Viewpoint: The Reason This Military Expert Believes the US is Extending the Battle in Gaza

Expert Analysis: How the US Could be Extending the Gaza Conflict

Spencer conveys to CNN Opinion that he notices a military with the potential to ruthlessly annihilate Hamas' soldiers is being constrained by the international community. He accusingly attributes a portion of the ruination in Gaza to the US due to how their efforts have hindered Israel's capability to triumph in the war. This restriction apparently adds to the deplorable situation for Palestinians by extending the duration of the combat.

Spencer arrives at these evaluations with 25 years of military service as an infantry soldier, containing two tours in Iraq. Presently, he is the chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, and his experiences and research have guided his observations on Israel's strategy and how it compares to American military campaigns.

Since US pressure on Israel has culminated in Rafah, the southern Gaza city thought to be Hamas' ultimate stronghold and a prominent entryway for weapon smuggling along the Egyptian border, the US is disapproving of specific types of weapons that fear Israel may use as part of an attempt to avoid a comprehensive IDF offensive in Rafah. However, simultaneous to this, the US is preparing a significant sale of other weapons. The US has indicated that a notable ground incursion will inarguably lead to increased Palestinian casualties and agony among Gaza citizens, over half a million of whom have escaped there to seek refuge.

Spencer advocates that, by opting for this pathway, the US is, inadvertently, promoting a victory for Hamas. "War is hell," Spencer insists. However, he points out, war is a deeply ingrained component of human nature. When democracies are subjected to attacks, these societies must engage in wars to swiftly attain victory so as to secure enduring tranquility.

The perspectives in this commentary are Spencer's, and they have been revised and condensed for clarity.

CNN: Do you believe Israel can overcome Hamas without carrying out a ground invasion in Rafah?

Spencer: Since October 8, there have been upper-ranking US officials asserting that a ground invasion wouldn't attain the objectives of destroying Hamas, recovering the captives, and fortifying the border. As an expert on urban combat, I vehemently contest that. Rafah is where the captives and remaining Hamas military prowess and penalty lies, their rockets, and weapons production, along with other aptitudes. The IDF would need to enter the area on foot due to these entities being buried underground in the tunnels that Hamas has created.

If Hamas endures in Rafah, they triumph. It doesn't make a difference if they're driven to the tiniest corner of Gaza. If the Hamas leadership survives, they have won the war since they can claim they assaulted Israel and persisted, and subsequently rebuild, continue to confront any ensuing governing force that could attempt to control Gaza, and launch additional attacks against Israel. Iran and its proxies would likewise have validated their scheme to attack Israel, weaken Israel's relations with its allies, and duplicate.

CNN: Are you implying that the US is now conceding that Hamas can remain in control of Gaza — win the battle, as defined by your terms — due to the high price, in terms of fatalities and devastation to Palestinian civilians, of achieving victory?

Spencer: They may not be directing it this way, but their actions don't present a viable alternative other than recognizing that. This is a significant shift in our history, in the history of Western societies, which adhere to the rule of law, if we're truly maintaining that Hamas can use human shields to survive as a consequence of the cost being prohibitively large to accomplish victory. The optimal method to prolong the violence and the scarcity of peace in Israel and Palestine is to leave Hamas in power.

Undoubtedly, it's tough to envision a blueprint for tranquility from here, but I can assuredly state with unyielding confidence that permitting Hamas to prevail is the most probable strategy to maintain the chaos in the Middle East.

CNN: Yet, even in areas of Gaza where Israel has engaged in ground operations and successfully dislodged Hamas, like northern Gaza, you have observed Hamas persist in their fighting. Thus, is this not a question of whether Israel can defeat Hamas regardless of the constraints the US imposes on them?

Spencer: No, in my opinion, it isn't. If you're going to evaluate whether Israel has been effective in its strategy, you appraise it against what Hamas was on October 7, not its current form. Israel's techniques, in my opinion, have been incredibly successful at eradicating Hamas as a military organization by every definition: the number of military units thrown into disarray and unable to reorganize as functional entities to carry out their assigned mission, such as invade or protect, the land they control, the fewer captives being held by Hamas. The IDF does not need to eliminate every one of the 40,000-plus Hamas members to succeed. They need to annihilate their organized military units, eliminate their capacities, and obliterate their leader(s). Link

The existence of fragmented Hamas groups in Northern Gaza serves as a clear warning of the challenges that lie ahead. There will still be a considerable number of blazes left in the region after the current conflict, making things even harder the day after. I have experience in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where we managed to deplete a significant portion of the Iraqi military, yet many of them abandoned their duties before the US dismantled it. This led to a resistance later on when conditions worsened. However, this doesn't negate the fact that we were effective in ousting the ruling power and the military itself.

CNN: Is there a chance Israel's offensive might result in more militants joining and combating Hamas against Israel, thus being counterproductive?

Spencer: Absolutely, there is a possibility. Just like General David Petraeus suggests, this could potentially lead to the creation of more terrorists in the future. For now, Hamas must be defeated. But what happens the day after is equally crucial. The reason Afghanistan's war didn't prosper wasn't due to the initial efforts to eliminate the Taliban, but the ineffective post-war strategy. If Israel doesn't provide a better alternative, it could lose in the long game against an ideological enemy.

Wars drive individuals who are discontented with their side's defeat. This can even contribute to radicalization. However, in the heat of a life-or-death struggle or a global conflict, such concerns take a back seat. You cannot refrain from demolishing your opponent simply because its population might become more disgruntled. The US couldn't worry about further radicalizing the German population during World War II. Its focus was on defeating the Nazis. Following the victory, it could then try to de-radicalize them. Despite the persistence of Nazi ideology, it was unable to regain its dominance due to the military defeat.

CNN: Do you believe Israel can surely secure a win with IDF?

Spencer: Yes, the IDF has a high likelihood of triumphing in this battle. But it's also a winnable war for Hamas. Wars are not just won by military strength; they're also a test of wills. If Hamas can survive, it will have succeeded in its war strategy and gained more political power than before. Hamas can boast of having successfully launched a massive, brash attack against Israel, withstood the onslaught, and managed diplomatic gains——weakening Israel's allies, such as the United States.

CNN: You've previously claimed that the IDF has moved a considerable number of Palestinian civilians to areas of lesser risk. But civilians have lost their lives trying to flee and assert that they have nowhere safe to go. So, can it be said that Israel can effectively move civilians out of Rafah?

Spencer: The blame falls on Hamas for putting these civilians in harm's way during evacuations. Their selfish tactics have led to clashes near designated safe zones. The Al-Mawasi humanitarian zone was carefully selected because it lay outside the defensive infrastructure Hamas had built in tunnels and urban areas. However, Hamas still fired rockets from there and other protected regions, creating a vicious cycle. Now, refugees are at a loss, claiming there is no safe haven. This is a prevalent issue in warfare, in which civilians lose their homes and face risks again and again.

The fact is, Egypt declared that it would not permit Palestinians to cross its border, even into humanitarian camps in the Sinai. The reasons are complex, involving Egypt's own history with Islamist terrorist groups, the strain on its society and economy, and the fear of society perceiving it as an ally to Israel's causes in the ongoing Gaza conflict. You may denounce Israel for not letting them enter southern Israel, but they are part of the enemy that recently devastated southern Israel and displaced its people. If the enemy uses protected spaces, like hospitals and schools, for offensive purposes, the best course of action is to create a secure space for these civilians under the given circumstances.

CNN: Hamiltonian's use of hospitals and schools was mentioned. Could you elaborate on this?

Spencer: Certainly. It illustrates how idealistic intentions can lead to disastrous outcomes. It is righteous to declare that hospitals should remain off-limits in war, ensuring their protection. However, combatants who disregard the laws of war have filled these protected facilities with their presence, turning them into bases. Hamas took advantage of every law of conflict to nestle itself in buildings with legal protection, a strategic maneuver that jeopardized secure sanctuaries. Dealing with an enemy that disregards the law of war presents a significant disadvantage for a conventional military, especially when the world is watching.

