Why are Israeli Officers so Unprofessional? Why are Israeli Officers so Unprofessional?
Research · March 2016
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3664.8082
Tamir Libel at Institut Barcelona d´Estudis Internacionals
Tamir Libel
Abstract
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3664.8082 ·Available from: Tamir Libel, Mar 23, 2016
Why are Israeli Officers so Unprofessional? Tamir Libel Haaretz, 16/2/2016. Available at:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/.premium-1.2853241 Imagine receiving a telephone call late at night. The police officer on the line informs you that your child was involved in a car accident. You race to the hospital, and are greeted by an impressive-looking physician. Although young, he is brimming with self-confidence, and tells you precisely what you need to do. No doubt you'd follow his instructions, right? You ask him in passing where he studied medicine. To your astonishment he replies: "Oh, I'm not a doctor, just a paramedic". Such a scenario is certainly unrealistic in an Israeli hospital setting, but recurs time and again whenever the Israeli government convenes for a security meeting and is debriefed by senior officers of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). The IDF, richly equipped with cutting edge technology, fails to provide its officers with the education they require to perform their duties. It may refuse to acknowledge this fact, but being an officer is a profession, and officers across the western world are acquiring military education that prepares them for heading units in routine times, and planning and executing military operations in times of emergency. A military education does not necessarily prevent mistakes, but it does furnish officers with the knowledge and skills to cope with situations they have yet to personally experience on the ground.
The military education system is comprised of several levels. Just as a medical doctor studies pre-clinical subjects for four years, so the American officer gains knowledge in history, social sciences, exact sciences and even engineering at West Point. These subjects form the basis of the military education this officer would receive at the Command and Staff College as a major, which, in turn, will serve as basis for the strategic education acquired at the War College. What Israeli officers learn in the officer training course offered by the IDF School of Officers at Training Base 1 (Bahad 1) does not compare with the content provided by the West Point education programme, but rather with that offered by the US Army's non-commissioned officer (NCO) academies. And indeed, Bahad 1 graduates function not as officers in the western sense of the word, but as mediocre and inexperienced non-commissioned officers. In western armies, officers are free to command as soon as they are qualified, since the famous sergeant is the one tasked with "mothering" the troops. Such professional soldiers also form the backbone of Western field units. By contrast, when Israeli officers attend the officially named the Joint Course at the Command and Staff College known as PUM, in the best case scenario they actively receive the specific knowledge needed in their military branch, which they should really have acquired much earlier. Their German or British counterparts, meanwhile, are undergoing a true joint course, thanks to their military school education, in addition to the branch-specific staff and command courses taken while they were captains. Similarly, the teaching faculty, education programme quality and, physical infrastructure at IDF colleges lag far behind those common in Europe and the US.
Now all of the above has certain implications. First, IDF officers do not study nor practice staff work, as manifest by dysfunctional headquarters the likes of which were seen during the Second Lebanon War, but also by the daily haphazard management with which every reserve soldier is familiar. Second, Israeli officers do not study professional military theory and practice, and therefore only excel at what they have learned to do from personal experience. Thus, the officers that performed well during the second Intifada attempted to replicate their successes in the Occupied Territories during the Second Lebanon War. Third, IDF officers at the highest ranks lack the knowledge and thinking skills required to understand security issues in the broader sense. The IDF conduct during the planning and execution of the raid on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara raid, which tried to break the blockade on Gaza strip, is one example of what might happen as a result. A window of change was opened by the decision to relocate the military colleges from their current Glilot site, marking a historical opportunity to close down both the Command and General Staff College and the National Security College and set up Israel's first true military college. The new institution would be academically accredited, and offer the courses currently provided by both the Command and General Staff College and the National Security College. The academic accreditation would ensure a high level of teaching faculty, and, as is common in western world armies, the latter would include leading officers as well as PhD scholars. Such a combination would also allow the college to serve as a center for security and military studies, which to date has yet to be established in Israel, despite being home to many institutes for strategic studies.
In the long term the college should also include a joint military academy, offering three- and four-year study programmes that form a prerequisite for permanent service. If any top ranking IDF official should call Washington or London and seek advice from the experienced, they would certainly be coming to the right place. In recent years the Pentagon helped set up a joint command and staff college for the Saudi army, and the British are promoting similar reforms in the Gulf emirates. The sea may be the same, but Arab officers could potentially outsmart their Israeli counterparts in the not-too-distant future. Dr. Libel is a research fellow at the Barcelona Institute of International Relations (IBEI)