wars of attrition.. by, Howayda Awad Ahmed

In order to identify the basic characteristics of the so-called war of attrition, it is necessary to differentiate in nature between this type of war and the wars of annihilation, which represent a violent and extremist form of armed war in the international community. One of the requirements of the war of annihilation, for example, is that the state throws all the weight available to it from Its retaliatory power in which nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction are used and where the time frame for final and complete annihilations is extremely limited.

Perhaps this is a prominent feature of the war of annihilation in the nuclear age. It is true that human societies witnessed during the various stages of their history.

What can be called a war of extermination or annihilation, but it was more extensive in terms of time frame. It was often in the form of successive strikes to the backbone of the opponent’s power as centers for his military gatherings and other vital resources that he relies on in

Managing the war, which in many cases was geographically far from the heart of the battle. As for the strategy of the war of attrition, it is based on the idea of ​​gradual consumption of the opponent’s strength, which leads to exhausting him and undermining his morale to weaken him continuously and end his ability to respond and resist.

The scope in which the strategy of war of attrition is applied may expand to include the entire opponent country

It is limited to some strategic sectors represented in its forces, weapons or military and civilian industries that form the backbone of the general strategy’s ability to retaliate and retaliate. The war of attrition has basic principles that control how it is managed

Some of those principles...

1_ The necessity of making full use of all the geopolitical factors and advantages offered by the region that is going on in the war of attrition. It is not feared that sometimes these geopolitical characteristics are quite favorable for conducting the war of attrition, while in other cases this nature may not be favorable enough.

2_ The necessity for the war of attrition to be conducted on a considered transitional basis. That is, the basis based on distinguishing between those strategic sectors whose gradual destruction leads to the final liquidation of the opponent’s striking force, so that his sense of the futility of continuing in a hopeless confrontation deepens. It has such decisive returns on the course of the conflict. The need to constantly maintain the clarity of the political vision in order to facilitate the achievement of the final goal behind the management of the war of attrition.

And the war of attrition must not stop so that its cessation does not allow the opponent an opportunity to regain its cohesion or to conduct a new assembly of the elements of its power.

It must also be managed in such a way that it loses the reins of the principle and confines it to the circle of reaction

If the leadership responsible for managing the war of attrition, in light of its continuous evaluation and follow-up to its ultimate political goal in those wars, has reached the conviction that the conditions have become completely dominant to strike a final and decisive blow against the opponent, then it should not hesitate to do so.

The need to comprehend the paramount importance of psychological factors that are associated with the effective application of the strategy of war of attrition. Perhaps that alone can explain why open forces collapse in terms of the level of military equipment in the face of forces less than them.

And from here ..

This psychological factor must be exploited by all means of skillful political propaganda directed against the opponent and in a way that can attract all the forces opposing him as a prelude to the final domination of it.

The war of attrition is based on the assumption that winning the war comes from destroying the enemy’s strengths, which are embodied in its material capabilities. Therefore, the main effort should be focused on destruction, and the focus of military planning should focus on discovering and then targeting the enemy’s strengths to direct the greatest amount of firepower against her.

In theory, at least, destruction becomes a goal in itself, according to this view, and the military organization turns into a massive destruction machine that plans its operations around the tactical battle and the rates of exchange of fire between the two sides.

Proponents of this theory called for its application in the face of

the threat

For example, the war of attrition with Israel, which ended in a war, Egypt taught Israel a lesson to end the file of the war of attrition