New Israeli Approach to War?

[Dan Bobbitt]

The high sounding but difficult to discern actual meaning of this new "conceptual-organizational-national revolution combined with technology" (whatever the heck that means) seems awfully reminiscent of Shimon Naveh's equally opaque theory on systemic operational design and how that approach would revolutionize warfare...didn't work out to well in '06 against a hybrid Hezbollah threat. Some useful nuggets in here though on emphasizing small, agile forces capable of dynamic independent action. Tough part is putting it onto action. Worth a read and some thought.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/controversial-brilliant-general-calls-for-new-approach-to-war/

 

[Kirkhill]

staffed by intelligence officers and Special Forces personnel, which would operate beyond the ordinary bounds of both expectation and the regular rules of war.

Referencing Nassim Taleb’s black swan theory — which depicts the drastic effects of unexpected events — Brig. Gen. (res) Gal Hirsch wrote in an essay in Israel Defense that, faced with an enemy that operates within civilian populations and shuns the rules of law, Israel should field “a lethal black swan of its own,” which would operate “solely in the fourth dimension, the conceptual dimension of uncertainty, illegality and disorder, far away from the expected and from the accepted conceptual pattern.”

Nice catch.

Can't help but notice some similarities to the actions of this chap - apparently goes by the Hebrew nickname Abaddon (Destroyer):

Hmm.....Given the rise of Non-Russian gunmen in Ukraine does "Black Swan Theory" suggest that we will soon be seeing Non-Poles, Non-Brits, Non-Yanks and Non-ASIC gunmen non-operating in UnUkraine?

 

[Kirkhill]

Related?

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post in the National Post on "Maskirovka"

 

[pbi]

....These forces may operate under their own legislation and procedures...

So, wait...let me get this right. Maybe I'm overreacting here.

A senior officer in the army of a state formed to provide refuge for a group who were brutally persecuted by nations who utterly abandoned all LOAC, Rules of War, etc, etc, now proposes that his country do the same? Is there anything ironic here?

Or is this just an expression of frustration by an IDF that, despite its unexamined reputation, has actually not scored a decisive defeat over its enemies in decades, and doesn't really know how to do it anyway, except maybe by resorting to this kind of thinking?

Anecdotally, a goodly number of the Canadians whom I served with over the years, who did missions in that region, have suggested that maybe there already isn't much concern about how the IDF actually fights, since it sees itself engaged in an existential struggle against an implacable enemy, so anything is OK.

Maybe this will just go on the rubbish heap of bad Israeli military thinking, along with badly conceived incursions into Lebanon and  Shimon Naveh's wretched and impractical "Systemic Operational Design" tripe.

It does raise an interesting question though: if we were confronted by what we believed was a truly existential threat, would we abandon LOAC, ROE, etc and just go for it? Are these things really just the products of our recent history of limited military engagement and "wars of choice"?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well there was a local response to the 12 SS Panzer's handling of Canadian prisoners that showed we could also be fairly nasty when we want to be.

 

[Kirkhill]

So, wait...let me get this right. Maybe I'm overreacting here.

A senior officer in the army of a state formed to provide refuge for a group who were brutally persecuted by nations who utterly abandoned all LOAC, Rules of War, etc, etc, now proposes that his country do the same? Is there anything ironic here?

....

I would suggest the following chain for consideration PBI.  Vladimir Jabotinski, Irgun Zvai Leumi, Lehi (Stern Gang), Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud, Mossad.

The Israelis, or at least a very significant faction, have never been averse to the unconventional .... with knock on effects influencing these gentlemen:

Wingate, Glubb and Farran.

LOAC has been rather nicely interpreted over the last century or so.  There have been the open wars, of short duration where millions died according to the rules, and the hidden wars of long duration where millions died despite the rules.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think there is a difference between unconventional and what some people - Americans, Israelis and so on - seem to be advocating.

Asymmetrical warfare or counter-insurgency or, even, to use a Brit term that was current from the 1830s to the 1930s, keeping the peace, seems to call forth proposals for tactics that  contravene the laws and usages of war. But we've done that, before ... think SOE, especially in France and Yugoslavia, in World War II.

I think there is a role for e.g. assassination and economic warfare and sabotage (another name for terrorism?) in today's world, as there was in the 19th and 20th centuries. But I don't think that sort of warfare is a good fit for the conventional military establishment.

 

[Kirkhill]

And I believe the Wayback machine brings us back to 2005 and the discussion of Keeni Meeni ops.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33785.5;wap2

I'm as great an apologist for the Brits as ever they have had but going all the way back to Francis Walsingham they have had little difficulty in distinguishing being seen to do the done thing and doing the necessary.

