I begin this article with an odd statement, which is an idea I borrow from Mark Dubowitz, from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who believes that wars run on clocks, and opposing sides are rarely watching the same one. If you are a Westerner, time is of the essence. Our lives are ordered firmly by clock time, and we tend to think in terms of a single clock. Wars do not operate that way. Opposing sides rarely experience time in the same manner, and each may be watching a different clock.

The first clock is the military clock. The military clock measures the rate at which armed forces can achieve strategic objectives. It asks how long will it take to render the enemy incapable of continuing the war? This is where military planners look at markers like the opposition’s infrastructure, weaponry, and capacity to keep fighting, then estimate how long it will take to destroy the enemy.

The second clock shifts from the battlefield to political survival. It asks a different question than the military clock: not who is winning the war, but whether the opposing regime can stay in power. It is how long the opposing regime can endure military setbacks, economic pressure, and growing unrest before its authority begins to fracture. In some cases, a regime may have an incredibly weakened military, yet still survive politically. Conversely it may be strong militarily while weakening........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)