How Israel’s Battlefield Strategies Can Inform U.S. Military Practices

America has struggled to successfully liberate and hold territory from Islamic terrorists. Despite immense sacrifices in Afghanistan and Iraq, both countries remain under the control of terrorist groups. In contrast, Israel has developed a more effective approach that could offer valuable lessons for U.S. military strategy.

Top defense officials like former Gen. David Petraeus and current Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown have criticized Israel for not adhering to the counterinsurgency (COIN) model, which emphasizes clearing, holding, and stabilizing territories. However, this model has often failed, leaving behind significant casualties and instability.

The U.S. has spent decades following conventional warfare strategies against guerrilla forces, with little to show for it. In contrast, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have opted for a different approach. Rather than holding territory with an enemy population, the IDF focuses on attacking concentrations of enemy forces swiftly and unpredictably, avoiding the pitfalls of static defense.

This strategy has thwarted Hamas’s war plans, which rely on terror attacks to pin down military units. By refusing to hold territory, the IDF keeps the terrorists on the defensive. For example, re-clearing areas like Al-Shifa hospital allowed Israel to capture key leaders of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, turning the tables on the terrorists.

Israel’s goal is not to hold land but to degrade enemy forces wherever they are found. This offensive strategy contrasts sharply with the COIN model, which often bogs down armies and allows terrorists to exploit their defensive weaknesses. The IDF’s rapid assault capabilities have proven more effective, avoiding the traps that ensnared American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

COIN proponents often cite their "successes" against ISIS, but these strategies typically involved one group of Islamic terrorists fighting another. They would like Israel to replicate this by pitting the PLO against Hamas, despite the PLO's inability to defeat Hamas in the past.

The Biden administration has suggested finding Muslim nations to stabilize Gaza, but such partners are scarce. Egypt, for example, has obstructed Israeli advances to cover up tunnels from Gaza into Egypt and manufactured humanitarian crises to aid Hamas.

Israel’s strategy reflects a realistic assessment of Arab Muslim “partners” and their true intentions. Peace accords like Camp David and Oslo have often left Israel vulnerable, as seen on October 7. Now, Israel is prioritizing its strategic imperatives over diplomatic ones, focusing on destroying Hamas’s military capabilities.

Nation-building, or a "day after plan," is not currently on Israel’s agenda. Instead, the focus is on eliminating terrorist forces and infrastructure. Critics argue that the collateral damage will aid Hamas recruitment, but Israel understands that leaving terrorists in power is the true recruitment tool. Hamas’s control over Gaza for 17 years has built its strength, and Israel aims to dismantle it.

Secretary of State Blinken has warned of chaos if Israel vacates Gaza without a clear successor. However, Israel prefers the instability of warring gangs over the organized threat of Hamas. After October 7, Israel is applying a pragmatic realpolitik approach, which, while not a perfect solution, is far more effective than the failed nation-building efforts of the past.

The IDF’s mission is clear: use military force to achieve military aims, not political or diplomatic ones. This sensible approach could offer valuable lessons for American politicians and generals in future conflicts.

Celebrate Israel’s strategic innovations by sharing this article or subscribing to our newsletter for more insights on effective military strategies.