IP: A must read article from Ha'aretz - Israel

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Reinventing warfare Even before the terror attacks on the U.S., several 
thinkers considered the nature of future warfare and predicted it would 
change dramatically. By Amnon Barzilai

On September 11, just hours before the terror attacks on the United States, 
Minister without Portfolio Dan Meridor addressed students of the National 
Security College outside Tel Aviv. The topic of his lecture was the 
character of future warfare.

Meridor told his audience, most of whom were senior officers in the Israel 
Defense Forces, that, in view of Israel's significant edge in conventional 
warfare, the Arabs have shifted to warfare at two levels. The first level, 
which can be called supra-conventional, involves the development of 
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The second level, which can be 
called sub-conventional, expresses itself in non-conventional terrorism.

He offered his listeners examples of non-conventional terrorism. "Let us 
assume that someone creates a serious malfunction in the control system of 
a railway. As a result, trains crash into each other and in this single 
mass terrorist act, 50,000 persons lose their lives. Or, for example, a 
terrorist incident can turn the entire oxygen system in a nation's 
hospitals haywire. In this instance, as well, the result would be a mass 
terrorist attack. The problem facing both Israel, in particular, and the 
West, in general, in the war against terrorism is that it is impossible to 
pinpoint the precise source of the terror. No one has any clear idea whom 
to counter-attack and the nature of the counter-attack."

The conclusion Meridor offered was this: "Israel's defense echelons must 
reformulate their theory of combat in dealing with a threat in which 
planes, tanks and precision-guided weapons constitute an inadequate solution."
In the Prime Minster's Office, Meridor is responsible for the secret 
services and national security. Two years ago, he headed a commission on 
non-conventional weapons that operated within the context of a national 
security council that was set up to update thinking on national security. 
The council was chaired by retired Major General David Ivry, a former 
commander of the Israel Air Force and a former director-general of the 
Ministry of Defense. Ivry is today Israel's ambassador to the United States.

Only a few hour after Meridor had presented his terrifying scenario to 
members of the future generation of senior IDF commanders, along came the 
attacks on in New York City and Washington.

After the attacks, Meridor commented: "What happened does not belong in the 
same category as the terrorist attack of Kozo Okamoto [in 1972 at 
Ben-Gurion Airport]. Osama bin Laden carried out the kind of attack that 
has been depicted in suspense films. I still cannot fully digest what 
happened over there. Unfortunately, this attack is only the beginning."

Meridor formulated his double-level concept of future warfare two years 
ago. Yet, says Brigadier General Yekutiel Mor, a deputy director-general in 
the Defense Ministry for international affairs and arms control, 
"Immediately following the Gulf War and into the Yitzhak Rabin era in the 
Defense Ministry, people here in Israel did begin thinking about a breed of 
international terrorism capable of doing things with the aura of a 
science-fiction novel. Israel was the first country in the world to begin 
thinking seriously about the subject of non-conventional terror. We spoke 
about this issue with the Americans and we suggested the threat of such 
terrorist activity could emanate from `problem-nations' like Iraq, Iran and 
Libya. After the era of skyjackings, we expected threats involving nuclear 
weapons systems, biological warfare and chemical arms."

Murderer or idiot

Since the mid-1980s, three major thinkers have outlined the shape of 
warfare in the future. In 1993, an American scholar, Samuel P. Huntington, 
published an article in Foreign Affairs, entitled "The clash of 
civilizations?" According to Huntington, clashes between civilizations will 
fuel future wars. He predicted that the inevitable military confrontations 
of the 21st century would break out along the "borders" separating 
different civilizations. "The people of different civilizations have 
different views on the relations between God and man, the individual and 
the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and 
wife, and differing views of the relative importance of rights and 
responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy. These 
differences are the produce of centuries. They will not soon disappear. 
They are far more fundamental than differences among political ideologies 
and political regimes. Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and 
conflict does not necessarily mean violence. Over the centuries, however, 
differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the 
most violent conflicts."

