Although threats were made by radio, and several unidentified fighters were seen, no overt hostile action was taken.

Neither Lajes nor Lod possessed adequate aerial port facilities. Carlton called for establishment of Airlift Control Elements at both places, accurately estimating the number of personnel and the equipment that each would require. (More than 1,300 people would work at Lajes, seriously taxing all the facilities.) Other ALCEs were established at points within the US where aerial port facilities were not sufficient to handle the rush.

The initial missions to Israel were delayed as a result of 50-knot crosswinds at Lajes. Scheduled to be the first aircraft at Lod was a C-5 carrying the ALCE team, headed by Col. Donald R. Strobaugh. However, it encountered engine trouble and had to return to Lajes, where Strobaugh and his team transferred to a C-141.

The first C-5 (Tail No. 00461) to land at Lod touched down at 22:01 Zulu. It carried 97 tons of 105 mm howitzer shells, and it arrived at a time when Israeli forces were down to their last supplies of ammunition. Another 829 tons would be delivered in the next 24 hours. Even as Israeli workers unloaded those first cargo airplanes, huge formations of Israeli and Egyptian armor, maneuvering just 100 miles to the southwest, were locked in a desperate tank battle that would prove to be the largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk.

Carlton was only too aware of the C-5's vulnerability to ground attack. Whenever possible, the Air Force would have only a single C-5 on the ground at any one time.

The first C-141 (Tail No. 60177) to arrive at Lod landed at 23:16 Zulu. The aircraft carried more ammunition but, more importantly, it delivered Strobaugh and his ALCE crew. The group ultimately numbered 55, all of whom worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week. They were given three 40K loaders as well as locally improvised unloading gear.

The arriving MAC airplanes were greeted ecstatically by the Israelis. The crews received red-carpet treatment. Israel put in place a system to expedite cargo handling; materiel unloaded from the transports usually were at the front in Syria in about three hours and in the Sinai in less than 10 hours.

The original 4,000-ton airlift requirement grew daily. After the first day, USAF set the daily flow requirement at four C-5s and 12 C-141s. After Oct. 21, it raised the aircraft flow level to six C-5s and 17 C-141s and maintained it there until Oct. 30, when the demand began to drop.

The continuous flow of aircraft on the long flights was tough on the aircrews, but MAC was judicious in its positioning of relief crews for the C-141 and using augmented crews on the C-5. A special pool of navigators was created for the vital but tedious task of navigating the Mediterranean.

To the Offensive

Because it eliminated the need to husband ammunition and other consumable items, the continuous flood of US war materiel enabled Israeli forces to go on the offensive in the latter stages of the war. In the north, Israel's ground forces recovered all territory that had been lost and began to march on Damascus. In the Sinai, tank forces led by Maj. Gen. Ariel Sharon smashed back across the Suez, encircled the Egyptian Third Army on the western side of the canal, and threatened Ismailia, Suez City, and even Cairo itself.

Egypt and Syria, which had previously rejected the idea of a negotiated settlement, now felt compelled on Oct. 22 to agree to the arrangement hammered out by Washington and Moscow with the goal of preventing the total destruction of the trapped Egyptian army. Israel was reluctant to comply immediately, wishing to gain as much as possible before a cease-fire.

The Soviet Union, faced with Israel's continuing offensive, raised the stakes. Moscow declared to the United States that, if the US could not bring Israel to heel, it would take unilateral action to dictate a settlement. On Oct. 24, the United States, in order to intensify the image of risk in Soviet minds and keep Soviet forces out of the crisis, responded by taking its armed forces to a worldwide DEFCON III alert, implying readiness for nuclear operations, if necessary.

Fortunately, after several abortive efforts, an effective cease-fire finally took hold Oct. 28.

Israel suffered 10,800 killed and wounded-a traumatic loss for a nation of some 3 million persons-plus 100 aircraft and 800 tanks. The Arab nations suffered 17,000 killed or wounded and 8,000 prisoners, and lost 500 aircraft and 1,800 tanks.

The airlift officially ended Nov. 14. By then, the Air Force had delivered 22,395 tons of cargo-145 missions by C-5 Galaxy and 422 missions by C-141 Starlifter. The C-5s delivered about 48 percent of the tonnage but consumed 24 percent less fuel than the C-141s. Included in the gross cargo tonnage was a total of 2,264.5 tons of "outsize" materiel, equipment that could be delivered only by a C-5. Among these items were M-60 tanks, 155 mm howitzers, ground radar systems, mobile tractor units, CH-53 helicopters, and A-4E components.

