Suez crisis

[Winner]

Can someone explain to me, why is this operation widely considered as a blunder?

I've read a decent amount of texts about the military aspect of this crisis and it appears, that it was almost complete Anglo-French-Israeli military victory. The only blunder I see is, that the US administration turned its back on its allies and de facto joined the USSR in its pressure on the West. Because of this, Nasser was able to retain power and continue to threaten Israel.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The US wanted to avoid a third world war. If the soviets intervened then the US would have had no choice but to enter the war and thus many, many more lives would have been lost.

I believe its considered a blunder because of the lack of cooperation between NATO allies.

 

[Revolutionary]

basically what Bugfatty said

US wanted to avoid direct military conflict with the USSR

the real problem was that UK, France, and Israel acted without US approval

Britain and France were acting as if they were still the major powers of the world when in reality they had been reduced to minor powers when compared to the US and USSR, with their empires being slowly dismantled

it wasn't so much the US turning its back on its allies as it was Britian and France not knowing their place and conducting independent aggressive imperialistic actions in a bipolar world dominated by 2 grand system of alliances that were based on ideology

in other words....you don't conduct a military invasion of a state that is friendly to the communist bloc unless you yourself are a nuclear super power or are allied to and have the approval and full support of a nuclear super power before said invasion...

 

[FriendlyFire]

reexamination shows badly planned postwar.
French and British had expected the be greeted as "liberators" they planned to toppled the egyptions government with popular support. Unfortunity this was a delusional as the Egyptions rallied to there government.

The British / French situation thus became untenable. They were NOT prepared to fight a Long war of counter insurgency.
So it was deeply embrassing that they had to withdraw. which was probably the right decision.

EDIT: The planning was also done in great secretcy. It did allow complete military surprise and few casualties.
The military operation was limited in scope and had hoped to spark uprisings. they were NOT prepared for a full scale invasion and complete administration of an entire country

 

[Winner]

basically what Bugfatty said

US wanted to avoid direct military conflict with the USSR

the real problem was that UK, France, and Israel acted without US approval

Britain and France were acting as if they were still the major powers of the world when in reality they had been reduced to minor powers when compared to the US and USSR, with their empires being slowly dismantled

it wasn't so much the US turning its back on its allies as it was Britian and France not knowing their place and conducting independent aggressive imperialistic actions in a bipolar world dominated by 2 grand system of alliances that were based on ideology

in other words....you don't conduct a military invasion of a state that is friendly to the communist bloc unless you yourself are a nuclear super power or are allied to and have the approval and full support of a nuclear super power before said invasion...

This sounds reasonable, but still, I see it as a huge mistake from the US administration.

In the long term, this has also added a great deal of bad blood to the US-French relations.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Some people think it was a mistake for the US to not invade Cuba or sink Soviet cargo ships carrying nuclear missiles during the Cuban missile crisis.

If avoiding WWIII meant pissing the French off then so be it.

 

[Revolutionary]

This sounds reasonable, but still, I see it as a huge mistake from the US administration.

In the long term, this has also added a great deal of bad blood to the US-French relations.

no doubt, from then on the French tried to distance themselves from American foreign policy, the British chose the opposite route and made sure to inform Washington before conducting any military action

as for it being a mistake I can't really say without seeing the full outcome of US backing...

I think the 2 most likely outcomes from the US backing up Britain, France, and Israel are...

1. the USSR would have back down and left Egypt to the west, it was dealing with a revolution in Hungary at the time and for all the rhetoric and threats to create a mushroom cloud over Paris and London it is doubtful that they would have risk all out global thermonuclear war over Egypt which wasn't even a part of the communist bloc

2. the USSR would have intervened....(ordered by likelyhood)

A. either with a small military force sent to Egypt to force the west out causing a small war similar to Korea

B. or a larger military force invading Israel along with Egypt, with the USSR having lots of support from the Arab world

C. or a larger conflict with the USSR in retaliation invading NATO "friendly" states in the middle east (doubtful)

D. a much larger conflict in which a major war is fought in mainland Europe and the middle east with conventional weapons (highly unlikely)

nuclear war however would simply not happen over Egypt

 

[Plotinus]

Why on earth should the US have backed Britain and France over Suez? The British and French were acting appallingly. They used Israel as a pretext to invade another country for no good reason but simply to try to preserve their own waning power. And, of course, they lied through their teeth in the process. Suez wasn't a disaster because it failed but because it was even attempted in the first place. It's true that the US turned its back on its allies, but sometimes that's the right thing to do, and it most definitely was in this case.

