Winning an asymmetric war

Frank Pulley

Eisen und blut! It is the only way and any nation that shrinks from applying Bismark's message with manifest and expressed determination when threatened from without - or even within - will surely lose its nationhood. Islamic jihad has declared its intentions and boasts its credentials. It has to be pursued and supressed with determination and unmitigated haste and ruthlessness, wherever it is hiding. Craven protests from weaklings,traitors and appeasers must be ignored with contempt. As for Continental countries that are allegedly part of the allied force, but who keep well away from the action - dump 'em! In fact dump the EU forthwith; reclaim all our sovereign rights and discard all the 'human rights' garbage that has been heaped upon our resolve. Go Yaakov Amidror! And thanks for introducing him to us Melanie.

Ben-Tsiyon

Spot on, Mr Pulley, but regretfully all this falls upon wifully deaf ears which will consequently become physically deaf when the stupid heads to which they are attached are severed by the barbarians.

Ravi

I have always argued that when you are strong and your opponent is weak then you cannot be constrained by proportionality. We can see that a response way lower than proportionality has led to the deaths of Israeli and Palestinians that could have been avoided if Israel had just smashed the Palestinians militarily some years ago. It requires a response GREATER than proportional and equal because anything less suggest weakness and reluctance to respond. I think Israel could have broken Hezbollah in 2-3 days with the UN needing an emergency meeting and brokering a surrender by Nasrallah. When Japan attacked the USA, just as Hezbollah attacked Israel, it was finally resolved with Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The Japanese surrendered. I KNOW I am talking about the lives of innocents here but Israel could have been much tougher on Hezbollah military structures and should have targetted Hezbollah outside of The Lebanon. I don't know if this is true or not but I remember a story from The Lebanon when some Russians were kidnapped. The kidnappers were known. The Russians went after one of their family members and killed him as a retaliation with the message "That was the first of many". The Russians were released and no more Russians were kidnapped. There is no glory in the story and an innocent was killed. But it shows that if you are ruthless from the initial attack then you won't suffer in the long-term. Israel has to show "tough". What people won't give Israel credit for is a superior morality than their enemies, and yet they are still demonised. Better to be hung for a wolf than a lamb.

YA

..homo leftis performed poorly in school.. Guerilla war is tactics, for which thoughtful one will devise effective counter tactics. What is winning in confrontation is the way of life.. But lefti "thinkers" are still convinced that Hezballo sitting in the bush with RPG, is ultimate invincible revolutionary power.

Ann

Spot on indeed, Pulley and Ravi. And as for killing innocents along the way: Israel is the attacked party, and has suffered many innocent deaths. A very strong response so as to smash Hezbollah would save many innocents in the short-, mid- and long-term future. For the same reason, the response to 9/11 must be way above 'proportional' (see another thread). It's simple pragmatism, never mind morally justified.

field

There are a number of inter-related questions here about when you fight and how you fight - and what is your justification for fighting.

My comments:

1. It is absolutely imperative that your cause is just and ethically pursued, particularly in the modern era with a non-deferential culture in the democracies and global communications. Israel fatally weakened itself by a policy of illegal settlements on the West Bank, in Sinai and in Gaza and a refusal to recognise the right of Palestinian Arabs to statehood. Yes - we know what they face on the other side, but first you have to have a principled position. Israel's position for 20 years or more - roughly 1967 to the late 80s was not principled - it was a schizophrenic policy of denial and deceit. Israel is now paying the price for that. It has already given up those illegal settlements in Sinai and Gaza - what a waste of resources and effort! It is prepared to do the same with nearly all the West Bank settlements.

The lesson: be just.

2. This soldier doesn't seem to have any understanding of what is round the corner. The terrorists will soon be able to lob poison on to Tel Aviv. The Palestinians can do the metal working. Iran can smuggle in the components and the GPS systems for guidance.

Lesson: The idea that you can go in and crack a few skulls and make your country safe is an illusion.

3. Israel needs to establish the state of Israel on a firm footing. That can only be done by agreeing to share Jerusalem or internationalise it. Everything else will flow from that. This is not a time for negotiation, it is a time for principle. Only if Israel's statehood is placed on a completely legal and rational basis can she then regain the backing of the democracies and neutralise a lot of the opposition. Of course there is going to be a hard core of anti-Semitic and Islamic opposition it is a vital first step to isolate that opposition.

4. Ultimately Israel cannot defend itself because ultimately Israel is indeed engaged in assymetrical warfare - what? 7 million against some 1 billion surrounding Muslims. In response to a genocidal attack from Iran maybe it can incinerate Riyadh and Mecca and Tehran. OK, that's then 0 Israelis left against say 800 million Muslims as opposed to 1 billion. That's the way a lot of Islamists think I am afraid.