The airlift had been a key to the victory. It had not only brought about the timely resupply of the flagging Israeli force but also provided a series of deadly new weapons put to good use in the latter part of the war. These included Maverick and TOW anti-tank weapons and extensive new electronic countermeasures equipment that warded off successful attacks on Israeli fighters. Reflecting on the operation's vital contribution to the war effort, Reader's Digest would call it "The Airlift That Saved Israel."

Both US transport types distinguished themselves by performing reliably and economically. The C-5A had an 81 percent reliability while the C-141 registered a 93 percent reliability. No accidents occurred. The abort rate of all planned flights came in under 2 percent.

The airlift taught the Air Force many lessons, large and small. One was that Lajes was a godsend-one that the US best not take for granted in a future emergency. The Air Force established an immediate requirement for aerial refueling to become standard practice in MAC so that its airlifters could operate without forward bases, if necessary. Another lesson was that commercial airlines, on their own, could not be expected to volunteer their services and aircraft. This meant that access to commercial lift in the future would have to be met by activating the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, as in fact it was during the Gulf War. Nickel Grass also led to the consolidation of all airlift aircraft under Military Airlift Command and its designation as a specified command Feb. 1, 1977.

Finally, the C-5 proved to be the finest military airlift aircraft in history, not the expensive military mistake as it had been portrayed in the media. Its ability to carry huge amounts of cargo economically, carry outsize pieces of equipment, and refuel in flight fully justified the expense of the program.

"For generations to come," said Golda Meir not long after the war's end, "all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the material that meant life for our people."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, is a retired Air Force colonel and author. He has written more than 400 articles about aviation topics and 29 books, the latest of which is Beyond the Horizons: The Lockheed Story. His most recent article for Air Force Magazine, "MiG Sweep," appeared in the November 1998 issue.



What would the outcome have been had Golda decided to attack preemptively dude? Those a$$holes were no match for Israel then...nor would they be now. All they have to do is re-read history and they'll know! Without Nickel Grass Israel would've been in deep caca...maybe/maybe not...had Golda acted first? There would've been no need for Nickel Grass...maybe/maybe not.

As I said...I stand corrected...they were tried, really, ONCE since...and here's Syria on the verge of going at it again...they need to loosen up their turbans and let their heads get some air...they ain't thinkin' right!



Nomarchy
When a country attempts, with arms, to recapture its own sovereign territory, as Syria and Egypt attempted in 1973, it is not an offensive operation or an attack.

If another steals one's car, and later in the month one attempts to take it back, it's not theft.

Your views on the superiority of Israelis to Arabs as human beings, intellectually, etc. duly noted.

Verba volant, Scripta manent!
fredzbig
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 9 2007, 09:08 PM) [snapback]294803[/snapback]

When a country attempts, with arms, to recapture its own sovereign territory, as Syria and Egypt attempted in 1973, it is not an offensive operation or an attack.

If another steals one's car, and later in the month one attempts to take it back, it's not theft.

Your views on the superiority of Israelis to Arabs as human beings, intellectually, etc. duly noted.

Verba volant, Scripta manent!


Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, as you well know, were amassing troops, munitions and military hardware along all borders with Israel...a direct sign of upcoming military aggression toward it. Israel, KNOWING FULL WELL the "intentions" of their sworn enemies, went on the offensive (as any capable country would) and "took it to" their enemies. The lands they seized were NOT the same as someone swiping my/your car. If you came and blocked off all entry and exit from MY home in virtually all direction, pointed your guns at my wife, children and grandchildren...and pretty much told everyone you're getting ready to whip my a$$, I'm pretty sure folks in general would understand if I snuck up on your henchmen and kicked the sheit out of them, and maybe even refused to give back the portions of the surrounding territory I had seized in order to ensure my family's safety! With your car theft analogy, you seem to be comparing eggplants to cruise ships!

Potes meos suaviari clunes!
Arturo_Vandelay
Lefties, always looking out for the little guy.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(fredzbig @ Apr 9 2007, 09:31 PM) [snapback]294805[/snapback]

Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, as you well know, were amassing troops, munitions and military hardware along all borders with Israel...a direct sign of upcoming military aggression toward it. Israel, KNOWING FULL WELL the "intentions" of their sworn enemies, went on the offensive (as any capable country would) and "took it to" their enemies. The lands they seized were NOT the same as someone swiping my/your car. If you came and blocked off all entry and exit from MY home in virtually all direction, pointed your guns at my wife, children and grandchildren...and pretty much told everyone you're getting ready to whip my a$$, I'm pretty sure folks in general would understand if I snuck up on your henchmen and kicked the sheit out of them, and maybe even refused to give back the portions of the surrounding territory I had seized in order to ensure my family's safety! With your car theft analogy, you seem to be comparing eggplants to cruise ships!

Potes meos suaviari clunes!


In 1973, Syria and Egypt attempted to reclaim their sovereign territories.