James Bond resonated with the Brits for a reason.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Having hung out with Malay's and Indians who like to rail on about the Brits being so bad, but in the scheme of things as Imperial masters they weren't that bad and actually felt some responsibility for their colonial charges. I suspect that the internal nationalistic movements do not allow for that sort of reflective thought, unlike Canada's drifting away from Mother England.

 

[pbi]

I would suggest the following chain for consideration PBI.  Vladimir Jabotinski, Irgun Zvai Leumi, Lehi (Stern Gang), Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud, Mossad....The Israelis, or at least a very significant faction, have never been averse to the unconventional ...

The British quite clearly referred to them as "terrorists" in the 1940's and if you look at the activities of groups like the Stern Gang it's hard to deny that title. To me it isn't really the "unconventional" bit that concerns me: it's what appears to be a call for the "illegal".

But maybe we are saying that if we like a nation and what it stands for, then they can do what they want and it's OK. But if anybody does it back to them, that's bad. I just think that this General, in his open philosophizing about intentionally pursuing a route that drifts inevitably towards what we call "war crimes", is undermining the moral standing that we usually think raises Israel above the nasty countries around it.

But probably I'm naive.

 

[Kirkhill]

The British quite clearly referred to them as "terrorists" in the 1940's and if you look at the activities of groups like the Stern Gang it's hard to deny that title. To me it isn't really the "unconventional" bit that concerns me: it's what appears to be a call for the "illegal".

But maybe we are saying that if we like a nation and what it stands for, then they can do what they want and it's OK. But if anybody does it back to them, that's bad. I just think that this General, in his open philosophizing about intentionally pursuing a route that drifts inevitably towards what we call "war crimes", is undermining the moral standing that we usually think raises Israel above the nasty countries around it.

But probably I'm naive.

With my old man having been blown up on Mount Carmel in 1947 by person or persons unknown (according the RASC driver somebody re-routed the "highway" to 6 Airborne Div HQ through a British laid minefield) it is hard to argue with the notion of the Stern Gang or the IZL being terrorists.

Equally it is hard to see Roy Farran's (honorary Calgary Highlander) work as anything other than "illegal" (which is why he moved to Alberta and travelled below the radar for a number of years after his stint in "unconventional operations").

What are the rules of the game?  Damfino. 

But in existential warfare I believe rules to be more akin to Lancashire Catch as Catch Can Wrestling than Marquis of Queensberry.

In other words we, choosing to fight, can afford the niceties.  They, having to fight, will do what they can not to be eliminated.

Edit:  For further discussion I went looking for information on Camp X in Whitby and 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando and came across this article  which caused me to be reminded that Hitler wasn't wrong when he decided to treat the Paras at Tragino Aqueduct, and all Commandos, SAS and SBS, as criminals.  After all that is what Churchill raised them for:

"they must be prepared with specially trained troops of the hunter class who can develop a reign of terror down the enemy coast. A butcher and bolt approach". These "Commandos" (from the Dutch-Boer word Kommando) could strike the enemy's rear with surgical precision, collect much-needed intelligence, and sow chaos into the enemy's plans.

Reign of terror.... butcher and bolt.  Doesn't sound like Queensberry to me.

 

[daftandbarmy]

With my old man having been blown up on Mount Carmel in 1947 by person or persons unknown (according the RASC driver somebody re-routed the "highway" to 6 Airborne Div HQ through a British laid minefield) it is hard to argue with the notion of the Stern Gang or the IZL being terrorists.

Equally it is hard to see Roy Farran's (honorary Calgary Highlander) work as anything other than "illegal" (which is why he moved to Alberta and travelled below the radar for a number of years after his stint in "unconventional operations").

What are the rules of the game?  Damfino. 

But in existential warfare I believe rules to be more akin to Lancashire Catch as Catch Can Wrestling than Marquis of Queensberry.

In other words we, choosing to fight, can afford the niceties.  They, having to fight, will do what they can not to be eliminated.

Edit:  For further discussion I went looking for information on Camp X in Whitby and 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando and came across this article  which caused me to be reminded that Hitler wasn't wrong when he decided to treat the Paras at Tragino Aqueduct, and all Commandos, SAS and SBS, as criminals.  After all that is what Churchill raised them for:

Reign of terror.... butcher and bolt.  Doesn't sound like Queensberry to me.

There's not much new under the sun in this regard, just old lessons relearned the hard way.

I was impressed by this book and the amount of detail it goes into about the under cover war in NI
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Irish-War-Tony-Geraghty/dp/0006386741

Of course, this type of war goes on in many countries, and Mossad is just one of many under cover type organizations that 'carry on the motion' after the 'kinetics' roll to a halt.

