Yom Kippur War transcripts released

Politicians were insufficiently informed, and failed to understand the information they did have on the eve of the Yom Kippur War, said Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, on Sunday as he released secret committee transcripts from the eve of the Yom Kippur War.

The transcripts, kept from the public until now for security reasons, were released as required by law after 30 years — save for two sections, which may be released later, said Steinitz at a press conference in the state archives in Jerusalem.

Some of the information failure arose from questions politicians didn't think to ask, Steinitz said. "There is a lot to learn from these protocols," he said, explaining that it is important to improve the way information and decisions are understood so that Israel would not be surprised again, as it was in 1973.

The parliamentary supervision of military decisions and information is still problematic, Steinitz said. "It is an important question both from a democratic and security perspective," he said.

He noted that, in one instance, an air battle is described and the reasons for the battle explored. "But no one asked what this all means," said Steinitz.

Similarly, he said, then-prime minister Golda Meir appeared before the committee with military information, but they debated other issues instead, including an immigration crisis. More information could have been given to them, but no one requested it, he said.

Steinitz said he is creating a committee, headed by former MK Amnon Rubinstein, to examine ways to improve parliamentary supervision of defense decisions.

He took issue with criticism leveled Sunday by Meretz MK Yossi Sarid that politicians still lack information, and that not much has changed since 1973. In particular, he said, they would be informed about the enemy's technical abilities that surprised the committee 30 years ago.

But the type of debate that follows a briefing, the manner in which decisions are reached, and the ability of politicians to supervise defense decisions, is still problematic, he said, adding his hope that the committee will find ways to fix these problems.

Steinitz said he isn't worried about security leaks from the committee, rather from the military, which has leaked inappropriate information.

The committee is the body trying to stop security leaks from the military, he said, not the other way around.

Now you've done it. I'll actually have to do some work and find info on a link. It may take a while and all I have for now is my (possibly faulty) memory.

In general terms, however:

The Soviets had armed the Arabs to the teeth with their latest war equipment and were eager to see it used. They were (at least indirectly) behind the Arab sneak attack launched on the holiest of days.

The Arabs came VERY close to cutting straight across the tiny nation. Nixon backed Israel to the hilt and was running non-stop air re-supply of everything from rifle ammo to TOW missles and more.

The Soviets objected and a series of "hot-line" exchanges occurred between Washington and the Kremlin which only hiked the tension. The U.S. went to its highest defense condition and all our nuclear forces were placed on standby.

This was in 1973.

From what I've read, this was the 14th known nuclear crisis resulting in a DEFCON3 condition.

Link:
http://vicpeace.ca/centre/readings/nukeuse.htm#table1

Nuclear Crisis 14 in Year: 1973
Name of Crisis: ISRAEL (Yom Kippur)
Threatened use of nuclear weapons by: USA
Target: USSR
Crisis starts: 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria attack Israel
Crisis ends: 25 October 1973
Duration: 19 days
Threat of nuclear attack: Implied
At issue in Crisis: 1) Survival of U.S. ally Israel; 2) U.S. dependence, since 1967, on oil imports, especially from the Middle East
BACKGROUND: U.N. troops had separated Israel and Egypt since Crisis #7, SUEZ of 1956. In 1967, Nasser demanded their removal and then closed Israel's use of the Gulf of Aquaba and blocked the port of Elat. Egypt, Syria and Iraq had been heavily armed by the Soviets and now threatened Israel's survival. Israel attacked, and in the 6-Day War, 5-11 June 1967, defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq and seized Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Jordan West Bank and Jerusalem. Israel had more than doubled its size at the expense of its neighbors, especially Egypt. Egypt and Syria rearmed and prepared to recover their territory and their national pride.

CRISIS EVENTS: 1973,
6 October: Egypt and Syria make surprise attack on Israel during the Yom Kippur festival. Hard-pressed at first, Israel soon recovers, has a cease-fire with the Syrians and then surrounds the Egyptian Third Army. The Soviets, fearing a total Egyptian collapse, offer Soviet troops to join U.S. troops to enforce a cease-fire.

-20 October: Soviets meet Kissinger who promises safety for the Third Army in return for Egyptian concessions. However, Israel violates this cease-fire and maintains pressure on Third Army.

-24 October: U.S. intelligence reports all seven Soviet airborne divisions on alert for possible aid to Third Army. Brezhnev (to Kissinger) blames Israel for cease-fire violations, repeats offer of joint U.S.-Soviet cease-fire enforcement and warns that Soviets will act alone if any further act of bad faith by USA An emergency meeting in Washington results in a DEFCON 3 alert that night.

-25 October: U.S. nuclear forces on alert, 50 B-52 strategic bombers fly from Guam to USA; 15,000 troops of 82nd Airborne Division mobilize; aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy leaves Gibraltar heading east. This escalation is designed to be detected by the Soviets and result in U.S. dominance of the situation, without arousing the U.S. public. However, by 7:00 a.m. U.S. media reports war mobilization and speculation begins that Nixon is using a crisis to escape the growing pressures of the Watergate scandal. But, by the afternoon of this day, the crisis eases: Israeli forces relax their pressure on the Third Army and the Soviets drop their insistence on a joint peace-keeping force.

OUTCOME: Soviets soon after describe U.S. response in this crisis as "absurd", and U.S. speculations on Soviet intentions as "fantastic", indicating that the use of Escalation Dominance by the USA always to have its way in any confrontation is a dangerous policy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.