Israel-Whoever Flees from Maneuver Warfare Will Not Win

mrrosenthal

Member
https://www.inss.org.il/publication/idf-maneuver/

--Israel since 2006 has used standoff weapons to wage war, and the author questions whether Israels strategic victories were achieved as a result of non decisive army(troops on ground) maneuvers.
--Strategic victory is defined as the ability to reduce your opponent’s ability or willingness to engage in continued warfare for a sustained period of time and to change the strategic calculus of the situation.
--Israel hasn’t won the cognitive battle since 2006, and in some cases, lost the cognitive battle.
--Hamas sent fire balloons immediately after the war ended, and claimed to be the defenders of Jerusalem. Hamas leaders don’t feel an existential threat from the war.
--Proposes international news more accepting of civilian casualties from army maneuvers , and less so from air strikes.
--Authors suggestion is that high quality(not quantity) army units with enough mass can achieve victory faster and more decisively. Army units can gain land, and put fear into the enemy.
--Author states Israelis wonder why Israel is so advanced but can’t win decisive wars against Gaza/Lebanon
--Author understands army units have more risk of casualties, PoW, however, he suggests focusing on the strategic victory outcome is more important long term and worth the risks.

My Notes--
-Cognitive battle means that the enemy believes they lost, the international community is less 'Anti Israel" , and that Israeli citizens themselves believe the war was won. This is concept is different then numerical data of targets struck and combatants killed
-From a big picture perspective, Israel is considered a top tier military, and Hezbollah and certainly Hamas are low end. If so, why does Hamas/Hezbollah continue to exist, and furthermore, claim victory. These 'victories' have allowed Hamas/Hezbollah to flourish.
-Is standoff warfare the best strategy considering the Israeli political situation? Or are ground maneuvers, land acquisition, and physical presence required in the enemies vicinity required to achieve strategic goals.
 
Last edited:

Beholder

Active Member
It is ongoing discursion. Author does not have a valid point, it is more assortment of provocative thoughts.IMO

IDF never stopped training for maneuver warfare. Never stopped development of new doctrine and toolos for new doctrine. Including Carmel family of vehicles for example.

Problem is how You define "strategic victory"? I think he talks about military operative/theater victory one.

Currently Gaza strip, or Hezzis are unable to force Israel enter war, unable to disable israeli home front. Israeli leadership have plenty of time to think and make a calculated response in case of hostilities.
And this is much better operational status, then in 2006. Which in turn make strategic situation better(but strategic situation influenced by other factors as well, like Iran/Gulf states dinamic, US, etc.).
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
-Cognitive battle means that the enemy believes they lost, the international community is less 'Anti Israel" , and that Israeli citizens themselves believe the war was won.
In 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 the Israeli public believed Israel had won and Israel did win on the basis that it largely achieved its military and poltical objectives [with the exception of 1956]. If however ''cognitive battle means that the enemy believes they lost'' then on that basis alone Israel did not win because after 1948, 1956, 1967 and the War of Attrition; the 'enemy' did not believe it had lost; at least not in the long term; the Arabs were in it for the long run. Egypt only came to the realisation that it could not win in the early 1970's; which is why it started the war with the objective of only regaining the Sinai which it believed Israel would never return; unlike in 1967 Egypt was under no illusions that its armoured formations could do a victory parade in the streets of Tel Aviv and Haifa. I won't go into 1982 and 2006 because in both cases Israel did not 'win', neither did its enemies but then they did not 'lose' either.

If so, why does Hamas/Hezbollah continue to exist, and furthermore, claim victory. These 'victories' have allowed Hamas/Hezbollah to flourish.
Because Hamas/Hezbollah [as well as other non state groups which were severely outgunned by their opponents] benefit from mistakes made by the enemy and by fundamental flaws in the enemy's policy; i.e.. if Gaza was not blockaded and if there was a Palestinian state; Hamas wouldn't have justification to fire rockets at Israel and would lose most of its support.

Israeli leadership have plenty of time to think and make a calculated response in case of hostilities.
Israel's leadership [like that of the U.S. and other countries with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq] has long come to the realisation that an all powerful military does not solve all of their problems and that for various problems; a non military solution is needed. Until that happens the status quo will remain and until or unless Israel physically occupies Gaza or physically evicts everyone [not politically possible and ironic given the vast majority of Gazans are not originally from Gaza] we'll probable still be hearing about Hamas rockets hitting Israel and IDF strikes on Gaza in 2040 and beyond that.
 
Last edited:

mrrosenthal

Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
I still think that in order to win you must have strong troop presence to be declared the winner.
However, as the Ukraine -Russia conflict has shown, fire and forgot, long distance weapons, whether anti tank or anti air or drones are really the future. And declaring you have a 'solution' for these long distance weapons

Say goodbye to tank battles and dogfights in a 21st century war analysis - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
As this article states nicely
"Armored warfare doctrine was developed to break through the impasse of trench warfare during World War I and provide infantry with more mobile fire support than artillery."
in this regard, tanks, created to break through fixed positions, are not relevant anymore.

I would say unmanned ground vehicles supported by long surveillance drones connected to long range fire capability(whether artillery or rockets) is the future.
And vehicles armor is less important. In my opnion, wars will never again be decided by the outcome of tank vs tank battles.
 
Top