Tag: strategic thinking

Posted on

671: PAKISTAN’S BACKWARDS MARCH: LED BY THE GENERALS, PAID FOR BY THE PEOPLE

 

My article published on the IIRF  and  “Life of Soldier” website on 08 May 25.

 

“While most nations have an army, in Pakistan, the army has a nation.”

— Widely cited in analyses of Pakistan’s civil-military ties

 

Pakistan, a nation born from the aspirations of a free and prosperous Muslim homeland, finds itself trapped in a cycle of stagnation and regression. The title “Pakistan’s Backwards March” encapsulates a grim reality: a country with immense potential is being held hostage by its power structures, particularly the omnipresent influence of its military establishment. Led by the generals, this march backwards is a betrayal of the nation’s founding ideals and a burden borne disproportionately by its people. Understanding the historical and contemporary dynamics of military dominance reveals that Pakistan’s elusive path toward a more democratic and equitable future can only be charted by its citizens. However, the time for this charting is not just now, but now or never.

 

The Generals’ Grip: A Historical Perspective

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan’s military has positioned itself as the ultimate arbiter of the nation’s destiny. The country’s early years were marked by political instability, with weak civilian governments unable to consolidate power. This vacuum allowed the military to subtly and overtly step in as the self-proclaimed guardian of national interests. The first military coup in 1958, led by General Ayub Khan, set a precedent that still haunts Pakistan. Subsequent coups under Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq, and Pervez Musharraf entrenched the military’s role as the dominant force in politics.

The military’s justification for its interventions has often been cloaked in the rhetoric of stability and security. Pakistan’s volatile geopolitical environment has been cited as a reason for the need for a strong, centralised authority. The Kashmir conflict, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the post-9/11 war on terror further amplified the military’s influence, as it positioned itself as the bulwark against external and internal threats. However, this narrative conveniently obscures the military’s role in perpetuating instability to maintain its grip on power.

The military’s dominance is not merely political; it extends into the nation’s economic and social fabric. Through sprawling business empires like the Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust, the military controls vast sectors of the economy, from agriculture to real estate. These enterprises, often tax-exempt, operate with little transparency, siphoning resources that could otherwise fund public services. Meanwhile, the military’s influence over media and civil society stifles dissent, ensuring its narrative remains unchallenged.

 

The People’s Burden: Economic and Social Costs

 The consequences of this military-led governance model are borne by Pakistan’s 240 million citizens, who face a litany of challenges exacerbated by the generals’ priorities. The economy, perpetually on the brink, is a stark reflection of mismanagement and skewed resource allocation. Pakistan’s GDP growth has lagged behind its South Asian neighbours, averaging around 3-4% annually over the past decade, compared to India’s 6-7%. Public debt has skyrocketed, with external debt surpassing $130 billion in 2024, driven by loans from the IMF and bilateral creditors like China. This economic burden is not just a statistic, but a daily struggle for the people.

The military’s outsized budget is a significant drain on national resources. In 2023, defence spending accounted for roughly 4% of GDP, dwarfing allocations for education (1.7%) and healthcare (1.4%). While the military justifies its budget by citing security threats, the lack of transparency raises questions about how these funds are used. Meanwhile, ordinary Pakistanis grapple with inflation rates hovering around 10-12%, unemployment affecting nearly 10% of the workforce, and a poverty rate that leaves over 40% of the population below the international poverty line.

Socially, likewise, the military’s dominance has stifled democratic institutions and civil liberties. The judiciary struggles to uphold the rule of law, often cowed by military pressure. Political parties, while complicit in their failures, are frequently manipulated or sidelined through engineered elections or disqualifications. The 2018 elections, widely criticised for military interference, saw the rise of Imran Khan’s PTI, only for Khan to later fall out with the establishment, leading to his ouster in 2022 and subsequent imprisonment. This cycle of co-optation and discardment undermines democratic continuity and public trust.

Once a vibrant space for debate, the media now operates under severe constraints. Journalists face harassment, censorship, and even violence for criticising the military. Social media platforms, while offering some resistance, are increasingly monitored, with laws like the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act used to silence dissent. Civil society organisations, too, face restrictions, leaving little room for grassroots movements to challenge the status quo.

Education and healthcare, critical for human development, remain woefully underfunded. Pakistan’s literacy rate hovers around 60%, and its public schools are plagued by dilapidated infrastructure and teacher shortages. Strained by population growth and inadequate facilities, the healthcare system leaves millions without access to basic care. These failures are not merely administrative; they reflect a deliberate prioritisation of military interests over human welfare.

 

The Vicious Cycle: Instability and Dependency

 The military’s dominance creates a vicious cycle of instability and dependency. By undermining civilian institutions, the generals ensure that no alternative power center can emerge, perpetuating their indispensability. This weakens governance, leading to economic crises that necessitate foreign bailouts. The IMF’s repeated interventions (Pakistan has availed itself of 23 IMF programs since 1958) come with austerity measures that hit the poor hardest, further fuelling discontent.

