The "Skorzeny doctrine" and Yasser Arafat

As I was checking comments and posts on Facebook this AM I noticed where a Friend had posted. 

"Arafat was a follower of Otto Skorzeny of the Nazi era. He invented the use of the PLO style of terror. Skorzeny’s legacy is with us in the PLO and all the other Jihadists groups."

Background information: Who was Otto Skorzeny? 

Otto Johann Anton Skorzeny (12 June 1908 – 5 July 1975) was an Austrian-born German SS-Standartenführer in the Waffen-SS during World War II. 

During the war, he was involved in several operations, including the removal from power of Hungarian Regent Miklós Horthy and the Gran Sasso raid that rescued Benito Mussolini from captivity.

Skorzeny led Operation Greif, during the 1944 "Battle of the Bulge" in which German soldiers infiltrated Allied lines wearing their enemies' uniforms. 

As a result, he was charged in 1947 at the Dachau Military Tribunal with breaching the 1907 Hague Convention but was acquitted. Skorzeny escaped from an internment camp in 1948, hiding out on a Bavarian farm as well as in Salzburg and Paris. 

In 1953, he served as a military advisor to the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser. He was allegedly an advisor to Argentinian president Juan Perón.

In 1963 Skorzeny and other former Nazis were deceptively recruited by the Mossad to obtain information during "Operation Diamond" on German scientists who were working on an Egyptian project to develop rockets to be used against Israel.

When Skorzeny discovered the truth that those who had recruited him, and other "ex-Nazis" were, in actuality, members of the Israeli Mossad, he offered to help, and NOT disclose the truth to the other ex-Nazis, only if Wiesenthal removed him from his list of wanted war criminals and that the Mossad help him relocate to Spain and provide him "subsistence". 

Wiesenthal refused to "remove him from the list. But, according to senior Mossad agent Rafi Meidan, Skorzeny accepted the relocation and “subsistence” offer from Isser Harel and finally agreed to help anyway. 

Skorzeny died of lung cancer on 5 July 1975 in Madrid at the age of 67. 

The "Skorzeny doctrine"

The "Skorzeny doctrine" isn't a formally recognized military doctrine in the same way as, say, Blitzkrieg or Sun Tzu's principles. Instead, it refers to the utilization of unconventional warfare tactics, principles, and the personal philosophy associated with Otto Skorzeny, a highly controversial but effective SS commando during World War II.

Skorzeny became famous for several daring special operations, most notably the rescue of Benito Mussolini in 1943 (Operation Oak) and his involvement in Operation Greif during the Battle of the Bulge, where German soldiers infiltrated Allied lines wearing enemy uniforms to sow confusion and disruption.

While not a formal doctrine, the "Skorzeny doctrine" can be understood to embody the following characteristics:

• Emphasis on audacious special operations: - Skorzeny believed in highly specialized, often small-scale missions aimed at achieving strategic objectives through surprise, deception, and psychological impact. These operations often defied conventional military wisdom.
• Deception and irregular warfare: - A key element was the use of ruses of war, including wearing enemy uniforms, speaking their language, and using their equipment, to infiltrate and disorient the enemy. This often pushed the boundaries of international law regarding combatant status.
• Focus on high-value targets: -His missions often targeted critical individuals (like Mussolini or Hungarian Regent Miklós Horthy) or infrastructure to achieve significant political or military outcomes.
• Speed, surprise, and decisive action: Skorzeny’s operations were characterized by meticulous planning, rapid execution, and a willingness to take extreme risks to achieve their objectives before the enemy could react.
• "Relative superiority": Some analyses of special operations, influenced by figures like Skorzeny, suggest that success is achieved by creating a "relative superiority" through a simple, concealed, rehearsed plan executed with surprise, speed, and purpose, even when numerically inferior to the enemy.

Historical Context and Controversy:

It's crucial to understand that Skorzeny's methods, particularly the use of enemy uniforms in combat (as seen in Operation Greif), were highly controversial and led to his post-war trial for war crimes. While he was acquitted, the legality and ethics of such tactics remain debated under international law (specifically the Hague Conventions).

Despite the controversy, Skorzeny's exploits had a significant impact on the development of special operations forces globally, and his legacy continues to be studied in the context of unconventional warfare and intelligence operations.

Arafat and the "Skorzeny doctrine"

While Yasser Arafat's tactics and the "Skorzeny doctrine" both fall under the umbrella of unconventional or irregular warfare, it's not accurate to say Arafat "followed" Skorzeny's specific doctrine in a direct, doctrinaire sense. However, there are significant parallels in the types of tactics and principles they employed:

Similarities:

Emphasis on audacious, unconventional operations: Both Skorzeny and Arafat's organizations (like Fatah and its subgroups) engaged in highly visible, often shocking acts designed to achieve strategic impact and attract international attention. Skorzeny's rescue of Mussolini and Arafat's use of tactics like hijackings and the Munich Olympics attack serve as examples.

Deception and irregular warfare: Skorzeny was infamous for using enemy uniforms to sow confusion (Operation Greif). Arafat's groups also engaged in clandestine terrorist operations and by deception, used civilian clothing.

Arafat created a supposed PLO / Fatah subgroup, “The Black September Organization”, for clandestine terrorist attacks that the PLO / Fatah didn't want to be openly associated with, indicating a form of deceptive operation.

Focus on high-value targets (broadly defined): Skorzeny targeted individuals (Mussolini, Horthy, Tito) and critical infrastructure. Arafat's PLO / Fatah terrorist groups also often targeted Israeli civilians and symbols of the state to pressure for political objectives.

Psychological impact: Both Arafat and Skorzeny understood the power of their actions to create fear, disruption, and draw attention to their respective causes. Skorzeny's operations were designed to create confusion and demoralize the enemy. Arafat aimed to disrupt Israeli society and put the Palestinian cause on the global agenda through shocking acts of violence.

Operating from a position of "inferiority": Both Arafat's PLO / Fatah terrorists and Skorzeny’s units operated as smaller, less conventional forces against larger, established military powers, aiming to achieve "relative superiority" through surprise, speed, and specific tactics rather than overwhelming force.

Differences/Nuances:

Formal doctrine vs. pragmatic adaptation: Skorzeny's "doctrine" was more a collection of his personal approaches and principles, whereas Arafat's strategies evolved over time, shifting between armed struggle and diplomacy ("phased strategy"). While Arafat embraced armed struggle, he also engaged in political maneuvering and sought international recognition.

Goals: Skorzeny's operations were primarily military strategic within the context of a conventional war. Arafat's overarching goal was political: the establishment of a Palestinian state, often using armed struggle as a means to that political end.

Legal/Ethical Framework: Skorzeny's methods, particularly the use of enemy uniforms in combat, raised significant questions of international law. Arafat's embrace of certain forms of "terrorism" (as defined by many nations and organizations) also sparked widespread condemnation and controversy regarding their legality and ethics.

In summary, while Yasser Arafat did not explicitly "follow" the Skorzeny doctrine, his approach to armed struggle and unconventional warfare shared many common tactical and philosophical underpinnings with the methods associated with Skorzeny, particularly in their shared emphasis on daring, deceptive, and high-impact operations by smaller forces to achieve strategic aims.