Obama is learning from the IDF
U.S. President Barack Obama has proved to be an enthusiastic student of the doctrine of targeted killings, even more than his predecessor George W. Bush.
By Aluf Benn Tags: Barack Obama Israel news IDFIsrael's critics in the United States portray it as a strategic burden. They argue that during the Cold War there was value in cooperating with the Israel Defense Forces, which gave the Americans useful information on Soviet weapons systems used by Arab armies. But the Soviet Union collapsed and all the value Israel offered to U.S. national security evaporated with it.
These critics are wrong in a big way: The U.S. military effort against Al-Qaida and the Taliban is based on a doctrine developed by Israel. The IDF was a global leader in targeting terrorists from the air. When Israel embarked on its assassinations policy in the summer of 2001, the United States condemned it. Several weeks later the Twin Towers were brought down in a terrorist attack and Washington's approach changed. Instead of condemning Israel, the Americans simply copied its methods, foreign sources say. Unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), armed with missiles, started being used to kill terrorists, first in Yemen and later in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
U.S. President Barack Obama has proved to be an enthusiastic student of the doctrine of targeted killings, even more than his predecessor George W. Bush. According to the New America Foundation, between taking office in January and early October, the Obama administration authorized 42 UCAV strikes. Bush authorized 40 such attacks during his three final years in office.
Six senior Taliban and Al-Qaida figures were killed in Obama-ordered operations, as were some 450 others. Judge Richard Goldstone would be advised to note that a quarter of those killed were civilians, while the rest were low-grade fighters. The assassination three months ago of Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, also killed 11 civilians, including his sister and father-in-law, much like the Israeli bombing that killed Salah Shehadeh along with his relatives and neighbors in 2002.
Human rights groups have warned that the United States is violating international law, but the Obama administration is not particularly moved by this. According to The New Yorker, CIA chief Leon Panetta has described the UCAV attacks as "the only game in town." American antiterrorist experts with close ties to the administration told Jane Mayer, who wrote the article in The New Yorker, that the United States has no more-efficient weapon against Al-Qaida. The Pentagon has been accelerating its procurement of UCAVs and is cutting down on its development of manned fighters.
Palestinian eyewitnesses and human rights groups have claimed for several years now that the IDF has been using UCAVs in its aerial operations in the Gaza Strip. The UCAV is the West's response to suicide bombings and terrorist rocket attacks by Islamist groups. It can be described as the Jewish mother's aircraft: the operator sits far from the front and combat is sterile. There are no sirens, no blood, no smell of gunpowder and corpses, and most of all, no risk to the attacker and no casualties on that side.
A debate has been raging in the United States on whether it is appropriate to use a weapons system that does not expose its user to the horrors of battle. There are also concerns about the inherent appeal of robot warfare; at first the attacks are only against senior terrorist figures. Success encourages the lowering of standards to include lesser-grade targets until UCAVs are used every time there is a sign of the enemy or information about the presence of a wanted terrorist on the ground. The number of sorties has risen, and with it the number of civilian casualties.
It would be interesting to know if Obama, who is due to decide on the future of the war in Afghanistan, knows from whom the Americans have learned the modern doctrine of antiterrorism warfare, and whether he is grateful to the IDF.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
u bring up a very good point, Israel may not be useful to help US stand against Old Soviet U, but she is baby sitting Freedom and Democracy. Now, how about a reality check, UN is discussing Goldstone report to punish Israel.
Aburd! The Great Appeaser willbe glad to use israelanyway hge can,then have no compunction of selling her down the River at first opportunity. Grateful? Hardly.
Hats off to the proud masters of warfare.
Most occupations produce local movements prepared to cooperate and work with the occupier. Israel is one of the few occupiesr that has managed to comprehensively alienate the entire local population. Settlements is one main reason and the other is the level of Pal civilian casualties over the years. Now the US has picked up a few tactical tips form Israel and it's having exactly the same effect in Afghanistan. Allied forces are now well on the way to comprehensively alienating the entire local Afghan population. Way to go.
checking the spread of nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorist and anti west dictatorships.The mistake that the west makes is by thinking this is an Israeli problem.Iran and the muslim brotherhood declared war on the west in the 1980's and before because western freedom offend Islamic caliphate sharia law based aspirations of extremism.As Iran is setting up Hizbollah like cells in Latin American and elsewhere the west, America and Europe better wake up that this is their problem and that Israel has been the only true democracy protecting their values.The US better wake up that it is under attack from this ideology that sees Israel as an obstacle to destroying the freedoms that the whole western world is based on.Thank you Israel/IDF for all the western lives you have saved.Thank you for trying to help the Pals, a group crafted together by Egyptian born Arafat/MB to destroy you, who are being used by all the arab regimes and extremism.
To suggest that President Obama is more "enthusiastic" than was Bush in his acceptance of targeted killing, pointing to the increased use of armed drones, is somewhat misleading. I am not arguing Obama's position on this tactic but think that any analysis, to be fair, should point out that an increased use of Drones as a weapons platform is closely tied to their availability and pilot training. In other words, increased use of the Reaper is largely based on increased availability and had President Bush had larger numbers of UCAVs available, he would have used each and every one of them for maximum success. I do not believe that success of this weapon in some way changes the rules by which it is used. If the basic, mostly simply stated rule is to kill the enemy, while minimizing your own losses, the use of UCAVs will continue to expand as they become more available. Remember that prior to 2007, attack drones were somewhat primitive. Gil Paul
It's absurd to call the targeted killing of terrorists 'assassinations' as if we're talking of the extra-judicial political murders of some Latin American Junta's death squads. They are a much more precise and surgical form of legitimate warfare which instead of killing thousands of civilians in carpet bombings of legitimate targets, manages to restrict the collateral damage to the absolute minimum. The idea that any action of war that results in the death of ANY civilian is illegitimate is completely deranged and we might as well handle our free countries in a silver platter to islamofascist terrorists if we start believing that.
Is the Israeli higher precision due to the technology or to the ethic of IDF?