Us Army Randy T. Johnson Balancing the Israeli Defense Force for Future Warfare

Since its establishment as a state Israel's geo-political circumstance demands that the small nation state adapt to an ever changing threat environment. Israeli defense policy traditionally consisted of deterrence through a dominant military capable of quickly defeating conventional threats. The emergence of Hezbollah, a non-state actor operating in Lebanon and receiving support from Iran, and its capability to conduct hybrid war changed the way the Israeli Defense Force balanced its capabilities in preparation for future conflicts. This monograph examines the IDF following its 2000 withdrawal from Lebanon when it prepared to fight a counterinsurgency but instead fought a "hybrid war" of mixed major combat operations and counterinsurgency in Lebanon in 2006. It uses the lenses of Israeli Defense Policy, Israeli Defense Force doctrine, training, and officer educational system to determine why the IDF was defeated during its 2006 war with Hezbollah despite of its recent counterinsurgency and counterterrorism experiences in the occupied territories od the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. As the IDF prepares for its next war, a balanced approach between low intensity conflict and high intensity conflict provides the greatest flexibility to hedge against an uncertain future. While a general purpose Army may not solve any one problem specifically, it will get close enough which will enable necessary adaptation. The force is required to effectively apply combined arms formations and work jointly with government agencies. The Israeli experience in its 2006 was in Lebanon is a reminder that it is better to prepare for a conventional conflict and fight an unconventional conflict if required. This prescription accounts for the following two assumptions: unconventional conflict generally is longer in duration and allows more time for leaders to make the required adaptations. Unconventional war is likely but not of an existential nature. The IDF cannot afford to choose between preparing for unconventional or conventional threats but rather find a balance which will allow for adaptation depending on the nature of the conflict.