Only the US and its allies can effect regime change in Tehran for instance that will REALLY make Israel safer.

Tony Allwright

Maj-Gen Yaakov Amidror and Melanie are of course right.

I am surprised she didn't also cite the Northern Ireland peace process, which came about only after the IRA was if - not defeated - neutralised, giving the British army in effect a ‘sufficient victory’.

Its tactics were often along the ruthless lines described by Amidror. For example, that (in)famous ambush by the SAS in Gibraltar killed three IRA unarmed terrorists in 1988, who were planning to blow up the weekly changing-of-the-guard ceremony. Many still complain that their human rights were abused, but it had a salutary effect on the IRA.

Only after many encounters and other dirty tricks were Sinn Fein/IRA willing to talk peace, and in fact sought it out.

Today, all of Ireland is the better for it.

YA

field: Territorial loss is the price Palestinian Arabs pay for their support of terrorism. Settlements is also a tactics aimed at reducing of operational base of terror. Legality issue is the weakest argument since legality of 1967 or 1947 borders is disputable. How far do you want to roll back history? Would it be legal to set up the reference point of justice at pre-Muhamed time, send all Arabs to where they came from, to Arabia, and remove all illegal Arab settlements from the Middle East? Not dubious historical narratives, but proper regard of facts should dictate the choice of tactics. Facts are simple: Arabs do not recognize any Jewish state in any part of Palestine as legal phenomenon. They are systematic and persistent in their terror war. They are given considerable support from outside, always totalitarian forces. And another one, Israel lacks strategic depth. And another one, Israel has significant Arabic population, whereas all territories around, under Arab control, are demonstrably and proudly Judenrein. In these circumstances, the solution to extend Israel to Judea/Samaria is 100% justified. No country for bad men, that's it.

Max

Amidror is right, as virtually everyone here recognises. Sadly one has to factor in an additional consideration - the Islamo-fascist cult of martyrdom. That's where the idea of "sufficient victory" may fall down, since the Islamic world offers a vast hinterland from which terror spectaculars can be organised, meaning that "sufficient victory" would turn out to be insufficient. Since Islam is currently unwilling to compromise on its objectives, western thinking needs to engage with it and win the war of ideas with Islam, itself. There's precious little sign of that happening, but it has to happen if the cult of martyrdom is to wither on the vine.
Field, your first point misdirected and misleading. There's nothing illegal about the "settlements", and giving up land to the "Palestinians" has done nothing to reduce terror. The Jordanians would have had the West Bank back in 1968, had they not subscribed to the Khartoum Declaration. Have the Arabs been in any way forced to miss so many opportunities for peace over the last 60 years?

field

Tony -

As Matthew Parris once pointed out the IRA were actually restrained. They could at any time have planted a massive bomb on the London Underground. They chose not to.

Islamists will not be restrained. You have to understand the enemy if you want to defeat them.

Ian G

Field.

Israel's legal status is sound. There is plenty of material on this blog and elsewhere demonstrating that. Jerusalem does not need to be internationalised. This is just another naked attempt to deny Israel its ancient and historic capital.

You are the one asserting anti-Semitic claims. The Muslims would love to internationalise Jerusalem. They know that an international force (UN) will run like rabbits when a Muslim army marches in.

Ultimately, Israel will be defended. It has a history of survival against all odds.

Your honeyed words are deceptive. You would divide the Land, divide the Capital, defeat the Nation and deny the God of Israel.

You need to repent. I am not Jewish, to my knowledge, but I have no intention of setting myself up against the Shepherd of Israel. You, by your words, seek to invite Israel to place its faith in foreign alliances. The prophets have always been against you.

field

Ian G.

You may be looking forward to the "end days" and being lifted up in "rapture". Most sensible people want to carry on living with their loved ones around them, not be incinerated by some Mad Mullah.

The UN does not recognise the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and neither does the UK government or the EU for that matter. I not even sure the USA recognises the annexation. So I'm hardly holding an extreme view.

If you believe in Jews occupying again the lands they did in ancient times, then of course you are arguing for them having control of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Is that what you want?

No one's saying Israel can't have Jerusalem as their capital.

David Lodge

Indeed, Ms. Philips, but in the absence of determination and clear leadership from the top, the forces of terrorism will win, as many instances from recent history - in the West at least - demonstrate.

David Lodge

Ravi.

The story I heard was that the Russians nabbed the brother of the ringleader, cut his ear off and sent it to his family.......with the same result, I might add, proving your point.

Ann

"Only if Israel's statehood is placed on a completely legal and rational basis" - this comment proves all on its tod that you have no clue whatsoever. Israel is as 'legal' as any country on earth.