 

[Tee Kay]

The Suez Crisis was a blunder because:

1) Britain, France and Israel did not achieve their main objective: the restoration of the Suez Canal to their control. Sure, it was a military victory, but not a diplomatic one, and in the climate of the Cold War, you need to achieve both.
2) They did not achieve their secondary objective: the fall of Nasser and restoration of a Western puppet in Egypt. Instead, Nasser gained more support.
3) Nasser, having remained in power, was able to build the Aswan Dam. Not only does the completion of this dam increased Soviet influence in the area, but it also caused an ecological disaster not yet solve today.
4) The defeat effectively demote Britain and France from the superpower status. Britain and France had abondon many of their colonial possessions. This leave the USA and the Soviet Union to fight for supremacy.

In the end, no party which was directly involved won. Britain and France were demoted and demoralised, Israel gained little from the experience in Sinai except for perhaps greater hatred from Arabs, Egypt was in the long run crippled by Nasser's unrealistic ambitions, the US now had to take over the UK's role as protector of Western interests in the region, which led to US-organised coups in Iraq and Syria, which backfired and indirectly led to the rise to power of people like Saddam Hussein and Assad.

 

[GinandTonic]

The Suez Crisis was a blunder because:

1) Britain, France and Israel did not achieve their main objective: the restoration of the Suez Canal to their control. Sure, it was a military victory, but not a diplomatic one, and in the climate of the Cold War, you need to achieve both.
2) They did not achieve their secondary objective: the fall of Nasser and restoration of a Western puppet in Egypt. Instead, Nasser gained more support.
3) Nasser, having remained in power, was able to build the Aswan Dam. Not only does the completion of this dam increased Soviet influence in the area, but it also caused an ecological disaster not yet solve today.
4) The defeat effectively demote Britain and France from the superpower status. Britain and France had abondon many of their colonial possessions. This leave the USA and the Soviet Union to fight for supremacy.

In the end, no party which was directly involved won. Britain and France were demoted and demoralised, Israel gained little from the experience in Sinai except for perhaps greater hatred from Arabs, Egypt was in the long run crippled by Nasser's unrealistic ambitions, the US now had to take over the UK's role as protector of Western interests in the region, which led to US-organised coups in Iraq and Syria, which backfired and indirectly led to the rise to power of people like Saddam Hussein and Assad.

Well said sir.

 

[silver 2039]

I happen to have a research essay on the Suez Crisis, and how it beniffited Egypt to the detriment of the West saved on my other comp. Once my other comp comes back online I will post it here.

 

[Steph]

In De Gaulle's view, it was also seen as evidence France couldn't relly on allies. So France exited NATO integrated command in 1959. And the first French nuclear bomb test in 1960.

 

[Winner]

The Suez Crisis was a blunder because:

1) Britain, France and Israel did not achieve their main objective: the restoration of the Suez Canal to their control. Sure, it was a military victory, but not a diplomatic one, and in the climate of the Cold War, you need to achieve both.
2) They did not achieve their secondary objective: the fall of Nasser and restoration of a Western puppet in Egypt. Instead, Nasser gained more support.
3) Nasser, having remained in power, was able to build the Aswan Dam. Not only does the completion of this dam increased Soviet influence in the area, but it also caused an ecological disaster not yet solve today.
4) The defeat effectively demote Britain and France from the superpower status. Britain and France had abondon many of their colonial possessions. This leave the USA and the Soviet Union to fight for supremacy.

In the end, no party which was directly involved won. Britain and France were demoted and demoralised, Israel gained little from the experience in Sinai except for perhaps greater hatred from Arabs, Egypt was in the long run crippled by Nasser's unrealistic ambitions, the US now had to take over the UK's role as protector of Western interests in the region, which led to US-organised coups in Iraq and Syria, which backfired and indirectly led to the rise to power of people like Saddam Hussein and Assad.

All of this happened because the superpowers forced them to back off. Had they finished it, world would have been a better place.

 

[silver 2039]

All of this happened because the superpowers forced them to back off. Had they finished it, world would have been a better place.

The world would have been a better place or Britian and France and Israel would be in a better posotion? The attack on Egypt would have benefitted only NATO and Israel to the detriment of Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries. The terroist attacks you see now would have started much earlier, more Western backed nations would have fallen in Islamic reveloutions, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, etc... as Pan-Arabic nationalisim hardened and intesified at the blatent Western imperialisim.