Peloni: The attack on October 7 has been too long held as a comparison to Yom Kippur. With the decisive actions of the recent twin assassinations, Israel has changed the paradigm of one of response to one of initiative, and we have seen how that initiative has served to draw our enemies to hesitate when they should have already acted. Israel must continue to maintain the initiative, and must not herself hesitate to follow one victory with another. The momentum is ours to lose. Let us not lose it.
Hezbollah failed to attack Israel on October 7, missing a chance to open a second front that could have been devastating for Israel; although there can be no surprise attack in the conflict, Israeli initiative could win the war
Brigadier General (res.) Amir Avivi | August 8, 2024
Hezbollah rocket attack on Western Galilee
“In war, there is but one favorable moment, the great art is to seize it.” This quote by Napoleon remains one of the most fundamental principles of warfare to this day. Our adversary in the north had such a moment on the morning of October 7 but failed to seize it.
When I heard reports of the outbreak of war in Gaza, I waited with great vigilance for similar news from the north. When none came, I felt a slight relief, despite the terrible news from the south. That Saturday morning was the perfect moment for the enemy, a moment when we were caught by strategic surprise.
An attack from another front, especially the northern one, would have led to outcomes I don’t even want to imagine. “There is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come in one moment,” our sages of blessed memory said. Fortunately, our enemy did not acquire his share with a strategic surprise.
Is this our moment? A strategic surprise like Pearl Harbor or the Six-Day War seems unattainable for either side at the moment. Both sides are already engaged in mutual hostilities; one might even call it war. Either way, both sides are alert and on guard. However, there is an additional advantage in taking the initiative with a preemptive strike, even in the absence of strategic surprise.
Taking the initiative, as opposed to waiting, which results in absorption or containment, derives from the principle known as the OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) – a decision-making model developed by military strategist and United States Air Force Colonel John Boyd.
The third component of the model refers to deciding on taking action and is based on the processes that precede it. These, in turn, are based on the given situation at that moment in the battlefield. However, an attack initiative by one side completely changes the data upon which the other side’s plans are based.
One of the early philosophers in ancient Greece, Heraclitus, said: “No man ever steps in the same river twice.” Allegedly, each one of us can perform an experiment that would disprove this claim. However, Heraclitus intended that reality changes all the time and therefore the river is no longer the same river (and the foot stepping in it is no longer the same foot). This is exactly the idea behind taking the initiative of the attack – changing the river in such a way that all the opponent’s plans are no longer suitable for that “new” river.
Taking the initiative has immense value in every field, especially when it comes to maneuvering armies during wartime. It is not merely semantics. “Who dares, wins,” said Colonel David Stirling, who founded the Special Air Service (SAS). This is true not only for military purposes. It also applies to economics, sports, and even science. War is not a tennis match that requires waiting for the opponent’s serve and reacting to it, but rather a simultaneous sequence that requires initiative and, no less, continuity of that offensive opening.
Humans crave certainty and are willing to pay for it. This is the reason why insurance companies exist or why there is a premium on high-risk loans. But in war, one cannot buy insurance policies. There is no certainty on the battlefield in any case. Therefore, even choosing a passive method of operation is a high-risk choice that provides no certainty. Accordingly, I see only one good course of action on the northern border: Act first. As General George Patton is reputed to have said: “In case of doubt, attack!”
Brigadier General (res.) Amir Avivi is the chairman and founder of the Israel Defense and Security Forum – IDSF (Habithonistim)
ADAM_
Nuclear bombs would NEVER be used. There are too many valid arguments against it, besides throwing the world into unutterable chaos for the next 100 years, destroying national systems and boundaries, letting loose rapacious mercenaries and so much more evil than can be estimated.
Far faer too Dystopian.
CAROFF>VIVARTO
America would NEVER act against ISRAEL except in the less than subtle ways it does now. Never Open aggression. Their people wouldn’t stand for it. Far too long a staunch ally and eyes and ears of the Middle East, besides MUCH MUCH more.
Re vivarto remark, “America will act against Israel if Israel destroys Iran” [paraphrasing] takes my previous comment out of context since I did not say Israel should preemptively destroy Iran.
What I said was Israel should .hit Iran with preemptive SURGICAL strikes on strategic military and economic targets. This would not “destroy” Iran. What it would do would be to significantly reduce Iran’s military and economic power, and deter Iran and its proxies from escalating their attacks on Israel while, at the same time, minimize civilian casualties in Iran.
While the Biden-Harris regime may vociferously criticize an Israeli preemptive attack on Hezbollah and/or Iran, it will likely not go beyond verbal criticism and perhaps a feckless UN resolution. Even so, we know the Biden-Harris regime criticizes Israel even when Israel does not strike the first blow.
@Isra1966. The “probalem” with this approach is that Russia, or the United states or both might /nuke: us in retaliation, and thereby score points for themselves in the Islamic world.
80 million Iranians vs almost 8 million Israelis vs Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis for the moment.
How do you win unless you NUKE them all first, or like Golda Meir said to her generals when they warned her about Yom Kippur, “I DON’T WANT THE WORLD TO CONDEMN US”.
SO, IT’S BETTER TO DIE?
There is no valor in being destroyed which will then put every Jew in the world in danger as well.
USE THE NUKES YOU HAVE WHICH IS OVER 200 AND YOU NEED ONLY A FEW AND BE LIKE TRUMAN AND DESTROY YOUR ENEMY AND I’M SORRY THAT GERMANY HAD ALREADY SURRENDERED SO THAT GERMANY COULDN’T HAVE MET THE SAME FATE.
HISTORY WILL RECORD WHAT HAPPENS NEXT AND I PRAY THAT ISRAEL IS VICTORIOUS.
NEXT TO ALL MY FRIENDS DESTROY GEORGE SOROS AND ALL THE ENEMIES OF THE JEWS WHEREVER THEY ARE.
AM YISRAEL CHAI!!!
If you read the speech by Geert Wilders (“Chilling report from Holland”), you would immediately recognize the importance of what I just said.
Vivarto… That would be a really bad decision on the part of the US. However a gutting of Hezbollah would serve the purpose very well in the meantime.
@vivarto
True enough. If he had been, October 7 would never have happened.
@Marc Caroff
The danger in destroying Iran is that America will act against Israel.
America may actually support Iran, when it retaliates.
However Brigadier General (res.) Amir Avivi, is not in charge of the IDF…
Other fundamental principles of warfare that Israel would be wise to consider at this point in time are:
“The best defense is a good offense,” and “If your enemy is about to strike you, strike him first!”
Of course, these principles further reinforce General Avivi’s conclusion that the time is ripe for a preemptive strike on Hezbollah.
In my opinion, these principles have even greater relevance with respect to concluding that the time is ripe for preemptive surgical strikes on Iran’s strategic sea ports, airports, drone and missile manufacturing plants, oil assets and, last but not least, on Iran’s facilities for expediting production of nuclear weapons.