Marvin: The 1967 war was much bigger in scope compared to this battle, but the basic principles of deception and of taking advantage of unwariness stemming from a religious observance remain about the same.
Marvin Long Austin, Texas Me: No, not really. That's why we have such things as laws of war, why there are honorable and dishonorable ways of conducting a war - and of beginning one, for that matter. In particular, in the case that you are describing, the Hessians were foreign mercenaries suppressing a just rebellion against a dictatorial government. They were, in other words, fighting an _unjust_ war - as such, the bounds of what those fighting a just war could do to them are considerably more expansive. The Arab countries were fighting an _unjust_ war - they were launching an unprovoked attack on an innocent state. In and of itself, that is immoral and attacking on Yom Kippur was an aggravating factor. Even more strikingly, the Hessians were already at war. Tactical surprise (what George Washington achieved) is the objective of any commander. What the Arab countries did is more analagous to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. They _began_ an unjust war of aggression with a surprise attack that in and of itself violated the laws of war, and compounded the offense against morality by launching it during a time of religious festivities. There is a very large difference between what you do when a state of war exists and how you begin that state. By choosing to attack in the way they did, the Arab countries did no more than dramatize their moral collapse. There's all the difference in the world. Gautam
