US Adopts Israel's Gaza and Beirut Obliteration Doctrine

1,700 Airstrikes Later: The US Adoption of Israel's Obliteration Doctrine

Last month, the US launched a series of airstrikes against Iranian-backed militias in Syria, marking the 1,700th such operation since 2014. What's striking about this number isn't the frequency of strikes, but the fact that it's a mere fraction of the total number of airstrikes carried out by the Israeli military in Gaza and Lebanon since 2012. This disparity is more than just a coincidence – it reflects a fundamental shift in the US approach to counter-terrorism and regime change, one that's been inspired by Israel's "obliteration doctrine."

In essence, the obliteration doctrine involves using overwhelming military force to achieve strategic objectives, often at the cost of significant civilian casualties. Israel has employed this doctrine in Gaza and Beirut, citing the need to neutralize Hamas and Hezbollah's military capabilities. The US, however, has traditionally taken a more measured approach, prioritizing diplomacy and targeted strikes. But in recent years, the influence of the US national security establishment has grown, driving a hardline approach to counter-terrorism that's increasingly in sync with Israel's.

Key Takeaway: The US has adopted Israel's obliteration doctrine, prioritizing a hardline approach to counter-terrorism and regime change at the cost of civilian lives and regional stability.

The Rise of Private Military Companies and Drone Technology

The obliteration doctrine has been influenced by the rise of private military companies (PMCs) and the increasing use of drone technology. PMCs, such as Blackwater and Academi, have played a significant role in shaping US counter-terrorism policy, providing training and logistics support to military operations. Meanwhile, drone technology has enabled more precise and targeted strikes, but also raises concerns about accountability and civilian casualties.

Consider the case of the 2019 airstrike on a wedding party in Yemen, which was carried out by a US drone. The strike killed at least 30 civilians, including women and children, and was widely condemned as a war crime. While the US claimed that the strike was a mistake, many experts argue that it was a symptom of a broader problem – the lack of transparency and accountability in US drone operations.

The US-Israel Alliance: A Shared Interest in Containing Iranian Influence

The US-Israel alliance has been a key driver of the obliteration doctrine, with both countries sharing a common interest in containing Iranian influence in the region. The US has long been concerned about Iran's nuclear program and its support for extremist groups in the Middle East, while Israel sees Iran as an existential threat. This shared interest has led to a close coordination between the two countries on issues ranging from military operations to economic sanctions.

However, this alliance has also raised concerns about the erosion of democratic values and human rights in the region. The US has been criticized for its support of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, including Israel's own government, which has been accused of human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians. The obliteration doctrine has been a key factor in this erosion, as the use of overwhelming force has created a culture of impunity in the region.

The Non-Obvious Connections to Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

The obliteration doctrine has non-obvious connections to other industries, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). The use of AI and ML in military operations has become increasingly common, with many countries investing heavily in developing autonomous systems. However, this trend raises concerns about the potential for autonomous weapons and the erosion of human decision-making in conflict zones.

Consider the case of the Israeli military's use of AI-powered drones to target Palestinian civilians. The Israeli government has argued that these drones are necessary to protect its soldiers, but many experts argue that they are being used to justify a broader campaign of collective punishment against the Palestinian population. The use of AI and ML in military operations raises fundamental questions about the role of human decision-making in conflict zones and the potential for autonomous systems to perpetuate human rights abuses.

The Real Problem: A Culture of Impunity in the Middle East

So what's the real problem with the obliteration doctrine? It's not just the use of overwhelming force or the potential for civilian casualties – it's the culture of impunity that's been created in the region. The US and Israel have been criticized for their failure to hold accountable those responsible for human rights abuses in the region, including military leaders and government officials.

This culture of impunity has been perpetuated by the use of language that normalizes violence and dehumanizes civilians. Terms like "collateral damage" and "kinetic strikes" have become commonplace in military discourse, creating a sense of detachment from the human cost of war. The obliteration doctrine is a symptom of this culture, which prioritizes military objectives over human lives and regional stability.

What Can Be Done?

So what can be done to address the problems created by the obliteration doctrine? One possible solution is to adopt a more transparent and accountable approach to military operations, one that prioritizes human rights and regional stability over strategic objectives. This could involve establishing independent mechanisms for investigating civilian casualties and holding military leaders accountable for human rights abuses.

It could also involve investing in alternative approaches to counter-terrorism, such as diplomacy and economic development. The US and Israel have a long history of supporting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, but it's time to re-evaluate this approach and prioritize a more inclusive and democratic vision for the region.

Action: Call on your elected representatives to support legislation that prioritizes human rights and regional stability in US foreign policy, and to invest in alternative approaches to counter-terrorism that prioritize diplomacy and economic development.