Critical thinking is equally applicable in politics and history, but frequently ignored in order to propagate or validate one viewpoint or another, usually one in which the propagator has invested significant time and energy. History and politics and many other topics also often seek an agreed "interpretation" which isn't much different from an opinion on whatever's up for discussion. This is far less common in science and engineering where one must eventually submit to nature as judge. One can't "interpret" an airplane up into the sky, for example.
In your second point about the IDF, you're mixing up the epistemological meaning of the word "critical" (implying systematic thought) with the more normal daily usage (implying disapproval of). One can be critical, for example, of medical science, while approving of it.