Military Transformation

The test of any military thinking is not whether it predicts the next war, buthow well it recognizes the changes in the futureofwar andwarfare. Wemusttherefore ask ourselves more complex questions: areweinterested in incremental change by way of expedited military acquisitions andadditions; or arewe interestedin a systemicchange with an aim to reset the doctrine andstructures; or we are looking attransformative changesto convincingly deter or defeat our adversary

- HARINDER SINGH

Warfare today is witnessing a massive change. But when we analyse some ongoing wars, it is hard to decipher what is changing, and what is not.

In this age of media-hype, every new idea or technology is touted as a game-changer, leaving little room for honest understanding on the future of warfare. Understanding where warfare is headed can help political leaders, defence policy makers and military practitioners to make informed decisions, and take control of their strategic choices.

Three aspects of recognising change are important. First, recognising those changes that are transactional or incremental in nature. For example, India buying additional fighter jets to supplement its air warfare capabilities. Or, buying tanks, guns and warships. These are useful increments, but nothing spectacular in terms of altering the balance of power. They simply enhance operational efficiency. The capacity might improve, but not the broader concept to fight the adversary.

Newsmakers and analysts tend to obsess over such transactional changes as it produces a constant flow of newsworthy content and hype. They fail to ask 'how' and 'why' each change can, or cannot, cause a fundamental shift in India's overall war-fighting capacity. Notwithstanding this, the incremental change is necessary to maintain status quo, particularly against China and Pakistan, and to affect more profound changes within the three Services, envisaged at the systemic level.

Second, identifying those changes that have the potential to reshape the force. They are systemic in nature. They are both doctrinal and structural, and invariably driven by changes in technology, unlike those incremental changes these are omewhat different. Here, while the wider system remains the same, the balance between these factors undergoes a change. They typically show up as doctrinal or technological preferences, to define new concepts, structures and tactics on the battlefield.