Simchoni - Lessons from the Yom Kippur War

Uri Simchoni
Israel Hayom
10 October '11

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=632

Every October the ritual of after-the-fact analysis of the Yom Kippur War repeats itself. Why weren't we prepared, how could we not have known, why were our forecasts wrong, how did we get caught with our pants down? In fact, we can summarize decades of books, reports, analyses and what have you in a single sentence: You can never be prepared for what hasn't happened yet. It's not just us, and this principle doesn't just apply to security. In economics, politics and private life, it's hard to make predictions, especially where the future is concerned.

A lot has changed since October 1973. It's fashionable to speak of a revolution on the battlefield, but no revolution has occurred. Rather, there has been an evolution in technology and of the enemy, and as a result the nature of the contemporary battlefield has changed. The battlefield is now described as asymmetrical, a sophisticated response developed by radical Islam and terror organizations to Western technological superiority.

War creates opportunities for both sides to bring their decisive advantages to bear. That is the real asymmetry. In our last two wars, the Second Lebanon War and Cast Lead -- with the exception of aerial attacks, which were effective in the first two days when most of, if not all, of our objectives were obtained -- we fought the war on our opponent's terms. Whether we engaged in combat in the "nature preserves" (bunkers camouflaged by natural scenery) of Lebanon or cleared buildings in Bint Jbeil or Gaza, this was war on their terms, not ours. We don't and never will have any relative advantage in those places. To fight there and in that particular way is foolishness.

The next battlefield will most likely be on our homefront. The Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead both clearly exposed our weak points. We recently experienced a nationwide homefront exercise. We have heard forecasts of hundreds of tons of explosives on our city centers as well as other terrifying scenarios. This really doesn't have to happen. Defense systems like Iron Dome and other systems -- as good and effective as they may be, they are no doubt an outstanding technological achievement -- could defend several strategic targets, but certainly not population centers over the long term. The only way to really defend our homefront is by dramatically curtailing the duration of the fighting. The only way to shorten the duration of fighting to no more than 48 hours is to raise an international outcry and heavy pressure for an immediate cease-fire.

In order for this to happen we have to throw out concepts like proportionality. This is a term borrowed from other areas of life. War is not a game of ping pong. And it is a game they started, not us. It is totally unjust and immoral to allow harm to befall our own citizens just to avoid harm to citizens on the other side. That would constitute altruism, and altruists are the first to be annihilated in war.



Obviously we must do everything possible to avoid a war. You don't have to be a peace activist to understand that. So-called peace activists have never brought peace here or anywhere else. Peace treaties here and throughout the world have been implemented by realistic and pragmatic men and women of action. But when war becomes inevitable, then our opening gambit must be a broad-based attack on the entire civilian infrastructure of our enemy.

We must also strike government leaders personally, because no one is immune, not even their private homes where their families are hiding, rather than their offices which will be empty anyway. Planes and missiles shouldn't do the work of a tractor. We must directly strike enemy leaders who are heroes in speech only. In fact, no preacher or recruiter of suicide bombers has ever sent his own son on a mission. We must strike their power stations, their banks, everywhere that really hurts. Until a cry of horror rises up that brings about an immediate cease-fire.

"What about the laws of war?" People will ask. The world will condemn us no matter what. These are the international circumstances we find ourselves in, no matter how we got to this impasse where the laws only apply to us. Good and wise people will ask if we want to sink to the level of our enemies. The answer is no. But the primal survival instinct that preceded us and will remain when we are gone has no idea that someone wrote a paper limiting its influence, and if it knew, it would laugh. Political correctness is worthless. The strong will continue to dictate rules to the weak and the survival instinct will remain as it ever was.

Anyone who fails to understand this is distorting reality. Will the world condemn us? In the short term certainly, in the long term, it depends on the results. The world worships winners and treats losers with abuse.

The writer is a major general in the reserves.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.