Good Example Of Risk Assessment Of Egyptian Policy In The Suez Canal Essay

1 BLUF. Acceptance of military equipment from the USSR and nationalization in the Canal region spawned Western backlash, the interjection of the United Nations, regime change and isolation, with the strong possibility of the State defense being easily overrun due to the advice of German advisors.
2 Ends-Ways-Means Matrix.
3 Risk Assessment. Assess the anticipated or surprising risks of your assigned country’s strategy during the Suez Crisis. Review Harry R. Yarger’s monograph “Strategic Theory for the 21st Century. Select two of the four methods below for your answer.
b. Analyze risk in terms of the reactions of other actors (British, France, Israel and United States), unintended consequences, and/or chance and friction and why these constitute risks. (thinking as a Secretary of Defense or Chief of Staff – NATIONAL LEVEL)
Using the two articles analyze the risk of Britain, France, and Israel explaining why there’s a risk viewed at their national level.
Although the canal was within Egyptian boundaries, England, France, Israel and the United Sates all possessed risk based on the outcomes from its nationalization. All of these nations had a vested interest in what would transpire with the canal, as it was a key link in facilitating world trade. This means that Egypt would experience some type(s) of punishment, depending on how severely these nations considered the “transgression” would impact them individually. Also, any cooperation with the USSR on Egypt’s part as an ally against the Western nations would virtually assure some threat of military reaction through a pre-emptive strike.
For England and France, they considered the stakes of nationalization of the canal to be high risk, for they technically were the owners of the structure after England purchased Egypt’s share of stock. If Nassar nationalized the canal, both nations would stand to lose an incredible amount of money through the course of world trade. The United States was also included in this, but in not anywhere nearly as financially involved as Britain and France. Therefore, the United States and Britain offered Egypt fiscal aid to construct the Aswan High Dam. Dulles withdrew the offer for aid after a cat and mouse game in the hopes it would tarnish Nasser’s image, but the aid was merely extended as an extension of Cold War policy and economic reasons. Their intent was to solve this issue through diplomacy, as they felt the British and French would not obtain political support internationally and domestically to invade Egypt.
Israel was the only nation in the world not allowed to send ships through the canal and its ties with the West were not particularly strong. There was a mutual distrust between that nation and Britain, in addition to the French not supporting them because they did not want to detonate a possible hostile situation with the other Middle Eastern countries with a strong show of support. The United States and USSR who both reacted strongly to the bungled military operation, with the United States ultimately distancing itself from England and France. This illustrated their time as great powers had truly drawn to a close and the Cold War between the United States and the USSR would be the major motivator for international politics.

Ultimately, Egypt was a pawn on the international scene as all the other players were intervening for their reasons.

Analyze risk in terms of the imbalances among the various E-W-M of the strategy and why these constitute risks. . Review Harry R. Yarger’s monograph “Strategic Theory for the 21st Century: (thinking at a Secretary of Defense or Chief of Staff - NATIONAL LEVEL)
Analyze risk in terms of the imbalances among the various Ends-Ways-Mean of the strategy that is used by Britain, France and Israel listed on the matrix.
Unfortunately, Egypt was placed in a very precarious position for retaliation from the Western nations of England and France, due to Nassar protecting the interests of his own people. What further infuriated the West was Nassar’s strength of purpose. He realized his situation could be dire and that a military attack could be imminent, but he still drove his point home by sinking ships that were in the canal. This insured the British and French would lose even more revenue, as well as lose face in the international community, which virtually guaranteed military action on behalf of those nations unless the United States and/or USSR intervened. Nassar sought advice from German advisors on how to prepare himself, but still remained at a distinct advantage in regards to the Western countries.
The risks in reference to the imbalances referenced in the various Ends-Ways-Means strategy denotes the economic losses from the canal were a very real factor that tipped the balance in regards to Britain and France taking military action. In their minds, they had enough and with sunken ships, no commerce whatsoever could take place in the canal’s waters. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Egypt did not possess an air force as substantial as Britain and France and could easily be the victim of numerous airstrikes from which it could offer no real resistance. If Nassar put all his defense efforts in the air, it would compromise what he could accomplish on the ground. He must protect his citizens, borders and homeland so he must devise some plan to achieve this. The Israeli invasion of northeastern Sinai threw another wrench into Egypt’s defense mechanisms. They must stop the Israeli march, which diverted their forces from areas where they would now be prone to British and French attack. Therefore, Nassar’s military constructed defensive obstacles and mechanisms to stem the tide of these forces. The military also had to ward off amphibious invaders, conduct a mobile defense and create a static defense on the Israeli border. Even with intervention from the United Nations and an armed populace in the coastal villages, Nassar had his work cut out for him. After a valiant effort, and due to far superior military might being deployed against them on numerous fronts, Egypt was easily overrun after heeding some poor advice from German advisors. Their vision of strategic defense was demolished in the desert and illustrated the need to maximize air power as a viable alternative to land defense.