QUOTE
I tend to believe they would have due to superior intellect and over-all will...


QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 9 2007, 09:41 PM) [snapback]294807[/snapback]

Lefties, always looking out for the little guy.


Thank you for that insightful addition to the conversation.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 9 2007, 10:01 PM) [snapback]294809[/snapback]


In 1973, Syria and Egypt attempted to reclaim their sovereign territories.





Thank you for that insightful addition to the conversation.


The Israelis should have just gone ahead and taken Cairo and Damascus.Then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about them getting their land back.
fredzbig
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 9 2007, 10:10 PM) [snapback]294811[/snapback]

The Israelis should have just gone ahead and taken Cairo and Damascus.Then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about them getting their land back.

Just imagine how THAT would have affected the liberal bleeding hearts...SHEESH!
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 10 2007, 12:10 AM) [snapback]294811[/snapback]

The Israelis should have just gone ahead and taken Cairo and Damascus.Then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about them getting their land back.

Once taken, what would they have done with them?
fredzbig
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 9 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]294813[/snapback]

Once taken, what would they have done with them?


Use 'em for sewage dumps...
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 9 2007, 10:26 PM) [snapback]294813[/snapback]

Once taken, what would they have done with them?


What do you think Syria and Egypt would have done with Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 10 2007, 12:37 AM) [snapback]294819[/snapback]

What do you think Syria and Egypt would have done with Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?

I asked you first. smile.gif
Arturo_Vandelay
I can almost guarantee anything the Israelis would do would be less than half of what the Syrians or Egyptians would have done.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 10 2007, 12:43 AM) [snapback]294823[/snapback]

I can almost guarantee anything the Israelis would do would be less than half of what the Syrians or Egyptians would have done.

Of course.

That's the point.

Israel would have been poorly served by occupying the major population centers.
fredzbig
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 9 2007, 10:49 PM) [snapback]294825[/snapback]

Of course.

That's the point.

Israel would have been poorly served by occupying the major population centers.

Occupy hell...burn the fackers to the ground!!!
Arturo_Vandelay
Act out of character just once and finish one off, then see how the rest react. It's too late now. Next time out we may find out how much mercy the Muslims show when they have the upper hand.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 10 2007, 12:59 AM) [snapback]294827[/snapback]

Act out of character just once and finish one off, then see how the rest react. It's too late now. Next time out we may find out how much mercy the Muslims show when they have the upper hand.

You may see Israel "act out of character" if it goes after Iran alone.

In that particular case, Israel may feel it needs to make it clear that those who would threaten her existence with nuclear weapons risk their own existence.

It's a fight it never wants to have twice.
Arturo_Vandelay
I don't see it happening, but then that is the only way it might work. When every Arab country was against Israel's existence but they were only armed with conventional weapons it was a different problem. Soon it may be a really immediate problem of survival even if Israel makes peace with everyone BUT Iran.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 9 2007, 10:10 PM) [snapback]294811[/snapback]

The Israelis should have just gone ahead and taken Cairo and Damascus.Then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about them getting their land back.


Or maybe not.

Perhaps you should think about how consistent I am in matters of international law and sovereign territories etc. and figure out why I don't make special allowances for the Israelis or anyone else for that matter.

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 9 2007, 10:37 PM) [snapback]294819[/snapback]

What do you think Syria and Egypt would have done with Jerusalem or Tel Aviv?


Why would Syria and Egypt WANT Tel Aviv?

Are you folks just making poopy up as you go along?

Jerusalem was supposed to be an international, inter-faith city in the original plan. Tel Aviv is in 'L'Etat Juif' proper.

QUOTE(fredzbig @ Apr 9 2007, 10:57 PM) [snapback]294826[/snapback]

Occupy hell...burn the fackers to the ground!!!


Charming.
Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 10 2007, 08:45 AM) [snapback]294856[/snapback]


Why would Syria and Egypt WANT Tel Aviv?


Want it gone.
inyerface
and vice versa
Nomarchy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 10 2007, 08:54 AM) [snapback]294860[/snapback]

Want it gone.


Not quite.
beasty
QUOTE(Nomarchy @ Apr 10 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]294865[/snapback]

Not quite.



Many aren't shy about admitting it.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/113

Last June, Palestinian television broadcast a sermon in a Gaza mosque in which the imam, Ibrahim Madi, made the following statement: "God willing, this unjust state Israel will be erased; this unjust state the United States will be erased; this unjust state Britain will be erased."

The sheikh's gentle homily comes again to mind as Palestinians' efforts to build their arsenal and persistent attacks on Israeli civilians have again been exposed of late. The most recent assault was at a ballroom last night, when a Palestinian used hand grenades to kill five and wound more than thirty Israelis, a much smaller number than would have been the case had the explosives on the terrorist's body gone off as intended.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206823,00.html

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, state-media reported.

