Regular armies, poor performance

Many critics have been cynically remarking that Arabs are tough fighters but only when battling each other. 

In their wars with Israel, by contrast, they hardly put up any resistance. That is why Arab-Israeli wars were so short.

There is an element of truth in that, and there are examples.

In 1948, all the Arab armies, representing Arab League member states, which rushed to rescue Palestine from the first Jewish onslaught in 1947, were defeated. Only the British-trained Jordanian army at the time managed to defend its positions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, saving a small portion of historic Palestine from falling into Jewish hands.

In 1956, the Egyptian army was quickly overrun by an Israeli attack orchestrated at the time with the French and the British in retaliation for the nationalisation of the Suez Canal Company by Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser.

The Egyptian army was defeated well before the Anglo-French intervention.

The plan was that the Israelis would attack first and once on the banks of the Suez Canal, the British and the French would use the pretext of protecting the vital waterway for their own military intervention. 

The invading Israeli army, which hardly met any real resistance in Sinai, only needed a few days to reach the canal.

In 1967, Israel attacked on three fronts: the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian. In less than a week its forces managed to occupy Sinai and the Gaza Strip for the second time in less than 10 years, the Syrian Golan Heights and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem included, on the Jordanian side.

Israel refers to that as the Six Day War, but in fact the battle was settled in less than six days.

In the third major Arab-Israeli war, in October 1973, which was initiated by the Egyptians and the Syrians, the armies of both countries fought very well. The Egyptian army managed to skilfully cross the Suez Canal and drive deep into Sinai, demolishing the myth of the “invincible” Bar-Lev Line, and so did the Syrians on the Golan.

The initial Arab advances that were sustained for a while stunned the Israelis. But the outcome of that war was no exception. The 1973 performance was better but not really good enough. 

The Israelis counterattacked successfully, cancelling some of the initial Arab war gains.

The turning point, marking the decline of Israel’s military glory occurred in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon. 

The Israeli army was able to occupy the southern part of Lebanon up to the capital Beirut, to evict the PLO from Lebanon and to impose a peace treaty on Lebanon, but the whole project collapsed in the end. 

The PLO was replaced by an indigenous Lebanese resistance that up to this day represents the most serious challenge to Israel’s military superiority.

Israel had to unilaterally end its occupation of Lebanon as a direct result of the heavy blows of the resistance. The May 17, 1983, peace treaty brokered at the time by US secretary of state George Shultz was rejected by the Lebanese government and duly abandoned.

The “security zone” Israel insisted on keeping inside Lebanon and to man by a surrogate Lebanese militia had to be abandoned too, years later, as a result of the effectiveness of the Lebanese national resistance. 

That war was the first Israeli military defeat at the hands of the resistance, but by no means the last. 

In 2006, the Israeli army, considered one of the best worldwide, was badly beaten by the Lebanese resistance again. For Israel, that was a humiliating disaster.

An Israeli army with unlimited supplies of the most modern weapons and ammunition, with a superior air force and a mighty navy, with support from world and regional powers, was defeated at the hands of a “terrorist gang” shunned by almost everyone.

Even against besieged and impoverished Gaza, where also a shunned and condemned group is in control, the Israeli wars in 2008, 2012 and 2014 had no remarkable record either.

They caused massive loss of life and destruction, but hardly achieved any meaningful political outcome. They were counterproductive, causing more harm to the attacker, demoralising the Israeli soldiers and demolishing what is left of the Israeli image, than they did to the enduring and the patient population of Gaza.

Apparently, the role of regular armies is drastically changing.

The years-long American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also ended inconclusively and with serious counterproductive outcomes as the chaotic situation on the ground now shows. 

They did not only fail to destroy Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the many other so-called terrorist groups, they enabled them to spread and strengthen.

The terrorist groups with new brand names are all over the region, fighting better than any of the regular armies involved.

The Iraqi army lost wars and is still losing against Daesh, despite sizeable allied aerial support.

The collapse of the Yemeni army was stunning as the Houthis started their advance towards the country’s capital six months ago. That army, supposedly well built, well equipped and strong, lost the war and is still losing against an unlawful militia openly targeting the legitimate government.

In many cases, it just surrendered its arms and bases to the attackers. Whether as a result of incompetence or treachery in collaboration of the ousted president Ali Abdullah Saleh, the loss is no less disastrous: The national army failed to perform the only duty it was created for, leaving the country in total chaos and devastating misery.

For its part, the Syrian army is also unable to settle the battle against the many armed foreign and local groups after over four years of fierce fighting, despite allied support and supposed military superiority.

Even the Egyptian army is struggling hard to regain control over northern Sinai where armed attacks are continuing and indeed increasing.

The only quick explanation is that war is not an alternative to diplomacy. Most of the examples cited so far are of wars that were either unjust or unnecessary.

Those wars attest to the complete failure of the many international bodies meant to enforce international law and resolve disputes by peaceful, just and lawful means: the primary goal of the United Nations Organisation.

It is time that we all realise that there are no military solutions to any of the chronic disputes tormenting our region, or others. There are alternative solutions, but such solutions require application of justice and that does not suit outlaw states, occupiers and aggressors.