Top commanders to devote three days to defining what comprises a win against terrorist organizations, who claim their continued existence as a victory, rather than state armies, and what issues need to be addressed to ensure an Israeli victory.
By Lilach Shoval, ISRAEL HAYOM
IDF soldiers inspect a Hezbollah attack tunnel on the northern border
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi has decided to hold a three-day seminar the first week in March devoted to how Israel can win a clear, decisive, irrefutable victory in the next war it fights.
Kochavi announced the seminar prior to being sworn in as IDF chief on Jan. 15. The IDF has appointed a number of teams that are charged with defining what comprises an IDF victory in each of their particular fields and what issues or problems need to be addressed to ensure that victory.
All members of the General Staff are slated to take part in the “Victory Seminar,” as it is being called, as well as division commanders and the IDF’s main brigadier generals. The seminar comprises the start of the IDF’s multi-year work plan, which will take effect in 2020.
The commanders are slated to work in groups to discuss changes in the IDF, changes with the enemy and how to secure a military victory in light of those changes and the use of advanced technology.
Nor will the teams restrict themselves to looking forward. Kochavi has instructed participating commanders to prepare a “genealogy” of the entity for which they are responsible that will cover the history of the various sections of the IDF.
After the seminar, the IDF’s top commanders will devote a few days to a summation of the material discussed and then 10 teams will be appointed to assemble the military’s work plan, which the IDF expects to be ready by July. By that time, a new government should be in place to approve it.
In his first speech as chief of staff, Kochavi did not disguise his goal of victory, saying that “Victory and mission focus are our main values and we will approach every mission we undertake or with which we are charged with precision and determination and all the tools we have.”
Kochavi said that part of his mission as chief of staff would be to make the IDF “lethal, efficient and innovative.”
The question of what comprises a military victory today is a complicated one that the upper echelon of the IDF has spent considerable time addressing. Originally, the IDF was constructed to fight wars against countries, but in recent years the threats have undergone a sea change. Whereas in the past Israel was locked in an existential struggle against standing armies, in recent decades the threats have become asymmetric and non-conventional.
The primary tactic wielded against Israel is terrorism, which is generally not considered a threat to Israel’s existence, whereas the non-conventional threat of nuclear annihilation is not considered a realistic scenario at this stage.
The enemies the IDF now faces operates at a low profile, from inside urban areas and underground. Whereas in the past, the IDF had to wage a lethal blow to the center of gravity of the enemy division it was facing, it now faces a multiplicity of “centers of gravity,” many of which are concealed, and a different approach is required.
Hamas and Hezbollah have frequently crowed that they see the fact that they still exist after their repeated clashes as a victory. However, Hezbollah’s theory that a lack of total defeat is a victory might have changed recently, with the Shiite organization placing more emphasis on heavy losses for Israel.
Either way, in the next full-scale conflict against terrorist entities, it might be difficult for either side to declare an absolute victory, but it will be vital for each side to secure the appearance of a victory.
“When it comes to a country vs. a terrorist organization, we don’t know how to present the picture of victory. What’s strong isn’t photogenic,” one senior commander once said. “Victory should come as a puzzle whose pieces are put together through hard work.”
Israel loses when it wins, because decisive victories over small bands of urban terrorists always make the actions of its army look “disproportionate.” But what if Israel’s strategy combines political and diplomatic offensives with military ones?
Can Israel not state to the world that it has been fighting multiple terrorist groups, funded by Iran and other countries, for more than 50 years? Can it not state that the Israeli people are, naturally, exhausted by the unending attacks of a people driven not by an authentic desire to build their own state but by the Arab and Muslim supremacist values and beliefs that demand the Jewish state be destroyed? What if Israel made such a statement to the world, saying that, under these circumstances—unending streams of rocket attacks, stabbings, rammings, bombings, home invasions, arsons, etc.—Israel is under no obligation to indulge or coddle its enemies, simply because asymmetric warfare is their weapon of choice. For a victory over Israel through a strategy of exhausting its people with decades of asymmetric warfare is a victory, no less deadly for Israelis and the modern Jewish state than would be its defeat by any standing army of an enemy state.
Israel could announce its intentions, and its warning to all of its enemies, that any further attacks against it will be met with the force necessary to achieve victory at whatever time and place it chooses. In this way, Israel changes the optics it has struggled to overcome for years. Of course, there will be those who will condemn anything Israel does to defend itself. The point is, Israel should not limit its vision of victory to only military strategies and tactics. It must find ways to change the optics, too.