Foreign policy, too, is shaped by military priorities, often at the expense of national interests. Pakistan’s alignment with the U.S. during the Cold War and the war on terror brought billions in aid but also drew the country into conflicts that destabilised its northwest. While promising infrastructure development, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has deepened Pakistan’s debt to China, with opaque agreements raising concerns about sovereignty. The military’s control over foreign policy limits diplomatic flexibility, as seen in Pakistan’s strained relations with India and its delicate balancing act between the U.S. and China.

Internally, the military’s counterterrorism operations, while necessary, have often been heavy-handed, alienating communities in regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Baloch insurgency, fuelled by economic marginalisation and human rights abuses, is a case in point. Forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings, attributed to security forces, have deepened mistrust, making reconciliation elusive.

 

A Path Forward: Reclaiming Pakistan’s Future

 Breaking the backwards march of Pakistan requires a fundamental reorientation of its entrenched power dynamics. For decades, the military establishment has held disproportionate sway over national policy, foreign relations, and even economic priorities, often at the expense of democratic development and civilian governance. This imbalance has fostered instability, weakened institutions, and stifled public dissent. To move forward, the people of Pakistan must reclaim their agency and demand accountability from both military and civilian leaders. This means bolstering civil society, protecting press freedom, and empowering grassroots democratic movements. Actual progress will not come from external aid or authoritarian “stability,” but from an engaged citizenry that insists on transparency, the rule of law, and genuine representation. Reclaiming power from entrenched elites will be difficult. Still, it is the only path toward a more equitable, prosperous, and sovereign Pakistan—one where the state serves its citizens, not the other way around.

The first step would be strengthening civilian institutions. A robust judiciary, free from military influence, is essential for upholding the rule of law. Political parties must prioritise internal democracy and governance reforms over short-term alliances with the military. Civil society, including media and NGOs, needs space to operate without fear, fostering a culture of accountability.

Economically, reallocating resources from defence to development is critical. Investing in education and healthcare can unlock Pakistan’s human potential, creating a more skilled and productive workforce. Economic diversification, beyond reliance on agriculture and textiles, is also necessary to reduce vulnerability to global shocks.

Foreign policy must be wrested from military control and aligned with national interests. Normalising relations with India, particularly through trade, could unlock economic benefits for both nations. A balanced approach to global powers, avoiding over-dependence on any single ally, would enhance Pakistan’s sovereignty and diplomatic leverage.

 

Conclusion

 Pakistan’s backwards march, orchestrated by its generals, is a tragedy of squandered potential. The military’s dominance has enriched a small elite while impoverishing the masses economically and democratically. Yet, the resilience of Pakistan’s people offers hope. Pakistan can reverse its trajectory by empowering civilian institutions, prioritising human development, and fostering a culture of accountability. The path is fraught with challenges, but the alternative of continued regression is unthinkable. The generals may lead the march, but it is the people who pay the price, and it is they who must ultimately chart a new course.

 

Breaking this backwards march requires a fundamental reorientation of Pakistan’s power dynamics. Most importantly, the people must reclaim their agency. The time to act is now, for Pakistan’s future is in the hands of its people.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

1282
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:–

1. Haqqani, H. (2005). Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

2. Siddiqa, A. (2007). Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy. Pluto Press.

3. Cohen, S. P. (2004). The Idea of Pakistan. Brookings Institution Press.

4. Jalal, A. (1990). The State of Martial Rule: The Origins of Pakistan’s Political Economy of Defence. Cambridge University Press.

5. World Bank. (2024). Pakistan Economic Update 2024. World Bank Group.https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/pakistan/publication/pakistan-economic-update

6. International Monetary Fund (IMF). (2023). Pakistan: Staff Report for the 2023 Article IV Consultation. IMF.

7. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. (2023). Pakistan Economic Survey 2022-23. Government of Pakistan.

8. Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023: Pakistan. Freedom House.

9. Rizvi, H. A. (2000). Military, State and Society in Pakistan. Palgrave Macmillan.

10. Small, A. (2015). The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia’s New Geopolitics. Oxford University Press.

11. Lieven, A. (2011). Pakistan: A Hard Country. PublicAffairs.

12. Malik, I. H. (2016). Pakistan: Democracy, Development, and Security Issues. Oxford University Press.

13. Ahmed, Z. S. (2013). Civil Society and Democracy in Pakistan. Routledge.

14. The Economist. (2023). Pakistan’s Political Crisis: The Military’s Long Shadow. The Economist.

Posted on

670: COLD WAR 2.0: MILITARY ASPECTS AND IMPACT ON INDIAN SECURITY

 

My contribution to the book 

“Cold War 2.0 and India”

 

The world is witnessing the emergence of a new Cold War, often referred to as Cold War 2.0, primarily driven by intensifying geopolitical, economic, and technological rivalries between the United States and China, with Russia playing a significant role. Unlike the ideological battle of the original Cold War, this modern conflict is fuelled by strategic competition for global influence, military dominance, and economic control. Key drivers of Cold War 2.0 include China’s rise as a military and technological superpower, the US-led effort to counterbalance Beijing’s influence, and Russia’s challenge to Western dominance. Arms build-ups, strategic alliances, hybrid warfare, and advancements in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, space warfare, and hypersonic missiles mainly characterise Cold War 2.0. For India, this renewed great-power rivalry presents both opportunities and challenges. Understanding the military dimensions of Cold War 2.0 is crucial and necessary for analysing its impact on global stability, the evolving nature of warfare, and the strategic recalibrations required for nations like India to safeguard their security interests.

 

Drivers of Cold War 2.0

The re-emergence of great power competition in the 21st century has led to a period characterised by heightened strategic rivalry between the United States and China, with Russia playing a significant but secondary role. Unlike the original Cold War, which was primarily an ideological struggle between capitalism and communism, this new iteration is driven by geopolitical, economic, technological, and military factors.  These factors have reshaped the global order and fuelled an environment of sustained strategic hostility, making Cold War 2.0 a defining feature of contemporary international relations.

One of the most significant drivers of Cold War 2.0 is the rise of China as a global superpower, challenging the longstanding dominance of the United States. Over the past four decades, China has undergone an economic and military transformation that has propelled it to the forefront of global politics. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China’s massive infrastructure and investment project spanning Asia, Africa, and Europe, has been a key instrument in expanding Beijing’s influence. While China claims that the BRI is purely an economic initiative, Western policymakers see it as a geopolitical tool to increase China’s leverage over developing nations. Furthermore, China’s military expansion, most notably in the South China Sea, has alarmed the United States and its regional allies. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has also aggressively pursued technological dominance, particularly in fields such as artificial intelligence, 5G, and quantum computing. The rapid ascendance of China as a comprehensive power has disrupted the global balance, triggering countermeasures from the United States, including trade restrictions, sanctions on Chinese technology firms, and strengthened military alliances in the Indo-Pacific. This great power rivalry, rooted in China’s challenge to U.S. hegemony, is a fundamental driver of Cold War 2.0.

The second major driver of this new Cold War is the resurgence of Russia as a revisionist state seeking to undermine Western influence and reassert its geopolitical ambitions. Although Russia lacks comparative economic power, it remains a formidable military force with vast energy resources and a willingness to engage in aggressive foreign policies.  The war in Ukraine has strengthened the perception of a new Cold War, with Russia aligning itself more closely with China, Iran, and North Korea to counterbalance Western power. Russia’s actions have not only escalated tensions with the United States and Europe but have also contributed to a broader global realignment, with countries being forced to take sides in this emerging bipolar struggle.

The erosion of American unipolarity and the fragmentation of the liberal international order have also played a crucial role in driving Cold War 2.0. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the world’s sole superpower, ushering in a period of unchallenged American dominance. However, U.S. global influence has waned in recent years due to domestic political polarisation, costly military interventions, and economic challenges. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drained American resources. They damaged its credibility, while the rise of populist movements and political divisions have weakened Washington’s ability to project unified global leadership. The decline of unipolarity has created a more competitive and unstable international system, where power is increasingly distributed among multiple actors, setting the stage for heightened strategic rivalry.

Economic decoupling and technological competition between the United States and China constitute another major driver of Cold War 2.0. The global economy, once characterised by deep interdependence, is now experiencing a shift toward fragmentation as Washington and Beijing seek to reduce their reliance on each other. The U.S. has imposed sweeping restrictions on Chinese technology firms, particularly in semiconductor manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications, citing national security concerns. In response, China has accelerated its efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in critical industries, investing heavily in indigenous innovation and supply chain resilience. This technological decoupling is not just an economic issue—it has profound military and strategic implications, as control over emerging technologies will determine the balance of power in future conflicts. The race for supremacy in AI, quantum computing, cyber warfare, and space exploration is now a central battlefield in Cold War 2.0, with both sides striving to outmanoeuvre each other in the next frontier of global dominance.

Finally, the ideological and political divide between democratic and authoritarian systems has reinforced the divisions of Cold War 2.0. The United States and its allies promote liberal democracy, human rights, and a rules-based international order. Meanwhile, China and Russia advocate for state sovereignty, authoritarian stability, and non-interference in domestic affairs. The contrast between these governance models has led to intensified ideological competition, with both sides seeking to expand their influence globally. The U.S. has framed its rivalry with China and Russia as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, rallying allies to counter Beijing’s and Moscow’s influence in international institutions. Meanwhile, China’s “Global Security Initiative” aim to portray the West as a declining power, promoting an alternative world order.

 

Military Aspects of Cold War 2.0

The evolving geopolitical landscape of the 21st century has increasingly drawn comparisons to the original Cold War. The military dimension of Cold War 2.0 is particularly critical, as it shapes global security dynamics through arms races, power projection, strategic alliances, and hybrid warfare. The military aspect of this renewed competition manifests in several key areas.

One of the most visible military aspects of Cold War 2.0 is the modernisation and expansion of nuclear arsenals. While the U.S. and Russia still maintain the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons, China’s rapid nuclear build-up has become a central concern for Western policymakers. Unlike during the first Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet Union were the primary nuclear superpowers, the emergence of China as a third major nuclear player significantly altered the strategic calculus. Beijing has also been expanding its missile silos, developing hypersonic delivery systems, and pursuing advanced nuclear-powered submarines, signalling its intent to establish a more robust second-strike capability. At the same time, Russia’s suspension of the New START treaty, coupled with its threats of tactical nuclear weapon use in Ukraine, has reignited fears of a new nuclear arms race. The U.S., in response, is modernising its nuclear triad, investing heavily in next-generation intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), stealth bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. These developments indicate that nuclear deterrence strategies are again at the forefront of great power competition.

Beyond nuclear weapons, conventional military capabilities have also been undergoing significant transformation. The trend is towards increased investment in stealth aircraft, long-range precision strike systems, autonomous combat platforms, and integrated air and missile defence networks. For its part, China has undertaken one of the most extensive military modernisation programs in history. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has rapidly expanded its naval and air forces. Despite economic constraints, Russia has focused on asymmetric warfare strategies, leveraging advanced air defence systems, hypersonic missiles, and electronic warfare capabilities.

A defining feature of Cold War 2.0 is the race for military superiority in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing, and autonomous warfare. Unlike the first Cold War, where military advancements were primarily centred on nuclear and conventional weaponry, digital and cyber capabilities are expected to shape modern conflicts. AI-driven autonomous drones, robotic combat units, and cyber warfare tools have become central to military planning. Quantum computing, if fully realised, could render current encryption methods obsolete, drastically altering cyber defence strategies. The cyber domain has emerged as a battlefield, with state-sponsored cyber attacks targeting critical infrastructure, defence networks, and economic systems.  As nations develop offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, the risk of cyber escalation and strategic instability increases significantly.

Hybrid warfare, a strategy that blends conventional military tactics with cyber, economic, and information warfare, has also become a defining characteristic of Cold War 2.0. China employs hybrid tactics involving disinformation campaigns, cyber-attacks, and proxy militias, leveraging economic coercion, political influence operations, and grey-zone warfare. The U.S. and its allies have responded with countermeasures, including economic sanctions, cyber counteroffensives, and the strengthening of information warfare capabilities. Unlike the Cold War of the 20th century, where direct military confrontations were largely avoided, the modern iteration features a greater degree of low intensity. These asymmetric conflicts blur the line between war and peace.

 

Impact of Cold War 2.0 on Indian Security

The emergence of a second Cold War has profound implications for India’s security. One of the most immediate effects of Cold War 2.0 on India is the increased militarisation of the Indo-Pacific region. As the United States seeks to contain China’s growing military and economic influence, it has strengthened its ties with allies and partners. This has enhanced defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint military exercises. It has drawn India into the broader US-China confrontation, making it a target for Chinese actions, such as aggressive border moves, cyber warfare, and economic coercion. The 2020 Galwan Valley clash between Indian and Chinese forces was a stark reminder of how geopolitical tensions manifest as direct security threats for India.

Another major concern is the growing China-Pakistan nexus, which has intensified in response to Cold War 2.0. China has significantly increased its defence, economic, and nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, which directly impacts India’s security. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), challenging India’s territorial claims. China’s supply of advanced military hardware, including fighter jets, submarines, and missile systems, has strengthened Pakistan’s military capabilities, altering South Asia’s conventional and nuclear balance. There are also concerns that China could use Pakistan as a proxy to destabilise India.

India’s maritime security has also been affected as Cold War 2.0 extends into the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). China has expanded its naval footprint through bases in Djibouti and potential dual-use facilities in Sri Lanka, Pakistan (Gwadar), and Myanmar. The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has increased its submarine patrols and surveillance activities near India’s maritime boundaries, challenging India’s dominance in its strategic backyard.

Technological competition in Cold War 2.0 also affects India’s security, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), cyber security, and space warfare. The US and China are engaged in a technological arms race, and India must navigate this landscape carefully. Increased focus on Indigenous defence production under “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (self-reliant India) is a direct consequence of this competition.

Diplomatically, Cold War 2.0 presents India with both challenges and opportunities. While the US-India partnership has grown stronger, India remains cautious about being seen as a mere US ally. India has historically valued its strategic autonomy, as seen in its continued engagement with Russia despite Western pressure. India relies on Russian military hardware, including S-400 missile systems, and has resisted aligning too closely with US-led security pacts. However, this balancing act is becoming increasingly difficult as Cold War 2.0 escalates, forcing India to make difficult choices.

Economically, Cold War 2.0 presents risks for India’s trade and supply chain security. The US-China decoupling has disrupted global trade, affecting India’s access to key technologies, raw materials, and markets. The push for friend-shoring and near-shoring has led companies to diversify supply chains, offering India an opportunity to attract investments as an alternative manufacturing hub. However, China remains one of India’s largest trading partners, and an outright economic confrontation would be costly. India must, therefore, navigate a complex economic environment, securing its interests without alienating key partners.

 

Conclusion

Cold War 2.0 has fundamentally reshaped the global security landscape, with military competition emerging as a key aspect of great-power rivalry. Driven by China’s rise, Russia’s resurgence, and the United States’ efforts to maintain its strategic dominance, this new geopolitical contest is marked by military build-ups, shifting alliances, and technological arms races. The military developments have made the world more unstable, with regional conflicts and proxy wars serving as potential flashpoints for broader confrontations. For India, Cold War 2.0 presents both security threats and strategic opportunities. The growing China-Pakistan nexus and Beijing’s assertiveness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) pose direct military challenges to India. The militarisation of the Indian Ocean, the threat of cyber warfare, and disruptions to global supply chains further complicate India’s security environment. To navigate this evolving conflict, India must bolster its military capabilities, strengthen regional partnerships, and maintain its strategic autonomy to avoid outright confrontation. As Cold War 2.0 continues to unfold, the global military balance will be shaped by how nations adapt to this new era of great-power competition, making it essential for India to proactively safeguard its national security while leveraging opportunities to enhance its geopolitical standing.

 

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

 

1282
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

References:-

Khosla Anil, “Cold War Redux: Military Aspects of Cold War 2.0”, 16 Dec 24, https://55nda.com/blogs/anil-khosla/2024/12/16/558-cold-war-redux-military-aspects-of-cold-war-2-0/

Allison, Graham. Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017.

Kaplan, Robert D. The Return of Marco Polo’s World: War, Strategy, and American Interests in the Twenty-First Century. Random House, 2018.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated ed., W.W. Norton & Co., 2014.

Gady, Franz-Stefan. “The Future of High-End Warfare: What the Next US-China Conflict Could Look Like.” The Diplomat, 2023.

Doshi, Rush. The Long Game: China’s Grand Strategy to Displace American Order. Oxford University Press, 2021.

Mazarr, Michael J., et al. Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives. RAND Corporation, 2018.

Nye, J. S. (2012). The future of power in the 21st century. Foreign Affairs, 91(2), 90–104.

Menon, Shivshankar. India and Asian Geopolitics: The Past, Present. Brookings Institution Press, 2021.

Pant, Harsh V. The US Pivot and Indian Foreign Policy: Asia’s Evolving Balance of Power. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Shankar, Arvind. “India’s Role in a Fragmented Global Order.” The Print, 2023.

Mohan, C. Raja. Samudra Manthan: Sino-Indian Rivalry in the Indo-Pacific. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2012.

Singh, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra. “The Impact of US-China Rivalry on India’s Defence Strategy.” Observer Research Foundation, 2023.

Rajagopalan, Rajeswari Pillai. Space and Nuclear Deterrence in Indo-Pacific: A New Strategic Triangle. Observer Research Foundation, 2022.

Posted on

600: RISE OF COMBAT DRONES: IMPLICATIONS FOR TRADITIONAL AIRPOWER

 

The rapid advancement of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), known as drones, has revolutionised modern warfare. Once primarily used for reconnaissance and surveillance, drones have evolved into sophisticated combat platforms capable of executing precision strikes, electronic warfare, and logistics support. The proliferation of combat drones challenges the dominance of traditional airpower by altering strategic doctrines, operational tactics, and force structures. This article explores the rise of combat drones and their profound implications for conventional airpower.

 

Armed variants of the Predator, such as the MQ-1 and MQ-9 Reaper, demonstrated the feasibility of unmanned precision strikes, ushering in a new era of aerial warfare. Since then, countries such as China, Russia, Turkey, and Iran have rapidly developed their combat drone capabilities. Technological advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), sensor miniaturisation, and autonomous navigation have expanded combat drones’ capabilities. Modern drones can operate autonomously, engage in complex swarm tactics (where multiple drones coordinate their actions in real-time), and integrate with network-centric warfare systems. A list of major combat drones is appended.

 

Key Advantages of Combat Drones

 

Combat drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), have rapidly transformed modern military operations. They offer a range of significant advantages that enhance strategic effectiveness and operational efficiency. These advantages are critical for established military powers and smaller nations looking to improve their defence capabilities.

 

Cost-Effectiveness. One of the most prominent advantages of combat drones is their cost-effectiveness. Traditional manned aircraft, such as fighter jets and bombers, involve substantial financial investments in production, maintenance, fuel, and the continuous training of pilots. These high operational and training costs make them financially burdensome, especially for nations with smaller defence budgets. Combat drones, in contrast, are much more affordable to produce, operate, and maintain. This makes drones an attractive option for military forces seeking advanced technology without the prohibitive expenses of traditional aviation.

 

Reduced Risk to Human Life. The ability to operate drones remotely means that military personnel are not physically present in the combat environment, which significantly reduces the risk to human life. Manned aircraft often place pilots in high-risk situations, such as hostile airspace, where the threat of anti-aircraft weapons, enemy fighters, or surface-to-air missiles is constant. This feature makes drones especially valuable for missions in high-risk zones, such as counterterrorism operations, surveillance of enemy positions, or strikes against heavily fortified targets. By minimising human casualties, drones ensure mission sustainability and allow forces to continue operations with fewer limitations.

 

Persistent Surveillance and Endurance. Unlike manned aircraft with limited flight durations due to fuel constraints, combat drones can remain airborne for extended periods, often hours or even days. This endurance allows drones to conduct continuous intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) operations over extended periods without returning to the base for fuel or rest. Drones can loiter over targets for extended periods, tracking enemy movements, gathering intelligence, and relaying data to commanders. This constant flow of information improves situational awareness and allows military forces to remain proactive rather than reactive in their operations.

 

Precision Strike Capabilities. Modern combat drones are equipped with advanced targeting systems, enabling them to conduct precise strikes with high accuracy. This precision is made possible through advanced sensors, cameras, and laser-guided munitions, which enable drones to accurately identify and engage enemy targets such as vehicles, facilities, or personnel, even in complex environments. Precision is critical in counterinsurgency operations, where avoiding collateral damage is crucial for maintaining local support and reducing the risk of civilian backlash.

 

Operational Flexibility. Another significant advantage of combat drones is their operational flexibility. Drones are highly versatile and can be deployed in various roles, from surveillance and reconnaissance to electronic warfare and decoy operations. They can serve as support platforms for ground troops, relaying intelligence, providing airstrikes, or conducting search and rescue missions. Drones can also be used in electronic warfare, disrupting enemy communication systems or jamming radar signals. Additionally, drones can serve as decoys, drawing enemy fire or confusing adversaries about the location of critical assets. This adaptability makes drones valuable assets in numerous military operations, enhancing their utility in diverse combat scenarios.

 

Drone Usage in Recent Conflicts

 

Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. This conflict saw extensive use of drones by Azerbaijan, which utilised both tactical drones for surveillance and loitering munitions for precision strikes. Azerbaijan’s use of Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones (a medium-altitude, long-endurance tactical unmanned aerial vehicle), alongside Israeli-made drones, played a crucial role in undermining Armenian defensive positions and disrupting supply lines. Drones provided real-time intelligence and executed targeted airstrikes, significantly impacting the battlefield dynamics. The success of drones in this conflict highlighted their role in modern warfare, showcasing their effectiveness in both reconnaissance and offensive operations and marking a shift in how airpower is utilised in regional conflicts.

 

Ukraine-Russia Conflict. In the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict, drones have become pivotal for both sides. Ukraine has relied heavily on drones for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and precision strikes. The use of Turkish-made Bayraktar drones has garnered international attention due to their success in targeting Russian artillery and supply lines. Russia, in turn, has deployed both reconnaissance drones and loitering munitions such as the Lancet drone. Drones are crucial in this conflict, offering both tactical advantages in real-time battlefield awareness and as weapons of deterrence. The conflict exemplifies how UAVs transform modern armies conducting warfare on the ground and in the air.

 

Israel-Hamas War. During the Israel-Hamas conflict, drones played a significant role in both offensive and defensive strategies. Israel utilised advanced unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Hermes 450 and the Heron TP for surveillance, reconnaissance, and precision strikes, targeting Hamas military infrastructure, leaders, and weapon caches. Drones enable real-time intelligence, improving the effectiveness of airstrikes while minimising collateral damage. Hamas also deployed drones, often for reconnaissance and surveillance, but with increasing sophistication in attacking Israeli targets. The conflict highlighted the growing reliance on drones for modern warfare, as they offer cost-effective, high-precision capabilities in asymmetric conflicts.

 

U.S. Counterterrorism Operations. Combat drones have been central to U.S. counterterrorism operations, particularly in regions like the Middle East and North Africa. The U.S. military has employed drones for targeted strikes against high-value targets, including terrorist leaders and militants affiliated with groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator have provided surveillance and precision strike capabilities without the risk of piloting manned aircraft in hostile environments. These operations, while effective in neutralising threats, have raised ethical and legal concerns about civilian casualties, sovereignty violations, and the long-term strategic consequences of drone warfare.

 

Future Trends in Drone Warfare

 

AI-Driven Autonomy. AI-driven autonomy in drone warfare will revolutionise decision-making, enabling UAVs to analyse data and execute missions independently. This reduces human intervention, enhances speed, and improves operational efficiency, allowing drones to make real-time tactical decisions and adapt to changing battlefield dynamics without relying on constant human oversight.

 

Swarm Tactics. Swarm tactics involve deploying many drones that can communicate and collaborate autonomously to overwhelm targets. This approach maximises impact, confuses enemies, and complicates defence strategies. Swarms can be used for offensive operations, like saturation attacks, and defensive roles, such as countering incoming threats in coordinated formations.

 

Hybrid Manned-Unmanned Operations. Hybrid manned-unmanned operations combine human decision-making with autonomous drone capabilities, enhancing flexibility and situational awareness. Human pilots can control UAVs while receiving support from AI systems that automate data processing and mission planning. This synergy allows for optimal control and strategic execution while reducing the cognitive burden on operators.

 

Miniaturisation and Stealth. Miniaturisation and stealth technologies are enhancing drones’ ability to operate undetected. Smaller, quieter UAVs with reduced radar signatures can infiltrate enemy defences, gather intelligence, or carry out strikes without being easily intercepted. These advances improve tactical flexibility and extend the operational range of drones in contested environments.

 

Implications of Combat Drones on Traditional Airpower

 

The rapid advancement and proliferation of combat drones, also known as unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), have fundamentally reshaped the landscape of air warfare. The increasing integration of unmanned systems has now disrupted what was once a domain exclusively dominated by manned fighter jets, strategic bombers, and attack aircraft. While traditional airpower remains indispensable in major military operations, combat drones introduce new doctrines, alter strategic calculations, and challenge long-held assumptions about air superiority. From cost-effectiveness to survivability, from force projection to counter-air missions, the implications of drones on traditional airpower are profound and multifaceted.

 

Changes in Force Structuring. This cost-effectiveness has allowed major and minor powers to expand their air combat capabilities without requiring massive budgets. Countries that could not previously project significant airpower can now field substantial drone fleets, effectively democratising access to aerial warfare. Moreover, drone attrition is far more acceptable than the loss of a piloted aircraft, further changing the strategic calculus. Traditional airpower relies on highly trained pilots, whose combat loss affects military effectiveness and carries significant political and moral weight. The expendability of drones means that military commanders can take more significant risks, leading to more aggressive and flexible operational doctrines.

 

Changing the Nature of Air Superiority and Aerial Combat. The rise of combat drones challenges traditional definitions of air superiority. Historically, air superiority was determined by the ability of manned fighter aircraft to establish dominance over enemy airspace through superior manoeuvrability, advanced sensors, and beyond-visual-range (BVR) engagements. However, drones are now increasingly capable of carrying out air-to-air missions, raising questions about the future role of manned aircraft in achieving air superiority. For example, the Loyal Wingman concept, which pairs autonomous drones with manned fighter jets, represents a hybrid traditional and drone-based airpower model. In this setup, manned aircraft act as command-and-control nodes while drones perform high-risk tasks such as dogfighting, electronic warfare, and decoy operations. Similarly, China is developing drones like the FH-97, modelled after the U.S. XQ-58 Valkyrie, which can operate as autonomous wingmen to piloted aircraft.

 

Changes in Traditional Fighter Combat Tactics. Small, agile drones can operate in swarms, overwhelming enemy defences in ways that traditional aircraft cannot counter easily. Countries such as China and Russia are actively developing swarm drone technology that could neutralise enemy air defences and fighter squadrons by sheer numbers. In such a scenario, traditional air combat tactics based on individual or squadron engagements may become obsolete, replaced by algorithm-driven swarm warfare where AI-driven drones execute complex attack patterns beyond human reaction times.

 

Evolution of Air Defence Systems. The rise of combat drones has forced rapid changes in air defence systems. Traditional air defences, such as surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, were designed to counter high-speed, high-altitude threats from fighter jets and bombers. However, drones present an entirely different challenge, as they are often smaller, slower, and fly at lower altitudes, making them difficult for conventional radar systems to detect and track. Countries have responded by integrating counter-drone capabilities into their air defence networks. Integrated air defence systems, such as Israel’s Iron Dome and Russia’s Pantsir-S1, have been adapted to target drones with high-precision missiles and rapid-fire auto-cannons. Additionally, electronic warfare (EW) has emerged as a crucial element in countering drone threats. Many modern air defence systems now incorporate jamming and spoofing capabilities to disrupt combat drones’ communications and GPS navigation, rendering them ineffective. Despite these adaptations, drones are still proving to be highly disruptive. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict demonstrated how drones could systematically dismantle traditional air defences. Azerbaijani forces used Turkish and Israeli drones to destroy Armenian SAM sites, rendering their conventional air defence network ineffective. This shift suggests that air defence will increasingly rely on layered, AI-driven networks capable of simultaneously countering manned and unmanned threats in future conflicts.

 

Alteration in Roles and Tasks. Traditional airpower doctrine has been built around fighter jets for air superiority, strategic bombers for deep penetration strikes, and Battlefield air support (BAS) aircraft for ground engagements. However, combat drones are altering these roles in significant ways. In battlefield air support missions, drones have already proven their effectiveness. The MQ-9 Reaper, for example, has been widely used by the U.S. military for BAS missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Unlike traditional BAS aircraft requiring significant logistics and support, drones can loiter over a battlefield for extended periods, providing persistent surveillance and rapid strike capability. This persistence gives ground commanders real-time intelligence and strike options that traditional aircraft cannot match. In strategic bombing missions, drones are also beginning to make their mark. While heavy bombers like the B-52 or B-2 Spirit lack the payload capacity, swarming drone tactics could compensate by overwhelming enemy defences with multiple smaller precision strikes. China’s WZ-8 high-speed reconnaissance drone and the U.S. RQ-180 stealth drone suggest that drones may soon take over many roles traditionally assigned to strategic bombers.

 

Shift in Human Role. Additionally, the increasing use of AI in drone operations is shifting the human role in air warfare. While traditional airpower relies on human decision-making, AI-driven drones can process vast amounts of battlefield data in real time, react faster than human pilots, and execute missions with minimal human intervention. This shift raises ethical and operational questions about the future of autonomous air warfare, particularly in conflicts where rapid decision-making can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

 

The Future of Manned Aircraft in a Drone-Dominated Battlefield. While drones are rapidly transforming air warfare, it is unlikely that traditional manned aircraft will become obsolete in the near future. Instead, airpower will likely evolve into a hybrid model where manned and unmanned platforms work together. For example, the U.S. Air Force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program envisions a future where advanced fighter jets operate alongside AI-driven drones in a coordinated battle network.

 

Evolutionary Process. Stealth fighter jets will still be critical for high-end air combat against technologically advanced adversaries. While drones offer many advantages, they still face limitations regarding autonomy, electronic warfare vulnerabilities, and adaptability in complex combat scenarios. Human pilots bring strategic thinking, adaptability, and situational awareness that AI-driven drones cannot fully replicate. That said, as AI and drone technology continue to improve, we may eventually see a shift where manned fighters become command platforms rather than frontline combatants. Future air battles may be fought with autonomous drone swarms controlled by human operators from standoff distances, reducing the need for pilots to engage in direct combat.

 

Conclusion

The rise of combat drones represents a paradigm shift in modern warfare, challenging the supremacy of traditional air power. While manned aircraft will likely remain relevant for the foreseeable future, their role is shifting toward command and control rather than direct engagement. As drone technology continues to advance, the future of air warfare will likely be defined not by individual dogfights but by networks of autonomous systems operating in concert with traditional manned platforms. In this evolving landscape, the key to maintaining air dominance will be successfully integrating drones into traditional airpower frameworks, leveraging human and artificial intelligence to maximise combat effectiveness. 

 

The increasing integration of drones necessitates a revaluation of military doctrines, investment priorities, and force structures. The future of air warfare lies in a balanced approach that leverages the complementary strengths of both manned and unmanned systems.

 

Please Do Comment.

 

1282
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:-

  1. Boyle, M. J. (2015). “The Drone Age: How Drone Technology Will Change War and Peace.” International Affairs, 91(1), 67-84.
  1. Horowitz, M. C., & Fuhrmann, M. (2018). “Droning On: Explaining the Proliferation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.” International Security, 43(2), 7-47.
  1. Zenko, M. (2010). “The Proliferation of Drones.” Council on Foreign Relations Report.
  1. Byman, D. (2013). “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington’s Weapon of Choice.” Foreign Affairs, 92(4), 32-43.
  1. Gartzke, E., & Lindsay, J. R. (2019). “The Influence of Drones on the Nature of Warfare.” Security Studies, 28(2), 245-281.
  1. Scharre, P. (2018). “Drones and the Future of Warfare.” Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
  2. Mehta, A. (2021). “How China’s Drone Strategy Is Shaping the Global Military Balance.” Defence News.
  1. Heginbotham, E. (2019). “The Role of Unmanned Combat Systems in the Indo-Pacific.” War on the Rocks.

 

  1. Johnson, E. (2020). The Integration of UAVs in Modern Air Combat: A Strategic Perspective. [Doctoral dissertation, King’s College London].
  1. Thompson, J. (2018). The Changing Face of Aerial Combat: Drones Versus Manned Aircraft. [Master’s thesis, U.S. Naval War College].
  1. Indian Ministry of Defence. (2022). Drone Policy and Integration in the Indian Armed Forces.
  1. RAND Corporation. (2018). Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems: A Comparative Assessment.
  1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2021). The Impact of Military UAVs on Contemporary Warfare.
  1. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). (2022). The Future of Air Dominance: Evaluating the Role of Combat Drones.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी