In recent discussions surrounding conflicts in distant regions, there is a pervasive issue where U.S. policymakers approach war strategies with a distant, often misguided perspective.
This has led to criticisms directed at nations that do not adhere to American tactics, as seen during the Iraq and Afghanistan surge.
Advocates of these strategies frequently bemoan the lack of alignment from their global partners, overlooking the long-term complications that arose from these very tactics.
Furthermore, there exists a troubling tendency within U.S. diplomacy that urges allies, like Israel, to engage with groups such as Hezbollah without a thorough understanding of their implications.
For decades, American diplomats have facilitated dialogue with this militant group, criticizing Israel for its military responses against Hezbollah’s provocations, urging instead for a more accommodating approach.
This sentiment was echoed during the Biden administration, particularly by Special Energy Envoy Amos Hochstein, who emphasized the need to recognize Hezbollah from a diplomatic standpoint.
Notably, both the Biden administration and that of George W. Bush have pushed for more diplomatic engagement with Hezbollah, showing a preference for negotiation over military action.
In a surprising turn of events, Israel undertook significant measures against Hezbollah, thwarting its communication capabilities with a bold operational strike.
This approach, driven by Israel’s strategic vision, contrasts sharply with the timid reactions from U.S. officials who often lack military experience.
Moreover, it underscores a broader misunderstanding within Washington about Israeli security dynamics.
The scenario remains similar in Ukraine, as evidenced by my experience at the Black Sea Security Forum in Odessa, where Ukrainian leaders conveyed their defensive success against Russian aggression.
From the outset, however, U.S. counsel to Ukraine on responding to Russian threats was rooted in a limited understanding of the local context.
The American perspective often conflates Russian and Soviet identities, neglecting Ukraine’s historic role as a hub of military innovation during the Soviet era.
Following Ukraine’s independence, the loss of its intellectual and industrial capabilities was a massive setback for Russia’s military strength.
Consequently, Ukraine’s ability to unite and push back against Russian annexation attempts was both anticipated and remarkable.
One striking instance was Ukraine’s successful engagement against Russia’s Black Sea fleet, culminating in the sinking of its flagship, the Moskva missile cruiser, which showcased Ukrainian strategic ingenuity.
Additionally, innovations in drone warfare permitted Ukraine to strike unexpectedly, asserting its military capabilities against Russian installations.
The narrative escalated with what some are now calling Ukraine’s ‘Pearl Harbor moment.’
The surprise maneuvers targeting Russian air force assets have fundamentally shifted the dynamics of the conflict, destroying aircraft positioned hundreds of miles away.
During my stay in Odessa, the sound of ‘incoming’ sirens served as a constant reminder of the ongoing conflict.
Targeting these aircraft not only hampers Russia’s ability to carry out effective attacks on Ukraine but also reduces its capacity to threaten European and American interests.
Critics who previously advocated for Ukraine to surrender or predicted its imminent defeat have been proven wrong.
Like Israel, Ukraine may face limitations in personnel and resources; however, it compensates through insightful tactics and strategies.
The stark contrast lies in the propensity of U.S. military dialogue to be reactive—focused on past wars—while nations like Israel and Ukraine continuously adapt and innovate to confront unexpected challenges.
The situations in Ukraine and Israel should serve as reminders that U.S. policymakers often risk misjudging the effectiveness of strategies based on historical conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Rather than imposing directives on those fighting against terrorism and oppression, it would serve the United States well to adopt a more humble stance, actively listening and learning from the experiences and innovative strategies of allies like Israel and Ukraine.
This approach could reinvigorate U.S. foreign policy with the strategic brilliance currently on display in both Jerusalem and Kyiv.
image source from：https://www.meforum.org/mef-online/u-s-should-learn-not-lecture-israel-ukraine-show-tactical-brilliance
