The "failed interception," the "interception that wasn't." The various headlines competed for the title of most alarming and most depressing. Judging by the headlines, one could be led to believe that Israel's security had sustained a critical blow. It reminded me of the coverage of the Israeli F-16 fighter jet that was shot down several months ago. The television studios featured somber commentators with dejected expressions explaining one after another how Israel's power of deterrence had eroded – badly. On the night of the Israeli attack on Iranian forces in Syria, it felt like World War III had erupted.
On Monday, Israel activated the "David's Sling" air defense system – which represents the layer of air defense directly above the more famous Iron Dome. Its job is to eliminate midrange missiles flying at higher altitudes from Israeli airspace. After David's Sling, the next layer of the country's air defense is occupied by the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems, which can intercept long-range ballistic missiles – such as the Iranian Shihab missile – far above and beyond our own borders.
Although David's Sling was delivered to the IDF several years as fully operational, its first live-fire test this week – when it attempted to shoot down Syrian SS-21 ground-to-ground missiles over the Golan Heights – didn't go well and the missiles landed in Syrian territory, not far from the Israeli border. The defense establishment is investigating the incident. We are receiving erratic information and opinions, and the explanations aren't necessarily convincing.
Something has happened here in recent years. The performance bar has been set extremely high, and it demands direct, reliable and detailed coverage of every military action, every errant bullet or mobilized tank. This bar is so high that there isn't even the slightest room for failure; or what engineers call a "lack of success." A shell leaving its cannon has to hit the mark. A plane taking off has to land home safely with its pilots unscathed. A military operation has to be perfect – as if we are shooting at fake targets and people on the other side aren't fighting for their lives exactly like us. There is no room for error. Is this trend warranted?
One of the more famous mathematical terms, the "Gaussian curve" is named after renowned mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss who lived in the 18th century. This curve allows for natural outliers: There are average occurrences and there are exceptions. No engineering system in the world – from a fighter jet to a space shuttle to a home food processor – is free of glitches.
One system – for example, a cigarette lighter – can have a simple purpose, while another – shooting down one missile with another midflight – can be the pinnacle for aeronautical engineers. In any system, from the smallest to the largest, there will be "lacks of success" – or what the media likes to call "failures." The difference is semantic but it establishes essence. As the world makes technological strides in a variety of fields, usually we only hear about the successes. It takes a long time for a complex system to function properly.
It's very possible that the David's Sling system wasn't delivered entirely ready. It's possible this one error falls within the minuscule range of expected flaws. However, there's quite a distance between these possibilities and the current lamentations surrounding the failed interception. Israel's security doctrine won't collapse because a missile fell from the sky, just as it doesn't collapse when a satellite's trajectory isn't figured properly. The defense establishment will overcome the failures and rebound with unprecedented achievements.
