INTO THE FRAY: The perils of postponing preemption

For your perusal, my latest INTO THE FRAY column:

The perils of postponing preemption

(Kindly consider “liking”, sharing, tweeting – please use hash-tag ‪#‎IntoFray)

Israel is approaching a point when it must decide to destroy enemy capabilities, rather than attempting to deter the enemy from using them.

ISRAELI FRONTLINE: http://www.israelifrontline.com/2018/03/fray-perils-postponing-preemption.html
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS: www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21794
ISRAEL RISING: https://www.israelrising.com/perils-postponing-preemption/
ISRAPUNDIT: https://www.israpundit.org/into-the-fray-the-perils-of-postponing-preemption/
JERUSALEM HERALD: https://www.jerusalem-herald.com/single-post/2018/03/03/INTO-THE-FRAY-The-Perils-of-Postponing-Preemption
JEWS DOWN UNDER: https://jewsdownunder.com/2018/03/03/fray-perils-postponing-preemption/
JEWISH PRESS: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/into-the-fray-martin-sherman/into-the-fray-perils-of-postponing-preemption/2018/03/05/
JNS: https://www.jns.org/opinion/the-perils-of-postponing-preemption/
MEDIUM: https://medium.com/@martinsherman/into-the-fray-the-perils-of-postponing-preemption-f91b93bb792c
MIDA: http://en.mida.org.il/2018/03/04/perils-postponing-preemption/

Several short excerpts:

To remain at peace when you should be going to war may be often very dangerous…Let us attack and subdue…that we may ourselves live safely for the future. – Thucydides (c. 460–395 BCE)

No government, if it regards war as inevitable, even if it does not want it, would be so foolish as to wait for the moment which is most convenient for the enemy. – Otto von Bismarck (1815–1890)

…it is possible that the dangers into which we are steadily advancing would never have arisen. But the world and the Parliaments and public opinion would have none of that.. When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure… Winston Churchill (1874-1965), House of Commons, May 2, 1935.

In the past few days, senior IDF officers have publicly warned that the chances of war on Israel’s northern border in 2018 are growing significantly –see for example here and here.

100,000 missiles just for show?

Hezbollah missiles: Just for show?
Hezbollah missiles: Just for show?

Since the end of the 2006 Lebanon War, poorly conducted—and even more poorly concluded—by the Olmert government, the arsenal of the Iranian terror proxy, Hezbollah has grown exponentially…Indeed, no one even vaguely familiar with the brutal nature of the organization—its gory past, and chilling proclamations of future intent—could even remotely entertain the hopelessly naïve belief that it was stockpiling over 100,000 missiles just for show.

Who decides when?

Given the assumption that, bolstered by its patron’s pervasive physical presence, Hezbollah will in all likelihood, eventually, use the vast arsenal at its disposal, the inevitable question is: Will Israel allow its deadly adversary to choose the time, place and circumstances for a major attack against it? Indeed, more to the point, can Israel afford to allow Hezbollah such a choice?

“Unprecedented threat to infrastructure…”  

Israel: A nation under threat
Israel: A nation under threat

… former government minister, Gideon Sa’ar, and experienced Israeli air force veteran, Ron Tira, point out: “Israel is exceptionally vulnerable to attack by precision weapons, as on the one hand it is an advanced Western country dependent on sophisticated technologies, and on the other it is small, with very concentrated infrastructures and very little redundancy.”

Degrading deterrence?  

Moreover, if a surprise precision missile attack were launched at Israel’s major air bases, even if the aircraft were left unscathed, damage to runways and infrastructure could render them inoperative—thus crippling, or at least severely curtailing, Israeli ability to retaliate…After all, the very perception of the feasibility of such a scenario on the part of the enemy could, in itself, erode Israeli deterrence, based as it is—at least in conventional contexts—largely on airpower.

But for the grace of God?

Operation Protective Edge- Rockets fired into Israel from Gaza: What if Hezbollah had joined in?
Operation Protective Edge- Rockets fired into Israel from Gaza: What if Hezbollah had joined in?

Certainly, with regard to Hezbollah, claims that it has been deterred, rather than compelled to regroup, rearm and redeploy—seem, to be charitable, unpersuasive. After all, what adversary, if deterred, proceeds immediately to expand their offensive capabilities by over a thousand percent?!..Indeed, it is an open question as to whether Hezbollah—had it not been enmeshed in the Syrian civil war in 2014—would have joined…in a coordinated bombardment of Israeli cities to overwhelm the defensive capabilities of the Iron Dome anti-missile system.

Deterrence vs. preemption: the doctrinal clash 

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I have been warning for years that successive Israeli governments have been backing away from confrontations in which Israel can prevail, thereby risking backing the country into a confrontation in which it may not—or only do so at exorbitant costs…. there is a doctrinal clash between the ability to attain effective deterrence and to achieve successful preemption. After all, in order to deter adversaries, one needs to convince them that they will suffer unacceptable damage were they to attack. But to convey such a message, one needs to reveal one’s capabilities to wreak such devastation—for otherwise, how could one’s potential attacker be convinced not to attack?…By contrast, successful preemption typically calls for surprise to overwhelm the enemy with an unexpected assault—which requires concealing one’s capabilities so that the enemy cannot make preparations to thwart them.

1967 triumph vs 1973 trauma 

In weighing this strategic dilemma, Israel’s leadership will…have to decide whether they are willing to risk sacrificing Israeli lives to appease the deity of political correctness…In making this decision, it may well be instructive for today’s policymakers to look back at the nation’s history and compare the triumph preemption brought in 1967, to the trauma wrought by deterrence failure in 1973.

Seen in this light, the lesson seems unequivocal… Or is that just me?

As usual your talkbacks/comments/critiques welcome,
Best wishes,
MS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *