In times of hyper volatility in the field of warfare with multiple small and at least two large wars – Ukraine and Middle East globally, it is natural that the field of military and defence will be searching for the most appropriate diachronic framework for establishing clear lines for capability and capacity building for the future.
This is ironic for the nature of war does not change – it remains violent, with political objectives and has sustained uncertainty depending on chance and will.
For the military the task is simple – to enhance the threat for violence on the adversary and if forced upon undertake an operation succeed in maximum destruction to create conditions for peace.
This is easier said than done, but conceptually, provides a centre line for projections. There are many other perceptions of war that have come up today from the purely conventional to what is loosely termed as hybrid, gray zone and so on.
These have an influence on the military but cannot be the focus of the armed forces whose main line of effort is to generate combat power at the point of decision and continuing to do so till capitulation of the enemy.
This effort will be disrupted by the adversary waging multiple means before outbreak of hostilities which can be loosely termed as hybrid threats – cyber attacks, information interventions, socio political disruption and so on.
These need to be combated by a whole of nation approach freeing the military to conduct the operations for ensuring territorial sovereignty while ensuring integrity of its warfighting systems.
By seeking to enlarge the military spectrum to engage in hybrid rather than conventional war there will be a crisis of diffusion of focus and capabilities which is harmful to see the least. While narrative building demonstrating capabilities can build up confidence mostly deceptive of own strength the discerning observer on the opposing side will be able to identify the military strength and capabilities, gap and be ready to exploit the same.
The doctrinal framework in the Indian Armed Forces has been diffused for some time now with greater focus on preparing for non conventional threats beyond counter militancy to include hybrid and grey zone.
The defence minister Mr Rajnath Singh seemed to add another one – Adaptive Defence. Speaking at the Delhi Defence Dialogue as per a press release by the Ministry of Defence, he indicated Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi-led Government’s unwavering resolve to create an ‘Adaptive Defence’ in the country to counter the challenges posed by the fast-changing world in today’s times.
This was in line with the central theme of Delhi Defence Dialogue (DDD) organised by Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), on the theme ‘Adaptive Defence: Navigating the Changing Landscape of Modern Warfare’, in New Delhi on November 12, 2024.
“‘Adaptive Defence’ is not merely responding to what has happened but anticipating what could happen, and preparing for it proactively”, Mr Singh said and, “involves cultivating a mindset and capability to adapt, innovate & thrive, even in the face of unpredictable and evolving circumstances. Situational awareness, flexibility at strategic and tactical levels, resilience, agility, and integration with the futuristic technologies are the keys to understand and create adaptive defence. It must be the mantra of our strategic formulations and operational responses,” he added.
Importantly he said, “It is more than just protecting our borders; it is about securing our future,” he said. This is clearly beyond the charter of the military and has to be undertaken by the government.
Adaptive defence concept itself seems to be taken from the cyber defence school where by monitoring developing threats in a single domain – the cyber through, “continuous endpoint monitoring, detection and classification of all activity to reveal and block anomalous behaviors of users, machines and processes,” threat detection and mitigation is achieved.
The military domains are too complex to be able to be “adaptive,” but have an existing parameters through which threats can be anticipated and actions taken to deter and adversary – deterrence by denial.
Instead of creating new doctrinal frameworks with weak legacy of credibility sustaining existing ones as deterrence by denial and defence is easier to transmit down the chain and ensure commitment down to the last fighter. For the essence of doctrine is to be unifying framework from the general to the soldier with interim concepts at multiple levels.
Comments