Hamas is the first group I've encountered who has managed to create a military strategy at an industrial level. The US military has bombed entire hospitals due to conflicts against ISIS, yet Hamas has chosen a different approach. They engineered each protected location to be a military facility, knowing that Israel would have limits on the use of force against these sites, and that the world would be outraged if Israel even considered entering them. Hamas is taking advantage of this, predictably.

There were rumors that Hamas built their tunnels beneath every school, UN facility, and hospital. However, we're discovering that they not only built tunnels but also built the schools on top of them. This has increased the risk to civilians as a result of our efforts to protect these places.

CNN: How do you know that Hamas constructed tunnels under hospitals and schools? There are many doubts about the information the IDF has provided and the figures it has released. So how can you be sure of this information?

Spencer: I trust the IDF's information more than Hamas's, but I also have personal experience. I've been close to Gaza during this conflict, near mosques and schools with tunnels. I saw the IDF uncovering a tunnel running out of a mosque, and it's been documented that Hamas uses mosques for storing weapons and other military purposes. I'm relying on both the IDF's data and my own observations.

CNN: You've mentioned your participation in the Iraq war. How would you evaluate Israel's conduct in relation to the US fighting terrorists in Afghanistan or ISIS in Mosul, Iraq?

An Israeli soldier is pictured inside a tunnel that the Israeli military claimed is a

Spencer: When it comes to war tactics designed to limit civilian harm, the US military employs speed, force, and overwhelming power. We followed this method in Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The issue is that the international community pressured Israel to adopt a slower, more methodical approach.

I can confidently assert that Israel has adopted every civilian harm mitigation technique developed in the last 30 years, despite Hamas's actions.

CNN: Critics argue that even if Israel is generally following the same standards for protecting civilians as the US, the events in Iraq and Afghanistan were disasters and the US failed to protect civilians there. Isn't stating that Israel is upholding these same standards a means of excusing Israel for its own atrocities?

Spencer: War is brutal; there's no denying that. Some argue that Israel's actions are against the law, but there is no concrete evidence to support this claim. Others claim that the civilian suffering is too high, and Israel should end the conflict. I believe that these good intentions could potentially lead to more war.

I want the laws of war to be upheld and want conflict to be minimized. I don't want civilians to be targeted. However, there is no proof that the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan ever intentionally targeted civilians. Yes, the US has made mistakes in the past, but our calculations for collateral damage have significantly changed since then. We should not go back.

I view this as a philosophical dilemma about war. If we believe that war should never exist, things would be vastly different. Japan and Germany might have won World War II if the international community had perceived the cost of opposing them as too high.

I believe that the concerns about Israel's actions are more than just a question of legality. The other side claims that Israel should stop the war, despite the risk of allowing Hamas to win. This, in turn, could lead to more warfare if the US faces a powerful enemy in the future. I'm pointing out the potential consequences of these opinions.

Spencer: I firmly believe that a powerful and immediate response would have been necessary to halt the war and prevent it from occurring again. The historical precedent of the United States and its approach to warfare backs this up.

The consequences would have been devastating, requiring tough decisions on the balance between keeping our nation safe and minimizing destruction. I'm asserting that America's current demands on Israel's conflict could have led to more extensive harm in the long run. The idea of a more restricted operation that the US could encourage instead of a ground invasion of Rafah runs a serious risk.

Keep up with our insights and analyses by signing up for our newsletter
Follow us on Twitter and FacebookSpencer: What I mean is that taking your time allows your adversary to prepare and hamper your objectives. We, along with the rest of the world, should accept responsibility for some of the ruin in Gaza.

CNN: How does that come about?

Spencer: When the ground invasion began, the world threatened Israel, regardless of whether the actions were lawful or not, that they could no longer participate in the conflict. The United States, due to its influence, said that while the results achieved by Israel were impressive, another solution had to be found.

In response, the IDF adapted their tactics. They decreased the number of soldiers engaged, targeted military sites less frequently, and proceeded more cautiously and methodically. This included pausing for longer periods of time, avoiding areas with large civilian populations, and causing a protracted, house-by-house, street-by-street battle. This has extended the conflict, exacerbated humanitarian issues in Gaza, stretched aid resources there, and prolonged the violence. Additionally, it has bolstered the position of Hamas. So, we, the global community, share some accountability for the ruin in Gaza.