In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders in Malaysia, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," Ahmadinejad said, according to state-run television in a report posted on its Web site Thursday.

Nomarchy
QUOTE
Israel and the Arabs?

The Creation of Israel

In the aftermath of World War I, Great Britain was granted a mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations. By 1947, however, the violence directed at British officers by Jews and Arabs, and the financial drain on the declining imperial power after World War II, moved Great Britain to turn to the United Nations for help. In April 1947 the Arab nations proposed at the United Nations that Palestine be declared an independent state, but that measure was defeated and instead, at Washington's suggestion, a UN commission was set up to study the problem.

The defeat of the Arab proposal is important to an understanding of subsequent events. During World War I the British sought Arab support against the Ottoman Turks, who ruled much of the Arab world. In return for their support, the British promised the Arabs their long-sought independence. The British, however, also made promises about the same territory to the Zionists who sought to establish a Jewish state on the site of Biblical Israel. The Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917, stated that "His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object. . . ." Significantly, however, the sentence ended with the words, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." (The U.S. Congress endorsed the Balfour Declaration, using similar language, in 1922.)(44) Toward the end of World War I, however, the Bolsheviks exposed a secret Anglo-French agreement to divide the Ottoman Empire between Great Britain and France. Arab independence had never been seriously intended. Meanwhile, Great Britain was preparing to allow Jewish immigration into Palestine.(45)

Violence among Jews, Arabs, and British officials in Palestine before and after World War II led London to ask the United Nations in 1947 for a recommendation on how to deal with the problem.(46) The murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis and the deplorable state of the Holocaust survivors had stimulated the international effort to establish a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, and American Zionists had declared in 1942 (in the Biltmore Program) "that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world."(47)

In November 1947 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to recommend partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The two states were to be joined in an economic union, and Jerusalem would be administered by the United Nations. The Arabs would get 43 percent of the land, the Jews 57 percent. The proposed apportionment should be assessed in light of the following facts: The Jewish portion was better land; by the end of 1947 the percentage of Palestine purchased by Jews was less than 7 percent; Jewish land purchases accounted for only 10 percent of the proposed Jewish state; and Jews made up less than one-third of the population of Palestine.(48) Moreover, the Jewish state was to include 497,000 Arabs, who would constitute just under 50 percent of the new state's population.

The United States not only accepted the UN plan, it aggressively promoted it among the other members of the United Nations. Truman had been personally moved by the tragedy of the Jews and by the condition of the refugees. That response and his earlier studies of the Bible made him open to the argument that emigration to Palestine was the proper remedy for the surviving Jews of Europe. Yet he acknowledged later, in his memoirs, that he was "fully aware of the Arabs' hostility to Jewish settlement in Palestine."(49) He, like his predecessor, had promised he would take no action without fully consulting the Arabs, and he reneged.

Truman's decision to support establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was made against the advice of most of the State Department and other foreign policy experts, who were concerned about U.S. relations with the Arabs and possible Soviet penetration of the region. Secretary James Forrestal of the Defense Department and Loy Henderson, at that time the State Department's chief of Near Eastern affairs, pressed those points most vigorously. Henderson warned that partition would not only create anti-Americanism but would also require U.S. troops to enforce it, and he stated his belief that partition violated both U.S. and UN principles of self-determination.(50)

But Truman was concerned about the domestic political implications as well as the foreign policy implications of the partition issue. As he himself put it during a meeting with U.S. ambassadors to the Middle East, according to William A. Eddy, the ambassador to Saudi Arabia, "I'm sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."(51) Later, in a 1953 article in the American Zionist, Emmanuel Neumann, president of the Zionist Organization of America, conceded that Truman would not have worked so hard for the creation of Israel but for "the prospect of wholesale defections from the Democratic Party."(52) Truman's decision to support the Zionist cause was also influenced by Samuel I. Rosenman, David K. Niles, and Clark Clifford, all members of his staff, and Eddie Jacobson, his close friend and former business partner. Truman later wrote:

The White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders--actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats--disturbed and annoyed me.(53)

Pressure on Truman also came from non-Jewish fundamentalists and politicians.

