The recent article published by Hespress, portraying the so-called “precision strikes” of the Royal Moroccan Armed Forces against the Polisario Front, reads less like strategic analysis than military communication masquerading as journalism. Beneath its technical vocabulary and self-congratulatory tone lies a carefully crafted narrative designed to normalize a political impasse, sanitize legally questionable practices, and equate technological superiority with legitimacy.
Rewriting Responsibility
The article opens with the familiar claim that Morocco is exercising “restraint and wisdom” in response to Polisario “low-intensity provocations.” This framing deliberately obscures a fundamental fact acknowledged in official UN reports: it was Morocco’s military intervention at Guerguerat in November 2020 that effectively ended the 1991 ceasefire.
Since then, the conflict has not been “frozen” but has entered a phase of sustained low-intensity warfare, for which Rabat bears primary political and legal responsibility.
Pseudo-Expert Validation and Narrative Control
By relying on a marginal foreign publication presented as a “defense reference,” and by quoting commentators consistently aligned with the official line, Hespress substitutes argument from authority for critical analysis. Absent are any independent legal perspectives, contradictory views, or genuine scrutiny of the operations described. What is offered is not journalism, but narrative legitimation.
From a Military Standpoint: Where Is the Victory?
It is precisely at the military level that the internal contradiction of this discourse becomes most apparent.
From a strictly strategic perspective, Morocco’s inability to recover the territories east of the sand wall—representing roughly one-third of Western Sahara—constitutes a major military failure.
This is all the more striking given the overwhelming imbalance of power:
- a force ratio of at least 10 to 1 in manpower,
- total air superiority,
- dominance in heavy weaponry,
- advanced technological backing from Turkey, Israel, and China.
Yet despite these advantages, the Moroccan army remains incapable of imposing ground control east of the berm, relying instead on targeted drone strikes.
In classical military doctrine, when a technologically superior army refrains from decisive ground offensives and limits itself to remote strikes, this does not signify dominance but strategic containment.
In other words, the much-vaunted “drone war” is not evidence of supremacy, but an implicit admission of failure to convert technological advantage into territorial victory.
Drones as a Substitute for Ground Risk
Rabat is fully aware that any attempt at a large-scale ground reconquest would entail:
- a costly war of attrition,
- politically unsustainable human losses,
- and heightened internationalization of the conflict.
Drones thus function not as tools of victory, but as mechanisms of conflict management, designed to maintain an illusion of control while avoiding the risks inherent in conventional operations. The result is a militarily frozen yet politically unresolved conflict.
The Deliberate Blind Spot: International Humanitarian Law
The Hespress article dismisses reports of civilian casualties as exaggerations or hostile propaganda. Yet:
- civilian deaths, including foreign truck drivers,
- have been reported in the UN-monitored buffer zone,
- prompting the opening of UN investigations.
The contradiction is glaring: Morocco demands “independent evidence” while consistently opposing the expansion of MINURSO’s mandate to include human rights monitoring.
This posture is not legal argumentation; it is systematic avoidance of accountability.
Autonomy: Repetition Without Legality
The article concludes by recycling the claim that Morocco’s autonomy plan enjoys growing international support. Legally speaking, however:
- no UN Security Council resolution recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara,
- the territory remains listed as non-self-governing,
- and the conflict remains a decolonization issue under international law.
Media repetition does not create legal legitimacy, nor does it resolve a conflict.
Conclusion
What the Hespress article ultimately reveals is not Moroccan strength, but the fragility of a narrative forced to conflate technology with victory, communication with strategy, and propaganda with reality.
The drone war is not a symbol of military dominance; it is the symptom of a deep strategic deadlock—a conflict that cannot be won militarily, has not been resolved politically, and is increasingly managed through remote force to conceal a structural impasse.
For no wall, however long, and no drone, however precise, can substitute for international law or for a people’s right to self-determination.
Comments
Post a Comment