Before this, an Israeli military historian, the Hebrew University of 
Jerusalem's Martin van Creveld, sent shock waves throughout the 
international academic community in 1991 with his new theory of military 
strategy. In his book, "Transformation of War," van Creveld declared the 
end of the era of major wars. Since the end of the World War Two, there has 
been a gradual downscaling in the size of the world's armies. The world's 
major powers only pretended that the Cold War could erupt into a world war. 
Despite the extensive production of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, 
the world powers never had any intention of making use of those weapons. 
Thus, the world never really faced the actual threat of a nuclear world war.

Nonetheless, van Creveld argued, that did not guarantee a rosier tomorrow. 
In the future, wars will break out between states and organizations, he 
predicted. Such wars are no less dangerous - perhaps even more dangerous - 
than world wars. When you fight a weak organization and emerge the victor, 
you are called a murderer. However, when you lose to a weak organization, 
you are labeled an idiot.

Van Creveld believes the modern state is in a process of retreat and one of 
the reasons for that retreat is its inability to defend itself effectively. 
In many respects, he says, the world is returning to the Middle Ages.

These two thinkers were preceded by a British strategist, Brigadier Richard 
E. Simpkin. In 1984, in a book bearing the title "Race to the swift: 
Thoughts on 21st century warfare," Simpkin defines terror as revolutionary 
warfare. He was strongly influenced by the war between the mujahedin in 
Afghanistan and the Soviets, which was taking place at the time. Another 
important influence on his thinking was his observations of the activities 
of subversive movements then operating in Europe - Baader-Meinhof and the 
Red Army Faction in Germany, the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Basque 
underground (ETA), and the Red Brigades in Italy.

In Simpkin's view, revolutionary warfare (terrorism) in its various forms, 
and terrorism sponsored by governments have blurred the demarcation line 
between war and peace, while acts of violence, from assassinations to 
sudden invasions, invariably attain - or, at least, advance - their 
specific political goals. Revolutionary warfare poses a serious problem for 
modern democratic regimes because, he explains, the use of regular forces 
to combat terrorism arouses moral objections and raises the very issue of 
credibility.

In the future, predicts Simpkin, a theory of revolutionary combat will take 
its place along the theory of attrition and the theory of maneuverability - 
two theories that are currently employed by the regular armies of the 
world's democracies.

Regarding Islamic fundamentalism, Simpkin observes that the countries of 
the Old and New World are increasingly forced to intervene militarily - 
achieving only partial success - in their areas of influence in the Third 
World. These countries are gradually abandoning their wars as they face a 
threat from the south.

This threat, whose source is Islamic fundamentalism, has developed from the 
economic threat of the 1970s and from state-sponsored terrorism of the 
1980s, and has evolved into the danger of large, organized military forces 
with nuclear capability. The impact of Shiite fundamentalism, he notes, can 
be felt from Morocco to Malaysia.

Since the forms of revolutionary warfare could become the most common type 
of armed conflict in the world, Simpkin proposes the creation of special 
forces that would be frequently used in covert operations, in limited 
combat situations, and in raids. He offers the example of the IDF as a 
military force that has already adopted the approach he advocates.

Despite his criticism of the IDF's performance in the invasion of Lebanon, 
he argues that, from the purely military standpoint, the Israelis are 
making effective use of the triple approach that he proposes.

In the war on terrorism, Simpkin says that countries with immense arsenals 
will have to go one step further and will have to prepare, equip themselves 
and train their forces to use the methods of revolutionary warfare - which 
means fighting enemy forces using the enemy's own techniques and conducting 
combat on the enemy's own home territory.

Simpkin describes an unsuccessful terrorist attempt that was carried out by 
the IRA. At the time he wrote "Race to the Swift," a single person, or 
perhaps two, managed, with the help of some simple electronic equipment and 
about ten kilograms of commercial-grade explosive, to come within a hair's 
breadth of wiping out the entire British cabinet. For the sake of argument, 
the individuals in such a terror attack could just as easily have been 
members of a fundamentalist Islamic group.

