As Israel’s military operations in Lebanon continue to deepen, a troubling question looms larger than the tactical details of the campaign: are senior military commanders being sufficiently candid with the political leadership about what is actually achievable, and at what cost?

This is not a new dilemma for Israel. The country has faced similar moments before when the gap between military objectives and political reality has widened dangerously. Historically, when military leadership has shied away from giving politicians the unvarnished truth about operational constraints, strategic dead-ends, or the true human and financial toll of a campaign, the consequences have been severe.

The current situation echoes earlier episodes in Israeli military history where institutional politeness or institutional caution prevented frank discussion between the defence establishment and the government. In those instances, operations that seemed sustainable in the short term became quagmires that dragged on far longer than anticipated, at far greater cost.

The real test of institutional health in Israel’s security establishment is not whether the military can execute orders effectively, but whether it can tell the government difficult truths when necessary. Without that honest conversation happening behind closed doors, public uncertainty about the aims and endgame of the Lebanon operation will only grow. And that uncertainty, more than the operations themselves, may prove to be Israel’s greatest vulnerability.

Source: Ynet — Original article in Hebrew.