In some cases, support for Jewish admission to and statehood in Palestine may have had another domestic political angle. That support sidestepped the sensitive issue of U.S. immigration quotas, which had kept European Jews out of the United States since the 1920s and had left them at the mercy of the Nazis. In other words, support for Zionism may have been a convenient way for people who did not want Jews to come to the United States to avoid appearing anti-Semitic. American classical liberals and others, including the American Council for Judaism, opposed the quotas, and it is probable that many of the refugees, given the option, would have preferred to come to the United States.(54)

By mid-November 1947 the Truman administration was firmly in the Zionist camp. When the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations agreed that the partition resolution should be changed to shift the Negev from the Jewish to the Palestinian state, Truman sided with the Jewish Agency, the main Zionist organization, against them.(55) The United States also voted against a UN resolution calling on member states to accept Jewish refugees who could not be repatriated.(56)

As the partition plan headed toward a vote in the UN General Assembly, U.S. officials applied pressure to--and even threatened to withhold promised aid from--countries inclined to vote against the resolution. As former under-secretary of state Sumner Welles put it:

By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured.(57)

Eddie Jacobson recorded in his diary that Truman told him that "he [Truman] and he alone, was responsible for swinging the vote of several delegations."(58)

While the plan was being debated, the Arabs desperately tried to find an alternative solution. Syria proposed that the matter be turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague; the proposal was defeated. The Arab League asked that all countries accept Jewish refugees "in proportion to their area and economic resources and other relevant factors"; the league's request was denied in a 16-16 tie, with 25 abstentions.(59)

On November 29 the General Assembly recommended the partition plan by a vote of 33 to 13. The Soviet Union voted in favor of the resolution, reversing its earlier position on Zionism; many interpreted the vote as a move to perpetuate unrest and give Moscow opportunities for influence in the neighboring region.

The period after the UN partition vote was critical. The Zionists accepted the partition reluctantly, hoping to someday expand the Jewish state to the whole of Palestine, but the Arabs did not.(60) Violence between Jews and Arabs escalated. The obvious difficulties in carrying out the partition created second thoughts among U.S. policymakers as early as December 1947. The State Department's policy planning staff issued a paper in January 1948 suggesting that the United States propose that the entire matter be returned to the General Assembly for more study. Secretary Forrestal argued that the United States might have to enforce the partition with troops. (The United States had an arms embargo on the region at the time, although arms were being sent illegally by American Zionists, giving the Jews in Palestine military superiority, at least in some respects, over the Arabs.)(61)

On February 24, 1948, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Warren Austin, made a speech to the Security Council hinting at such second thoughts. His proposal to have the five permanent council members discuss what should be done was approved, but they could not agree on a new strategy. The United States, China, and France reported to the full council that partition would not occur peacefully. The apparent weakening of U.S. support for partition prompted the Zionist organizations to place enormous pressure on Truman, who said he still favored partition. However, the next day at the United Nations, Austin called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine.

On April 16 the United States formally proposed the temporary trusteeship. The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it. The General Assembly was unenthusiastic. Meanwhile, the Zionists proceeded with their plans to set up a state. Civil order in Palestine had almost totally broken down. For example, in mid-April, the Irgun and LEHI (the Stern Gang), two Zionist terrorist organizations, attacked the poorly armed Arab village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, and killed 250 men, women, and children. The Arabs retaliated by killing many Jews the next day.(62) Before the British left in May, the Jews had occupied much additional land, including cities that were to be in the Palestinian state.

Something else was working in favor of continued support for the emerging Jewish state: U.S. domestic politics. The year 1948 was an election year and, according to memoranda in the Harry S Truman Library and Museum, Jacobson, Clifford, and Niles expressed fear that the Republicans were making an issue of their support for the Jewish state and that the Democrats risked losing Jewish support. Clifford proposed early recognition of the Jewish state.(63)

His position had been strongly influenced by a special congres-sional election in a heavily Jewish district in the Bronx, New York, on February 17, 1948. The regular Democratic candidate, Karl Propper, was upset by the American Labor party candidate, Leo Isacson, who had taken a militantly pro-Zionist position in the campaign. Even though Propper was also pro-Zionist, former vice president Henry Wallace had campaigned for Isacson by criticizing Truman for not supporting partition, asserting that Truman "still talks Jewish but acts Arab."(64) The loss meant that New York's 47 electoral votes would be at risk in the November presidential election, and the Democrats of the state appealed to Truman to propose a UN police force to implement the partition, as Isacson and Wallace had advocated.

The administration's trusteeship idea soon became academic. On May 14 the last British officials left Palestine, and that evening the Jewish state was proclaimed. Eleven minutes later, to the surprise of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, the United States announced its de facto recognition.(65)

The significance to the Arabs of the U.S. role in constructing what they regard as another Western colonial obstacle to self-determination cannot be overstated. Dean Rusk, who at the time was a State Department official and would later become secretary of State, admitted that Washington's role permitted the partition to be "construed as an American plan," depriving it of moral force.(66) As Evan M. Wilson, then assistant chief of the State Department's Division of Near Eastern Affairs, later summarized matters, Truman, motivated largely by domestic political concerns, solved one refugee problem by creating another. Wilson wrote:

