Writer: Gawaya Tegulle. PHOTO/NMG
Looking at the Israel vs Iran war, it’s now clear that deadly things come in small packages. So, how does the Israeli army compare with Uganda’s?
Short answer: a tale of chalk and cheese... stone and yam. I’ve interfaced with both the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), so I feel able to say a few words about them both.
In terms of foundational doctrine and national identity, check out the IDF: established with a clear defensive doctrine rooted in the survival of the state of Israel. It operates under the Hebrew principle of “Purity of Arms”, which requires soldiers to use their arms in a manner respectful of human rights. Its identity is rooted in national unity, civic responsibility, and technological excellence.
President Museveni inspects a guard of honour during the pass-out of soldiers in 2023. PHOTO/ABUBAKER LUBOWA
UPDF: originated from a guerrilla rebellion (the National Resistance Army), not a national defence vision. It’s heavily politicised, serving more as a regime protection force than a neutral national army. It lacks a coherent national defence doctrine; the chain of command is blurred by political interference.
Let’s go to civil-military relations and accountability. IDF: accountable to civilian authority (the Knesset and Ministry of Defence). It’s subject to internal investigations and oversight by the Supreme Court. IDF soldiers are trained to follow clear legal frameworks and disobey unlawful orders.
UPDF: controlled by the Commander-in-Chief and a small circle. It has a record of impunity, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and illegal detentions. It lacks any kind of civilian oversight or institutional checks; its courts-martial are used selectively, including to neutralise political opponents.
I now turn to training and professional development. IDF: strong on rigorous, standardised training, including in urban warfare, ethics, and leadership. Promotions are on merit. It maintains military academies, research institutions, and mandatory refresher courses for reservists. IDF is a machine; constantly innovating, drawing lessons from each conflict, and rapidly adapting doctrine.
UPDF: training is uneven and heavily politicised; top positions often go to loyalists. And it’s used for internal repression, like suppressing protests.
Let’s go to use of technology and intelligence. IDF: one of the world’s most technologically advanced militaries... which is why Israel wasn’t afraid to attack Iran, which is 75 times larger in geographical size, with a population 10 times larger and an army three or four times bigger.
Israeli soldiers stand on tanks, amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas, near the Israel-Gaza border, in southern Israel, January 1, 2024. (PHOTO/REUTERS)
IDF invented and operates the Iron Dome (a system that detects, intercepts, and destroys artillery fired at Israel), satellite systems, drone fleets, among others. Israeli intelligence services are perhaps the finest in the world and are globally respected.
UPDF: technologically outdated, relying on conventional arms and foreign donations. It has weak cyber and aerial capabilities and minimal real-time battlefield integration.
Let’s move on to rules of engagement. IDF: clear rules of engagement, legal advisors in combat units, and after-action reviews. IDF has strict operational codes and legal redress mechanisms, and maintains procedural discipline in combat zones.
UPDF: frequently accused of human rights violations, killings (take Kasese 2016) and torture. In May 2024, the US imposed Global Magnitsky Act sanctions against Gen Peter Elwelu, who commanded the Kasese operation. There is no visible legal or ethical framework in combat zones. And it’s worse during internal deployments – UPDF handles civilians as combatants.
How about military-civilian integration and public trust? IDF: deeply integrated into Israeli society; service is mandatory and widely respected. Veterans often enter politics, business, and academia, bringing a culture of discipline and innovation. The public trusts the military as a professional, non-partisan institution.
UPDF: viewed with fear and suspicion by civilians, especially in Opposition strongholds. It’s notorious for election interference, arbitrary arrests, and repression. It’s strongly associated with the ruling party, eroding its legitimacy as a national army.
Lastly, in terms of mission clarity and strategic orientation, the IDF has a clear national defence mandate: protect borders, deter enemies, and prevent terrorism. Its strategic outlook is guided by national policy, military intelligence, and real-time threat assessments.
UPDF: often deployed for non-military or partisan tasks – suppressing dissent, propping up unpopular regimes abroad (take South Sudan), or even enforcing lockdowns. Its strategic priorities are often set by the Commander-in-Chief’s political needs, not national security.
The writer, Gawaya Tegulle, is an advocate of the High Court of Uganda.
[email protected]