I think this, or some version of this, combined effort over a period of decades will have to be something we're prepared for. The better countries get at this kind of collaboration, the less surprised they'll be by things like land grabs in the Crimea.

 

[pbi]

In other words we, choosing to fight, can afford the niceties.  They, having to fight, will do what they can not to be eliminated.

So, I think that what you and daftandbarmy are saying is that placing restraints on warfare is a privilege rather than a necessity. Worse, maybe it's just a pretense. You are probably right.

And I think that, (all our protestation and earnest intents about LOAC, ROE, etc aside), that's what many of us may believe down inside, whether we wish to say it or not. We hear about the murdered SS POWs and shrug and say "Yeah, whatever. Had it coming". Not sure how killing unarmed POWs has anything to do with survival or victory, but I don't think we lose too much sleep over that case, do we?

If it's about surviving, will we do anything we think we have to, and justify it later?  Likely, and maybe not without practical reason. What the Israeli general is doing, IMHO, is merely articulating something lots of people might like to say but won't.

But if you go around doing that stuff, just don't act surprised when it splashes back: that would be hypocrisy.

 

[daftandbarmy]

So, I think that what you and daftandbarmy are saying is that placing restraints on warfare is a privilege rather than a necessity. Worse, maybe it's just a pretense. You are probably right.

And I think that, (all our protestation and earnest intents about LOAC, ROE, etc aside), that's what many of us may believe down inside, whether we wish to say it or not. We hear about the murdered SS POWs and shrug and say "Yeah, whatever. Had it coming". Not sure how killing unarmed POWs has anything to do with survival or victory, but I don't think we lose too much sleep over that case, do we?

If it's about surviving, will we do anything we think we have to, and justify it later?  Likely, and maybe not without practical reason. What the Israeli general is doing, IMHO, is merely articulating something lots of people might like to say but won't.

But if you go around doing that stuff, just don't act surprised when it splashes back: that would be hypocrisy.

total war

noun 

A war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/total-war


I'm pretty sure that the further away you get from the actual fighting, the more you think that this kind of war is possible, all the time.

 

[a_majoor]

I think one of the issues here is the horrifying wording; essentially the author(s) are suggesting you have to become the enemies you fight.

This may be a fair assumption as we move farther and farther away from a world where near peer enemies are common and asymmetric threats are rare, although I suspect this is not going to work in the way the authors suppose. The Feudal era in Europe and Japan, or the "Warring States" period in China might be a better indicator of what might happen when military commanders become self actualized to the point of "writing" their own laws and ROEs.

What is really happening is militaries throughout the world are grappling with how to fight asymmetric enemies (the type of opponents using "4G" warfare as defined by Col Hammes in "The Sling and the Stone"). Obviously armies using high tech equipment and manoeuvre warfare theory are not sufficient in of themselves. Using Hammes own formulations, the issues are that the current political leadership(s) of most Western powers do not have a clearly articulated view of what aims they hope to achieve with the use of armed force (the political objective of the war), and/or are unable to clearly communicate their goals and get the public support to achieve them. Without this, expenditures of blood and treasure seem and are seen as pointless, if not counter productive.

I suspect many of the answers might be found in radically expanding the modalities of warfare the way the Chinese are attempting to do with "Unrestricted Warfare". Rather than send essentially lawless bands of barbarian raiders into enemy territory (as reading the Israeli article seems to suggest), "Unrestricted Warfare" advocates attacking all aspects of the enemies political, military, economic and social power. Manipulating enemy stock markets, breaking social cohesion through hostile PSYOPS delivered via social media, deploying AA/AD weapons to prevent the entry of enemy force projection units and so on weaken enemy capabilities and will, often without there being an effective counter response available.

How "Unrestricted Warfare" could be used against Hamas or Al-Qeda and similar organizations is an interesting question to contemplate, not to mention how *we* can harden and protect our own social, political, economic and military systems against "Unrestricted Warfare".

 

[PanaEng]

That quote has no explicit or implicit call of illegal activity. One can sow terror, butcher and bolt all within the LOAC except maybe by not wearing uniforms or id.

BTW, my grandfather was an instructor there...

Chimo!

With my old man having been blown up on Mount Carmel in 1947 by person or persons unknown (according the RASC driver somebody re-routed the "highway" to 6 Airborne Div HQ through a British laid minefield) it is hard to argue with the notion of the Stern Gang or the IZL being terrorists.

Equally it is hard to see Roy Farran's (honorary Calgary Highlander) work as anything other than "illegal" (which is why he moved to Alberta and travelled below the radar for a number of years after his stint in "unconventional operations").