It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947-48 when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned.(67)



http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
beasty
QUOTE
The United States also voted against a UN resolution calling on member states to accept Jewish refugees who could not be repatriated.(56)


The same as before the war. Only take in Jews that can help with weapons development. The rest can just die.
Nomarchy
QUOTE
The Yom Kippur War, 1973

The Six-Day War left the Arabs humiliated and the Israelis vauntingly triumphant. It was the Israeli sense of invincibility that left the country vulnerable in 1973. On October 6, as Jews were preparing for their holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria launched attacks intended to regain the territories lost in 1967. The Egyptians crossed the Suez Canal and established positions it would not lose. Two cease-fires were arranged, only to be violated by Israel. Finally, 18 days after the war began, a third and final cease-fire went into effect.(139)

The war was launched to regain not only Arab territory but Arab pride as well. That explanation, which is true as far as it goes, gives a distorted picture. Often overlooked are the Arab leaders' efforts to make peace with Israel before 1973. In November 1967 King Hussein offered to recognize Israel's right to exist in peace and security in return for the lands taken from Jordan in the Six-Day War. (Israel had de facto annexed the old city of Jerusalem shortly after that war.) In February 1970 Nasser said, "It will be possible to institute a durable peace between Israel and the Arab states, not excluding economic and diplomatic relations, if Israel evacuates the occupied territories and accepts a settlement of the problem of the Palestinian refugees."(140) (Israel had allowed only 14,000 of 200,000 refugees from the Six-Day War to return.)

Then, in February 1971, Anwar Sadat, who had succeeded to the Egyptian presidency on Nasser's death in 1970, proposed a full peace treaty, including security guarantees and a return to the pre-1967 borders. That was not all. Also in 1971 Jordan again proposed to recognize Israel if it would return to its prewar borders. Egypt and Jordan accepted UN Resolution 242, passed in November 1967, that called for an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in return for peace and security. Both Arab states also accepted the land-for-peace plan of Secretary of State William Rogers and the efforts of UN representative Gunnar Jarring to find a solution.

Israel turned a deaf ear to each proposal for peace, rejected the Rogers plan, snubbed Jarring, and equivocated on Resolution 242.(141) At that time Israel and Egypt were engaged in a war of attrition across the Suez Canal. Israel flew air raids deep into Egypt and bombed civilians near Cairo. Soviet pilots and missiles participated in the defense of Egypt.(142)

The Rogers plan represented only one side of the Middle East policy of the Nixon administration, which came into office in 1969, and it was the weak side at that. The strong side was represented by national security adviser (and later secretary of state) Henry Kissinger. Kissinger was busy with the Vietnam War and the diplomatic opening to Communist China during Nixon's initial years in office, so the Middle East was one of the few areas left to Rogers. Yet Kissinger could not resist getting involved. Thus, a battle occurred between two forms of intervention: Rogers's efforts to broker a solution and Kissinger's efforts to thwart one. The State Department believed that the key problem was Israeli intransigence. Kissinger, who saw the Middle East as another arena for the superpower rivalry, believed the Israeli victory in 1967 was a glorious defeat of the Soviets, and he actively opposed progress toward peace. Referring to 1969 he explained in his memoirs:

The bureaucracy wanted to embark on substantive talks as rapidly as possible because it feared that a deteriorating situation would increase Soviet influence. I thought delay was on the whole in our interest because it enabled us to demonstrate even to radical Arabs that we were indispensable to any progress and that it could not be extorted from us by Soviet pressure. . . . I wanted to frustrate the radicals-- who were hostile to us in any event--by demonstrating that in the Middle East friendship with the United States was the precondition to diplomatic progress. When I told [Joseph] Sisco in mid-February that we did not want a quick success in the Four-- Power consultations at the United Nations in New York, I was speaking a language that ran counter to all the convictions of his Department. . . . By the end of 1971, the divisions within our govern- ment . . . had produced the stalemate for which I had striven by design.(143)

That policy was consistent with the Nixon Doctrine, articulated by the president in July 1969. Under that doctrine the United States would rely on local powers to keep internal regional order and furnish "military and economic assistance when requested and appropriate." The United States would continue to provide a nuclear umbrella to deter Soviet intervention. In other words, client states such as Israel and Iran would police their regions to prevent upheavals by forces inimical to U.S. interests.(144)

As the 1972 election approached, Kissinger assumed more control over Middle Eastern policy. He later recalled that Nixon "was afraid that the State Department's bent for ab- stract theories might lead it to propose plans that would arouse opposition from all sides. My principal assignment was to make sure that no explosion occurred to complicate the 1972 election--which meant in effect that I was to stall."(145) Since Kissinger was able to undermine Rogers's peace efforts, his was a "policy" the Israelis could embrace.
Kissinger's obstructionism came at the worst possible time. The 1967 Arab defeat and the ensuing bilateral peace offers persuaded many Palestinians that the Arab states were willing to sacrifice the Palestinians. It was a period of heightened violence from Yasser Arafat's nonideological alFatah, a major element of the Palestine Liberation Organization; the Black September faction of al-Fatah; and George Habash's radical, Marxist-oriented Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.(146) The break between the Palestinians and the Arab states created problems for Jordan. The PLO had become a virtual state within a state there, and in 1970 the PFLP hijacked several airliners to Jordan. As a result, in September 1970 King Hussein gave the military the go-ahead to root out the guerrilla infrastructure. Syria, in a show of support for the Palestinians, sent tanks into Jordan. At Kissinger's urging, Israel mobilized in support of Jordan, but before it could enter the country, the Syrian force was repulsed. The month known as "Black September" cost the Palestinians 5,000 to 20,000 lives. Although Israeli troops did not see action, their mobilization helped cement Israel's image as a strategic asset of the United States in the region. Any evenhandedness that had marked earlier Nixon administration policy was now gone.

Less than a year later, Jordanian forces massacred Palestinians in several incidents before expelling the PLO from Jordan. The PLO then moved to Lebanon, having previously won that country's formal recognition of the right to operate autonomously. Harassment of the Palestinians by the Israeli-backed Lebanese Christians and guerrilla activity directed at Israel from Lebanon preceded massive Israeli raids and the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.(147)

U.S. military and economic aid to Israel took a major jump. Just before the Jordanian crisis, Nixon approved a $500 million military aid package and sped up delivery of F-4 Phantom jets to Israel. Israel had indicated that, before it could start talks with the Arabs, it would need arms to ensure its security. Nixon had stalled, believing that Israel was already militarily superior. But under pressure from 78 U.S. senators, Nixon initiated a major transfer of technology (including the sale of jet engines for an Israeli warplane) that would enable Israel to make many of its own weapons. A second deal was struck for 42 Phantoms and 90 A-4 Skyhawk warplanes. Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev countered the U.S. action by promising to supply arms and bombers to the Arabs, although not in the quantities that the United States supplied them to Israel.(148)

In mid-1972 Sadat, whom Kissinger did not take seriously as a political leader, expelled the 15,000 Soviet advisers in his country. Sadat's reasons included continued wrangling about military aid, the emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel, Soviet opposition to another war in the region, and general cultural differences. Although the United States was taken by surprise, Kissinger took credit for the development and, after the election, began secret negotiations with Egypt and the Soviets. However, his proposal for a settlement, which included Israeli military posts in the Sinai, was rejected by Sadat. Meanwhile, Nixon agreed to provide Israel with 84 new warplanes. Sadat summed up his reaction in a statement quoted in Newsweek: "Every door I have opened has been slammed in my face by Israel--with American blessings. . . . The Americans have left us no way out."(149)

Peace proposals by Jordan, communicated to Kissinger around that same time, were rejected by Israel, which was not interested in relinquishing the West Bank. The Israeli rejection had at least tacit U.S. approval. On September 25, 1973, two weeks before war broke out, Kis-singer became secretary of state and, with Nixon mired in Watergate, had complete control over foreign policy.

During the Yom Kippur War, Kissinger ordered four ships of the Sixth Fleet to within 500 miles of Israel and initiated a UN strategy aimed at tying up the Soviets and delaying a cease-fire resolution. As he later put it, "We wanted to avoid this [cease-fire] while the attacking side was gaining territory, because it would reinforce the tendency to use the United Nations to ratify the gains of surprise attack."(150) The Israelis asked for arms, but Kissinger was reluctant to comply, believing that Israel was well armed already, that the war would be short, and therefore that a resupply would unnecessarily anger the Arabs. But Kissinger did not want to appear to desert Israel, which he thought might harden its position, so he had arms sent secretly, a policy publicly ratified by Nixon on October 9. While the airlift of equipment was still covert, U.S. planes flew directly to the Israeli troops in the occupied Sinai, a violation of Egypt's territory.(151)

Kissinger had another reason to accede to Israel's demand for an airlift. Although no one believed that Israel's survival was at risk, the surprisingly strong Arab showing panicked some Israelis. The Israeli ambassador to Washington warned that if the request for the airlift was denied, "we will have to draw very serious conclusions from all this." According to a historian sympathetic to Israel, "Kissinger. . . had long known that Israel possessed a very short nuclear option which it held as a weapon of last resort. . . . Suddenly . . . the scenario of an Israel feeling on the verge of destruction resorting in despair to nuclear weapons. . . assumed a grim actuality." Other reasons for the change in U.S. policy included domestic political considerations (the Israel lobby had become a powerful force) and a modest Soviet airlift to Syria. The multi-billion-dollar U.S. airlift was approved.(152)

