This is one of the most insightful and important articles/interviews that I have read in a long time: Why Hamas is still standing – analysis. Ran Baratz, who teaches military doctrine at the IDF's National Defense College, asserts that Israel's military has been negatively impacted by postmodern military doctrines, and he says that this is also a major problem for other Western democracies. He identifies the development of nuclear weapons and the end of the Cold War as two events that influenced postmodern military doctrines that rely on "precision-guided munitions" and "shock and awe" in contrast to the traditional military doctrine that focuses on obtaining victory by destroying the enemy's capability to fight.
After Israel's failure to win the Second Lebanon War (2006), former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Shomron pointedly noted that Israel's tactics had shifted from results-oriented to "effects"-oriented. Shomron lamented, "We used to hit the enemy on the head with a club—and then he felt the effects."
Baratz explains, "The postmodern IDF's approach was to try to reach the 'effects' stage without the intermediate clubbing phase, which, unsurprisingly, turned out not to work in the real world." He correctly identifies former Prime Minister Shimon Peres--one of the all-time darlings of the Left--as someone who played a major role in Israel's embrace of flawed postmodern military doctrines.
I am puzzled and upset when Israel almost immediately announces after a terrorist attack, in triumphant fashion, that it knew where the terrorist lived and has now destroyed the terrorist's house after first evacuating the inhabitants. If Israel has such in depth knowledge about where her enemies are, then why doesn't Israel destroy her enemies and end the war without allowing so many of her civilians to be slaughtered? Israel's actions makes no sense unless you buy the twin delusional notions that (1) peace is possible with an enemy who has sworn to stop at nothing to destroy you and (2) limited reactions to terrorist murders provide effective deterrence. The tragic reality is that (1) Israel's enemies will kill or be killed because they have pledged their lives to their goals of subjugating Israel followed by subjugating the rest of the non-Islamic world and (2) such "deterrence" not only has no military effect but it also has a negative public relations effect, because media outlets much prefer to show a destroyed house owned by Arabs/Muslims than the victims of Arab/Islamic terrorism.
Israel also brags about using "precision-guided munitions" that can
target one person while leaving other people in close proximity
unharmed. Israel seems to be blissfully unaware that no one is impressed by her "precision-guided munitions." Her enemies scoff at Israel's softness while simultaneously complaining to credulous media outlets that Israel is committing "genocide."
Israel should abandon postmodern military doctrines that have repeatedly failed to yield desired results, and embark on a better, bolder path:
1) Scrap all of the "precision-guided munitions" and revert to using good old-fashioned "dumb" bombs. Israel's enemies would then directly pay the heavy price of attacking Israel, and they would know that Jewish blood is no longer cheap.
2) Stop bragging about military successes (real and imagined). Move in silence. Don't let the enemy know what to expect, and don't tell the enemy afterward what you did or did not do.
The harsh reality is that Israel and the West will either defeat the Islamists, or the Islamists will force the world to submit to Islamic law. This war will not be ended by negotiations or concessions, and it certainly will not be ended by delusional postmodern military doctrines focused on "effects" and deterrence.
Baratz concludes: "When do you need the military? For the
moment that deterrence fails. So the military shouldn't be allowed to think about deterrence. It should live by the assumption that deterrence
has failed and now it is required. As long as the enemy understands that your military is capable of winning, they are deterred. It's a byproduct of your actual war abilities. You do not deter your enemy by persuading him and by psychological effects."
In Israel Must not Underestimate Hezbollah the Way that Israel Underestimated Hamas, I warned, "I fervently do not want to be the prophet of Israel's destruction, but Israel's destruction is possible if Israel underestimates or ignores the threats posed by Iran, a weakened but not defeated Hamas, and a weakened but not defeated Hezbollah. I warned for many years about the threat posed by Hamas, and I was proven right. I have also warned repeatedly about the threat posed by Iran in general and Hezbollah in particular, and I hope that Israel has learned from her previous grievous mistakes and will act decisively to defeat her evil enemies."
It's a tough battle for Israel. Most of the world thinks Israel is committing genocide even without an agenda, though a lot have an agenda. It's sad and disgusting. Israel has gotten close, but still not close enough to eliminating Hamas. Trump is better than any American liberal president, but he still doesn't fully understand what's going on or what to exactly do. Hamas can still be obliterated and hopefully will eventually unless they surrender which won't happen. If not, you're right and Israel will be attacked again and again especially if Israel allows hundreds of terrorists go free. Hamas is probably the lowliness of enemies that Israel will face, too. There's no shortage of enemies that Israel has.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteI think that a major challenge is that many people do not want to accept uncomfortable truths. For example, the Islamists divide the world into Dar al-Islam versus Dar al-harb, and that concept leaves no room for compromise or surrender; the Islamists will either subjugate Dar al-harb, or they will die trying. Many people do not want to believe that we live in a kill or be killed world. So, instead of accepting the reality of what it will take for the West--not just Israel--to win this war, they speak in ways that deny reality, such as "Why won't Israel give up land for peace?" They ignore obvious facts: (1) Israel has given up land for peace on multiple occasions, (2) giving up land for peace did not work and will not work, (3) no other country that was both the victim of aggression and the winner of a war of self-defense is expected to give land to the aggressor.
The Mideast is not that hard to understand. The challenge is that many people do not want to understand it, because the reality of the situation is uncomfortable for them and does not fit in with the way that they want to view the world. It is much easier to chant antisemitic/anti-Zionist slogans than to face reality.