Verity

Well said, Frank Pulley - as always - and Ravi.

Amidror is brilliant, even if only for having the nerve in the face of the emotionally correct thinkers running so much of the West today to state the obvious. Ruthlessness works.

Islamic terrorists know that they can punch way, way above their intellectual weight irrational and unexpected violence - a definition of terrorism.

The cause of the West is to continue to be free and secular. We have the power, but we must slash the fetters with which the left tries - with alarming success - to bind us.

President Truman was a man of enormous moral courage. The Japanese made the mistake of involving the United States in their loathesome war. President Truman instinctively knew what to do.

Instinctively, we do, too. Either way, innocents will die. Rather it be their innocents than ours. Too bad, but they are the aggressors.

field

Ann -

It is modern Israel's misfortune to be born in an era when international law is taken seriously. I am not calling into question Israel's legality. I am saying that the attempt in the 1960s and 70s to expand its borders was a misguided, adventurist policy. The annexation of Jersualem was part of that policy. Jerusalem was never awarded to Israel under the original UN partition. It was meant to be internationalised. Now is a good time to take a serious look again at that partition provision. I think it is not impossible that one could get the back of representatives of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism for that approach.

I think ultimately a workable peace treaty would involve an international zone for the religious heart of Jerusalem, a return of most of East Jerusalem to Arab control but formal recognition of some part of the annexation.

field

Ann -

It is modern Israel's misfortune to be born in an era when international law is taken seriously. I am not calling into question Israel's legality. I am saying that the attempt in the 1960s and 70s to expand its borders was a misguided, adventurist policy. The annexation of Jersualem was part of that policy. Jerusalem was never awarded to Israel under the original UN partition. It was meant to be internationalised. Now is a good time to take a serious look again at that partition provision. I think it is not impossible that one could get the back of representatives of the three major religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism for that approach.

I think ultimately a workable peace treaty would involve an international zone for the religious heart of Jerusalem, a return of most of East Jerusalem to Arab control but formal recognition of some part of the annexation.

Water

Melanie if only I didn't have exams!

steve

Not all terrorist groups are the same and tactics need to differ from place to place. The Tamil Tigers, who pioneered suicide bombings well before any Islamic group, are not the same as al-Qaeda. Nor is Hezbollah the same as al-Qaeda. To lump Sunni and Shia groups together as if they are part of one indistinguishable mass is ultimately self defeating and not a position anyone in either government or intelligence services would take.

Ron

Career terrorists are driven by their love of power and violence and will not change their 'ideology' or stop on their own accord unless they are stopped by force or just get tired of this kind of life. Many of those who leave terrorism turn to a life of crime which they find easy to fit into.There is no way to appease them but it is possible to break them with enough pressure applied.
Governments sort of understand that when they refuse to nagotiate with terrorists but then shoot themselves in the foot when they look the other way all too often.
Terrorists should not be appeased just like criminals aren't.

john

A failure of legitimate governments to grasp the nettle and carry through the fight until the enemy is crushed beyond recognition will inevitably lead to civil war between those who seek to impose terror and those who will not allow that to happen. In the resulting violence legimitate politicians and parties, in whom the electorate have place their trust, will be thoroughly discredited and a possible appeal to extremist foces.

Ben-Tsiyon

Hurrah for the Ian Gs of this world !

Thom

I agree wholeheartedly with this man; it is a pity that he makes these quite reasonable comments and study in a period in British history that will no doubt be known as "the age of the wibble".

You should point out though Melanie that this does not necessarily conclude that all asymmetrical wars have to involve collective punishment necessarily - Israel has successfully proved this by targetted responses against terrorist cells, leaders and groups for years and it is only since adapting to this hole (i.e. terrorists now locating themselves *preferentially* in residential blocks to maximise civilian and collateral damage) that the leadership is faltering quite badly.

All it will take is determination and a more sophisticated fight taken to the terrorists themselves.

That said I have always wondered this; why are our troops not planting mines and IED's themselves on military routes? They could catalogue them, proscribe road travel in regions of Iraq and Afganistan and attack the terrorist groups at their own game.

Ann

"Jerusalem was never awarded to Israel under the original UN partition" - it is not for the UN to 'award' Israel anything. The partition plan was dead the moment the Arabs rejected it. Anything that followed made the partition plan more and more irrelevant (well, OK, it can't get any more irrelevant than be dead and buried, but I am saying this for the sake of people like you who simply don't get it, and think that Israel has to prove to them on an ongoing basis that it is entitled to be there. It doesn't). The ceasefire lines of 1948/49 and the armistice signed in Rhodes, in turn, were dead the moment that Jordan started shelling Jerusalem in June 1967. Sorry, that's how it goes. Jordan occupied East Jerusalem until 1967, and the whole 'international status' became dead as the dodo. Neither you nor anyone else can dictate to Israel that it must go back to 1949. Forget it, mate. This is 2008, Israel is there by virtue of everything that's happened, and you won't turn back the clock as a useful fool of the Arabs.

