Deterrence Theory 101?

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Monday, January 19, 2009 - 5:12 PM Share

Apropos my earlier post about the decline in Israel's strategic thinking, here's Yossi Klein Halevi of the Adelson Institute of Strategic Studies explaining his peculiar view of deterrence theory:

The Arabs take their cue from Israeli responses," he said. "Deterrence is about how Israelis feel, whether they feel they've won or lost."

No, this is not what deterrence is about. Deterrence is not about how you feel; it's about about how your adversary feels, and about how they calculate the potential gains or losses of whatever actions you are trying to deter. If you think you've won the last round and that this proves that you're stronger and more resolved and yet I still think otherwise, your deterrent threats aren't going to work.

Furthermore, because deterrence depends on both capability and resolve, it might actually be weakened if Israelis feel they've won and say so too loudly. Why? Because Hamas might decide it has to take more aggressive actions to demonstrate that the Israelis are wrong and that it is still capable of resistance.

Finally, there's little reason to think that Israeli perceptions of victory or defeat play a very big role in Hamas' longer-term calculations. At this point in the conflict, I doubt there are very many Palestinians who question whether Israel is both willing and able to deal with them harshly. In addition to imposing a crippling economic blockade on Gaza, Israelis killed over 5,000 Palestinians in the 2nd Intifada (2000-2008), compared with about 1,000 Israeli deaths in that same period. And this was before the Gaza operation began. Given that background, it is hard to believe that proclamations of victory now (which will be made by both sides) will have much effect on their future conduct.

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, POLITICS, MIDDLE EAST, AUSTRALIA, ISRAEL/PALESTINE, MILITARY

(13)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

KEN

7:40 PM ET

January 19, 2009

Considering the balance of

Considering the balance of power in Israel's favour how do they suffer from Hamas being strengthened, what can Hamas do to Israel?
Hawkish Israeli strategists probably fear the Palestinians uniting behind Mahmoud Abbas more than anything and he is the big loser in all this as your post points out

GRAND SEN-OR

8:39 PM ET

January 19, 2009

"Deterrence" oh good another term for SATFP

Thank you Stephen,
I'll add another axiom to SATFP to include your kind of definition of the term "deterrent". If I make a mistake please feel free to correct. If you don't correct, it stays there till I notice the mistake or another Blogger points it out. I don't have time to do this at the moment.

It is good to be here, I learn new FP terms everyday;->
I am not an FP specialist BTW. I am a modern philosopher if you know what I mean by that, if you don't you will get an idea as I philosophize here not for you but for myself. Not because I am selfish, but because philosophy like politics is related to the concept _will_. If you don't _will_ no-body can make you philosophize, same with politics, if you don't _will_ to see phenomena from a different perspective for some reasons of yours, then nobody can make you change your perspective.
Then you may ask why do I philosophize here?
Just to be in the Market;-> to demonstrate how I philosophize so that perhaps some people who is not scared to use intellect can get some examples how a modern philosopher pholosophize in FP environment. Just to give you a taste - might be bitter but;->>
Thank you again that you keep this blog rolling and not kicking me out of it for my not so usual language acts;->
BTW, I am here because I always dreamt to maintain such a blog, not in particular on FP, but in general politics and philosophy of politics. I have tried this once or twice but I have been undermined by "authorities";->>
Hope I don't get the same end here;->>
Hey, Internet is womb like enough to finds another not yet penitrated corner to be/get furtilized if you are vigorous enough;->
We'll see what The Grand Friend shows...

Grand Sen~or

BLUE13326

12:27 AM ET

January 20, 2009

What is it with you and

What is it with you and Israel? Your other posts are much more interesting and convincing (such as your post on the crisis of competence, which was excellent).

You or the guy you link to are first off mistaking deterrence with confidence. Internally, there was a lack of confidence after the 2006 War, just like for us there was a lack of confidence in our military after Vietnam. In the same way the easy victory over Saddam's paper tiger army in Gulf War I reasserted internal US confidence in our military prowess, this relatively easy victory over the Hamas paper tiger may do the same. Who knows? But, for better or worse, Israelis probably have much more confidence in their military (and therefore their own security) than they did previous to this engagement. Whether this will then translate into external deterrence is on open question, mostly because the Arab mind seems very difficult to fathom.

