DECHRISTOPHER: Israel Should Focus On Winning The War, Not Winning Hearts And Minds

Almost 15 years ago I was standing in a dimly lit structure in southern Afghanistan. Across from me was a young Afghan boy. I’m not sure of his age, and he probably didn’t know either. The boy looked to be somewhere between fifteen to seventeen years old. I had been interrogating him for a few minutes and I could sense that he had absolutely no fear. 

I was surprised that he did not seem scared or at the very least intimidated. After all, standing before him was a bearded Special Forces soldier who was not pretending to be the good cop. In the past, every other time I engaged in this type of questioning the recipients were noticeably nervous. This boy wasn’t. I asked my interpreter if he was afraid of me. The boy replied “no.” I asked him why, and I will never forget his response. The boy stated, “if I don’t help you nothing will happen to me, but if I do help you the Taliban will cut off my head and kill my family.” I knew he was correct, and upon later reflection came to terms with the reality that the Taliban was winning the long game. Now, as I sit and write this from the quiet of my desk — a decade and a half later, I can say without a doubt that the kid was correct in his assessment of U.S strategy in Afghanistan. 

And if we are completely honest, in this specific time in history, this boy’s sentiment is shared by all our nation’s enemies — both foreign and domestic.

But how did we get to this point? How did an ill-equipped band of insurgents and terrorists instill more fear than the most powerful military in the world? Niccolo Machiavelli, the 16th-century political philosopher, is perhaps best known for writing that “it is better to be feared than loved.” From the perspective of conventional warfare, this has always been the case. But academics who study unconventional war would take issue with formulation. They would argue that when the fight is not against a uniformed enemy, it is important to win over the populace. Doing so, they would explain, builds local and international support, denies the insurgents critical support and reduces enemy recruitment. 

All of this can be summed up in the catchy slogan “winning hearts and minds.” At a strategic level this approach briefs well, but at a tactical or even theater level, it has the effect of negating our own military superiority. What is the point of having a military that can instill the fear of God in the enemy if we never wield it?

In 2009 I was on my second deployment to Afghanistan. While my team was receiving our country brief, we were informed that the rules of engagement had changed with respect to dropping bombs on buildings. We were told that the theater commander ordered that ordinance would not be dropped on compounds in support of ground operations. When we heard this, we asked, rhetorically, “What are we supposed to do if we’re taking fire from a compound?” The response was that we had to use our organic weapons (which translates to do nothing) or dismount and perform close quarters combat (CQC) to clear the compound. 

For those who have never performed CQC, just know it is a very hazardous task. It’s much safer to request that a bomb be dropped from 30,000 feet onto said compound. Essentially, the leadership was making combat more dangerous for American soldiers, while simultaneously leveling the playing field for the enemy. For the warfighters on the ground, this meant we were likely to lose more friends, to the decision makers it meant fewer civilian casualties and more hearts and minds.

We’ve heard it said ad nauseum that the U.S. has forgotten how to win wars. The last major war where the U.S. had a clear-cut victory was World War II. How World War II was ultimately won is not the purpose of this article, but it is hardly controversial to state that at the end of the war, the Axis powers feared the destructive capabilities and iron will of the allied forces. The enemy surrendered not because we won their hearts and minds with a better vision for the world. The enemy surrendered because, through violence of action, they understood that complete annihilation was the result if they continued to fight — see Dresden, Nagasaki and Hiroshima for reference. 

In this present moment, Israel would be best served if it ignored, wholesale, the West’s cries for humanitarianism. If Israel takes a tactical pause now, it will only embolden the resolve of the terrorists.

The West is refusing to acknowledge both the scale and barbarity of what occurred on Oct. 7 while attempting to draw moral equivalence between the rape and dismemberment of Israeli civilians and the collateral damage that has been pervasive in war since its inception. We instinctively conflate the natural reaction of shock at the realities of war with a moral obligation to change those realities, even if it means imposing absurd restrictions on the people doing the fighting. In the case of Israel, the Western reflex is not (for most people, anyway) rooted in antisemitism. It is rooted, rather, in the multicultural mind virus that infects the West’s citizenry at every level. 

For decades the West has been committed to the idea that not only should various cultural backgrounds and identities be respected and celebrated, but that to have a harmonious society we must embrace diversity and promote equality among its members. In the U.S., we have committed to reframing history to demonstrate that our country, and the West in general, has been a net negative to the world. We are ashamed of our past and the absolute power we possessed. So, we rename things and tear down monuments to try to atone for the sin of ushering in Western civilization and all the filthy individual freedoms and wealth it produces. 

We have created a society that is compartmentalized into voting blocs that are organized into a hierarchy of oppression. Proponents of this philosophy, which encompasses most of the legacy media as well as left-leaning politicians and their constituents, believe that the more intersectionality a group can claim the more political power they should possess. 

What this means for Israel is that the bloc of people who would have the resolve to win World War II are not the ones in power in the United States. On the contrary, the leaders of our current government, military and media — the ones calling for a ceasefire — are the ones that prioritize hearts and minds over victory, and civilian casualties over the blood of American soldiers. 

Israel’s leaders should not allow themselves to be swayed by American politicians who insist on the need for restraint, but are incapable of censuring their antisemitic colleague. Unfortunately, Israel has been dragged into a conflict at a time when all its traditional allies are mired down in their own cultural wars. We are both distracted and consumed by our own hubris.

The world has changed, and so have the Western values that have traditionally influenced global interventions. I never thought I would live to see the U.S. attempt to influence an armed conflict not with its former strength, but with the weakness and confusion that reflect its own internal divisions. The eternal philosophies of fear and power, as articulated by Machiavelli and personified by that fearless Afghan boy, endure with discomforting relevance today. 

For Israel, being loved is not an option. But do its leaders have the resolve to do what it takes to be feared, even in the face of international condemnation? Only time will tell.

Anthony DeChristopher a nine-year veteran of the United States Army Special Forces.  He holds an MA in Strategic Security Studies from National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs with a concentration in Irregular Warfare, and an MSN from Seattle University. When he’s not working as a Nurse Practitioner in a local urgent care and pain clinic, he raises cattle on his 30-acre ranch in Central Oregon.