Despite defense budgets in the billions, Simpkin observes that the British 
government and the governments of every other advanced democracy in the 
world have no effective means for preventing this sort of terror attack or 
for speedily bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Debt of honor

Simpkin sees four major obstacles that make it extremely difficult to 
contain terrorism. First of all, democratic governments rely on a system of 
law and order. Second, a declaration of war against terrorist organizations 
will not stop an enemy whose techniques rely on the element of strategic 
surprise. Third, the policing tactics of liberal democratic regimes are 
ineffective in dealing with an enemy that uses the methods of revolutionary 
warfare. Fourth, and most important, the democratic nations of the world 
must realize that the direct and indirect influences of technological 
progress are transporting them from an era of stability and law and order 
to one of anarchy and violence.

Simpkin predicts that various types of irregular operations will apparently 
become the most common form of armed conflict in the future.

One of the participants in the national security forum chaired by Ivry was 
the director of development of weapons systems and infrastructure in the 
defense ministry, Major General Itzhak Ben-Israel, who also headed a 
commission for the development of future military technologies.

Says Ben-Israel: "People are always asking what will happen next, whether 
terrorists might not smuggle in a briefcase containing a nuclear device. 
However, these people do not understand that the number of persons killed 
in the attack on the World Trade Center in New York was roughly the number 
of casualties that a non-conventional bomb would cause. What happened in 
New York was actually the equivalent of a briefcase containing a nuclear 
device exploding in the heart of Manhattan.

"If you had asked me prior to September 11 whether 6,000 people could be 
killed at one time with the deployment of explosives, I would have said no. 
However, after September 11, all options are open. It may well be that we 
are on the brink of a world war or that we are already in the middle of one."

Ben-Israel proposes that a third option be taken into consideration. "No 
one would question the fact that the attack that took place on September 
11, 2001, was a historic event that could usher in a new era. However, with 
a bit of luck, this entire event could culminate with the liquidation of 
bin Laden and his friends in the Al-Qaida organization. Then, the whole 
affair would end in the same manner as the war that the West is currently 
conducting against drug syndicates."

He is not prepared to guess what will be the results or consequences of the 
present war in Afghanistan. "The Americans have their honor to defend. 
Thus, they cannot simply leave Afghanistan with the statement, `We failed 
in our mission and we are therefore giving up and bringing our troops 
home.' If the Americans fail to kill bin Laden, they will not call off 
their war. Then there will be the possibility that the situation could 
deteriorate into a war between East and West, between Islam and Crusaders."

When the solidarity centering around the goals of this war fades or when 
the war ends, people will start asking themselves whether the United States 
may have been caught napping. For example, why was an author of suspense 
novels like Tom Clancy able to predict in his books what the American 
defense and intelligence establishment refused to see? Clancy's "Debt of 
Honor" describes how a Japanese plane crashes into the Capitol during a 
presidential inauguration, with the result that most of the members of the 
cabinet, most of the justices of the Supreme Court, most of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, and most of members of Congress are killed in a horrifying 
catastrophe. In his sequel, "Executive Orders," the United States is 
attacked by an Ebola virus that has been spread by Iran.

"If the American defense establishment believed that the plots thought up 
by Clancy and by Hollywood film producers could become reality, American 
society would be vastly different than it is today," notes a senior Israeli 
official who is in continual contact with the American administration.

"The Western world, especially the United States, has developed a system 
whose basic assumption is that people simply do not annihilate each other. 
Without such an assumption, Western countries would have fundamentally 
changed the way of life of their citizens. If you cannot base yourself on 
that assumption, a free-market economy is impossible and New York City 
would be an entirely different metropolis today.

"A dictatorship, whether fascist or communist, assumes that people are 
essentially evil and thus builds defense mechanisms to protect itself from 
the evil of the human heart. The result is an oppressive regime. What is 
happening today certainly looks very much like a war between two different 
cultures. The United States is trying to deny this idea because it does not 
sit well with the American psyche. America is not strong enough to defeat 
Islam."


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/