GRAND SEN-OR

7:27 PM ET

January 20, 2009

Oh good another satelitte term "confidence"

That would go very well with "deterrence", "balance of threat" and "national interest".
I am looking forward for that.
If you ask me there is nothing wrong with Stephens terms as long as you fit them in their right slot in this jigsaw-puzzle of the SATFP.

BTW, don't worry about the Arab/Jew mind, mind your theory;->>Because "mind" is _not_ yet part of the SATFP.

Grand Sen~or

BRETT

11:55 PM ET

January 19, 2009

It's all very tricky,

It's all very tricky, compounded by the fact that the local Arabs are probably more likely to take Hamas's propaganda seriously than that of Israel's. I'm tempted to suggest that Israel ought to lower the Gaza blockade to show how "magnanimous" they are in victory, but Hamas might claim that the "noble efforts of martyrs in the victory" forced Israel to lower it. They'd look mighty hypocritical in doing so, and look like liars, but still . . .

GRAND SEN-OR

7:32 PM ET

January 20, 2009

The tricky thing here is to

The tricky thing here is to layout the SATFP to see the real picture. Once you do this there will stay no trick or treat out there;-> every FP phenomena will fall in its place and you will see how the phenomean is saved by the magic of the SATFP. And do you know what, you don't need to go to ME to discover this under fire;->

Grand Sen~or

FULANA

4:19 AM ET

January 20, 2009

No Justice, No Peace!

If you go to any pro-Palestine demonstration, you'll invariably hear people chanting,"NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!" That's the crux of the Israeli problem with deterrence. Israel wants the conflict to end, for the Palestinians to accept their utter defeat and to accept the crumbs from their masters' table. Hamas is not really the problem, in fact Hamas was brought into existence with Israel's help to weaken the P.A. Before Hamas, they blamed the problem on Arafat; it's always one excuse or another. The plan has always been for the whole of mandate Palestine to be a Jewish state and for the Palestinians to be removed from this state in a piecemeal fashion as the opportunity rises. This problem cannot be resolved by "deterrence;" a just solution needs to be reached. But what chance is there for this to happen when the "honest broker" is arming one side in the conflict?

GRAND SEN-OR

7:43 PM ET

January 20, 2009

That's the crux of the

That's the crux of the Israeli problem with deterrence. Israel wants the conflict to end, for the Palestinians to accept their utter defeat and to accept the crumbs from their masters' table.

What about Palestinians do they want something different?
You guys all want the same.
You want:
"NO JUSTICE! and NO PEACE!"
and you GOT IT!

When you scream "JUSTICE!" do you know what I am thinking?!
You wouldn't like to hear but I am not the guy who is here for beauty contest, so I will tell it;->

Jews have more right on the oil resources in the region than the EU$,those guys were living around there with you for hundereds of years. Do you, would you share it with them rather than the EU$?

Grand Sen~or

JUDYINJERUSALEM

12:33 PM ET

January 20, 2009

the real issue..

is averting Iranian influencve in a post-war Gaza. Shimon Shapira has an interesting analysis of this at http://tinyurl.com/8gldrj

RICHARD WITTYQ

7:26 PM ET

January 20, 2009

Deterrence

Its unknown to what extent the Israeli military action in Gaza will serve as a deterrent or not.

Like in Lebanon, in which Hezbollah has not yet materially resumed shelling Israeli civilians, it may be due to deterrence.

The same may occur in Gaza. It's possible that Hamas will conclude that an extended actual cease-fire is in their interests, and that internally it is better to rely on those in their organization that form their perspectives from social service rather than from warring.

GRAND SEN-OR

1:49 AM ET

January 21, 2009

Deterrence

Your explanation sounds better but;->
Let's say the US and Israel decided, Israel to take a military action to disrupt weapons flow to Hamas with the hope that this may deter Palestinians' support to Hamas. But you must also explain why would Hamas sucked into the rocket showering in the first place to provoke Israel knowing what had happened/happening to Hizbullah. I don't think those guys don't learn from each others operations;->>
But maybe you suggest that Israel provoked Hamas to shower herself with rocket which was not effective anyway. That would complete the whole picture better I guessbut even this would leave the question; Why would Hamas get provoked by Israel and be ingaged into rocket firing while they knew what happened to Hizbullah? Cab we sat maybe they think that Hizbullah's operations was all in all quite successful that is why Hamas played the same game? If so that we have all the right to question the US FP and Israel if Hizbullah's operation was successful why did they expect the Hamas operation will end unsuccessfully for Hamas? Hpw are they going to achieve that? Are they going to take some other actions? Like what?

Questions within questions Mate;-))

If you ask me in guerilla war situations to use regular army always hurt the army and the politics pushing the army in such situations. In the end whatever the army does the guerilla wins;->>Because guerillas are not only military entities they are also semi-political entities. They can easily switch roles from military to political entity, while the armies engaged with them do not have this luxury of switching identity, so they become sitting ducks in front of guerillas;->
What I am trying to say here is cutting certain channels of weapon flow could hurt a military entity but it wouldn't bother a guerilla entity at all. My conclusion is politicians made another inevitable mistake on Gazza affair - the US FP politicians and Israel Lobby.
Why inevitable? Because their FP policies were in accordance with their Constitutions. I mean if they had a different constitution they wouldn't end up in such repeated mistakes;->>
I know guys it is really hard to ask the question to yourselves "What is wrong with us that we always do the same mistake?" But the answer might not be as scary as you don't dare to ask the question.
Look!, here is a clue for you, why don't you start a _thought experiment_ assuming that you have a different Constitution?!

I know that Stephen on his chair jumping up and down thinking what happened to him just inventing a thought experiment regarding the Israel Lobby - the hell broke out;->>
But the one I offer - even he cannot dare to do that, not even after Israel Lobby.
I bet he can hear me saying;->

"You ain't seen no hell yet Stephen M.Walt!;->>
If you dare to see one, try the though experiment I propose;->
Hasn't there left some men/women who has similar guts as your Founding Fathers?!"

Grand Sen~or

KALAMANDO

7:32 AM ET

January 22, 2009

And the Israelis take their CUE from OTHER's foreign policy

The Israelis took their CUE 1957 and made a complete withdrowal - This is how:

34th US President IKE suspended AID TO ISRAEL

“Ike” = Dwight David Eisenhower American general & the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961). As far as WAR & PEACE issues; IKE had the richest experience of all US presidents!
In WWII he was the commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (1943-1945) he launched the invasion of Normandy (June 6, 1944) and oversaw the final defeat of Germany (1945).
Ike cared about the STRATEGIC WELL BEING of Israel because HE was aware that the creation of Israel was the ultimate answer to European anti-Anti-Semitism.
On October 31, 1956 Ike’s presidency was marked by SUSPENSION OF US AID to ISRAEL in protest at its invasion of Egypt in the Suez Crisis.
In an emergency session of the United Nations (UN) November 1-2 1956 General Assembly was called to consider the Suez Crisis. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES, ATTACKED the British–French–Israeli ACTION, and the Assembly votes for a cease-fire!
Britain & France complied promptly, but ISRAEL did not; until January 22, 1957 when Israeli forces completed their withdrawal.

RICHARD WITTYQ

11:52 AM ET

January 22, 2009

67 borders

I personally am an advocate for the 67 borders proposal of the Arab League, with two exceptions (that could be large obstacles).

1. The Jewish section of the old city of Jerusalem will have to be Israel, or else it will NEVER be ratified in Israel.

2. Any settlers should get the option of staying in their homes (paying compensation for the land) and becoming Palestinian citizens. Palestine should reform its laws on ethnicity and land ownership to permit Jewish ownership and purchase of land, and establish firmly color-blind democratic institutions.

Those settlers that cannot accept living in Palestine and abiding by Palestinian law should return to Israel.

The urge to remove 450,000 Jewish residents within the green line by force, even of law, to return to an imagined past status, will be perceived (and will be) an actual ethnic cleansing.

I would NOT suggest a second wrong to make a right.

But, if the Arab League, including Hamas' more rosy inferences - that it abstained from when allowed to vote (not all of their inferences are as rosy as the left hopes), actually normalized relations with Israel, it would be a good for ALL concerned (except militants remaining in Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, wings of Hamas, Iran, Al Quaida and spinoffs, Muslim Brotherhoods).