Senior Israeli intelligence officer: ‘Our strategy isn’t working’

Israel’s current strategy for countering Hezbollah activity in southern Lebanon “is not working…[and] should be changed soon” according to an Israeli military intelligence officer.

The officer’s remarks echoed sentiments expressed by a growing number of military sources and analysts following a day that saw the loss of nine Israeli soldiers to Hezbollah attacks, and a record number of Hezbollah rockets-130-slamming into the Jewish state from Lebanon.

Lt. Col. (res.) Moshe Marzook spoke in a wide-ranging interview that covered topics including counterinsurgency, Lebanese politics, and Iranian geopolitical strategy. Marzook, also a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center university near Tel Aviv, maintained a diplomatic tenor when discussing civil-military relations in his country.

However, he claims Israeli soldiers have been forced to employ ineffective tactics by inexperienced political leaders and a cadre of senior officers who are unsure about whether to employ overwhelming force.

“I hope that our strategy is going to change, [and] that our government will take the Hezbollah situation with the seriousness it demands,” said Marzook. “But right now there are a lot of discussions about what to do…. There’s an endless debate about whether or not to use [Israel’s military] power.”

Marzook says the Israeli government has now missed strategic opportunities. “Look, at this point we’ve already lost one opportunity to destroy Hezbollah, and that’s because we didn’t go in using all of our forces. In [Hezbollah stronghold] Bint Jbail the army was using some artillery guns. But it’s not enough. Instead, we needed to be using air power after we warned the Lebanese [civilians] to get out.

“Only after a massive aerial bombing should we have sent ground troops in for mopping-up operations.” Marzook says the strategy has gone in reverse, but also emphasized, “in Israel we’re a democracy, and the army is totally subordinate to the political echelon, so we do the most we can with what the politicians give us.”

Politicians out of their league?

Dr. Michael Widlanski, a professor and frequent advisor to Israeli security and foreign policy agencies, says Israel’s current strategy is a non-starter for defeating Hezbollah. “The problem for the military is that they’re not being allowed to do what the country knows they need to do-and there are already a lot of rumblings both in and out of government about this war being mishandled by Olmert and [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz.”

“Instead of attacking Hezbollah at, say, four points simultaneously, and forcing them to reveal their capabilities and intentions and throwing them off balance, the army now is striking Hezbollah at a single point, and then falling back, and then assessing that battle, and then they start discussing where to go next.

“It’s slow, it’s disordered and it’s not very effective,” says the analyst.

Lt. Col. Marzook says Hezbollah strongholds “like Bint Jbail need to be demolished. They need to be hit without any ambiguity at all, so that Hezbollah clearly understands” that Israel will not permit them further shelter in Lebanon. “I think we need to do it, or there will be more and more casualties in this fight.”

In a biting analysis in Thursday’s Jerusalem Post, Israel Air Force (IAF) Col. (res.) Dr. Shmuel Gordon describes the Olmert administration as “ignorant” about counterterrorism.

Throughout military history, there have been gaps between doctrine and reality. In the current case, the gap is particularly large, created by the [Israeli] government’s ignorance of the appropriate strategy. The cabinet is ignoring, or simply doesn’t understand, the principles of modern counterterrorism, especially those relating to air power.

Gordon claims the IAF’s current operations “do not even come close to conforming” to proper strategy, and advises the IDF General Staff to “acquaint” Israeli politicians with the nature of air power.

The dovish Ha’aretz newspaper asserted Friday that “the IDF must act with greater force” in Lebanon, and complained that Israeli politicians and senior military commanders “look as if they have been frozen in a huge ice cube.”

“The political failures are continuing,” asserts Marzook. “I hope the politicians will accept that this is a war we must win. That message is coming now from the media, from the society, and even from some politicians.”

Caught between PR and the people?

“In reality,” says Widlanski, “Olmert isn’t yet able to admit that disengagement didn’t work. That’s why rockets flew into Israel from Gaza for 10 months without Olmert stopping them. In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s been fortifying itself since the IDF withdrew six years ago.

“In both cases, a strong military response would have been seen as a de facto admission that withdrawal is an unfruitful strategy.

“Now Olmert’s sent in the IDF, but only when Hezbollah forced him to-and he hasn’t gone in [with] full force, and the army isn’t happy about that.”

“One explanation,” says Widlanski, “may be standard PR issues-Olmert appears terribly afraid of bad headlines on CNN.

“But there’s also electoral PR. [Olmert’s] Kadima Party was founded last year for a purpose: to further the withdrawal platform of Ariel Sharon. If that platform is no longer usable, then Kadima has no clear raison d’être.”

“In the end, even if the majority of the electorate thinks disengagement is a strategic failure, Olmert may not be able to admit it.”

“There is a general problem that has gotten worse since the late ’90s and [former Prime Minister Ehud] Barak’s tenure,” says investigative journalist and professional community organizer David Bedein. “There’s a wider gap now between the citizenry and the leadership, and there’s often a feeling that policy is driven by advertising professionals-that some leaders base national security decisions on the advice of their PR team. In a crisis like this, those feelings will come home to roost.

“What’s happening now in Israel is that almost two million people, in a country of seven million, can’t go to work and can’t sleep in their homes,” says Bedein. “The country’s third largest city (Haifa) is deserted. That’s an upheaval for Israel’s national psyche and it happened overnight. There’s a lot of anger because of that. If people sense that the leadership is aloof or isn’t moving rapidly to fix the situation, then the alienation and anger will increase.”

When asked why Israel’s political leaders would marshal “insufficient” forces to counter Hezbollah, Marzook responded: “They are afraid of public opinion and criticism…. There’s a debate inside the government and the army, and much of the government looks to the West, to America, and to [newspaper] opinion pages.”

Clarifying goals

Marzook says Israel’s current goals are simple. “We only want one thing from Lebanon, and that is a stable northern border. Whether they want normal relations with us or not, we have only one claim on Lebanon: It must be responsible for its own territory.

“We don’t see the Lebanese government or population as the main problem here-we want a diplomatic solution with the Lebanese government. The main problem is Syrian and Iranian interference,” which the officer says is motivated by broader geopolitical aims. “Syria has always viewed Lebanon as a province of Greater Syria.”

“Iran’s goal is to become the superpower in the Middle East. They care about Lebanon, and about Israel, because they see these lands as Iran’s gateway to the West, and as the doorway that guards the entrance to the Middle East. Iran wants free passage through this gateway, and it is also warning the West: ‘You will only travel here with our permission.’

“If the West really wants a democratic state in Lebanon,” says Marzook, “it will have to put together a real international force and expel the Syrian and Iranian controllers…. We are not going to take the entire Lebanese problem onto our shoulders-Israel can’t solve all of the West’s political problems on our own.”