Kissinger was instrumental in having three cease-fire resolutions, all favorable to the Israeli army's position, passed in the UN Security Council. The first was passed on October 22, after Kissinger went to Moscow. His failure to consult them before working with the Soviets so outraged the Israelis that Kissinger felt he had to placate them by allowing some "slippage" in the deadline.(153) "Slippage" became a major six-day offensive in which Israeli troops crossed the Suez Canal, blocked the roads from Cairo, and completed the encircling of Egypt's Third Army in the Sinai. When the offensive was over, Israel had reached the Gulf of Suez and occupied 1,600 square kilometers inside Egypt. According to Kissinger, Israel told him, untruthfully, that Egypt had launched an attack first, but he never publicly criticized his ally.(154)

The second cease-fire, which weakly called for a return to the first cease-fire lines, passed the Security Council on October 24. Sadat accepted it, but Israel refused to pull back, which left Egypt's beleaguered Third Army at its mercy. Israel violated the cease-fire within hours and continued closing in on that army. The Nixon administration again was silent. Sadat appealed to the Security Council for help, asking for U.S. and Soviet troops to intervene. The Soviets responded favorably to the idea, but Kissinger opposed it. "We had not worked for years to reduce the Soviet military presence in Egypt only to cooperate in reintroducing it as a result of a United Nations Resolution," Kissinger later wrote. "Nor would we participate in a joint force with the Soviets, which would legitimize their role in the area and strengthen radical elements."(155)

The Soviets then said they might send troops unilaterally. In response, late on October 24, the United States put its ground, sea, and air forces--conventional and nuclear--on worldwide alert. That brush with nuclear war demonstrated once again the grave danger posed by U.S. intervention in Middle Eastern affairs.(156)

Meanwhile, Kissinger assured Israel that it would not be asked to return to the first cease-fire lines, and the airlift continued. Sadat ended the crisis by asking that a multinational force, without U.S. or Soviet troops, be sent to oversee the cease-fire. On October 25 the third UN resolution was passed, creating a peace-keeping force and again merely requesting a return to the October 22 lines.

Israel continued attacking Egyptian forces and forbidding the passage of food, water, or medicine to the trapped Third Army. Private pleas from Kissinger to Israel were rejected. The crisis ended with Sadat's offer of direct talks between the two nations' military officers about carrying out the UN resolutions. He asked for one delivery of nonmilitary supplies to the Third Army under UN and Red Cross supervision. Israel accepted, although it was bitter that the United States did not allow it to capture the Third Army and humiliate Egypt.(157)

One consequence of the mammoth U.S. arms shipments to Israel, and particularly the U.S. deliveries in the Sinai, was the OPEC oil embargo. The dollar price of oil had been rising since 1971, when Nixon stopped redeeming foreign governments' dollars for gold. Even before the war, Saudi Arabia had talked about linking oil to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.(158)

On October 20 Saudi Arabia announced that it would sell no oil to the United States because of U.S. support for Israel. Saudi Arabia's average provision of oil to the United States came to 4 percent of American daily consumption. Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar followed the Saudi example. Nixon's price control program turned an inconvenience into a crisis, with long lines at gas stations and other disruptions of the economy. After the war, despite Kissinger's appeal, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia stood by his demand that Israel withdraw from all the occupied territories (including those taken in 1967) before the oil tap was turned on again. Kissinger threatened to retaliate while also promising that the United States would support the land-for-peace UN resolutions (Resolution 338, passed during the war, reiterated Resolution 242 of 1967). In December OPEC, at the bidding not of Arab countries but of Iran and Venezuela, quadrupled the price of oil to $11.65 a barrel. But shipments to Europe, which became more critical of Israel, were increased. Finally, on March 18, 1974, after Israel, Egypt, and Syria concluded disengagement agreements, and after prodding by Sadat, the Arab states ended the oil embargo. The Arabs placed no conditions on their action; the last export restrictions were removed on July 11. After the embargo, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait ended the concession system and ostensibly nationalized their oil industries. In fact, they entered into long-term contracts with the former concession owners.(159)

The costs to the United States of the Yom Kippur War were significant. As Kissinger calculated it, the war "cost us about $3 billion directly, about $10-15 billion indirectly. It increased our unemployment and contributed to the deepest recession we had in the postwar period."(160) The war was another demonstration of the bankruptcy of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Total support of Israel did not create stability; on the contrary, it further alienated the Arabs, pushed several Arab states closer to the Soviet Union, upset the U.S.-Soviet dÇtente (indeed, came close to igniting a nuclear confrontation), and loaded the OPEC oil weapon.



http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.