By Ted Belman
When the US invaded Iraq she was looking for total victory which in practice means the total transformation of the country. She has yet to succeed. Must it be so?
Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror (ICA/JCPA) prepared a study Winning Counterinsurgency War: The Israeli Experience and summarized,
-
Contrary to popular belief, conventional armies can indeed defeat terrorist insurgencies. This study will detail the six basic conditions which, if met, enable an army to fight and win the war against terrorism, among which are control of the ground where the insurgency is being waged, acquiring relevant intelligence for operations against the terrorists themselves, and isolating the insurgency from cross-border reinforcement with manpower or material. It will also examine the factors that can help drive a wedge between the local population and the insurgent forces seeking its support. The principles of war will also be analyzed in terms of their applicability to asymmetric warfare to show how they still serve as a vital guide for armies in vanquishing terror. Finally, the study warns that if the U.S., Israel, or their Western allies incorrectly conclude that they have no real military option against terrorist insurgencies – out of a fear that these conflicts inevitably result in an unwinnable quagmire – then the war on terrorism will be lost even before it is fully waged.
He argued that the goal should be “sufficient victory” and Carolyn Glick asks in her column, “What is sufficient victory?”. After noting,
-
The Olmert-Livni-Barak government’s decision to take down roadblocks throughout Judea and Samaria; provide immunity from arrest to wanted terror fugitives; and permit the deployment of US-backed Fatah militias in Jenin all serve to directly undermine the IDF’s remarkable achievements in defeating and preventing the reconstitution of the Palestinian terror war machine in Judea and Samaria since Operation Defensive Shield was carried out in 2002. Even more disturbingly, its reported willingness to cede the Jordan Valley to Fatah in the negotiations it is now conducting with Fatah leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmed Qurei indicate that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government is ready to transform Judea and Samaria into a base for global jihadist forces just as occurred when Israel surrendered Gaza’s border with Egypt in 2005.
After discussing the various kinds of victory, “sufficient victory” is defined as “defeating an irreconcilable foe and then preventing him from rebuilding his capacity to wage war.” This is what the IDF accomplished in Judea and Samaria and what the Olmert Government is undoing .
Carolyn takes issue with Amdror, arguing there mus also be a political component.
-
First it would involve a concentrated law and order campaign whose aim would be to reassert Israel’s sovereign authority in Israeli Arab areas. Second, it would secure law-abiding Israeli Arabs while delegitimizing the current anti-Israel, pro-terror leadership now in charge of Israeli Arab society and so cultivate the conditions necessary to replace that leadership with Israeli Arabs who embrace their identity as Israelis and oppose terrorism. The impact of such a campaign on the Palestinians in both Judea and Samaria would no doubt be dramatic.
I can do without the Biblical diatribe as expoused as a way out of a perilous situation. Get real brother.
A SUFFICIENT VICTORY for Israel is the establishment and security of Torah borders and the building of a Third Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount while the whole world bows before the God of Israel!
What is SUFFICIENT victory?
The removal of Islam, Communism, and Democratic Treason from planet earth.
Actually, ISLAM as a religion is an occupier of all Islamic minds and Islamic minds have Islamic bodies ready to murder and kill Jews for a Satanic ideolog that will not quit until everyone is dead.
Therefore, Muslims are the occupiers and we can only defend ourselves from this unwanted religion of hate.
What would we do differently if we didn’t have to extract oil and petroleum on their land?
Kill them all of course and start over again.
OIL/PETROLEUM = MONEY
MONEY = SITTING ON THE GOD OF ISRAEL’S THRONE IN SATAN’S SPIRIT OF PRIDE
PRIDE = WAR
WAR started when Satan accused God of being unholy.
Ed – don’t let the remarkable success of Israel in 1967 fool you. In the present day, the defeat in 2006 is what is more likely to any military adventure. Even if you launch a full-scale invasion into these populations, with a healthy tolerance for “huge casualties” it is a recipe for defeat. Look at the US in Iraq. Conquest of land and quelling rebellions was something doable in another time, when individuals resisting couldn’t acquire explosives easily. The blitzkrieg is not difficult; countering the inevitable drip-drip of blowback from the aggrieved population is.
Ted – If Israel had an effective political strategy, there wouldn’t be any more attacks. There would be nothing to fear. From nations or non-state actors over this conflict. Israel is not there yet, because it hasn’t employed a political strategy that bears results.
Ed:
I believe it is awful because of those military victories – because they have saddled the state with occupied territories and people. It takes two hands to clap. Failure also takes two. Arabs will say their entreaties have fallen on Israeli deaf ears. Example: settlement building, an act clearly illegal under international law.
Someone else also raised this point before. It is not a given that peace is only reached after a military victory. Most independence movements were won by the resisting side without any military victory. And in some cases without any use of force.
To mlevin: What ever the political situation in Israel (awful) is today, was the results of military victories. Israel has tried to reason with the Arabs and their efforts have fallen on deaf ears. There is no peace, at hand, without a military victory. Israel must divorce herself from the USA in order for that to happen. Although the USA professes that Israel is their friend, the truth is: the USA has no friends, only interests.
Israel is doing just that in Judea and Samaria.
I agree with Bill that their opinions are only theoretical. Politics is necessary, only, when a full military victory is achieved and that would be to maintain the victory.
In my opinion, as a military guy, the total mobilization of Israel’s force, in an offensive mode, to hit, both, Gaza and Lebanon (perhaps Syria if needed) with a blitzcrieg so hard and fast that the enemy has no time to react. Israel must be prepared to fight on two or even three fronts. It is a very known fact that he who carries the biggest stick wins the fight; however, he must be willing and able to use that stick. In war, caualties are very important; however, in the big picture, huge casualties is inevitable and must be accepted.
They’re right. A “war” against terrorism is unwinnable. Military forces are just not capable of fighting an asymmetric battle. Enemy kills result in enough collateral damage to give rise to even more of the enemy. Any successful counter-terrorism action has to be a political one, one that reduces the virulity of sentiments among populations that offer tacit support to radicals. A radical or militant without the moral support of a significant section of his people becomes irrelevant and branded as a mere criminal or nutjob. Another Aum Shirinkyo. There is little glory in that. On earth or in heaven.
How do you prevent (or reduce) a suicide bomber’s capability to wage war? Not by anything any military or intelligence service can do, unless you had omniscience and omnipotence. The grievances have to be addressed and settled, or there will always be enough malcontents willing to slip through the cracks and attack. See my comment above.
Glick’s theorizing about Amdror’s theorizing is quite a departure from her usual reality based insightful and practical analysis from which she explains, criticizes or condemns what is.
I think Glick and Amdror got bogged down in their own intellectual quagmire.