What are the rules of the game?  Damfino. 

But in existential warfare I believe rules to be more akin to Lancashire Catch as Catch Can Wrestling than Marquis of Queensberry.

In other words we, choosing to fight, can afford the niceties.  They, having to fight, will do what they can not to be eliminated.

Edit:  For further discussion I went looking for information on Camp X in Whitby and 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando and came across this article  which caused me to be reminded that Hitler wasn't wrong when he decided to treat the Paras at Tragino Aqueduct, and all Commandos, SAS and SBS, as criminals.  After all that is what Churchill raised them for:

Reign of terror.... butcher and bolt.  Doesn't sound like Queensberry to me.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I posted this video link in the Military History forum too.

It's a good reminder of what can happen to you if you neglect the Laws of Armed Conflict:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/videos/society/never-shoot-man-parachute

 

[Retired AF Guy]

If it's about surviving, will we do anything we think we have to, and justify it later?  Likely, and maybe not without practical reason. What the Israeli general is doing, IMHO, is merely articulating something lots of people might like to say but won't.

Kind of like Machiavelli in his book The Prince.

 

[pbi]

I suspect many of the answers might be found in radically expanding the modalities of warfare the way the Chinese are attempting to do with "Unrestricted Warfare". Rather than send essentially lawless bands of barbarian raiders into enemy territory (as reading the Israeli article seems to suggest), "Unrestricted Warfare" advocates attacking all aspects of the enemies political, military, economic and social power. Manipulating enemy stock markets, breaking social cohesion through hostile PSYOPS delivered via social media, deploying AA/AD weapons to prevent the entry of enemy force projection units and so on weaken enemy capabilities and will, often without there being an effective counter response available.

How "Unrestricted Warfare" could be used against Hamas or Al-Qeda and similar organizations is an interesting question to contemplate, not to mention how *we* can harden and protect our own social, political, economic and military systems against "Unrestricted Warfare".

I am thinking about this too. If you take it a bit further, it means you could bring a modern society to its knees without firing a shot. It may also mean that the ability to carry out this type of  warfare lies not in the size of your country, or how many tanks and planes you have, or how much oil and mineral wealth. It depends (I think) on how digitally sophisticated you are. It means that a smaller power (like Canada...) could theoretically wreak destruction and disruption far greater, and perhaps far faster, than by conventional means?

Could it mean (actually it probably does already mean...) that "offensive operations" would not necessarily be carried out by trained military personnel at all, but rather by civilian technicians?

The danger of this type of approach may be that a "wounded giant", feeling itself going under and coming apart at the digital seams, may lash out with extreme destructive power, such as with nukes or WMD, while it is still able to do so.

 

[a_majoor]

We are already seeing this. Russia threatens to turn off the natural gas taps and most of Europe crumbles rather than stand up for Ukraine. Many articles suggest the Chinese are manipulating currency and economic data to harm the American economy, and suggest Chaina has the ability through their huge US bondholdings to wreak havoc on the global economy at the time and place of their own choosing. In "Unrestricted warfare" theory, this provides a great deal of leverage for achieveing political goals without ever firing a shot, or providing an opening that the adversary can exploit.

Like other forms of warfare, this is resource intensive so Canada would have to invest in means to leverage fairly exotic niche capabilities to provide a decicive advantage. Our huge geographical expanse and reliance on long haul communications technologies suggests one avenue of approach (how many satellite uplinks do we have, for example? What would happen if we could use them to "take control" of enemy satellites and have them do what we want?). Canada has a fairly large and sophisticated financial sector as well, attacking an enemy through their stock markets or currency trading may seem to be a strange idea, but could cause untold damage to the adversary. If done properly, it could even be covert enough to put the blame on rogue traders, corrupt adversary officials or poorly managed local or international banks.

Very sophisticated targeting needs to be done, and since this is a form of the "Effects Based Approach to Operations" there will need to be a military dimention to this IOT ensure the damage is focused on the right targets, spillover effects don't cause too much collateral damage and that Canadian targets are sufficiently hardened to prevent a response in kind. (One might envision a stock trading floor with a small military staff overseeing operations, for example).

The "Wounded Giant", or perhaps a small nation taking the Samson Option (pulling the pillars down on their own heads to destroy the enemy) is to be feared, so using unrestricted warfare is not something to be taken lightly. OTOH, if traffic in Tehran becomes impossibly gridlocked because the traffic light system failed, how do the Iranians determine that it is an economic attack or just a glitch? Is Israel to blame, or Saudi Arabia? A great many questions are raised by this prospect, but so far I have not seen many answers.