Ian Miller

For those you who haven't bother to read Maj-Gen Yaakov Amidror document, I will summarise how he says you win an asymmetric war in one sentence. "You behave like the Nazis." The reason for the length of the article is that he is trying to disguise this with verbosity.

Of course, terrorists can be militarily defeated. They just cannot be militarily defeated by a vaguely civilised country. If you are happy to see your country divest itself of any pretense of civilised behaviour then and only then can you militarily defeat terrorism.

Anyone who supports Maj-Gen Yaakov Amidror's approach either is wholly without morals or deluded.

I, for one, prefer to work towards a just society where terrorism will be, while not eliminated, so rare as to be irrelevant. I would argue that it already is in most places. Even in Israel you are ten times more likely to be killed by a careless motorist than by a terrorist. In the UK, it is at least a factor of a thousand. Anyone who wets themselves over the current almost non-existent "terrorist threat" in the UK is an abject coward.

Ann

And the writer has never been to Israel, that much is obvious: he knows nil about the situation there, and cares less.

Ann

And the writer of the above post has never been to Israel, that much is obvious: he knows nil about the situation there, and cares less.

Ben-Tsiyon

Clearly, Major-Gen Yaakov Amidror is a plain-speaking man, and so he should be ! In the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny: "You gotta fight fire with fire !". Of course, one can bet upon someone of Ian Miller's persuasion seizing upon the Major-Gen's use of the word "Nazi". It's a favourite ploy among Israel bashers. Ian Miller is another appeaser in the Chamberlain mould who wishes to delude himself that the terrorist threat in the UK is "almost non-existent! Maybe he and his kind will be the ones to wet themselves if they ever allow themselves to face the truth.

Frank Pulley

I'll try again to get this past the moderator.

Though Miller’s post hardly deserves the oxygen of a response, I did unsuccessfully try to answer his nonsense last night, in the small wee hours, out of respect for the thousands of victims of Islamic Jihad during the past decades; some of the atrocities have been perpetrated before our very eyes and I knew and admired some of the people who bravely died in the in the Twin Towers attacks trying to save lives. Mr Miller treats them actuarially as statistics “no worse than traffic accidents”. I wondered whether he might be a cynical insurance settler? (In my previous rejected attempt to respond, I used a different adjective than cynical – which may have disturbed the sensitivities of the moderator).

He also accuses as cowards those who wish to avenge the death-cult victims of religio-political madmen and prevent what appears to be a prolonged and perhaps inexorable attack on Western Society; to defend our nation and our way of life. What rank hypocrisy! How he expects a civilised country to remain civilised if it cowers before the barbarians and tries to appease them and accommodate them, I cannot imagine. And to summarise Maj-Gen. Amidror's ‘s paper in the way that he did would probably be defamatory were it not so puerile. The work is an important military document that I hope will become a blueprint for Western action.

Ere long I suspect that Dusty, dim and Dhimmi that he is will be assuming the arse-west position at the behest of the Muezzin five times a day. Now there’s cowardice! SOB.

And in case you wish to interpret that as another piece of scatology Mr Moderator. It means ‘Save our Britain’. Mr Miller can interpret it anyway he likes, but I think he knows what I mean.

Alf Tupper

Ian Miller

You're reading politics at Aberystwyth right?

Simon Newman

You can win asymmetric war by

(A) co-opting the enemy, as in Anbar or Ulster;
(B) destroying the enemy's structure and will to fight (Malaya - but rare), or
(C) by physically destroying the enemy - which in asymmetric war means the enemy population, as in the Syrian destruction of Hama.

British tactics in the Boer War fell somewhere between B & C.

Asymmetric wars are not unwinnable, but Western armies are not designed to fight them, and Western Human Rights culture is very hostile to any attempt to fight them. All in all it seems best, where possible, not to fight them.

Mark

Isn't what is interesting about Amidor's piece that it attempts to refute some hoary old myths about asymetric warfare that have become too easilly accepted as truths.

I particularly liked his interpretation of the falling age of terrorists as in fact a sign of success of anti terrorism. So often the phenomemnon is greeted in the West by knicker wetting about how strong the terrorists must be if they can field such youths.

And Israel has experience of this - not just very young attempting terrorists but also mentallly defective ones. Appalling yes, but rather like the blowing up of innocent Muslims by the laughably called "resistence" in Iraq, a sign of their depravity - not ours.